    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        EDUCATION REFORMS: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
                                 ACCOUNTABILITY

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

                                    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, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-38

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

                       Available via the World Wide Web:
                           www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
               committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
                                       or
                Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    68-265                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                    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
    Bob Goodlatte, Virginia              Lynn C. Woolsey, California
    Duncan Hunter, California            Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Carolyn McCarthy, New York
    Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania         John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Richard L. Hanna, New York           Susan A. Davis, California
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Larry Bucshon, Indiana               Timothy H. Bishop, New York
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           David Loebsack, Iowa
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
    Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota         Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
    Martha Roby, Alabama
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida
    Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania

                          Barrett Karr, Staff Director
                     Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on September 14, 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................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Carvalho, Alberto M., superintendent, Miami-Dade County
          Public Schools.............................................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Hawley, A. Blaine, principal, Red Pump Elementary School, Bel
          Air, MD....................................................    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Sichel, Dr. Amy F., superintendent of schools, Abington
          School District............................................    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    26
        Skandera, Hanna, secretary-designate, New Mexico Public
          Education Department.......................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Additional Submissions:
        Questions submitted for the record:
            Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Illinois:
                To Ms. Hawley........................................    62
                To Dr. Sichel........................................    64
                To Ms. Skandera......................................    83
            Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from
              the State of Hawaii, to Mr. Carvalho...................    60
            Mr. Kline:
                To Ms. Hawley........................................    62
                To Dr. Sichel........................................    64
                To Ms. Skandera......................................    83
        Responses to questions submitted:
            Mr. Carvalho.............................................    61
            Ms. Hawley...............................................    62
            Dr. Sichel...............................................    65
            Ms. Skandera.............................................    83

                               EDUCATION REFORMS:
                         EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN
                          PUBLIC SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

                                  ----------

                         Wednesday, September 14, 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, Platts,
    Foxx, Goodlatte, Hunter, Roe, Thompson, DesJarlais, Hanna,
    Bucshon, Noem, Roby, Heck, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Scott,
    Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Kucinich, Altmire, Holt, Davis,
    and Hirono.
        Staff Present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine
    Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; James
    Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
    Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator;
    Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
    Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Daniela
    Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Staff
    Director; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Krisann
    Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human
    Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant;
    Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel;
    Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education
    Policy Advisor; Daniel Brown, Minority Junior Legislative
    Assistant; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; John D'Elia,
    Minority Staff Assistant; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy
    Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Minority Director
    of Education Policy; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press
    Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy
    Advisor; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Melissa
    Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director for Education;
    Laura Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability
    Advisor; Michele Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor
    Policy Director; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel.
        Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
    come to order. Before we proceed with this morning's hearing I
    would like to recognize Mr. Miller for an announcement.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Kline. I am pleased to
    announce that Congressman Jason Altmire will be filling the
    minority's vacancy on this committee and sitting on the Health
    and the Higher Education Subcommittees. As many of you know,
    Congressman Altmire was a member of the committee from 2007 to
    2010 during his first two terms in Congress. He is currently
    serving his third term in Congress representing Pennsylvania's
    Fourth Congressional District. And I ask all my colleagues to
    join me in welcoming Congressman Altmire back to the committee.
    And Jason, we are glad you wanted to continue to serve on the
    committee.
        Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
        Mr. Miller. Welcome.
        Chairman Kline. And Jason, I add my welcome. It is good to
    see you back. Well, good morning, all. Welcome to our committee
    hearing on public school accountability. I would like to thank
    our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the
    opportunity to get your perspective on the role States, local
    school districts, and the Federal Government should play in
    ensuring schools are held accountable for improving student
    achievement.
        According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans' opinion of
    the U.S. public school system continues to plummet. Only 34
    percent of the survey participants indicated ``quite a lot'' or
    ``a great deal'' of confidence in our public schools.
        This should come as no surprise. We don't have to look far
    to find discouraging statistics about fourth graders struggling
    to read or rising high school dropout rates. Decades of
    escalating Federal intervention in the Nation's classrooms has
    not only failed to raise student achievement levels, it has
    also created a complex web of red tape that ties the hands of
    State and local education officials.
        Despite its best intentions, our education system is
    seriously flawed. Currently elementary and secondary education
    law, No Child Left Behind, requires all students to be
    proficient in reading and math by 2014, which frankly is not
    going to happen. Under NCLB's accountability system, known as
    Adequate Yearly Progress, all schools that fail to meet target
    proficiency levels for 2 or more consecutive years are required
    to undergo the same series of prescriptive Federal
    interventions regardless of the unique circumstances or
    challenges facing each school.
        We cannot continue to rely on this one-size-fits-all
    Federal accountability system to gauge the performance of our
    schools and students. It is time to develop a more meaningful
    way to measure whether students are learning, and we must be
    willing to look beyond laws enacted in Washington, D.C. Across
    the country reform-minded individuals are challenging the
    education paradigm in exciting ways and children are benefiting
    from their efforts.
        For example, K-12 reform has been a top priority in Florida
    for more than a decade. In 1999, then-Governor Jeb Bush enacted
    a series of far reaching school reforms that gave parents a
    greater role and significantly narrowed the achievement gap for
    the State's Hispanic and black students. Moreover, these
    previously underserved groups began to outscore many statewide
    averages for all students. Florida's academic successes were
    made possible by commonsense changes by reformers, students and
    teachers all working together for a single united purpose:
    student achievement.
        In Indiana, State leaders in local school districts are
    implementing the Indiana Growth Model, which measures a
    school's success and assigns letter grades. The new system
    enables a more in-depth measurement of how much students learn
    over the course of a school year no matter their achievement
    level, income, race or zip code. Accordingly, parents and
    education officials gain a more accurate view of which teachers
    are driving the biggest academic gains in the classroom, moving
    away from simply assessing test scores to a model that
    recognizes teachers who are moving students one and a half to
    two and a half grade levels in a single school year.
        Florida and Indiana are not alone. States across the
    country are working to improve accountability systems, holding
    schools accountable for student performance, improve classroom
    instruction and offer parents more quality choices in their
    children's education. Each of the witnesses here with us today
    has played a fundamental role in the development and
    implementation of innovative accountability systems at the
    State and local levels. These bold reformers are taking matters
    into their own hands, and I believe we must do everything we
    can to get out of their way.
        As we work to redefine accountability we must examine the
    progress being made by the men and women who have an integral
    understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing
    America's students. I look forward to learning our witnesses'
    views on the way forward for accountability and a productive
    debate with my colleagues.
        Before we continue with the hearing, now that we have
    gathered some more of our colleagues, I again want to welcome
    to the committee Jason Altmire. Jason, again, we are glad to
    have you back on the committee and look forward to hearing your
    views on the issues before us.
        I now turn to my colleague George Miller, the senior
    Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
        [The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Good morning, and welcome to our committee hearing on public school
    accountability. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
    We appreciate the opportunity to get your perspective on the role
    states, local school districts, and the federal government should play
    in ensuring schools are held accountable for improving student
    achievement.
        According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans' opinion of the U.S.
    public school system continues to plummet. Only 34 percent of the
    survey participants indicated 'quite a lot' or 'a great deal' of
    confidence in our public schools.
        This should come as no surprise--we don't have to look far to find
    discouraging statistics about fourth graders struggling to read or
    rising high school dropout rates. Decades of escalating federal
    intervention in the nation's classrooms has not only failed to raise
    student achievement levels, it has also created a complex web of red
    tape that ties the hands of state and local education officials.
        Despite its best intentions, our education system is seriously
    flawed. Current elementary and secondary education law, known as No
    Child Left Behind, requires all students to be proficient in reading
    and math by 2014, which, frankly, isn't going to happen. Under NCLB's
    accountability system, known as Adequate Yearly Progress, all schools
    that fail to meet target proficiency levels for two or more consecutive
    years are required to undergo the same series of prescriptive federal
    interventions, regardless of the unique circumstances or challenges
    facing each school.
        We cannot continue to rely on a one-size-fits-all federal
    accountability system to gauge the performance of our schools and
    students. It's time to develop a more meaningful way to measure whether
    students are learning, and we must be willing to look beyond laws
    enacted in Washington, D.C. Across the country, reform-minded
    individuals are challenging the education paradigm in exciting ways,
    and children are benefitting from their efforts.
        For example, K-12 reform has been a top priority in Florida for
    more than a decade. In 1999, then-Governor Jeb Bush enacted a series of
    far-reaching school reforms that gave parents a greater role and
    significantly narrowed the achievement gap for the state's Hispanic and
    black students. Moreover, these previously underserved groups began to
    outscore many statewide averages for all students. Florida's academic
    successes were made possible by commonsense changes by reformers,
    students, and teachers all working together for a single, united
    purpose: student achievement.
        In Indiana, state leaders and local school districts are
    implementing the ``Indiana Growth Model,'' which measures schools'
    successes and assigns letter grades. The new system enables a more in-
    depth measurement of how much students learn over the course of a
    school year--no matter their achievement level, income, race, or ZIP
    code. Accordingly, parents and education officials gain a more accurate
    view of which teachers are driving the biggest academic gains in the
    classroom--moving away from simply assessing test scores to a model
    that recognizes teachers who are moving students 1.5 to 2.5 grade
    levels in a single school year.
        Florida and Indiana are not alone--states across the country are
    working to improve accountability systems, hold schools accountable for
    student performance, improve classroom instruction, and offer parents
    more quality choices in their children's education.
        Each of the witnesses here with us today has played a fundamental
    role in the development and implementation of innovative accountability
    systems at the state and local levels. These bold reformers are taking
    matters into their own hands, and I believe we must do everything we
    can to get out of their way.
        As we work to redefine accountability, we must examine the progress
    being made by the men and women who have an integral understanding of
    the challenges and opportunities facing America's students. I look
    forward to learning our witness' views on the way forward for
    accountability, and a productive debate with my colleagues.
        Before we continue with the hearing, I welcome to the committee my
    colleague from Pennsylvania's 4th district, Congressman Jason Altmire.
    We're glad to have you back on the committee, and look forward to
    hearing your views on the important issues before us.
                                     ______

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join you in
    welcoming Jason back. And good morning to our witnesses, and
    thank you for coming and sharing your time and your expertise
    with us.
        This morning's hearing focuses on one of the most important
    issues in public school education, accountability. We have had
    a number of hearings this year examining the Federal role in
    education, and I think there is universal agreement that we
    need to update No Child Left Behind. And the witnesses have
    told us that there is in fact a need for Federal Government in
    education and specifically when it comes to accountability.
        In our first education hearing this year one of the
    Republican witnesses said that the Federal Government needs to
    put guardrails in place to ensure quality and provide support.
    I believe that these guardrails must include college and career
    ready standards, goals to ensure that standards are met and
    aggressive but achievable annual performance targets so the
    States, districts and schools know what is expected of them in
    continuing to move all students forward.
        Without accountability, parents, teachers and school
    administrators have no way of knowing what exactly is happening
    in schools and whether our students are learning and our
    schools are improving. Parents shouldn't wonder if their
    child's school is preparing that child to succeed in college
    after graduation or in a career. And if their child isn't on
    track to graduate with those skills, parents should know their
    school has a responsibility to improve and meet their child's
    needs.
        Without accountability, it is too easy to return to a time,
    prior to NCLB, when students' actual performance was masked by
    averages. Accountability is at the heart of No Child Left
    Behind. The law shined a bright light on how all students were
    performing, including low-income students, minority students
    and students with disabilities.
        Ten years later there is a need for reform, and the need
    for transparency and accountability and action remains critical
    to any reform.
        When we wrote the law, our intention was very clear. We
    wanted a laser like focus on data and accountability to improve
    the education of students that were falling behind. We took the
    important step forward calling for communities to be
    transparent about the achievement of all children, and now we
    need to take the next step, which is to balance that
    accountability we worked so hard to implement in No Child Left
    Behind with greater flexibility at the local level, with 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 that is tied to college and
    career ready standards, not the standards that lead to remedial
    classes in college but actual ability to participate in the
    college curriculum.
        Students need creative, effective teachers who hold them to
    high goals and standards and can adjust their teaching
    strategies when needed. These efforts are happening in some
    schools and some States but not in enough. These high
    expectations should be there for every child in every school.
        The role of the Federal Government in accountability is
    essential to meet these high expectations and to ensure that
    all children receive a high quality education. And the Federal
    Government should require that all States and each school
    district use database decision making to target interventions
    to improve the academic achievement of all students.
        Attacking the Federal role or eliminating it won't get us
    closer to being the best in the world in education. It won't
    help our economic security or our global competitiveness. What
    it will do is make things harder for schools and students that
    need the most help. Getting the Federal role right on
    accountability and in all matters is a smart way to move
    forward.
        Unfortunately, in this committee we have seen legislation
    that would be detrimental and harmful to the neediest students.
    The flexibility package we passed in July will create a slush
    fund for school districts, and that is unacceptable. It will
    take away money and resources from the neediest students and
    let school districts forego the civil rights priorities and the
    education equality promised to students under important court
    cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
        There is very little support for the bill in the education
    community because people who know the needs of school districts
    know why NCLB was signed into law, to ensure a quality
    education for all students, a goal that must not be forgotten
    in the next reauthorization.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about
    the accountability programs that you have structured in your
    districts, and I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [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 and good morning.
        This morning's hearing focuses on one of the most important issues
    in public school education: accountability.
        We have had a number of hearings this year examining the federal
    role in education. I think there is universal agreement we need to
    update No Child Let Behind (NCLB). And witnesses have told us that
    there is in fact a need for the federal government in education and
    specifically, when it comes to accountability.
        In our first education hearing this year, one of the Republican
    witnesses said that the federal government needs to put ``guardrails in
    place to ensure quality and provide support.''
        These guardrails must include college and career ready standards,
    goals to ensure those standards are met, and aggressive, but achievable
    annual performance targets so that states, districts and schools know
    what is expected of them and continue to move all students forward.
        Without accountability, parents, teachers and school administrators
    have no way of knowing what exactly is happening in schools and whether
    our students are learning.
        Parents shouldn't wonder if their child's school is preparing that
    child to succeed in college after graduation.
        And if their child isn't on track to graduate with those skills,
    parents should know their school has a responsibility to improve and
    meet their child's needs.
        Without accountability it is too easy to return to a time, prior to
    NCLB, when students' actual performance was masked by averages.
        Accountability was at the heart of No Child Left Behind. The law
    shined a bright light on how all students were performing, including
    low income students, minority students and students with disabilities.
        10 years later there is a need for reform. And the need for
    transparency, accountability, and action remains critical to any
    reform.
        When we wrote the law, our intention was very clear. We wanted a
    laser like focus on data and accountability to improve the education of
    students who were falling behind.
        We took important steps forward, calling on communities to be
    transparent about the achievement of all children. And now we need to
    take the next steps: balance the accountability we worked so hard to
    implement in NCLB with greater flexibility at the local level 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 that is tied to college and career ready standards.
        Students need creative, effective teachers who hold them to high
    goals and standards--and can adjust their teaching strategies when
    needed.
        These efforts are happening in some schools, in some states. But
    that's not good enough. These high expectations should be there for
    every student in every school.
        The role of the federal government in accountability is essential
    to meet these high expectations and ensure that all children receive a
    high quality education. And the federal government should require that
    each state and each school district use data-based decision making to
    target interventions to improve the academic achievement of all
    students.
        Attacking the federal role or eliminating it won't get us closer to
    being the best in the world in education. It won't help our economic
    security or our global competitiveness. What it will do is make things
    harder for the schools and students that need the most help. Getting
    the federal role right on accountability and in all matters is the
    smart way to move forward.
        Unfortunately, in this committee, we've seen legislation that would
    be detrimental and harmful to the neediest students. The flexibility
    package we passed in July will create a slush fund for school
    districts.
        It will take away money and resources from the neediest students
    and let school districts forgo the civil rights priorities and
    education equality promised to students under important court cases
    like Brown vs. the Board of the Education.
        There is very little support for the bill in the education
    community because people who know the needs of school districts know
    why NCLB was signed into law--to ensure a quality education for all
    students--a goal that must not be forgotten in the next
    reauthorization.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    accountability in your districts. I yield back.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to
    committee rule 7(c) 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 statements, questions for the
    record 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 it is a terrific panel today. First is Ms.
    Hanna Skandera, the Secretary-Designate of Education for the
    New Mexico Department of Public Education.
        Ms. Blaine Hawley has been in education for 26 years. She
    started when she was 3, and a principal for 7. In January 2011
    she became principal of Red Pump Elementary in Bel Air,
    Maryland, a newly constructed school serving 620 students in
    grades K-5.
        Mr. Alberto Carvalho has served as superintendent of Miami-
    Dade County Public Schools, a little district in the southern
    part of the country, since 2008. He has served as a classroom
    science teacher, a school site administrator and an advocate
    for secondary school reform.
        Dr. Amy Sichel has been a member of the Abington School
    District in Abington, Pennsylvania, staff for 35 years. She has
    served as superintendent of schools for the past 11 years.
        Welcome to you all. Before I recognize you to provide your
    testimony let me again explain our lighting system, our timing
    system. You will have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When
    you begin the light there in front of you will turn green. When
    one minute is left the light will turn yellow. And when your
    time is expired the light will turn red, at which point I would
    ask you to move as quickly as you can to wrap up your remarks.
    And after you have testified members will each have 5 minutes
    to ask questions of the panel. As we mentioned to some of you
    earlier, I am loathe to drop the gavel on such distinguished
    witnesses, but please try to wrap up when that red light comes
    on.
        Okay. Ms. Skandera, you are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF HANNA SCANDERA, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE, NEW MEXICO
                      PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

        Ms. Skandera. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee. Thank you for having me here to testify today. It is
    my privilege and honor. And I just will harken back to a couple
    of comments you made, Mr. Chairman, about Indiana and Florida.
        I am also vice chair of Chiefs for Change, which is a group
    of reform minded chiefs across the Nation seeking to implement
    research driven and data driven reform across their States. And
    I also am a member of CCSSO, and I will also mention that they
    have accountability principles they have mentioned and put
    forward for reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Both
    Chiefs for Change and CCSSO have excellent recommendations when
    it comes to accountability.
        Having said that, I also was former Deputy Commissioner in
    Florida, so I hope to bring to the table a little bit of a
    larger State's perspective, and then New Mexico, which is a
    smaller State when it comes to the number of students we serve.
    However, in the State of New Mexico we are a very diverse
    State. We are a minority and majority State: 55 percent of our
    students are Hispanic, 11 percent Native American. We have 22
    different tribes, pueblos and Indian nations that are
    represented in New Mexico alone. In addition, we have obviously
    many other diverse groups across our State. So we are charged
    and challenged with the great opportunity to close our
    achievement gap.
        I was struck a few minutes ago by what I think is the
    conundrum in education. Often there are so many great ideas,
    but at the end of the day it is our charge at the State level,
    the district and the school level and certainly in looking at
    the Federal role at what are those things that we know matter
    most for our kids and how do we begin to have a laser focus on
    a few great things to create change and reform for our students
    versus a whole lot of things that might hit around the edges
    but don't get to the real issue, which is every student across
    this Nation can learn. And I do believe that No Child Left
    Behind in principle made that statement to this Nation and to
    our States, and it is our job to steward that as we go forward
    in our States and also to look forward to the reauthorization
    and the flexibilities that might be brought to the table.
        I will mention a few things about New Mexico as well. Just
    to be straightforward, we are often ranked 49th in the Nation
    when it comes to student achievements. I look forward to the
    day when I can tell somebody like Florida, sorry, we changed
    places with you. But I also believe that there are key reforms
    that must be implemented to make that happen. We in New Mexico,
    as I mentioned, are 49th when it comes to fourth grade reading.
    80 percent of our schools according to NAEP are not on grade
    level when it comes to being able to read at the appropriate
    level; 49th often when it comes to graduation rates in
    comparisons across the Nation. So we have lots of room for
    growth and improvement, but we are committed to that.
        And I am proud to say that New Mexico has a new Governor
    and she has championed education reform with the umbrella of we
    put our kids first in every decision we make and we will see
    New Mexico win across the board. And the basic belief that
    there are five strategic key levers for change when it comes to
    accountability, reform and the possibility that every one of
    our students is successful, whether it is career or college.
    And I would like to unpack those key strategic levers for
    change.
        Number one, we expect a smarter return on investments.
    There is plenty of research that tells us money matters, but it
    is not the driver when it comes to improved student
    achievements. In New Mexico we have the ability to review every
    single district and charter school's budget every year, and we
    either approve it or disapprove it. And in that process we have
    the opportunity and in just this last year put into
    legislation, not only are we approving budgets for fiscal
    solvency, et cetera, but we are asking the fundamental question
    what is our return on investment. At this point in time it is
    not okay just to put money into whatever reform measure it is,
    it is the question, ``Is this a proven strategy for improved
    student achievement?''
        So today we are ranked about 37th in the Nation when it
    comes to per-pupil expenditures in New Mexico. I already shared
    we are ranked about 49th when it comes to student achievement.
    We believe and expect when it comes to return on investment
    that we can do a better job. And so as we look forward to
    implementing this policy our fundamental question is not how
    much are we getting, but what is our return.
        When it comes to the Federal role, I would encourage
    Congress to consider maintaining high expectations in terms of
    outcomes linked to proven strategies of improved student
    achievement while providing flexibility when those expectations
    are met.
        Second strategic lever: real accountability for real
    results. Today in New Mexico 87 percent of our schools are
    failing, according to No Child Left Behind. I would expect by
    next year it will be nearly 100 percent because of our annual
    measurable objectives and the expectations that continue to
    increase. I will tell you that I do not believe 87 percent of
    our schools are failing. I believe that we have many that are
    failing. And we need to begin to create a differentiated
    accountability system that gives us an opportunity to identify
    those schools that are truly improving and seen success and
    those that are struggling to intervene in a meaningful way.
        So as we look towards what we are doing in the State of New
    Mexico, this year we passed a law to provide grades to our
    schools A, B, C, D or F, not pass or fail. We implemented this
    because there are other States across this Nation that have
    implemented this program and seen remarkable results. No longer
    is it okay to say we are making it or not, we must
    differentiate so that we can intervene in a meaningful way. In
    our school grading system we allow the--we capture, I should
    say, progress and growth, not just a static measure of
    proficiency.
        I mentioned the third strategic lever for change, ensuring
    our students are ready for success. There are two components
    for this strategic lever. Number one, the expectation that we
    have rigorous college and career ready standards, we have
    adopted the Common Core and we believe that as we transition
    that will be a key in providing the platform and foundation for
    improved student achievement, not the guarantee but the
    foundation. And I would say in that I firmly believe that the
    decision to adopt the Common Core is solely that of the State.
    I think it is the important role of the Federal Government to
    establish high expectations, but it is the State's role to
    adopt those standards.
        In addition to having high standards and expectations, we
    also have another expectation that our students can read on
    grade level. And while this sounds novel it is not. 47 percent
    of our third grade students today are not reading on grade
    level. So we have begun to raise the bar and are currently
    pursuing a policy that says if by the end of the third grade
    our students who have received interventions from kindergarten,
    first, second and third grade are not able to read, it is our
    job as adults to say enough is enough, draw a line in the sand
    and begin to say we are not sending our students forward and
    setting them up for failure.
        Chairman Kline. Ms. Skandera, can I ask you to wrap up
    here, please?
        Ms. Skandera. Yes.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
    finally, two other strategic levers that I believe are
    important are honoring and rewarding our effective teachers and
    school leaders, which we have many of, and we have failed
    fundamentally in our currently system to do that.
        And finally, implementing effective options for parents to
    provide options. And we look forward to the support of the
    Federal Government in both of those endeavors. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The statement of Ms. Skandera follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hanna Skandera, Secretary-Designate,
                     New Mexico Public Education Department

        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for having me
    here to testify today. My name is Hanna Skandera and I am the
    Secretary-designate for the New Mexico Public Education Department. I
    also serve as the vice-chair of Chiefs for Change--a dynamic group of
    state chiefs driving reform. The achievement of our students, the
    quality of our teachers, and the measures we use to hold schools
    accountable are at the forefront of New Mexico's education reform
    efforts.
        New Mexico's demographics are distinctive: 57% of the State's K--12
    students are Hispanic, 29% are White, 11% are Native American, 3% are
    Black, and 1% are Asian or of other backgrounds. New Mexico is ranked
    36th in overall population size, has the fifth largest land mass in the
    U.S. (121,665 square miles), and ranks 45th in the nation in population
    density. Further, with only 6.3 people per square mile, New Mexico
    faces unique challenges in educating students in rural areas. New
    Mexico has been a majority-minority state since its inception with 22
    distinct Indian tribes, pueblos, and nations.
        Since taking office, Governor Martinez has advanced a bold
    education reform agenda: Kid's First, New Mexico Wins. The need for
    reform in New Mexico is now:
         Only 53% of New Mexico third graders read proficiently;
         33% of our students who score proficient or higher on the
    11th grade English Language Arts assessment need remediation in
    college;
         Under AYP, 87% of our schools are failing; and
         99.98% of our teachers ``meet competency'' under an
    evaluation system that fails to reward excellence and link teacher
    evaluations to student outcomes.
        Our challenge is great, but I know New Mexico students can reach
    high levels of achievement. Further, our cultural and geographic
    diversity is one of our greatest strengths, and we must find a way to
    leverage that great resource.
        Under the Kids First, New Mexico Wins reform agenda, New Mexico has
    identified 5 strategic levers for change. Each lever allows for New
    Mexico to advance bold reform, while holding a high bar.

    Lever 1: A Smarter Return on New Mexico's Investment
        We know that money alone cannot fix education. Rather than maintain
    the status quo, New Mexico is proactively shifting the way we allocate
    funding to districts and schools. Through our annual budget review
    process, we are partnering with districts to look in detail at where
    their funds are being allocated and to ensure that expenditures are
    aligned with proven instructional strategies.
        As states intervene in low performing schools, implement teacher
    effectiveness systems, and increase effective options for parents,
    providing additional flexibility on the use of existing federal funds
    will spur innovation and better meet the needs of students and schools.
    I encourage Congress to consider maintaining high expectations in terms
    of outcomes, while providing flexibility when those expectations are
    met.

    Lever 2: Real Accountability, Real Results
        Under the current AYP system, 87% of New Mexico schools are
    failing. I know that this is not the case. We have some schools in New
    Mexico that are helping students to achieve and grow in a robust way
    annually and currently we have no way to recognize those
    accomplishments. On the other hand, I know we have schools that
    struggle to help children reach a basic level of achievement, and with
    such a large number of schools ``failing'', it is hard to accurately
    and effectively differentiate interventions and resources to those that
    need them most.
        Earlier this year, New Mexico passed a new school accountability
    system, the A-F School Grading Act. This new, differentiated
    accountability system will allow us to recognize both proficiency and
    growth. For the first time, we will know with confidence which schools
    are our A schools and be able to use them as models for our schools
    that struggle.
        A grade for an elementary and middle school will be based on
    proficiency, growth, as well as additional proven academic indicators.
    We will also utilize a value-add model in our calculation to ensure we
    are holding schools accountable for those areas they are truly
    responsible for versus the ones they are not, such as a student's race
    or socio-economic status.
        For high schools, school grades will be based on proficiency,
    growth, graduation rate, and college and career readiness indicators
    such as AP coursework, PSAT and ACT scores.
        While the current system includes critical components for any
    accountability system--disaggregated data, standards and assessments,
    interventions for low performing schools--the arbitrary bar and lack of
    flexibility has made it difficult for states to advance bold
    accountability agendas that serve their schools and students well.
    Moving forward, New Mexico encourages Congress to pursue an
    accountability framework that requires states to have a high bar and
    expectations for all schools, but coupled with flexibility to allow
    states and districts to determine achievement targets for schools and
    differentiate interventions to meet the unique and specific needs of
    low achieving schools.

    Lever 3: Ready for Success
        Regardless of background, all students can achieve at high levels.
    Our Ready for Success initiative is related directly to preparing all
    students for success in college or career. New Mexico has already taken
    several important steps towards realizing this goal.
        First, we are working to transition to rigorous, college and career
    ready standards. Adopting the Common Core was an important first step
    to ensure that our students are competitive in New Mexico and across
    the nation. As we transition to these new and rigorous standards, we
    are committed to engaging our teachers, school leaders and parents to
    ensure successful implementation. I firmly believe that the decision to
    adopt the Common Core is solely that of a state. While NCLB took an
    important step in requiring states to implement rigorous standards for
    all students in a state, the role of the federal government should end
    there.
        Second, we have placed a command focus on reading. A 2011 report by
    the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Double Jeopardy, found that students who
    are not proficient readers by the end of third grade are four times
    more likely to drop out of high school. Screening and intervention in
    the earliest grades will make our students better prepared to compete
    in the 21st Century economy. Additionally, ending the all too common
    practice of social promotion will provide our most at-risk students
    with the opportunity they deserve to achieve at high levels.
        As Congress reauthorizes ESEA, I encourage you maintain the
    expectation that all students can reach college and career expectations
    and have ample opportunity to do so.

    Lever 4: Rewarding Effective Educators and Leaders
        While there is no silver bullet in education, research has clearly
    shown that one of the most important school-related factors influencing
    a child's academic achievement is the quality of his or her teacher. A
    recent study by Eric Hanushek found that if we give the most at-risk
    students the most effective teachers, we could close the achievement
    gap. Conversely, the data show that if a student is placed in a
    classroom with a low performing teacher, the student will struggle to
    make up learning gains lost.
        The current teacher evaluation and recognition process in New
    Mexico places emphasis on years of experience and credentials obtained.
    In a recent 2010 sample of twenty-five percent of New Mexico's
    teachers, 99.998 percent of these teachers received a rating of ``meets
    competency'' on their evaluations (versus ``does not meet competency
    ''). Yet we are not seeing proportional success in terms of New Mexico
    student achievement. This suggests a lack of alignment between the
    system that measures teacher performance and the system that measures
    student learning outcomes.
        We are working to develop and implement a new teacher and school
    leader evaluation system that includes multiple measures such as
    student achievement as measured by a value-add model, objective and
    uniform observations, and additional measures that will be selected by
    districts. Any new system must better enable districts to address and
    improve school personnel policies concerning professional development,
    promotion, compensation, performance pay, and tenure. Further, the
    evaluation system must identify teachers and school leaders who are
    most effective at helping students succeed, provide targeted assistance
    and professional development opportunities for teachers and school
    leaders, inform the match between teacher assignments and student and
    school needs and inform incentives for effective teachers and school
    leaders.
        I encourage Congress to replace the current expectations under NCLB
    in regards to credentials with those that prioritize outcomes for
    students.

    Lever 5: Effective Options for Parents
        Governor Martinez remains committed to offering parents multiple
    educational opportunities for their children. However, these options
    must be effective.
        New Mexico is working to amend our existing process for new and
    renewal charter school applications to ensure that only quality charter
    schools are approved or renewed. An effective charter school has the
    potential to meet the educational needs for students in rural and urban
    areas who have limited choice now. In addition to increasing the number
    and location of effective charter schools throughout New Mexico, we are
    also pursuing effective virtual options.
        Particularly in our rural districts, providing robust virtual
    schooling options is a priority. Often, these districts are unable to
    offer public school choice, advanced math and science classes, or AP
    coursework. Virtual schools can address these issues. I encourage
    Congress to consider flexibility for states in the use of federal
    dollars to pursue robust virtual school offerings for students in
    under-served areas.
        As Congress pursues reauthorization of ESEA, I encourage you to
    consider several important ideas:
         First, states know best what their districts and schools
    need in terms of flexibility and interventions. Allowing states to
    implement accountability systems that reward effective schools and
    intervene in a significant manner with the lowest achieving schools
    will increase the number of high performing schools across this nation.
         Second, many states are pursuing teacher effectiveness
    models that are based significantly on student outcomes versus those
    that are based on credentials and years of experience. This is hard
    work, and states need support from Congress to accomplish it
    effectively. This does not mean we need to be told what to do, but,
    rather, to be supported as we pursue these changes.
         Third, prioritize the use of existing federal funds on
    proven programs and strategies. New money will not increase the number
    of proficient readers in New Mexico, or any state. Instead, provide
    flexibility to states to direct recourses to support proven programs at
    the school and classroom level.
         Fourth, rural states face unique challenges. New Mexico
    has districts with as few as 43 students. The interventions and
    supports that may be effective in Albuquerque are very different than
    those that will be effective in Mosquero. As you work to reauthorize
    ESEA, I challenge you to think critically and strategically about how
    these schools' needs can be met.
         Fifth, academic standards are the business of states.
    Simply stated, all states should be required to implement rigorous
    standards for all students in a state, but the role of the federal
    government ends there.
        As you prepare to reauthorize ESEA, I encourage you to visit the
    Chiefs for Change website and look closely at the ESEA reauthorization
    principals outlined. Thank you again for the opportunity to share my
    ideas on the federal role in school accountability and how Congress can
    maintain high expectations while expanding flexibility.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, you are recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF BLAINE HAWLEY, PRINCIPAL,
                       RED PUMP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

        Ms. Hawley. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
    Miller and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
    to testify this morning to provide the perspective of school
    principals on accountability in our Nation's public schools as
    the committee considers the renewal of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act, ESEA, most recently reauthorized as No
    Child Left Behind Act.
        My name is Blaine Hawley. And as you heard, I am the
    principal of Red Pump Elementary School in Bel Air, Maryland in
    Harford County school district. Throughout my career the last 7
    years has been spent as principal in two different schools.
    Prior to that I was a teacher, school counselor and assistant
    principal. I am very fortunate to be at Red Pump Elementary
    School, the first new school in the district in 10 years.
        Red Pump opened earlier this month and welcomed students
    from the neighboring elementary schools for an inaugural
    journey into the new school year. As the school principal I
    devoted significant time working with all of the stakeholders
    in the learning community to be clear about Red Pump's vision
    for excellence and laying the foundation for a culture that
    expects nothing less than excellence in teaching and learning.
        In both schools that I have led as principal we have
    understood the importance of the role that the teacher plays in
    the classroom with data driven instruction and ongoing
    assessment of student progress. Our teachers work together as
    teams utilizing a protocol for examining student work, as well
    as formative and summative assessments.
        Through this process with their grade level team and
    building specialists, they make collaborative decisions that
    inform instruction. Teachers know and understand their students
    and provide a differentiated program for student success.
    Decisions about individual student remediation, enrichment and
    intervention are all part of this process. Reflection is also
    an important aspect of this protocol, bringing teachers back
    together to evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction to
    ensure all students are moving forward.
        School leaders like me take on a myriad of tasks and
    responsibilities each day that require expertise as an
    organizational manager and an instructional leader to meet
    effective leadership standards. The standards of effective
    school leadership that principals must demonstrate are fully
    substantiated by the latest research. One area relies on the
    ability of principals to create professional learning
    environments where all adults are constantly improving their
    skills and knowledge and challenging one another to serve the
    learning and developmental needs of every student. This is also
    well established by the research which proves what educators
    inherently have known; second only to a great teacher in the
    classroom a quality principal will improve student academic
    achievement. Principals are and always have been highly
    accountable for what teachers teach and what students learn.
        The policies of the No Child Left Behind Act have done much
    good for helping States set high standards and helping us learn
    more about our unique populations of students through
    desegregation of data to make better instructional decisions.
    However, our Nation's all or nothing yardstick for measuring
    school and student performance is simply flawed. As a result,
    we are now facing the unintended consequence of a
    misidentification of failing schools and punitive labels
    acquired from a Federal mandate that inaccurately measures
    student performance from an across the board single snapshot in
    time.
        Principals live firsthand with this problem, which we hope
    the committee will address comprehensively in the
    reauthorization process. Principals support reasonable
    solutions that will effectively put more balance, fairness and
    accurate measures of student and school performance into our
    accountability system.
        As the committee considers adjustments and solutions to
    correct our current blunt instrument accountability measures
    mandated from Washington, I would like to leave you with the
    following parting thoughts from the principal's perspective.
    The appropriate Federal role in education is to promote equity
    and provide targeted resources to assist States and local
    districts. Federal policy should ask us to set high
    expectations, but also must support State and locally developed
    accountability systems, curriculum and instruction to best meet
    the needs of the students in the local school context.
        Principals support assessments so that we can measure the
    progress of our students, but Federal policy must encourage and
    support State and local assessments that include growth models
    and multiple measures of student performance, both formative
    and summative, to accurately gauge social and emotional
    development, language fluency and comprehension, creativity,
    adaptability, critical thinking and problem solving skills.
    Assessment data should be used to inform instruction, be fair,
    flexible, authentic and reflect a student's progress toward
    academic proficiency.
        Standards, curriculum and assessment must be closely
    aligned to be effective, and any assessment data must be
    available in a timely manner for practical or instructional
    use. Standardized assessment scores must never be used as a
    sole or primary criterion to measure student performance to
    grade or rank principal, teacher or school effectiveness, to
    allocate funds or to take punitive measures against schools
    and/or school personnel.
        State and local systems know there are a variety of ways in
    which children succeed and their achievements must be measured
    in multiple ways to accurately capture their emotional and
    social development, language fluency and comprehension,
    creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and problem solving
    skills in addition to proficiency in the core academic content
    areas.
        Measuring these factors and the many others that contribute
    to improved student outcomes must provide a complete picture
    not by an up or down, pass-fail standardized test score that is
    designed at the Federal level and that has no regard for the
    multitude of ways students progress. Assessment using a single
    metric produces a one-dimensional view of the child, the
    teacher, the principal and the school.
        Simply put, those of us in the field who are working every
    day in our educational system want the Federal Government to
    give us the opportunity to have more input into the development
    and implementation of the accountability mechanisms.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Hawley follows:]

               Prepared Statement of A. Blaine Hawley, Principal,
                    Red Pump Elementary School, Bel Air, MD

        Good morning Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of
    the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning to
    provide the perspective of school principals on accountability in our
    nation's public schools as the Committee considers the renewal of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently
    reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is Blaine Hawley
    and I am the principal of Red Pump Elementary School in Bel Air, MD,
    which serves over 600 students in grades kindergarten through five in
    the Harford County school district. I have been an educator for the
    past twenty seven years; a principal for the past seven years and prior
    to that, a teacher, school counselor, and assistant principal.
        I am very fortunate to be at Red Pump Elementary School, the first
    new school in the district in ten years. Red Pump opened earlier this
    month and welcomed students from the neighboring elementary schools for
    an inaugural journey into the new school year. Being a part of the
    planning and development process for Red Pump Elementary School before
    the walls were built has been an incredible experience. I devoted a
    great deal of my time over the past eight months designing the physical
    space to meet the needs of 21st Century students conducive to learning
    experiences appropriate for each age level.
        In addition, it has been important to make connections with
    families and provide outreach so that students new to the school would
    be comfortable and able to understand the school's operations and
    procedures, and most importantly, making sure that parents could assist
    us getting children ready and eager to learn.
        I have spent even more time working with all of the stakeholders in
    the learning community--teachers (including special area teachers in
    music, the arts and physical education), curriculum specialists,
    reading specialists, librarians, and even Central Office to be clear
    about Red Pump's vision for excellence--and laying the foundation for a
    culture that expects nothing less than excellence in teaching and
    learning. Now, we are focusing all of our attention to the teaching and
    learning inside the new classroom walls.
        A school vision and mission are essential in laying the groundwork
    for an ongoing, long lasting quality educational program. Developing
    shared beliefs among all in our school community is essential to the
    success of our students. We are engaged in the process of creating the
    written vision and mission that will reflect what we believe and live
    at Red Pump about student achievement and learning with a focus on
    excellence through purposeful instruction in the classroom.
        In both schools that I have led as Principal, we have understood
    the importance of the role the teacher plays in the classroom with data
    driven instruction and ongoing assessment of student progress. Our
    teachers work together as teams utilizing a protocol for examining
    student work as well as formative and summative assessments.
        Through this process with their grade level team and building
    specialists, they make collaborative decisions that inform instruction.
    Teachers know and understand their students and provide a
    differentiated program for student success. Decisions about individual
    student remediation, enrichment, and intervention are part of this
    process. Reflection is also an important aspect of this protocol
    bringing teachers back together to evaluate the effectiveness of their
    instruction to ensure all students are moving forward. As a school, our
    School Improvement Team develops an annual plan to keep our focus on
    what is crucial for the students we serve in our school. Additionally,
    one of the charges of this team is to find the time necessary, often in
    creative ways utilizing all staff members, to allow critical time for
    teachers to meet together. We provide this time for teachers to
    purposefully study student work instead of faculty meetings before or
    after the school day as well as carving out other times during the day.
    This process includes a cycle of analysis, knowledge of research based
    practices, instruction, varied assessments and reflection.
        School leaders like me take on a myriad of tasks and
    responsibilities that require expertise as an organizational manager
    and an instructional leader to meet effective leadership standards that
    include:
         The articulation of a clear vision of high expectations
    and how the learning community can achieve the vision;
         The creation of working conditions that minimize
    disruptions and expect teachers to work collaboratively to address
    student learning needs;
         The recruitment of effective teachers and support
    personnel to realize the staffing goals of the school;
         The design of systems to monitor individual student,
    grade, and school-level data to make instructional decisions;
         The alignment of resources to support and accelerate the
    school's vision; and
         Coordination of active engagement with families and
    community organizations to positively impact student outcomes--both in
    and out of the school building.
        Principals are confronted with a variety of complex tasks that
    require diverse skills, technical capabilities, high cognitive
    functioning and emotional intelligence. We must function under
    demanding circumstances, have strong coping skills, and a thorough
    understanding of the complex nature of the job. Principals are no
    longer just the single-faceted building managers of thirty years ago--
    we must create professional learning environments where all adults are
    constantly improving their skills and knowledge, and challenging one
    another to serve the learning and developmental needs of every student.
        A well-established body of knowledge spanning the past thirty years
    proves what educators inherently have known--second only to a great
    teacher in the classroom, a quality principal will improve student
    academic achievement.
        The most recent decade of research focused on the 21st Century
    challenges facing our education system and further confirmed the direct
    correlation between effective school leadership and student
    performance, as well as the increasingly complex nature of a
    principal's job to meet the developmental and cognitive needs of our
    nation's diverse student populations. The same research substantiates a
    glaring need to do a better job of preparing principals and other
    school leaders to meet the needs of teachers and students. There must
    be greater investment in programs that develop and support all
    principals in the profession in setting and fostering a vision that
    puts student learning at the center of school's culture.
        Principals must be committed professionals with the ability to
    handle any number of challenges in a short period of time during the
    day--a recent study revealed what those in the profession already
    know--that principals typically engage in over forty different tasks in
    single day, likening the principals' school day to that of a Member of
    Congress on Capitol Hill running from hearing to hearing, and jumping
    from issue to issue. But just as you must be accountable to the
    constituents you represent at the end of the day, principals are
    accountable for all students--no matter the circumstances of the child
    and whether or not they come to school prepared, eager, and ready to
    learn.
        My fellow colleagues and I who serve as principals know that being
    held accountable for student achievement is an important part of our
    job, but measures of student achievement must be comprehensive and
    accurately reflect the local context in all dimensions of student
    learning.
        Many see our work as a calling. We are not finger-pointers,
    disgruntled complainers, or spotlight-seekers. And we don't pass the
    buck. The fact of the matter is clear-cut: We are, always have been,
    and will be highly accountable for what teachers teach, what students
    learn, and how schools perform.
        Principals accept the responsibilities for making sure our nation's
    schools provide a safe, healthy and high quality education for every
    child--and showing the results to prove it. Principals have and do face
    continuous school-based challenges to overcome that promise to be
    equally-significant in the coming decade and beyond.
        Add to this, the pressure on principals that has never been more
    intense:
         We are expected to ensure that schools perform at ever-
    higher levels with ever-shrinking budgets which all of you know far too
    well;
         We are committed to preparing students to succeed in a
    world adults can scarcely imagine, especially now, as all of us try to
    keep up with the latest technological advances, for better or worse;
         We must juggle and adhere to often conflicting state
    guidelines, priorities, and federal mandates;
         And, most importantly, we are required to operate--day in
    and day out--in today's one-size-fits-all federal approach to
    accountability with little room for state and local input into such
    systems.
        Although, this one-dimensional snapshot of student and school
    success is seriously flawed, we have been doing our best over the past
    decade to measure up. However, we are now experiencing the true
    consequences of misguided federal-level policies with reports that over
    85% of our nation's schools are on the verge of failing. Principals
    know and common sense suggests this is simply not the case.
        The debate no longer persists and the question has been answered.
    From the principals' perspective, our current AYP system is too
    prescriptive, sanctions incorrectly categorize schools and have put
    into place what we believe are unintended consequences: an over
    misidentification of failing schools.
        While the policies of the No Child Left Behind Act have done much
    good for helping states set high standards and helping us learn more
    about our unique populations of students through disaggregation of data
    to make better instructional decisions, our nation's all-or-nothing
    yardstick for measuring school and student performance is simply
    flawed. As a result, we are now facing the unintended consequence of a
    misidentification of failing schools, and punitive labels acquired from
    a federal mandate that inaccurately measures student performance from
    an across-the-board, single snapshot in time.
        Principals live firsthand with this problem, which we hope the
    Committee will address comprehensively in the reauthorization process.
    Principals support reasonable solutions that will effectively put more
    balance, fairness, and accurate measures of student and school
    performance into our accountability system.
        As the Committee considers adjustments to correct our current blunt
    instrument accountability measures mandated from Washington, principals
    encourage you to take into account that:
         The appropriate federal role in education is to promote
    equity and provide targeted resources to assist states and local
    districts. Federal policies should ask us to set high expectations, but
    also must support state- and locally-developed accountability systems,
    curriculum and instruction to best meet the needs of the students in
    the local school context.
         Principals support assessments so that we can measure the
    progress of our students. But, federal policy must encourage and
    support state and local assessments that include growth models and
    multiple measures of student performance (both formative and summative)
    to accurately gauge social and emotional development, language fluency
    and comprehension, creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and
    problem-solving skills.
         Assessment data should be used to inform instruction, be
    fair, flexible, authentic, and reflect students' progress toward
    academic proficiency.
         Standards, curriculum and assessments must be closely
    aligned to be effective, and any assessment data must be available in a
    timely manner for practical or instructional use.
         Standardized assessment scores must never be used as the
    sole or primary criterion to measure student performance; to rate,
    grade or rank principal, teacher, or school effectiveness; to allocate
    funds; or to take punitive measures against schools and/or school
    personnel.
         State and local systems know there are a variety of ways
    in which children succeed and their achievements must be measured in
    multiple ways to accurately capture their emotional and social
    development, language fluency and comprehension, creativity,
    adaptability, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, in addition
    to proficiency in the core academic content areas.
         Measuring these factors and the many others that
    contribute to improved student outcomes must provide a complete
    picture, not by an up or down, pass-fail, standardized test score that
    is designed at the federal level and that has no regard for the
    multitude of ways students progress. Assessment using a single metric
    produces a one-dimensional view of the child, the teacher, the
    principal, and the school.
        Simply put, those of us in the field who are working every day in
    our educational system want the federal government to give us the
    opportunity to have more input into the development and implementation
    of the accountability mechanisms.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you, Ms. Hawley. Mr. Carvalho, you
    are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF ALBERTO M. CARVALHO, SUPERINTENDENT, MIAMI-DADE
                         COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

        Mr. Carvalho. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
    Miller and members of the committee. I am honored to have the
    opportunity to testify before you today.
        I would like to begin by actually offering an early
    contract to Ms. Hawley. Obviously she is an outstanding
    principal. In Miami you have beach privileges and sunshine
    around the year. Not a bad deal.
        My name is--she said she will consider it. My name is
    Alberto Carvalho, and I have the privilege of serving as
    superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the fourth
    largest school system in the Nation serving approximately
    400,000 students from every conceivable ethnic and economic
    background. I stand proudly before you today as a
    superintendent that has led this district into one of the
    highest performing urban districts in America, total population
    250,000 and higher, that is community population not student
    population, on the basis of two criteria: Number one, that the
    only national assessment of reading and math and science
    proficiency is NAEP, and as one of four districts out of 15,000
    nationally that is a finalist for the Nobel Prize of Education,
    the Broad Prize, which will be announced at the Library of
    Congress next week. Also a district that has been able to
    negotiate a landmark deal with teachers that provides for a
    tying of student performance to a teacher evaluation in
    addition to handsome financial incentives based on performance,
    as much as $28,000 on top of a teacher's base salary for
    outstanding performance. Also a superintendent that has
    negotiated different provisions for principals and leaders in
    my school systems that has promoted some and, unfortunately on
    the basis of performance, terminated others and demoted many
    more.
        You see, in Miami-Dade the use of data to analyze student
    performance, resource allocation, instructional interventions
    and human capital development has become the hallmark of my
    administration. Our success has drawn national attention
    because we have been able to move the bar on student
    achievement across the board, close the achievement gap for
    minorities and those in poverty, and continue to innovate even
    in the face of significant economic constraints. In fact, over
    the past 3 years, notwithstanding economic pressures attached
    to our recession, we have not terminated a single teacher for
    economic reasons. That is not to say that we simultaneously did
    not rehire about 2,000 teachers on the basis of performance.
        That being said, there are schools within my district that
    have made astounding improvements, have been recognized for
    remarkable gains in student achievement and yet because of
    accountability requirements face significant sanctions just
    months ago. I do not believe that it is this kind of
    dichotomous system that this learned body envisions for our
    Nation's schools. I believe that the Federal Government is
    perfectly positioned to address the inconsistencies which exist
    in the American system of education, which the Chairman alluded
    to initially, as far as its education accountability and to
    refine it in such a way that would be a tool for improvement,
    one that could be used to identify best practices and to
    encourage the replication of successful instructional models
    rather than simply imposing caustic sanctions.
        As a Nation I believe we have embarked on the State led
    Common Core standards movement. Assessments have become the
    barometer by which we measure progress, as they should be. We
    have placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of qualified
    and effective teachers and leaders, and of course we have
    introduced new and stricter levels of accountability into the
    field of education, and investment of Federal resources should
    rightly come with some degree of requirements for
    accountability for performance.
        But such accountability must not be a one-size-fits-all
    model. It must carry with it a degree of flexibility, not
    simply tying progress to lockstep requirements that compare
    different cohorts of students, as is the case with the current
    Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, designation. Instead, progress
    should be determined by measuring academic and developmental
    growth of individual students from year to year using growth
    targets rather than simply arbitrary proficiency targets.
        Further, there should be recognition afforded to those
    States, such as my own State of Florida, that have robust,
    logical, high quality accountability systems in place, and not
    require the overlay of a discordant system which often
    convolutes the overarching goal of accountability and serves
    often to confuse the public it serves. The manner in which we
    chose to address the Federal accountability requirements was to
    develop a highly sophisticated method of using data to drive
    our reform conversations and ultimately our decision making.
        The need to closely scrutinize student performance data and
    effectively allocate resources in a timely fashion led to the
    development of our DATA/Com process. As part of DATA/Com, the
    principal and leaders of struggling schools have the
    opportunity to meet with me personally, and I do have 450
    principals, with me and my cabinet to review the latest student
    performance data. Much like a physician reviews an x-ray or lab
    results, we discuss the symptoms and prescribe an antidote in
    realtime. Through the use of data schools get what they need on
    the fly as they should, whether it is an additional reading
    interventionist, whether it is additional instructional
    materials or to acquire money to run an after school program or
    simply remove a teacher who is highly ineffective.
        Without question, the advent of educational accountability
    has not been without challenges. Few I believe will argue that
    there is not room for improvement to the current No Child Left
    Behind legislation, such as, and I offer but a few
    recommendations: A need to move from proficiency targets to
    growth targets that follow the same cohorts of students over
    time. A litany of annually escalating sanctions that force
    improving schools to change strategies before anything has time
    to work is unreasonable and contrary to what the research
    indicates. A failure to differentiate between historically low
    performing schools and those that need minor adjustments on
    tweaks based on stringent AYP proficiency standards confuses
    stakeholders. An incomplete set of indicators that can gauge
    the health of a high school more accurately, such as graduation
    rates, dual enrollment participation success, industry
    certification, college and career readiness. And finally, this
    issue where large amounts of funding are being diverted to set
    aside services that have failed to date to yield more than
    limited effects on student achievement.
        Despite these nuances No Child Left Behind and the Federal
    Government through increased accountability measures have
    forced us to address the glaring achievement gaps that have
    plagued many communities across our country and have forced the
    Nation to address historic equity issues. In Miami-Dade we have
    long embraced accountability as a tool to improve, and we
    recognize that this law certainly began a conversation around
    the growth and learning gains made by individual subgroups,
    schools as a whole and entire districts. It forced the
    recognition, most importantly, of pockets of under-performing
    kids often hidden behind the curtain of performing schools and
    districts.
        In closing, I submit to you that the Federal Government
    should adopt a differentiated model of accountability which
    provides flexibility and loosened sanctions for high performing
    districts while increasing oversight in districts and States
    that fail to make progress. How you proceed in structuring
    accountability policy is critical. In my opinion those nations
    who are currently outperforming the U.S. on international
    assessments, such as the PEZA or TEMS, are not debating
    educational structures or sanctions. Rather they are engaged in
    conversations about teacher and leader quality, about
    conversations regarding the economic viability of their work
    forces. These are the issues we must engage in if we are to
    live up to the promise of a quality public education for all
    and ensure our position as a global leader.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Carvalho follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent,
                        Miami-Dade County Public Schools

        Thank you very much Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
    members of the committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to
    testify before you this morning regarding the federal role in public
    school accountability.
        My name is Alberto Carvalho and I have the privilege of serving as
    Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the nation's fourth
    largest school district. Miami-Dade is arguably one of the most diverse
    urban districts in our nation, serving over 400,000 students, from
    every conceivable ethnic and economic background, and at every level of
    educational preparedness and capacity.
        The use of data to analyze student performance, resource
    allocation, instructional interventions, and human capital deployment,
    has become the hallmark of our district operation. Our success has
    drawn national attention because we have been able to move the bar on
    student achievement across the board, close the gap for minorities and
    those in poverty, and continue to innovate even in the face of
    significant economic constraints. That being said, there are schools
    within my district that have made astounding improvements, have been
    recognized for the remarkable gains in student achievement and yet,
    because of the manner in which we implement accountability, faced
    significant sanctions just months ago. I do not believe this is the
    kind of dichotomous system that this learned body envisions for our
    nation's schools.
        I believe that the federal government is perfectly positioned to
    address the inconsistencies which exist in the American system of
    education accountability and to refine it in such a way that it would
    be a tool for improvement; one that could be used to identify best
    practices and to encourage the replication of successful instructional
    models, rather than simply imposing sanctions.
        As a nation, we have embarked on the state-led common core
    standards movement. Assessments have become the barometer by which we
    measure progress. We have placed a renewed emphasis on the importance
    of qualified and effective teachers. And, of course, we have introduced
    new and stricter levels of accountability into the field of education.
        An investment of federal resources should rightly come with
    requirements for accountability for performance, but such
    accountability must not be a one-size fits all model. It must carry
    with it a degree of flexibility, not simply tying progress to lock-step
    requirements that compare different cohorts of students, as is the case
    with the current Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) designation. Instead,
    progress should be determined by measuring academic and developmental
    growth of individual students from year to year using growth targets
    rather than arbitrary proficiency targets. Further, there should be
    recognition by the federal administration of those states, such as
    Florida, that have robust, high quality, accountability systems in
    place, and not require the overlay of a discordant federal system,
    which often convolutes the overarching goal of accountability and
    confuses the public.
        In Miami-Dade, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has served as the
    catalyst for our school system to take a more laser-like approach to
    school reform efforts and to be more strategic in the allocation of our
    resources.
        The manner in which we chose to address the federal accountability
    requirements was to develop a highly sophisticated method of using data
    to drive our reform conversations and ultimately our decision making.
    We are targeting our efforts to ensure that when students graduate they
    are career or college ready. We have made decisions that have not
    always been popular, but we have been able to do so by informing our
    communities and having heart-to-heart conversations--around data--as to
    why students in certain communities, predominantly high poverty, high
    minority neighborhoods, are not achieving at the same rate as their
    more affluent, less diverse peers.
        The need to closely scrutinize student performance data and
    effectively allocate resources in a timely fashion led to the
    development of our DATA/Com process. As part of DATA/Com, the principal
    of a struggling school has the opportunity to meet with me and my
    entire Cabinet to review the latest student performance data, much like
    a physician reviews an x-ray or lab results. We discuss the symptoms
    and prescribe an antidote in real-time. Through the use of data,
    schools get what they need ``on the fly,'' whether it is an additional
    reading interventionist, instructional materials, or money to run an
    afterschool tutoring program. This is one example of how federal
    accountability has resulted in the implementation of a practice which
    has spurred success, but is only effective if the flexibility to
    allocate resources remains at the local level.
        Without question, the advent of educational accountability has not
    been without challenges, and we have learned a great deal. However, few
    will argue that there is room for improvement to the current NCLB
    legislation such as:
         A need to move away from proficiency targets to growth
    targets that follow the same cohort of students;
         A litany of annually escalating sanctions that force
    improving schools to change strategies before anything has time to
    work;
         A failure to differentiate between historically low-
    performing schools and those that need minor adjustments based on
    stringent AYP proficiency standards;
         Inclusion of other subjects such as writing and science;
         A lack of comprehensive indicators that can gauge the
    health of a high school more accurately such as graduation rates, dual
    enrollment, industry certification, college and career readiness; and
         Large amounts of money diverted into supplemental services
    that have failed, to date, to yield more than limited effects on
    student achievement.
        Despite these nuances, NCLB and the federal government, through
    increased accountability measures, has forced us to address the glaring
    achievement gaps that plague many communities across this land and has
    forced us to address historic equity issues that were prevalent in our
    schools. In Miami-Dade we have long embraced accountability as a tool
    to improve, and we recognize that NCLB certainly began the conversation
    around the growth and learning gains made by individual subgroups of
    students within traditionally high performing schools, as well as shone
    a spotlight on chronically low performing schools.
        I submit to you that the federal government should adopt a
    differentiated model of accountability which provides flexibility and
    loosens sanctions for high performing districts, while increasing
    oversight in districts and states that fail to make progress. How you
    proceed in structuring accountability policy is critical. Those nations
    who are currently outperforming the U.S. on international assessments
    such as the PISA or TIMMS are not debating educational structures or
    sanctions; rather they are engaged in conversations about teacher and
    leader quality. These are the issues we must engage in if we are to
    live up to the promise of a quality public education for all and ensure
    our position as a global leader.
        In Miami-Dade, we have taken a differentiated approach to school
    reform and launched the Education Transformation Office (ETO) with
    School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding. We tier schools by degree of
    need based on current and historic data and create support and
    monitoring processes reflective of each school's academic standing.
    Additionally, SIG requirements have allowed us to replace ineffective
    administrators and teachers while recruiting those with a proven record
    of success, to launch an array of wraparound services to target at-risk
    students, and to upgrade the technological infrastructure to ensure
    that students are learning in 21st century classrooms. Through our use
    of the SIG funds and the implementation of our ETO program, we aren't
    simply focused on turnaround; our goal is to accelerate and sustain
    improvements into the future. Our ETO processes have been recognized by
    the USDOE, the FLDOE and districts throughout the country, and we have
    seen real improvement in these schools and the students who attend
    them.
        Last year, the ETO in Miami-Dade was assigned 19 ``persistently
    lowest-achieving schools.'' Of the 19, 13 are now either B or C and
    none are rated F. This year, the ETO oversees 26 schools through SIG II
    with our district curriculum and instruction team supporting and
    monitoring another 35 schools that are dangerously close to being
    identified as persistently low performing. This method of tiering
    schools in need of improvement has allowed us to be more strategic in
    resource deployment and insures us from a revolving door approach to
    school improvement. Schools are provided the attention they need and,
    much like our teacher coaching model, they are weaned from district
    oversight as they begin sustaining their own improvements
    independently. This is the national accountability approach that I
    proffer to you today.
        In concert with the improvement of our struggling schools, our
    district has distinguished itself among other large urban districts
    throughout the country. M-DCPS leads urban schools in reading and
    mathematics at the fourth and eighth grade levels on the National
    Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As a Broad Finalist, our
    innovative systems and student performance in narrowing the achievement
    gap have been recognized nationally.
        Surely, these outcomes should be rewarded by the loosening of
    sanctions and the practices that have led to them being replicated in
    other districts nationally. Instead, while school grades have increased
    (despite ever-increasing state standards of proficiency), our
    graduation rates improved at a faster rate than the rate of growth for
    the State itself, and our outcomes on the NAEP Trial Urban District
    Assessment rank among the highest in the nation, the number of schools
    that are considered in need of improvement under the NCLB Federal
    guidelines has continued to increase. Only 11% of all schools in
    Florida are deemed to have made AYP this past year while 58 percent of
    them are rated ``A.'' This paradox is inconceivable to educators and
    difficult to explain to communities who have witnessed the performance
    of their neighborhood schools rise to unprecedented levels. At its root
    is the struggle between competing accountability systems--the one
    mandated under NCLB and Florida's own A+ Plan--Differentiated
    Accountability Model. Both models are rigorous, demand performance
    accountability, and require the public to be informed regarding the
    quality of the instruction being delivered. They are, however,
    discordant in the definition of progress, the sanctioning of schools
    and the general interpretation of the law.
        We have rekindled the beacons of hope in communities that have, for
    too long, suffered from the stigma of being labeled a failing school,
    yet threatened them with sanctions and the threat of closure right when
    they have begun to demonstrate significant progress and posted dramatic
    numbers in terms of student achievement outcomes. Two examples I can
    offer you are Miami Edison and Miami Central Senior High Schools. Both
    schools are located in two of the poorest communities in our district.
    For years, the two schools had been rightly labeled as ``in need of
    improvement'' and rated F by the State. Last year, both schools earned
    a grade of ``C'' and posted their highest graduation rates since the
    advent of accountability. In fact, Miami Edison increased its
    graduation rate--in one school year--a remarkable twenty percentage
    points. Yet, despite these undeniable improvements, both schools were
    threatened with closure by the State in both 2010 and 2011 due to
    prescriptive and escalating sanctions deemed necessary by the state in
    its interpretation of NCLB. Certainly this is an unintended consequence
    of federal and state laws that do not work in concert with one another.
        In fact, we now know that a school can be in full compliance with
    NCLB and not be raising student achievement, while it is possible to
    raise student achievement substantially and not be in compliance with
    the law's current requirements. These nuances will surely need to be
    ironed out with the reauthorization of ESEA.
        Our district has been forced to reduce its budget by over $1.6
    Billion in recent years, yet we have never waivered or lost focus on
    the true measure of our success: our return on investment, which is
    reflected in individual student achievement, school performance,
    graduation rates, and the closing of the achievement gap for minority
    students and those living in poverty. We have but one strategic goal in
    our district and that is Student Achievement. Everything we do, every
    resource we invest, must be aligned to that goal or we don't do it.
        Through innovation, careful planning and, yes, a measured degree of
    sacrifice, we have been able to protect our classrooms, maintain a high
    quality workforce without laying off a single full time teacher for
    economic reasons, and establish a healthy reserve, ensuring the
    District's financial position remains stable and sustainable going
    forward. We would not have been able to do so without the injection of
    dollars made available to us by the federal government. Monies from
    Race to the Top, School Improvement Grant (SIG) and Title I have
    allowed us to continue to provide a high quality education for all of
    our students while investing in human capital and attracting the best
    and the brightest in their field to teach in our persistently low
    performing schools. This month, we will distribute the first round of
    bonuses, based on student achievement outcomes, to thousands of
    teachers in our district. While our state has made less and less of an
    investment in education, our nation has recognized that without a
    learned populace our position in the global marketplace as a world
    leader in innovation and invention is in peril. Our federal government
    has recognized that if these challenges are not adequately addressed,
    inequities in wealth and opportunity will limit our nation's economic
    potential and threaten our democratic ideals.
        My testimony today would be incomplete without a nod to my heritage
    and my own personal experience. You see, today, I stand before members
    of Congress in the greatest nation in the world, representing a $3.6B
    enterprise. An enterprise that creates great Americans, that develops
    the mind of future scientists, teachers, and entrepreneurs, but I too
    am a product of the promise that is America. For I came to this country
    when I was just 17 years old; unable to speak the language, one of 6
    siblings living in a two-room apartment in my native Portugal. Were it
    not for our core belief that all children can learn and that all
    students deserve a quality public education, I would not have broken
    out of my own cycle of poverty.
        In closing, Congress should, and is, as evidenced by holding this
    very hearing today, reevaluate its role in public school
    accountability. Clearly, in order for us as a people to maintain our
    economic and democratic prosperity, we must reflect on the lessons
    learned from NCLB and achieve a balance between accountability and
    flexibility to state and local school districts. The federal government
    should support the state-led common core standards movement and
    continue to incentivize states to join the movement as well as develop
    and participate in assessments that evaluate mastery of said standards.
    It should reorient legislation away from annually escalating sanctions
    to a more differentiated, longer intervention period of improvement in
    order to allow strategies to gain traction at historically low
    performing schools. It should continue to invest, through programs such
    as Race to the Top and the SIG which assist states and districts in the
    development of data systems that can effectively link student
    achievement and teachers. Finally, as our demographic landscape
    continues to become more and more diverse, it should extend the window
    for English language acquisition from one to three years; allowing
    these learners a more adequate period of time before they are expected
    to be at-par with their native peers.
        Our educational systems have evolved dramatically in the past nine
    years, no doubt due to the influence of legislation at both the federal
    and state level. It is now time for us to evolve into the next stage of
    standards-based, data-driven reform; shifting from the current focus on
    prescriptive compliance requirements that have proven to be less than
    effective to a more meaningful and impactful accountability model that
    focuses on what surely is the most important schooling outcome of all:
    college and career readiness, as prerequisites of graduation. We must
    embrace an accountability model which incentivizes innovation; one that
    focuses on building state and local capacity to improve learning
    opportunities for all students, one that invests in research,
    evaluation, and technical assistance, and intervenes in consistently
    low-performing districts and schools, but allows enough time for
    reforms to take hold before insisting that further sanctions be
    applied. We must focus on collaboration and the dissemination of best
    practices which can inform state and local efforts to improve student
    achievement and close achievement gaps; in effect, to move the
    discourse from crisis rhetoric to one about solutions partnerships. To
    achieve this, it is going to take federal, state, and local
    cooperation.

    Recommended changes proposed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools
                Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left
                        Behind)
        Reauthorize and modify the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (No Child Left Behind Act 2001) to:
         Recognize student progress in lieu of the current all-or-
    nothing approach and recognize degrees of progress for schools;
         Eliminate sanctions associated with not meeting adequate
    year progress;
         Support uniform national assessments aligned with national
    standards to allow for valuable comparison of student achievement among
    states;
         Ensure fair accountability by providing flexibility for
    special education and English Language Learners (ELL's) and other
    formula adjustments, and by requiring identical tests for Title I and
    Title III students in non-public schools;
         Include other indicators for accountability such as dual
    enrollment industry certification, AP, graduation rates, dropout
    attendance suspensions in determining AYP and align accountability
    standards with those in the School Improvement grant;
         Reward and retain quality teachers by supporting measures
    that raise pay for teachers in fields with shortages and in high-needs
    communities; that create career ladder paths; and that assist with
    rising housing costs;
         Establish new qualification requirements for teachers and
    paraprofessionals to ensure that teachers are highly skilled in content
    areas, as well as pedagogy;
         Allow districts to use Supplemental Education Services
    (SES) funds to provide tutoring to eligible students as well as pay for
    monitoring and other implementation costs of the out of the required
    20% set-aside and ensure that public schools are not unfairly prevented
    from providing remedial services to students;
         Require that funding to SES private providers be
    contingent on outcomes on norm-referenced assessments developed and
    administered by the states and/or the district; and
         Allocate immigrant funds under Title III based on the
    number of recently arrived foreign-born students.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir. Dr. Sichel.

    STATEMENT OF DR. AMY F. SICHEL, SUPERINTENDENT, ABINGTON SCHOOL
                                DISTRICT

        Dr. Sichel. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
    Miller and members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be
    here with you this morning. Thank you for inviting me to
    testify today regarding the reauthorization of ESEA and
    specifically how No Child Left Behind Federal regulations
    impact public schools. I am Amy Sichel. I am superintendent of
    the Abington School District. I am the President of the
    Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and elected
    member to the governing board of the American Association of
    School Administrators. So it is my pleasure to represent my
    fellow superintendents.
        Abington School District is a suburban Philadelphia
    district with 7,500 children, and we are both racially and
    economically diverse. I have 35 years of experience in one
    school district, Abington, with 11 years as a school
    superintendent. Although we have always believed in the
    importance of academic standards and common assessments to
    drive accountability, some aspects of NCLB have been extremely
    positive and had a very positive impact in the Abington School
    District. Since the early 1990s Abington has had a goal setting
    approach with a model of continuous improvement. NCLB required
    us to dig deeper by looking at the results of the disaggregated
    groups, as well as the all student group, and it has improved
    our practice of analyzing test results, strengthening teaching
    and learning, and produced incredible results for the Abington
    School District.
        However, the present NCLB model as a myriad of weaknesses.
    To begin with, a goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014 is
    unrealistic. Public schools educate the best and the brightest,
    as well as the students with the greatest educational needs and
    those with the severest of disabilities. For all students the
    approach should be based on growth, academic and developmental,
    tied to academic proficiency and standards. Good teaching and
    learning require a standards-based curriculum with benchmarks
    in accountability based on multiple measures. A system based on
    passing or failing a single target leads to failure, failure of
    students, of schools and districts. It creates a lack of
    credibility to educators by parents and guardians and promotes
    an agenda that is not in the best interest of American
    children.
        The system of continuous improvement that is needed
    requires multiple assessment measures that are reliable and
    valid with attainable goals and the capability to document
    individual student and school growth.
        Let me share with you a quick review of what works in the
    Abington School District. In reviewing our disaggregated data
    for NCLB, it was revealed that two distinct achievement gaps
    existed for African American children and for children with
    IEPs, special education children. In response to this
    information we developed a novel initiative called
    Opportunities to Learn, OTL. Under OTL the district tracked the
    secondary program for grades 7 through 12 and included to the
    maximum extent possible students with IEPs and all students in
    mainstream classes, as well as organizing the school day to
    provide academic supports during the day and not at the expense
    of the arts. The plan resulted in each core subject offering
    only two levels of a rigorous college preparatory curriculum, a
    college preparatory course or an honors or AP course. Formative
    assessments were used to identify student's needs so that those
    who were not proficient on the Pennsylvania system of
    assessment received individualized support.
        Since the implementation of OTL the disparity between the
    performance of the district's all student group and the
    district's African American and IEP groups has narrowed
    significantly. Along with this our percent of students going on
    to postsecondary education has increased from 80 to 90 percent.
    Our data is in my written testimony.
        In addition to all schools attaining adequate earlier
    progress for the last 3 years, our elementary schools have
    attained it since 2002. The opportunities to learn initiative
    with the focus on data driven strategies address the challenges
    and attain positive results. These successes and documented
    achievement levels should be a part of the reauthorization of
    ESEA with the following provisions:
        One, invest in and support a standards-based assessment
    academic model driven by assessment and accountability.
        Two, support a growth model for student achievement that
    focuses on individual student performance with multiple
    measures.
        Three, allow States and districts to support different
    growth rates based on the individual needs of students.
        Four, base ESEA on attainable goals for all students and
    subgroups congruent with State standards.
        Five, encourage the use of research-based approaches based
    on, quote, what works to make instructional and organizational
    decisions.
        Six, feature school districts that demonstrate that we can
    produce proficient students and encourage others to replicate
    those successful models.
        Seven, and most importantly, place the locus of control for
    accountability at the State level with local districts
    developing assessment models based upon individual student
    growth. Local school districts, such as Abington, are moving in
    ways that improve academic outcomes for all children.
        Please stop focusing on punitive accountability measures
    prescribed by NCLB. This disheartens students, parents,
    teachers and administrators and undermines the success of
    public education in this country.
        Thank you for your time this morning.
        [The statement of Ms. Sichel follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Amy F. Sichel, Superintendent of Schools,
                            Abington School District

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the
    Committee: Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the
    reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
    and specifically how the No Child Left Behind federal regulations
    impact public schools throughout the nation, in the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania, and specifically in the Abington School District. My
    testimony is from the perspective of a public school educator, with a
    breadth of educational knowledge and experience.
        I am Amy Sichel, the Superintendent of Schools for the Abington
    School District in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania as well as an
    Adjunct Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Education,
    University of Pennsylvania. I serve as the President of the
    Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and am an elected
    representative of the Governing Board for the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania to the American Association of School Administrators.
    Abington School District is a suburban Philadelphia district with 7500
    students and is both racially and socioeconomically diverse. I have
    over 35 years of experience as an educator, which includes 11 years as
    a school Superintendent, all within the Abington School District.
        I am here to comment about the impact of the NCLB federal
    regulations and reporting requirements on school districts and will
    provide examples from our experiences in the Abington School District.
    Please know that the Abington School District complies with all federal
    regulations, those of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that of our
    local school board.
        It is important to begin by stating that some aspects of NCLB have
    had a positive impact on the schools throughout the nation and
    specifically the Abington School District. In Abington we have always
    believed in the importance of having academic standards and common
    assessments to drive accountability. Since the early 1990s, the
    Abington Schools have used a goal-setting approach based on a model of
    continuous improvement for all students. Beginning in 2002,
    Pennsylvania's compliance with NCLB reinforced our long practice of
    accountability. In fact, the NCLB requirement to ``dig deeper'' by
    looking at the results for disaggregated groups as well as at the
    results for all students has improved our practice, strengthened
    teaching and learning, and produced incredible achievement results in
    Abington.
        However, it is important to note that the present NCLB model has a
    myriad of weaknesses. To begin, the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 is
    unrealistic. This is equivalent to a ``one size fits all'' model. As
    you know, public education in the United States is offered to everyone
    regardless of race, creed, economic status, etc. Public schools educate
    the best and the brightest as well as the students with the greatest
    educational needs and with the severest disabilities. For all students,
    the approach should be based on growth and tied to academic proficiency
    and standards. One test, at one snapshot in time with a goal of all
    students achieving proficiency, continues to reinforce a Pass/Fail
    model and does not promote improved growth in student achievement. An
    accountability matrix based on 45 cells of All Students with
    disaggregated groups to define Adequate Yearly Progress is unrealistic
    and archaic. Good teaching and learning require a standards-based
    curriculum, with benchmarks and accountability based upon multiple
    measures. A system based upon Passing or Failing a single target just
    leads to failure--failure of students, of schools, and of districts;
    creates a lack of credibility of educators by parents/guardians; and
    promotes an agenda that is not in the best interest of the American
    children.
        A system of continuous improvement for all students is needed. It
    must include multiple assessment measures that are reliable and valid
    with attainable goals and the capability to document individual student
    and school growth. Let me share with you a quick review of what works
    in the Abington School District where the success for each student is
    expected, monitored, and being accomplished.
        As I already mentioned, since the early 1990's, Abington School
    District has used a continuous improvement model to establish academic
    goals for each school. Prior to NCLB, Abington's principals and
    teachers were given annual goals, which were based upon the expectation
    that, when compared to the previous school year, at least 5% more
    students would be proficient as demonstrated by state-driven and local
    measures. All schools had improvement teams where administrators,
    teachers, and parents developed research-based strategies to foster
    student achievement. Abington School District's overall performance on
    standardized and state-required achievement tests has been
    significantly above state and national averages. With the enactment of
    NCLB, annual goals have been based upon the percents of students
    demonstrating proficiency as required by the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania. In cases where a school has met or exceeded the state
    requirement, we have raised the bar for that school.
        In reviewing disaggregated data for NCLB in 2005, it was revealed
    that two distinct achievement gaps existed: the achievement levels of
    African-American students and the achievement levels of Special
    Education students.
        In response to this information, I developed a novel initiative
    called Opportunities to Learn (OTL), presented it to the board of
    school directors and, with their approval, began our work toward
    providing a rigorous academic curriculum for all students. OTL began
    with a district-wide committee consisting of more than 100 teachers,
    administrators, students, parents, school board members, and community
    representatives. The committee focused on issues related to
    identifying, collecting, and using student data to improve instruction
    and achievement; student placement in academic courses; support systems
    to help students achieve; and parental involvement. Under this
    initiative, the district developed and implemented a plan to ``de-
    track'' the secondary school program (grades 7 through 12); to include,
    to the maximum extent possible, students with IEPs in mainstreamed
    classes; and to organize the school day schedule to provide academic
    support opportunities, where needed, during the school day and not at
    the expense of the Arts.
        The plan resulted in each core subject area offering only two
    levels of rigorous college preparatory instruction: a college
    preparatory course and an Honors/Advanced Placement course. This
    approach was based on the research approach of Dr. Jeannie Oakes of the
    Ford Foundation and formerly a professor at UCLA and the model endorsed
    by Mr. Jay Mathews, education columnist for The Washington Post.
    Students were given increased opportunities to apply to take Honors/
    Advanced Placement courses. Courses in mathematics and science were
    strengthened, and expectations were raised so that all students would
    complete both Algebra I and biology in one academic year rather than
    over two years. Formative assessments for benchmarking were used to
    identify students' needs so that all students who were not proficient
    on the previous administration of the Pennsylvania State System of
    Assessment (PSSA) received individualized support. These interventions
    included remedial courses during the school day in English/social
    studies and in mathematics/science, which complemented the college
    preparatory program and were included in students' schedules. Local
    assessments were used to monitor progress. Planned courses of study
    were revised to emphasize Pennsylvania's Academic Standards.
    Essentially, the goal of academic proficiency became the priority by
    providing rigorous college and career preparatory instruction to all.
        Since the implementation of Opportunities to Learn, the disparity
    between the performance of the district's All Student group and the
    district's African-American and IEP disaggregated groups has been
    narrowed significantly. In particular, at the secondary level the
    disparity between the percentages of the All Student group and those of
    the disaggregated groups achieving advanced/proficient scores on the PA
    assessment in reading and mathematics has been reduced by anywhere from
    7 to 36 percentage points. In mathematics the African-American group
    has increased from 54% to 60% proficient and the IEP group from 28% to
    61% proficient in five years. The African-American group has risen from
    63% to 68% proficient in reading, and the IEP group from 34% to 66%
    proficient in reading. This has all been accomplished with the percent
    of the All Student group achieving proficiency being far greater than
    the average percents of students who are proficient at both the state
    and national level.
        In addition, cohort data for students with IEPs provide evidence
    that, as students moved from grade 8 to grade 11, the percentage of
    those who are advanced/proficient on the state assessment and on other
    measures increased as did the percentage of students passing courses.
    Most importantly, all Abington School District schools attained
    Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the last three years and the
    elementary schools since 2002. The Opportunities to Learn initiative,
    with the focus on data-driven strategies, addressed the challenges and
    achieved these positive results. Also, we realized some unexpected
    positive results, for over the five-year period of the initiative, the
    percent of students graduating and continuing on to higher education
    increased from 80% to 90% with over $4 million in scholarships awarded
    to the graduating class in June of 2011. The College Board recognized
    the Abington School District with an AP Honor Roll designation. This
    recognition reflects the district's increased enrollment in AP courses
    and continuing to maintain high results on the AP tests. There is no
    doubt that the disaggregated groups, as well as the All Student group,
    benefited greatly.
        All involved have taken time to reflect about this initiative and
    its results, because it has not only benefited the students but has
    also increased our knowledge with respect to focused, carefully
    crafted, goal-oriented results based upon academic standards and
    multiple assessments as well as with respect to the role of leadership
    as in affecting system change. The staff, community, and the entire
    district administration rolled up their sleeves and demonstrated a
    commitment to the common goal of ``Excellence is our Standard and
    Achievement is the Result!''
        These successes and documented increases in student achievement
    lead me to ask you to reauthorize ESEA with the following provisions:
        1. Invest in and support a standards-based academic model driven by
    assessment and leading to accountability.
        2. In ESEA, support a growth model which focuses on individual
    student performance with multiple measures and approaches to promote
    and document student achievement. Use of standardized measures,
    formative assessments, etc., which are reliable and valid with multiple
    pathways to document student growth are required.
        3. Allow states and districts to recognize and support different
    growth rates based upon the individual abilities and needs of students.
        4. Base ESEA on believable and attainable goals and expectations
    for all students and subgroups congruent with state academic standards.
        5. Encourage the use of research-based approaches based on ``what
    works'' to make instructional and organizational decisions.
        6. Investigate and research school districts throughout the country
    that demonstrate that we can produce proficient students. Feature these
    districts and schools nationally and help others to replicate these
    successful models, demonstrating ``what works.''
        7. Most importantly, place the locus of control for accountability
    at the state level with local districts developing assessment models
    based upon individual student needs for growth.
        Local school districts, such as Abington, are moving in ways that
    improve academic outcomes for all children for we are accountable to
    our students, our parents, our community, our local school board, and
    our state. All too often successful models rarely receive attention and
    recognition. Please give us the benefit of the doubt and stop focusing
    on the punitive accountability measures prescribed by NCLB. This
    disheartens students, parents, teachers, and administrators and
    undermines the success of public education in this country.
        Thank you for your time this morning.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you, Dr. Sichel. Thank you to all the
    witnesses for terrific testimony and for participating with us
    today as we grapple with a pretty, pretty tough objective here.
    I think Mr. Miller and I talked many times, and there are times
    when we are in total agreement. And usually that total
    agreement centers around much of what you talked about; that
    is, you have to have data, you have to have information, you
    have to have it disaggregated. I think all of you mentioned
    that at one point or another. And it is clear that that is an
    outgrowth of the No Child Left Behind law. And I find a
    widespread acceptance of that notion that you need this data,
    and it needs to be broken out and disaggregated.
        And then we start disagreeing on about what ought to be
    next and we continue to grapple. So it is very important to us
    to have you here today and listen to what you are doing to make
    sure that you have got a good accountability and assessment
    system.
        Ms. Skandera, you talked about the A to F system, which
    sort of grew out of Florida. Can you talk about how you
    implement that and how that works and how that helps you in
    assessing and ensuring that there is accountability?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, with
    the A through F system it allows us, as I mentioned earlier, to
    differentiate between our schools in a more effective manner.
    Today, according to No Child Left Behind, 87 percent of our
    schools are failing. This will allow us to go beyond that pass-
    fail measurement.
        In the school grade calculation for elementary and middle
    schools we have an expectation to measure 50 percent based on
    our students on grade level, so capturing some of those things
    that we already captured through No Child Left Behind and AYP.
    But in addition, we are measuring 50 percent based on growth
    and progress of our students. And we are looking at that
    through a valued-added model. And in addition, we are looking
    at other academic indicators for a small percentage of the
    school grade that are proven and linked to improved student
    achievement.
        So at the elementary and middle school level those are the
    things that we are focusing on with a double emphasis on our
    lowest 25 percent of performing students.
        At the high school level we are looking at cohort growth,
    graduation rates and graduation rate growth, as well as other
    college and career readiness indicators, such as ACT, PSAT,
    vocational education programs certified nationally and linked
    to graduation.
        Chairman Kline. Who assigns the grade?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the
    State assigns the grade based on student achievement data
    provided by districts and schools. We do the calculation and
    then provide that back to our schools so that they do provide
    the data, our schools and districts.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, where did the name
    Red Pump School come from? That was the subject of some
    discussion up here and I drew the straw. I have to ask.
        Ms. Hawley. It is the chosen footwear. No.
        Chairman Kline. I asked for that, okay.
        Ms. Hawley. It is the name of the road. It is very
    creative.
        Chairman Kline. Okay. Mystery solved. I drew the short
    straw back here and we had to know, so thank you.
        You indicated in your testimony that there were overly
    prescriptive Federal rules on schools, and I think we have
    heard that theme often, and that sometimes those rules
    involving the AYP system actually hurt your ability to improve
    instruction. Did I hear that right? And if that is so, can you
    give me some example of that?
        Ms. Hawley. Yes. Because currently the program is set up
    that, AYP is set up that it is a one-size-fits-all. And what
    hurts us is the tamping down onto the school systems, local
    school systems of specific standards and regulations, while we
    at the local level are trying to help individual students
    progress, but there is a disconnect between Federal standards
    and what we are doing, which is really looking at individual
    student progress as opposed to one standard that we hope all
    children will reach.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you. I am going to try to keep myself
    to the rule here. I have got about 20 seconds left. So what I
    would like to do is yield to Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. And I really welcome all
    of your testimony. To me it is an indicator of how far we have
    moved from the original consideration of No Child Left Behind.
    At that time, if we had talked about Common Core standards we
    probably would have been lynched, but now the governors have
    taken on that decision and they have decided that they want
    this for their States, and I think they see it as part of the
    economic competitive model, either you are going to have these
    standards and students performing at these standards or you are
    not.
        The question comes, if that is the North Star, if those are
    the standards, then a lot of things can flow from that in terms
    of flexibility, a growth model can flow from that. I remember
    my State of California wanted a growth model about 7 or 8 years
    ago and when they published it, a good day would be when you
    grew to nowhere, a bad day would be when you could get credit
    for growth and yet the student was farther behind. So that kind
    of was a bad data system. That was something I didn't want to
    invest in.
        So the question really is, that if you assume Common Core
    standards and the assessment process that is being developed
    again with competing forms of the groups of States that are
    working on this, then at that point you really then have the
    ability to talk about the information you would receive out of
    the assessments, both for teacher evaluation, for student
    evaluation and for school evaluation. And then comes the
    question of multiple measures. You cited a series of multiple
    measures that look into schools, really most of which were
    related to academic performance, but because students are
    taking AP courses or they are taking national courses or ACT,
    what have you, on graduation. But every time you start this
    discussion, because people want to come in and talk about the
    football team, about the spirit of the school, is it clean, has
    it been painted, all important, but I don't think it tells you
    what you want to know about whether or not you are getting a
    return on investment.
        I started a discussion on No Child Left Behind by saying
    that in my district I didn't believe that a huge number of my
    parents were getting any return on their investment because
    their kids were hidden in this process and that is history.
        So I would just like you to address this question because
    the extent to which we have confidence in the Common Core
    standards that the governors have developed, a lot of
    flexibility, a lot of things flow from that. And I would just
    like to know how you think that plays itself out across
    students, schools and teachers.
        Ms. Skandera, you get to go first.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I do
    think the fundamental question is are we measuring inputs or
    outputs. When it comes to our expectations for our kids in the
    State of New Mexico, and I believe when we look across this
    Nation, we want to ask the question are we seeing improved
    student achievement. So when it comes to the query around
    multiple measures I think the fundamental question is are the
    things that we are using to measure, are they measuring student
    achievement and are they linked to improved student achievement
    via research. And so at the end of the day I also have heard a
    lot of conversation even within our State around those inputs,
    extracurricular activities, et cetera. And I would say we need
    to hold a high bar when it comes to improved student
    achievement and our expectations around accountability.
        Ms. Hawley. Looking from the school level, what we need to
    look at in terms of multiple assessments is more ongoing
    assessments so that we can monitor the progress of the student,
    and it needs to come from the local level; that is, specific to
    the needs of that local school system, and need to be a variety
    of assessments that are both formative and summative so that we
    can look at total progress, not just one snapshot of a child,
    which I think we all--it sounds like we agree to that. But the
    benchmarks looking at ongoing progress so that we can then
    individualize where we need to really build up students and
    their achievement as we go along as opposed to waiting until
    that standardized test and then getting the results a couple of
    months later and then saying, oh, you know, we could have, so
    this way we can be more prescriptive and diagnostic as we move
    along to truly help build student achievement.
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, members of the
    committee, I think the reasonable approach to district
    accountability, school accountability is one that brings about
    the hybrid model that takes into account both specific
    proficiency targets but values and credits, growth and learning
    gains towards those goals. That is what the Florida system is
    based on. There is incredible credit given to, for example, the
    lowest quartile of children, which are in many ways
    representative of the subgroups, the aggregates of the
    subgroups envisioned under No Child Left Behind.
        A model that recognizes both where we need to go, where we
    are and the growth towards that target is a reasonable model.
    It does not discourage communities; it does not confuse
    communities and gives credit for good teaching.
        I will give you an example. After the devastating
    earthquake that took place in Port au Prince in Haiti a couple
    of years ago. We in Miami-Dade received close to 2,000
    children. We received children who were 15, 16 years of age
    that were functionally illiterate in both languages, in Haitian
    Creole and English. Actually didn't speak any English and they
    couldn't write their own language. Yet by age they were placed
    in a high school.
        The question here is, is there enough time afforded to them
    to reach that proficiency target within a reasonable timeline
    without disparaging the effort that the teachers and the
    leaders in the schools that they led put into that effort.
        So I think that growth from that perspective is something
    that needs to be acknowledged. I will agree also with the
    premise that has been already explained, one that in fact
    values student outcomes above adult inputs. The day of just
    simply hugging and loving a kid and hoping that he or she will
    learn as a function of that is not sufficient, and if you
    cannot measure it I am really not certain what I will be able
    to tell the parent or a future employer as far as the skill set
    that this child will provide.
        This is no longer a skill set conversation, it is a will
    set. We know exactly what it will take to teach America's
    children. Whether or not we have the resolve to do it within
    the timeline that is required of us so we do not lose our
    strategic position economically speaking in the world, that is
    the big question to be answered. But I think a hybrid model
    that takes into account, again, proficiency targets as goals,
    but recognizes and rewards, gives credit for the learning gains
    made in a process is one idea whose time has come.
        Ms. Sichel. Thank you for the opportunity. There is no
    question that we need a vast accountability model. And the
    accountability model in Pennsylvania in the case of the
    Abington School District is extremely successful. It uses a
    system called e-metrics which incorporates all the AYP
    information, but most importantly there is a second system
    called the Pennsylvania Value Added System. And in this system
    you have every student's data. You can look at their growth
    month to month, year to year and over time. By doing this we
    can see if an individual child, a classroom, an entire third
    grade or an entire school is making growth.
        To this data we can add what is called the Pennsylvania
    Getting Results Plan. That plan was developed for schools that
    did not meet adequate yearly progress. In the Abington School
    District we require, specifically me, every single principal
    with their teachers to complete a Getting Results Plan
    regardless of their status because all of our schools have made
    AYP. In that plan we look at the root causes, we look at the
    strengths in each classroom, we look at the needs. That
    includes those children that are advanced, whether they need to
    continue in their advancement, as well as those that are basic
    and below basic, and from there we create individual plans that
    are the basis for our remediation and our intervention.
        This has to be the basis to any school's plan. And frankly
    the days of focusing on football are over.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Petri, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you all. Thank you for your commitment to
    education and for your testimony here today. I just want to ask
    your reaction to--in our State we, the State, has not gotten
    permission from the Federal Department of Education, but it
    still finds it very valuable and uses as part of its
    assessment, and we were doing every 3-year assessment of kids
    long before No Child Left Behind, something called adaptive
    testing. It is computer based. If a student isn't answering the
    questions it asks simpler and simpler questions. Or someone can
    even assist the student in operating the computer. So the full
    range of students can be--and if a kid is acing it, it asks
    higher and higher. So it assesses above and below grade and is
    an instant feedback practically. And so it is a good tool for
    the administrators and for the teacher and for the parents. And
    you can then have a growth model built on that. It has not been
    allowed, although they are starting to soften on it because
    they have been arguing it in Washington, students should only
    be asked to that grade level, which I don't quite understand,
    and that all kids should take the same test. And it is the same
    test, but questions may be asked differently as the child goes
    forward. So they say that is not the same test for everyone,
    which it is the same computer program.
        Anyway, could you react to that at all? Is that the type of
    thing that we should be using or that you are already using in
    Pennsylvania or in Florida or planning to use in New Mexico or
    in our area?
        Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that. One of our
    intervention approaches that we use when we analyze our data is
    called the Compass Learning System, and we have a second one
    called Study Island. They are both computer based, they have an
    adaptive system. The student can spend some time on these
    systems, both in the school and at home if they have access.
    And we also have created access in our public libraries. They
    go in at their grade level because we want everyone to be
    dealing at the rigorous grade level. However, if the student
    does not reach proficiency on some of the assessment items in
    there, it brings them back, it reteaches. And for the younger
    kids it has all kinds of built-in rewards with whistles and
    bells and scorekeeping.
        I can give you a very specific example of a child who is
    not proficient on the 11th grade PSSA. When we do that, when a
    child is not proficient they are required to take remedial
    classes. This student was very interested in taking an advanced
    level science class. He committed to his principal that he
    would get on at that time the Study Island program a minimum of
    20 minutes a day, and that by the time the next Pennsylvania
    system of assessing would come around he would be proficient.
    That student did it, we logged his time, he took the test in
    December. He not only moved from basic to proficient, he ended
    up being advanced.
        So with motivated students this is a good system, but it
    has to be monitored by staff and we have to encourage children
    to use it.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if I
    might just add, I do think you will see across States the
    sophistication of assessments is every year we are seeing
    greater and greater degrees of sophistication so we are able to
    measure at different points in time growth, et cetera. And I
    would think that is absolutely taking place. But I think the
    fundamental key in the assessment system is that we continue to
    have high expectations so when it comes to the Federal
    Government and its role with States that we still hold a high
    bar and that we have an expectation of an outcome.
        I recognize that with No Child Left Behind the 2014
    deadline is something that we will be passing soon. But I also
    think to lose sight of the expectation that all our students
    can learn that we should be closing the achievement gap and
    that even on a growth trajectory we should expect proficiency
    as an important part of the process.
        Mr. Petri. My time is getting short. I just want to switch
    really briefly to one other area, and that is when we talk
    about accountability. This is the Federal Government so it
    tends to drive accountability toward some sort of Federal
    standard. What are the strategies that you are using for
    accountability to parents, because obviously it helps a lot if
    they partner in the process, if they value the process, if they
    support their children, if there is a lot of feedback and
    communication back and forth? I know in districts now with
    everyone getting more or less on line teachers are able to have
    websites and posts and basically communicate--Johnny didn't, or
    Juan or whatever, didn't bring his homework to school today,
    was there a problem at home or whatever, rather than waiting
    until the test, and then why did the kid fail. Is this an
    important part of what you are doing, Mr. Carvalho?
        Chairman Kline. If I may interrupt, I am sorry. I see the
    heads nodding. I think that was an answer. And the gentleman's
    time is expired. The extra time that I give the ranking member
    doesn't apply to the rest of you.
        Mr. Kildee, you are recognized.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been teaching
    since 1954. I have always believed that education is a local
    function, a State responsibility, and finally a Federal
    concern.
        Is the Federal Government taking on a larger role than we
    should? What are we doing well and what are we doing poorly?
    [Question partially inaudible due to microphone malfunction.]
        Mr. Carvalho. I think there has got to be a balance and
    respect for, number one, the local and State responsibility for
    a high-performing educational system that benefits all students
    at all levels. But, also, that balance needs to take into
    account what I believe is an important aspect of student
    accountability, which is districts' ability, educated parents
    ability, business leaders, consumers of public education
    products' ability to gauge their own effectiveness compared to
    49 other States in the country and, perhaps more importantly,
    their own States in America's competitiveness, vis-a-vis the
    rest of the world. And without having some degree of
    comparative ability to determine where we are among the Nation
    and where our Nation as a whole is vis-a-vis their competitors,
    whether it is western Europe, the emerging nations of Asia,
    central South America, then I think we are shortchanging
    ourselves and our ability to make rapid improvements with this
    stimulus and catalyst that is this concern for economic
    development and skill set building on the part of our
    workforce.
        So, for me, this balance between the rights of States and
    districts that own the responsibility of providing a high-
    quality educational program, juxtaposed with this concern of
    mine to know where my children, from pre-K, kindergarten all
    the way through the adult system, are vis-a-vis 49 other
    States. But I am also concerned with our own performance
    compared to children in India, in Singapore, in Brazil, and in
    Finland; and without some degree of measure, some degree of
    accountability that provides an umbrella for that comparison it
    becomes incredibly difficult.
        Mr. Kildee. Ms. Hawley?
        Ms. Hawley. Yes, I do agree there needs to be a balance and
    there needs to be some Federal role in providing support and
    guidelines and, to some extent, standards, but there should be
    some ability at the local level--local and State level to set
    up the specifics of the accountability system. Because each
    area of the country is very different, and we need to be able
    to understand our local system as well as what is important in
    our State and make those decisions specific to those particular
    needs.
        I had another thought----
        Mr. Kildee. [Question inaudible due to microphone
    malfunction.]
        Chairman Kline. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time has
    expired. Too bad, because I would like to hear the answer to
    that.
        Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
        Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman, thank you all. So is all education--
    [Question inaudible due to microphone malfunction.]
        Chairman Kline. Excuse me. Dr. Roe, I don't think your mic
    is working. You may just have to speak up.
        Mr. Roe. You mean my outside voice?
        Chairman Kline. There you go. Thank you. And staff is going
    to work on this problem. Thank you.
        Mr. Roe. [Question partially inaudible due to microphone
    malfunction.] I came here, the most frustrating group of people
    were doctors. Now it is teachers. You all four say I absolutely
    believe the most important person in the education is teacher,
    great quality teacher, a great [Inaudible]. We saw a local
    school, I live in Tennessee, east Tennessee, mountain
    Appalachia, and in one of our schools we changed one person--
    the principal--and it became one of the top 10 performing
    schools in our State. I think you see that.
        Question number one, how do we attract the best and
    brightest in the classroom and stay there, because if you look
    at the data as we all have,our young teachers, frustrated and
    not next [Inaudible] elementary school 90 percent. And they
    have a higher approval rating.
        Let me stop at that question and get that answered.
        Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that.
        What is important to address, the best and the brightest,
    is to make sure that teachers, principals, as well as members
    of the superintendent's cabinet and superintendent has input
    into what is going to happen in each and every one of those
    schools and for the responsibility of the children. There has
    got to be plans that are collaboratively based with parents
    involved, and people have to feel that there is a return in
    their investment to come to school every day.
        So, first, there is the intrinsic desire of teachers to
    want to be good teachers.
        Secondly, let's get realistic. Teachers have to be paid at
    a rate to which they can afford to live and work well. We have
    made some progress in that area, but in the areas where you
    can't retain staff you have to look at what is going on in
    terms of the salary levels.
        Fortunately, I come from a suburban Philadelphia school
    district that has a salary plan that is moderate compared to
    the county. That moderate ability allows us to attract terrific
    teachers; and because they have input into their future with
    goal setting and the materials that they need to get the job
    done, they don't leave.
        Mr. Roe. And I agree with you on that. We were able to, as
    a city where I live, to pay more than the county teachers did,
    and I think we had a chance to do that.
        Let me give you a brief example of why I think the AYP is
    flawed, and you can step right in.
        One of my good friends and former patients is a teacher in
    an elementary school. I go every year and read in her second
    grade class. We did that this year, and I was talking about
    some of her students. She said, this young boy will be back
    with me next year. I said, why is he going to come back? Is he
    not able to read? No, he has missed 60 days of school this
    year. Why did he miss 60 days of school? Because his mother
    wouldn't get up and get him out of bed to get him to the corner
    to get to the bus to get the school.
        So now my friend, who is an excellent teacher, because he
    is not making adequate yearly progress, is a bad teacher.
        That is a flawed system. How do we do something about that?
    I heard all four of you say the current system is flawed, and I
    totally agree with that.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I think the
    distinction I would say is a shift from a focus on
    credentialing and years of experience when we look at the
    effectiveness of teachers to effectiveness linked to improved
    student achievements. And I think you look across the Nation
    and you will see States are consistently looking to create that
    link and say we have an expectation; and when we meet that
    expectation, we want to reward, honor our teachers and our
    school leaders in a meaningful way when it comes to pay and
    those things that are most important to our teachers.
        But shifting the conversation from how many years have I
    been teaching and what degree do I have to what is happening
    for my students today and are they learning is a fundamental
    shift that I think needs to take place if we want to see the
    honor that you are talking about. I do think the Federal role
    in that is to acknowledge that important shift that States are
    making and give them the flexibility to emphasize those things
    that matter most when it comes to our kids.
        Mr. Roe. And how do you answer this question? I told you I
    have been talking to a lot of teachers. They have a tremendous
    frustration in our State of Tennessee about we are just
    teaching to the test. And after the achievement tests are over,
    the kids are staring out the door because they know that they
    have had the achievement. How do you answer that? Because they
    are frustrated by, hey, I am just teaching to a test.
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, if I may address that and to go
    back to your initial question, because I think one thing that
    is lost in this argument or this question about what would it
    take to get the right people in front of our kids, we usually
    reserve that conversation for superintendents, for principals,
    and for teachers themselves. We completely discount this issue
    of teacher preparation formation.
        Somehow we are dependent on the output of colleges and
    universities, colleges of education. Let me submit to you that
    I agree with my colleague that we value extremely individuals
    with Master's Degrees and EdDs, and we focus little attention
    on student outcomes and the ability of these folks to deliver
    on student outcomes.
        So tough questions must be asked about the Nation's and
    States' willingness to push this envelope of teacher
    preparation formation, what it takes to become a teacher. If
    you look at the highest performing nation in the world right
    now, Finland, Finland recruits from the very top 10 percent of
    their graduates to be eligible to teach kids. And, yes, it was,
    as was said previously, in the compensation system for teachers
    it is not that divergent from that of an attorney or doctor.
    Let the market forces decide that.
        But I do think that once you have a strong teacher
    preparation formation, then you need to have a system that
    incentivizes great performance and particularly incentivizes
    teachers to go into the toughest, to teach schools perhaps with
    up-front bonuses, if those recognize already performance
    demonstrated elsewhere. And when there is recognition specific
    to student outcomes that results, as I said, in incentives and
    bonuses for great performance for teachers. I believe that is
    how you move the needle.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Hinojosa.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member
    Miller.
        While No Child Left Behind has a flawed accountability
    system that needs to be improved, the Federal Government, in my
    opinion, must ensure that States and local school systems work
    to prepare all students to be college and career ready.
        My first question is addressed to Superintendent Alberto
    Carvalho.
        I have read that you have a very impressive track record
    making significant strides in improving student achievement and
    graduation rates in your school district. There is a bill, the
    Graduation Promise Act, H.R. 778, which I reintroduced in this
    112th Congress. Its supports a State-led system for identifying
    the lowest-performing high schools and implementing
    interventions based on their unique challenges.
        In your opinion, how do we create an accountability and
    school improvement system that makes sense, one that leads to
    effective school reform, especially for our Nation's lowest-
    performing secondary schools?
        Mr. Carvalho. To the chair, thank you for the question,
    sir.
        I think to a certain extent some of those systems in some
    States already exist. Certainly in Florida I believe that
    Florida's accountability system already puts an adequate amount
    of pressure on districts to ensure that high schools move
    swiftly from potential dropout factories in America to beacons
    of hope for communities that produce a highly qualified
    workforce that is ready to compete.
        And the way to do that, number one, is by addressing not
    just academic adequacies. It is by simultaneously addressing
    workforce, workplace adequacies alongside personal and civic
    adequacies. And those last two, for whatever reason, have in
    many instances departed our public school systems. They are
    important, personal, civic, workplace, and academic adequacies
    for all kids.
        Second, the way you reach that state of high performing
    high schools is by not compromising in any way on teacher and
    leader quality. And this addresses the comments of the
    representative a little while ago.
        You need to recruit the very best principal, the leader who
    is empowered with making decisions that allow him to select the
    very best teachers that have the right balance of skill and
    will set. Meaning they understand instructional strategy, they
    understand data analysis and use data to drive instruction and
    then have the will for the job. They understand the communities
    they serve.
        Three, they have the backbone and the support of a system
    that understands the predicaments of schools in a Miami-Dade.
    DATA/Com serves that. I am directly involved in supporting high
    school performance and principals.
        Let me close by saying this, and I think this addresses
    part of your question. We have been dealing with this issue and
    I think it is prevalent in every one of your comments and
    certainly our own: rights of States and local systems versus
    the Federal Government. Here is the way I see it.
        States build the road of student achievement and
    accountability. It is up to the Federal Government to install
    the guardrail to make sure nobody falls off. The road is
    ultimately the responsibility of our States. And I think this
    perfect balance between both accountability systems will lead
    to a more educated workforce at some point in the near future.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for your response. I am very
    interested in listening to how your district addressed the
    needs of the English language learners and students with
    disabilities and minority students.
        Mr. Carvalho. To the chair, that is the beauty of public
    education is that all means all. Under the eyes of God, we have
    the responsibility to teach all kids, not being selective on
    the basis of their own disability or their ability to speak the
    language but being absolutely concerned with the full potential
    they have before them.
        So in our district we have a history of developing the very
    best in the Nation, the ability to teach children who either
    immigrate into this country or who are born to first-generation
    parents. Not using poverty or language as excuses for their
    achievement deficit but using what research provides is the
    best way of catching them up. Putting the very best teachers in
    front of them. In some cases, providing them with double dosing
    of language and math; and, yes, in some instances, using the
    very best strategies to pick them up where they are and taking
    them to where they need to be. Offering them before and after
    school tutorial programs. Enforcing almost a mandatory Saturday
    school program called the Success Academy to bring these
    students into school using, in many instances, Federal
    resources such as Title I and Title III dollars.
        I think those are just some of the strategies we have
    employed to, in just a few years, dramatically increase
    graduation rates.
        I have one high school, Edison Senior High School, it was
    an F just a few years ago. When I became superintendent, we had
    nine schools and the threat of the State of being shut down for
    performance. Every one of those schools was high poverty and
    high minority demographic composition. We didn't accept poverty
    or disability or a minority composition as excuses. We
    leveraged great teachers, in some cases moving out, replacing
    80 percent of the teachers. Yes, in many cases, in this case,
    firing all nine principals and replacing them with the most
    effective people I could find, regardless of whether or not
    they looked like the communities they served. Because it is
    time to appoint the very best people to the most challenging
    conditions. And that has made a world difference.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for your response.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Dr. Heck, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you all for
    the truly outstanding testimony that you provided here this
    morning.
        I represent the Clark County school district in southern
    Nevada, the fifth-largest school district in the country, over
    300,000 students, large homeless, ESL, transient student
    population, with urban, suburban, and rural schools spread
    across 8,000 square miles. So to say that we have some
    interesting challenges is really an understatement.
        In preparing for this committee meeting, I met with my K-12
    advisory group while we were back home in August, and so the
    questions I have today are issues that they have raised.
        First, we heard a lot the of talk about the AYP process and
    how it has failed schools. I heard from two teachers. One, Ms.
    Donadio, who is the principal at the Foothills High School,
    talked about how their school failed to make AYP because five
    students out of the entire student body failed to show
    proficiency in math.
        Another teacher, Mr. Hale, who is a teacher at one of our
    magnet programs, the Aviation Academy at Rancho High School,
    talked about how 36 of his students scored perfect scores on
    calculus but yet their school was labeled as needs improvement.
    Their issue revolved about the end count. And the fact that
    while we try to look for new accountability measures, while
    giving flexibility to the States, it seems that subgroup
    numbers and how people are subgrouped differ from State to
    State.
        So how do we achieve consistency in the end count while
    allowing flexibility across States.
        Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that, Chairman. I
    think what is important here is that we instead of focusing on
    just AYP, we focus on growth. If you focus on growth of each
    child and make sure that each child continues to improve, you
    won't have five students keeping you from making AYP or the 36
    children who had excellent scores still having that school
    being on an AYP list. The key is that if schools make growth
    and if children make growth, there should be targets that show
    that that demonstrated growth makes a difference and that is
    what creates a school that is successful or not. Lack of growth
    should be what is it is all about, not one single target one
    point in time.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with my
    colleague more. I would just emphasize two things though. We
    talked a lot about what is wrong with No Child Left Behind and
    the things that need to be fixed. There are two things that I
    think are really important that we don't lose--maybe more than
    two, but I will highlight two.
        One is that every child's expectation of growth, one of
    things No Child Left Behind does is look at subgroups. We need
    to ensure that we continue to hold ourselves accountable for
    every child and their progress and growth.
        Secondly, the emphasis on reading, a minute ago we talked a
    little bit about the importance of graduation rates, et cetera.
    Annie Casey Foundation just put out a study this year that said
    third grade reading, if a student can read at third grade they
    are four times more likely to graduate. I think it is important
    we don't lose sight of the core, the basics that No Child Left
    Behind holds us accountable for.
        Mr. Heck. The other issued they raised had to do with SES
    and the Title I set-aside. And they felt that it really
    impacted few students for the amount of money expended and
    there was a lack of vendor accountability. I would wonder if
    you share that opinion of SES, and if so, what types of
    measures can we look at putting in place to make sure that
    there is value added to the program?
        Mr. Carvalho. I will take that, Mr. Chairman, at the
    expense of upsetting the lobbying core attached to SES
    providers. Look, Miami Dade is--I apologize, I am a plain
    speaking person. Miami-Dade is the fourth largest in the
    Nation, Clark County is fifth largest, and I have had terrific
    conversations with your superintendent, who is sending a team
    of individuals to our district to look at some of the
    improvements we have made.
        By the way, keep trying to keep up to number 4. At one
    point I thought you would grow into number 4 in the Nation.
        The interesting thing about SES is, number one, if done
    right with the appropriate individuals, providing tutorial
    services, bring value added based on best in class teaching
    strategies, it makes a great deal of sense. But there is a set-
    aside that in Miami-Dade results in $26 million invested or
    provided with very little say on my part, very little oversight
    or accountability attached to 400 different providers, 400
    different providers. In the State of Florida, the entire State
    of Florida, there are 600 approved providers, 400 of them are
    doing business in Miami-Dade with very little accountability
    and a great deal of money.
        Those are two ingredients that spell out disaster. I can
    tell you that we are unfortunately stuck with third party
    entities, and consume a great deal of time investigating
    fraudulent activity. And if you look at the research because
    there is little accountability and very, very little uniform
    accountability for performance attached to the value added
    results at the intervention of these providers, it is very hard
    for us to know what is going on and incredibly difficult for us
    to opine to parents as to what is best for their kids.
        So I will give you a couple of ideas. Number one, we have
    been able to, get through recent State legislation that we
    advocated for in Tallahassee, the adoption of a single
    instrument for assessment, establish a pre and post test for
    SES providers, so that every single kid, regardless of who
    tutors them, has to take the pre and post assessment. So at
    least there is uniformity of results that parents then can use
    as wise consumers of the products.
        Two, I do think that school systems and our system via
    waiver is a provider itself, but school systems need to be
    empowered with more ability to utilize those dollars in a more
    strategic way that compliments thecomplements good practices
    their system is already employing to begin with.
        Mr. Heck. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Ms. McCarthy.
        Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    witnesses. This has been terrific testimony from all of you.
    And I happen to agree with you that every child can learn to
    the best of their ability if they have the tools also.
        And to Mr. Carvalho, one of the things that I have felt,
    New York State right now is in the process of changing how our
    teaching colleges are teaching their teachers to be able to
    reform the school. This has been an ongoing issue since I first
    came onto this committee 15 years ago. When I graduated from
    nursing school, we put on our white uniform and we had to know
    everything when we got on that floor, and I think that is from
    the training that we had. And that has to be into our teaching
    colleges mainly. In my opinion, today the world is a different
    place, and we have to send more experienced teachers,
    especially into the early grades.
        One of the things I wanted to ask you, no one talked about,
    and I think this is one of the biggest problems we have seen
    when I go into my schools, the kids start to do really, really
    well in the lower grades, then we get to the middle school and
    we start to see a great deal of loss of educating and the kids
    start to drop out.
        So what have you been able to do to be able to look at that
    and how have you been able to hopefully prevent it?
        When you talk about flexibility, I would also like to see a
    little more examples. Everyone throws that word out,
    flexibility, flexibility. We understand that schools and the
    States need some flexibility, but what you are exactly looking
    for as we go forward?
        And again, I think--you have talked about a lot, especially
    for the superintendents on what they have been able to do. The
    schools are the front line of student learning, but they cannot
    meet high expectations without support and involvement from
    their districts and the States. As both of you as district
    superintendents can you talk about the importance of involving
    districts, including things that districts can do to help
    schools in raising achievement and closing gaps? And some of
    you talked about that already. What are the consequences
    accountability measures should in your opinion exists for
    districts that fail to raise achievements or close gaps. We
    can't just keep closing schools. We have to have answers for
    those students.
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, well at the risk of maybe
    sounding a bit disagreeable, I do think that sometimes closing
    a school is legitimate. I moved to close about five schools
    this year because I thought they were dropout factories. Some
    of them were alternative education centers, where in my opinion
    the kids got a one-way ticket.
        Mrs. McCarthy. When you say you closed the school, did you
    reopen it with a whole new fresh--I am not talking the building
    itself.
        Mr. Carvalho. I understand. In some cases I did and some
    cases I didn't. In some cases I actually closed the school and
    I made the school available for an independent board to come in
    and provide a charter option. In other instances I closed the
    school and created a center for middle schools to catch up,
    kids who were over aged, and in others the building sits empty.
    So I think there's room for everything.
        Let me go back to your initial question because I think it
    is fundamentally important. If we want to address the issue of
    dropouts and increased graduation rates across America, we make
    a more robust investment in early childhood education.
        What you described as this negative progression from high
    proficiency, high result at the elementary levels, and then see
    a decrease going to middle school and then a significant
    decrease going to senior high school, I believe in all the
    research, all of the peer-reviewed research, not just the think
    tank and foundation driven research, indicates that it is
    rooted on early childhood education.
        Sometimes you pass the tipping point and don't recognize it
    until the child is in middle school. So this goes back to the
    point of, and there is a second tactic. I do think we prepare
    better, across the board better elementary school teachers in
    many instances than we do core subject area, secondary
    teachers.
        And this goes to the issue I addressed earlier, the issue
    of teacher preparation formation. In many States to teach sixth
    grade math and science you need only a Bachelor's degree with
    one single course during your 4 years of college in math or
    science. That does not give you the skill set necessary to be
    able to teach effectively math or science.
        So it is a combination of early strategic investment in
    early childhood education, a clear idea how to discern the
    data, analyze the data, make instructional decisions based on
    the data that provides for differentiated instruction, reading
    coaches, interventionists early on, in addition to a serious
    conversation about teacher preparation formation, particularly
    for the secondary course levels.
        Chairman Kline. I am sorry, the gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the panel
    for being here and for your expertise and your leadership in
    your respective areas.
        The administration's ESEA blueprint and the Common Core
    standards intend all students to be college and career ready.
    How do you believe Congress should define career readiness? And
    would this require more than evaluation of math and science
    skills, but also looking at a variety of workplace skills?
        Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In terms of college and career ready, it is imperative that
    every child graduate from high schools across this country
    being prepared to go on to college and/or taking a career. At
    this point most of the careers require the kinds of skill bases
    that freshmen and sophomores should be able to accomplish in
    school. So every student has to be proficient in high level
    mathematics, to be able to deal with upper level science, to be
    able to do the problem solving and analytical thinking that
    relates to good reading and writing.
        Think about what goes on when your car is repaired. It is
    no longer the days of just changing the oil. They need to know
    how to deal with computer programs, they need to know how to do
    diagnostic and intervention. These are higher level thinking
    skills. So it is imperative that we raise the bar for everyone.
        You have an educational columnist here in Washington, Jay
    Mathews from the Washington Post. He talks about the fact that
    for students to be successful today every child needs to have
    the opportunity to be involved in rigorous, relevant high level
    academic classes. So it is important that we open the doors for
    everyone to be able to attain those goals.
        Mr. Carvalho. To the chairman, I would simply add to that.
    My colleagues spoke to the issue of academic adequacies
    focusing on reading, math, and science proficiencies. And those
    are important I believe every single child graduating high
    school needs to demonstrate proficiency in those.
        But in addition to that, there is a value to putting some
    focus on workplace adequacies, those skills, the set of skills
    that future employers will be looking for. We have achieved
    that by expanding aggressively parental choices in senior high
    schools, offering thematic instruction through career
    academies, through thematic instruction providing within the
    public school system a wider variety of choice for parents.
    About 41 percent of children in Miami are in nontraditional
    programs. And in our career academy, specifically in high
    school it is biomedicine, robotics, engineering, STEM driven
    academies. Children both learn and develop proficiency in the
    core subject areas of reading, math, science and writing. But
    they also begin to master industry specific adequacies that I
    believe are important in developing their future workplace
    proficiency and adequacy.
        Mr. Miller. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. Sure.
        Mr. Miller. I don't want his question to slip away. He was
    asking whether or not this is the responsibility of the Federal
    Government or the States to set these high standards. I think
    that is an important distinction for the discussion in this
    committee. Most of you testified about support for the Common
    Core, which was not--that is not our work product. If you could
    just tell us what you think there.
        Mr. Thompson. Just reclaiming my time, specifically and I
    appreciate your responses as co-chair of the Career and
    Technical Education Caucus, congratulations on the program that
    you are doing. The question was specifically should Congress
    define career readiness or how should Congress define career
    readiness?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair, no one wants to touch that one. I
    would simply say that all States should be required to
    implement, but it should be a State decision. The expectations
    of high standards and rigors should be established and expected
    of all but States should have the opportunity to choose their
    standards, measured to a high bar. And to that end what it
    comes to is, is it an either/or or both/and. I think it is a
    both/and when it comes to reading and math because, as my
    colleagues stated, those are our fundamentals. That is a given
    expectation. Those are the skills that we want to build on for
    our workforce readiness.
        Mr. Thompson. I think a comment, one of the flaws I see of
    No Child Left Behind, it appears to have been built under the
    premise that every child should go on to a 4-year college. That
    is just not true. In fact, it is not fair and fails to
    recognize there are many different pathways to success.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair, just a quick follow-up on that. I
    do believe when we talk about reauthorization and the
    opportunity to acknowledge differentiated accountability, I
    will tell you as we look at our school grading in the State of
    New Mexico we are looking at nationally recognized vocational
    education and acknowledging that as it links to graduation as
    an important component as well.
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, that is why in the State of
    Florida there is credit given to industry certification
    alongside graduation rates and proficiency rates, because I
    think America has done a great job at convincing every kid that
    preparation for college is critical and I believe in that. I
    think we ought to prepare every kid to succeed in college, but
    not at the expense of demonizing the value of career technical
    education.
        There is a reason why apprenticeship programs in Germany
    are high paying and high demand. And America has allowed that
    to go to waste shamefully. And to a certain extent I believe we
    have lied to kids.
        I go into my senior high schools, I ask kids questions,
    what are you going to do after the last day of high school, and
    a percentage of them tell me that they will go to college to be
    a doctor and an attorney, and the other percentage tell me they
    are going to play ball. And between those two extreme realities
    there is a chasm, and we need to readdress this issue of career
    technical education in our Nation if we are to ensure economic
    viability.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carvalho, you have
    talked about the importance of having highly qualified math
    teachers. Why do you hire math teachers who are not qualified
    in math when there is--instead of all of those who have applied
    that majored in math?
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question
    correctly, I try not to if they do not meet the qualifications,
    but understand in most of our States, including Florida, the
    State certifies teachers. So there is law that basically
    declares the certification for a teacher. Certainly----
        Mr. Scott. Do you have highly qualified math teachers
    applying for the jobs that you are ignoring?
        Mr. Carvalho. Therein lies the issue. The designation of
    highly qualified in my opinion does not necessarily reflect
    high quality for teaching in a subject area. It is pursuant to
    a State statute that declares those individuals highly
    qualified if they met the criteria required for such.
        Mr. Scott. Is the problem that we need to instruct the
    superintendents to hire people who are qualified and taken the
    math courses instead of the ones that have not taken the math
    courses? It would seem to me if you have people in line for the
    jobs you would have hired them.
        Mr. Carvalho. Through--Mr. Chairman, I agree with you.
    There is an issue of scarcity of talent in a highly competitive
    environment. So the idea that there are a lot of individuals
    out there, and I think this is a concern of the Nation, ready
    to teach math--particularly math and science at the higher
    levels, is very scarce. And certainly it is our responsibility
    to go through the resumes of these individuals in very
    aggressive interviews to determine that notwithstanding those
    who meet and fulfill the State certification requirements we
    are looking for their effectiveness.
        Mr. Scott. One of the challenges we have is when we just
    mandate that you hire people who have taken a lot of math
    courses, that is kind of meaningless if none have applied. I
    think you mentioned salaries. If we are not paying enough, it
    is not going to get people who have taken a lot of courses.
        One of the things that some of us are trying to do is
    improve the community that the young people are in to make it
    more conducive to learning, to make sure the young people have
    early childhood education, after school programs, mentors so
    that when they get to school they have the support of the
    community.
        Can you comment on the promise neighborhoods investments
    and how they would help you do your job?
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, I will start, our best answer
    to that was development of the Parent Academy. It is an academy
    for parents based on three specific pillars: Number one, a host
    of courses, about 200 different courses and a course core
    directory offered in 80 plus locations throughout the district,
    not necessarily in schools. We offer these courses wherever
    parents are, specifically targeting high poverty areas and high
    minority areas.
        The three pillars of Parent Academy are as follows: Number
    one, helping parents negotiate and navigate the school system
    on behalf of their kids. Said in a different way is inspiring
    parents to demand more of their school systems, know what their
    options are, what their rights are, and availing themselves of
    them.
        Second pillar of the Parent Academy is helping parents
    negotiate their own personal development from an academic
    perspective, adult literacy skills, helping them become more
    literate so they can become a second teacher, an echo to the
    teaching that takes place in the school at home.
        And the third pillar is helping parents negotiate civic
    life in America. So this issue of understanding of the
    Constitution and understanding of the laws of the State of
    Florida, so they can also provide an echo for their kids. It
    has been one of the most remarkable and research documented
    investment, and I am proud to say this does not invoke
    taxpayers dollars. I went to the business community with this
    proposition and the business community has invested in this
    Parent Academy. So questions on financial literacy are provided
    by Citibank, courses on workforce development specific to key
    industries are provided by Braman Automotive Group and the
    like.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. One of the challenges that we have is
    what to do when a school is failing. We have a cookie cutter,
    one-size-fits-all response; that is, you get tutorial services
    for everybody, everybody can go sneak out and try to get to
    another school choice. But if it is only one subgroup that has
    failed, that caused a failure, it seems it me that the response
    ought to be addressed to the cause.
        Can you comment on how we should respond to a subgroup
    failure?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
    would say that the choice and SES provisions in No Child Left
    Behind today are excellent, but we need additional proven
    strategies and options when a school is struggling. To your
    point about one subgroup, I do think if we----
        Mr. Scott. Should the resources be addressed to the
    subgroup that failed?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    yes. And I believe as we capture individual growth, which is
    something we talked quite a bit about, we will begin to be able
    to target our resources to those most in need. We see that even
    if we differentiate accountability from a school standpoint,
    right now that is difficult to do because we have this pass-
    fail system. As we begin to differentiate at the school level,
    and then all the way down to the student level, we are going to
    begin to be able to use resources in a more meaningful way. But
    I do believe there is a place for more flexibility with
    resources as long as they are linked to proven strategies and
    there is accountability in place for those resources.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
    Biggert, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing. My question, I will start with Dr.
    Sichel, I believe. I am somebody that really is concerned and
    working in the STEM community and I think the administration
    really is into this, too. But I think that science scores
    should be given strong consideration as Congress reforms our K
    through 12 accountability system. Right now supposedly the
    schools are moving into science as being included for this past
    year, year and a half.
        In what ways have the accountability provisions of the
    current law affected the way that science is taught in your
    school?
        Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Science is
    an integral component to what needs to be measured and to be
    accountable. There is no question that the majority of school
    districts have focused on mathematics and reading and writing
    skills, but science in the last 3 to 5 years has really taken a
    forefront. This is probably the harder nut with which to
    improve because it is very content laden and it is extremely
    difficult to obtain both quality teachers that can excite the
    students to have the content happen.
        However, we have seen that when you have a hands-on
    approach, when you use realistic applications that the students
    understand, such as physics principles and understanding how
    physics is used as a great adventure, there is often a lot of
    excitement that goes along with that. So it is a way to have
    the standard become realistic with students and make sure that
    you have quality people in the room and then to measure it. I
    think science is an area that has been grossly overlooked and
    that we need to get on top of that.
        Mrs. Biggert. So science should really be part of a new
    accountability?
        Ms. Sichel. Yes, it should.
        Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Hawley, I was happy to see in your
    written testimony you did mention that you support the growth
    models and, moreover, that these models should be used to gauge
    the social and emotional development which lays a foundation
    for short and long-term academic and personal success. What are
    some of the ways that assessments, both formative and
    summative, can be used to measure social and emotional
    learning?
        Ms. Hawley. Well, the social and emotional learning really
    comes from the program and the environment that you provide to
    the students and the quality teachers and the quality
    instruction. When a child feels the basics--when a child feels
    safe and secure in an environment, then they are ready for
    learning. So in terms of assessments, both formative and
    summative, we are going to find that students will perform
    better if there is an environment that is conducive to
    learning.
        Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that teachers and principals are
    familiar enough with the positive aspects of this type of
    learning?
        Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Certainly not everywhere, but in my
    experience, especially at the elementary level, a lot of what
    we are doing is school-ready at the beginning, in early
    childhood years. It is getting students ready for learning and
    ready for school. And in my experience I understand the
    importance of the whole child and making sure that what we are
    providing is an experience that would promote learning.
        Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that there is any legislation
    necessary in this area?
        Ms. Hawley. I think if we look at measured progress and
    progress along the way, ongoing progress, ongoing assessments
    is really what I mean, I believe that that will address that.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I have got one more question. I
    have heard from some of the educators who regret that they have
    missed out on what they call a teachable moment and because it
    often requires risking a loss of ``instructional time,'' and
    the rigid focus, which has been talked about, of teaching to
    the test and afraid that then their scores will be lower. I
    think this all will change hopefully, but what suggestions do
    you have for broadening the scope of subject matter while
    maintaining accountability?
        Chairman Kline. Excuse me, unfortunately as much as I would
    like to hear the answer to that question, the gentlelady's time
    has expired.
        Mrs. Biggert. If I might submit that for the record.
        Chairman Kline. You may. I would love that. The trouble is
    we really want these answers, we are just out of time and got a
    lot of members who need to ask questions. So they will throw
    daggers at me later.
        Ms. Hirono, you are recognized.
        Mr. Hirono. Thank you very much. This committee has had
    many hearings over the years on appropriate changes to No Child
    Left Behind and I think that--because there is consensus around
    allowing States to use the growth model and that is also
    verified by all of you. If there was one other priority part of
    No Child Left Behind that you would want to change, what would
    that be?
        I ask that of all of you very briefly.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I
    would say that I think it is the differentiated accountability,
    the ability to differentiate between a pass-fail model that we
    currently have and capture a more nuanced approach to what is
    happening when it comes to growth and progress in our
    classrooms so that intervention and resources can be targeted
    and most effective in a meaningful way.
        Ms. Sichel. I would share with that, that one of the most
    important things that needs to be considered in the
    reauthorization is the accountability measures for growth for
    special needs children, special education children. They need
    to be measured according to their individual educational
    program, not according to some arbitrary measures that are
    placed upon either the school, the district or the State or the
    Federal level dollars.
        Mr. Hirono. Let me just clarify. I wanted to know whether
    there was something else besides allowing the use of growth
    models because there is consensus that we ought to make those
    appropriate changes. So anything besides?
        Mr. Carvalho. Chairman, I will give you three. Number one,
    I think it is time to ensure fair accountability by providing
    flexibility for special needs students, special education
    children, and English language learners, and out of formula
    adjustments by requiring identical tests for Title I and Title
    III students in nonpublic schools. I think if we are going to
    have an accountability system it ought to be for all.
        Two, I think the time has come to establish new
    qualification requirements, and I spoke about this issue of
    teacher quality, nothing more important. Establishing new
    qualification requirements for teachers and paraprofessionals
    to ensure that teachers are highly skilled in content areas as
    well as pedagogy.
        And last but not least, it is embedded in the formula,
    recognizing great variance in the distribution of immigrant
    funds in Title III based on a formula that often ignores the
    total number of recently arrived foreign born children. It is
    complex to arrive at that formula. I think a more targeted look
    at specific nuances by regions needs to be considered.
        Ms. Hawley. One issue that would be helpful, which makes it
    flawed, is the focus, the over focus on certain groups so that
    that is at the detriment of other groups that we need to focus
    on.
        Mr. Hirono. Thank you. There is recognition as 2014 comes
    around the corner that so many schools, in fact a lot of
    schools, the majority of the schools in our country will not
    meet AYP. So Secretary of Education has established a waiver
    process. Are all of your States going to apply for that waiver?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I will say New Mexico will be
    applying for the waiver. I would emphasize two or three things
    in that waiver application I think is very important. Number
    one that a high bar be maintained when it comes to
    accountability. Number two, that differentiated accountability
    and growth be absolutely prioritized. And also to my
    colleague's point about effective teaching and school leading,
    that we begin to provide flexibility and encourage States as
    they seek to honor and acknowledge effective teaching linked to
    improve student achievement.
        Mr. Carvalho. Chairman, I certainly have had conversations
    with the Commissioner about the necessity of applying for the
    waiver and we are in conversations regarding that matter. I do
    believe that Florida will be submitting a waiver.
        Mr. Hirono. What about the other two?
        Ms. Sichel. Pennsylvania is still wrangling on whether they
    will be submitting a waiver or not. So I cannot speak about the
    direction they will take. Thank you.
        Ms. Hawley. And I don't know whether Maryland is.
        Mr. Hirono. My next question on the Early Learning
    Challenge Fund, are your States applying for those grants, $500
    million in grants.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, yes. New Mexico is applying for
    that with an emphasis on the importance of reading and aligning
    our standards from pre-K through third grade.
        Mr. Hirono. Yes to all of you? Thank you.
        I only have a little bit of time. I was very excited to
    hear about the Parent Academy, because we know what the factors
    are that go into a successful school, great teachers,
    principal, leaders and parental involvement. We have been
    wrestling with how do we get parents more involved.
        I would like to get a little more information from you, Mr.
    Carvalho, as to how that works in your statement. I have run
    out of time. I will follow up with you.
        Chairman Kline. We really would like answers for the record
    here. Staff will be working with you. The Parent Academy and
    background discussion here would like more information on that.
    The gentlelady is right, her time has expired and, Mr. Hunter,
    you are recognized.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question is
    this: Doctor, you talked about your district building systems
    to collect and analyze data to improve instruction. Ms. Hawley,
    in your testimony you talk about the importance of using
    assessment data to inform instruction. The question is this:
    Are your metrics and evaluations specific enough and advanced
    enough to be able to say it is the principal's fault, it is the
    teacher's fault, it's a lazy kid, it's parents' fault? Can you
    break it down? How do you know whose fault it is, one. And two,
    is there any room for Federal involvement in analyzing your
    data for your growth model that is specific to you?
        That is my first question for all of you. My second
    question is this, since the growth model is specific to a
    subgroup or is specific to an individual child over time, I
    guess you could have relevant growth models that you can
    compare and contrast between different subgroups if they have
    the same type of background, but can you have a standardized
    growth model that the Federal Government can use or impose upon
    you to say, hey, this is the growth model you are going to use
    and it is kind of--I guess the question is this, is there such
    as thing as a one-size-fits-all growth model?
        Those are my two questions.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, no, I
    do not believe there is such thing as one-size-fits-all. And
    when it comes to kind of getting back to the core question
    today about what is the role of the Federal Government, I do
    believe it is to have high expectations and hold our States
    accountable for the resources and investment but to allow
    States, because they know best what will serve their students
    and schools and districts, to allow them to establish the next
    layer of how do you measure, et cetera. So have a high bar,
    make sure we are getting a good return on investment and
    improving programs, but don't prescribe how we get there.
        Mr. Carvalho. I agree with my colleague. So I won't repeat
    what she said. The only thing I will add is the value of the
    growth model is not to be able to compare one subgroup to
    another. The value of the growth model is to actually compare
    that group to itself, to compare the child to itself over time.
    If you don't do that, you are comparing two different groups of
    student cohorts over time, and that really in many instances
    does not make sense. This year's group of ninth graders may not
    necessarily be equivalent in terms of their preparation leaving
    middle school as last year's group of ninth graders. And when
    you do not use a growth model comparison, you are really
    comparing one group of students to a very different group of
    students.
        The beauty of a growth model, if arrived at in a very
    legitimate way, it actually allows for a clear examination,
    data driven examination, of the same cohort of children down to
    a single kid over a period of time. That is exactly what you
    want to see. That is what we do in the private sector. Once you
    hire somebody over time are they producing and meeting their
    goals? How do they produce year one up to year two. And I think
    there is a great deal of merit to actually reflecting that same
    philosophy in a public sector, in public schools.
        Ms. Sichel. I couldn't concur with my colleague more. A
    growth model that is based upon data that is multi-dimensional,
    standardized test scores, formative assessment, local driven
    assessments, common assessments, grade levels and curriculum
    that brings it down to the individual level, the class level,
    you could see growth over time, and I think that is what is
    most important. And in Pennsylvania we have a very successful
    growth model that should be the basis of what we are doing and
    it should be State driven.
        In terms of your first question was--you use the term
    looking at fault. I think here what is more important is to
    look at root causes. If we can identify what is needed in that
    classroom for those children and then go in and intervene, we
    will make a mountain of difference with children.
        Mr. Hunter. Can you do that? That was my question.
        Ms. Sichel. We can do that with a quality growth model that
    pulls all the data together, and we have to give teachers and
    principals the time to analyze their data and get in there and
    intervene and then there has got to be consistency over time.
    You don't change the focus, change the intervention. It has got
    to be clear, driven goals that go on over time for a long
    period of time.
        Mr. Hunter. I am running out of time, so let me drill down
    on the growth model really quick then. Is it even possible for
    the Federal Government to, let's say, reward success or punish
    bad behavior then State by State based on a growth model? If
    you are comparing a student to him or herself over a period of
    time, how would you compare a school to another school or a
    school district to another school district or a State to
    another State when the growth model is only specific to another
    individual or even a subgroup to itself over time?
        Ms. Sichel. With a growth model you can roll it up from the
    individual to the classroom to the grade level to the school to
    the entire district. That data is available and there are ways
    to look at it, but it is progress over time. It is not this
    year's ninth grade to last year's ninth grade. It is how this
    year's ninth grade did and did they improve more than a year in
    1 year, because every year a child is in school there should be
    at least 1 year of academic growth if not more.
        Chairman Kline. And the gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Holt.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
    for good testimony. I had to leave the room during some of the
    questioning and so let me talk about some things and ask you to
    talk about some things that might be repetitious, but even if
    they are, they are important enough. I think it warrants it.
        Science education. I know Ms. Biggert touched on that and
    talked about the resolution we have that says in any
    reauthorization or other actions, strong consideration should
    be given to science education in accountability, in any
    accountability measurements. And I am sure it has been said but
    it is worth saying, you know, science is not just another
    subject, whether we are talking about jobs that will await
    students, the technological innovation this country needs, the
    global competitiveness or whether we are talking about the fact
    that students like science unless they are told that they
    don't. And students who do well in science, especially those
    who are not planning to become scientists, tend to be students
    who do well in other subjects. And there is some evidence that
    there's some causality there, that the science actually helps
    them.
        And I think it is a route, and for many students the best
    route, for critical thinking, understanding the value of data
    and observation and experiment and so forth. The question is
    will it work. Can we, now that we are collecting, we are
    testing and collecting data on science, can it be included
    reasonably in an accountability system.
        Let me start in reverse order with Dr. Sichel here, if you
    have thoughts on that.
        Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it absolutely can
    be included in the system of accountability. There are national
    and State science standards that we believe all students should
    be graduated from our high schools with the ability to master,
    whether it is Earth science and biology and chemistry and
    physics. There are components of all of those subject areas
    that are crucial to be good citizens, career, lifelong
    learners, higher education, et cetera. So it needs to have just
    as important a place as reading, writing and mathematics does.
        Mr. Carvalho. To the extent that you assign importance to
    reading and math, and those are the two key criteria on No
    Child Left Behind, I do believe that assigning importance to
    science and writing is equally important. There is a reason why
    American children are performing comparatively better in
    reading and math than their international counterparts than
    they are in science. It is because what you don't measure sort
    of denotes you don't value it. So there is a lot to be said.
    Take it from a former physics teacher.
        Mr. Holt. I know that you were, and I was pleased to see
    that, I must say.
        Mr. Carvalho. A physics teacher and chemistry teacher both
    at the high school and college level courses. If you value it,
    you need to engage in the degree of data collection and
    measurement across the country. You are not going to be able to
    reach the 25th in the world performance in science unless you
    do so. Nobody in Finland cares about how people in Georgia are
    doing or California or Florida. They are all betting that we
    don't reach the 25th in the world ranking as a Nation because
    they keep on improving.
        So I do think that, beyond Sputnik I think we lost some
    momentum and it is time to regain it. And to a previous
    question is it possible, in part of an earlier question is it
    possible to do, of course it is possible. The Nation that put
    the first man on the Moon can absolutely do this. This is not a
    skill set problem.
        Mr. Holt. We know how to teach science. Students want to
    learn it. The question is can we make it part of the
    accountability system?
        Ms. Hawley.
        Ms. Hawley. I agree that we can. I think that we need to be
    careful on how we assess that, because often in the assessment
    you are not always assessing just the knowledge base. It comes
    back to math and reading--well, reading and writing and things
    like that. So I think that we need to approach it from the
    angle that we need to look at what exactly are we assessing.
    But absolutely.
        Mr. Holt. I was alluding to the fact that I would like to
    see it assessed in a way that particularly looks at its value
    for the nonscience students.
        Ms. Skandera.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired, I would
    love to have your answer in writing if we could, please.
        Dr. DesJarlais.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
    witnesses. The first question is going to go to Dr. Sichel and
    Ms. Skandera. We have seen graphs showing that over the past 30
    years, despite increased Federal spending, we have not seen
    great improvement in NAEP scores compared to other
    industrialized nations.
        How can the Federal Government, and feel free to be very
    candid, best ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and
    the parents have options to escape struggling schools?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier, one, I
    believe there are strategic levers for change, and one is
    asking the big question what is the best return on our
    investment. When it comes to the Federal Government I believe
    they can provide us flexibility when it comes to funding but
    hold us accountable for the investment to be made in proven
    strategies. So we have got plenty of research out there today
    that tells us things that work and things that don't. It is no
    longer to me appropriate to send down hundreds of millions of
    dollars to States today without the expectation that there is a
    link to proven strategies for improved student achievements.
    That is our expectation of the State and I believe that is also
    good taxpayer accountability as well when it comes to funding.
        So my ask and request as we look at reauthorization is that
    as monies flow through that States also would have the ability
    when we are failing in our schools to hold our schools and
    districts accountable in that failure for investing in proven
    strategies.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Dr. Sichel.
        Ms. Sichel. What I would like to add to that, because I
    think the response really addresses many of the things that
    need to be done, is it has got to be State driven with
    flexibility, but what also has to happen is transparency. Every
    school district across this country has an obligation to post,
    to have a community meeting, to have a school meeting, both
    school and district related report cards, if you would call it,
    much as Florida does or New Mexico is talking about, where we
    rate and rank how our schools are doing, where we talk about
    our successes, where we talk about our targeted needs, where we
    invite parents and community members to be a part of our
    collaborative effort to make a difference.
        Transparency is really important. You need to put out you
    are good, you are bad and you are ugly and deal with it.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, through the school
    improvement grants program the Department has mandated that
    States and school districts receiving those funds use one of
    the four turnaround models. What are the downsides to mandating
    one-size-fits-all Federal requirements for improving low
    performing schools?
        And I would just add that I represent a very rural district
    area in Tennessee's Fourth District. And as we were talking
    earlier, sometimes a good applicant pool isn't available and a
    lot of these turnaround programs eventually require replacement
    of teachers, principals and administrators.
        Ms. Hawley. Well, first of all, I would like to address the
    aspect of the turnaround model where the automatic firing of
    principals. My belief is that schools should be given--you
    know, if a school is struggling, failing, schools should be
    given the authority, autonomy, time to identify what the needs
    are so that they can address what those specific needs are. I
    think we need to look at the whole turnaround model as a whole
    and look at specifically what each school needs and make sure
    that schools are provided with the tools they need in order to
    pinpoint what their specific issues are so they can succeed and
    progress.
        Mr. DesJarlais. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
    time.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Woolsey, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear, and we
    all know this, that when a youngster enters the classroom if
    that youngster is ready to learn that it makes a big difference
    in the results of that school day, that school year, and it
    really makes a big difference in how the teacher is evaluated
    because all public schools teach all kids and they come from
    many economic backgrounds, they come from all kinds of
    situations and many home situations that make it impossible for
    them to enter the classroom feeling safe, having had a meal
    sometimes, feeling--being healthy physically or mentally and
    feeling at all secure before and after school.
        So, Mr. Carvalho, you in your written testimony talk about
    wraparound services and about bringing services to some of your
    schools. And I would like to know if any of the rest of you, I
    don't know if you call them wraparound services, I call them
    coordinated services, it is bringing the services to the school
    site that these particular communities would benefit from
    having the student and absolutely affecting the outcome and
    affecting the scoring for some teachers. So would you start
    with what you do?
        Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to
    address that. I am going to specifically focus on one of our
    elementary schools that has the highest rate of poverty, the
    most socioeconomically disadvantaged children, so it really
    does address what you are talking about.
        What is important is the first thing is a no excuses
    approach. We are not going to change their home situation, we
    are not going to change their socioeconomic level, but they are
    our children and we need to help them become ready to learn. So
    as soon as they have crossed our doorsteps we need to use a
    variety of assessment measures to find out where they are. And
    if they are not ready for the full day kindergarten program
    that we offer, then we have got to move in with a whole bunch
    of remedial sources and attempt to get them up to stuff as soon
    as possible. Included in that procedure is to engage their
    parents right away, to try to, quote, contract with their
    parents to be reading with them at home at night, to be doing
    their homework, to be making sure that meals are provided, to
    using our local community to provide medical services when
    needed, getting glasses and things like that. You have to be
    resourceful and you have to turn around and say we are going to
    get in there, roll up our sleeves and do whatever it is we can
    to make our children ready to learn.
        In the school that I am thinking about we had that kind of
    situation. And we really spent the last 2 years dealing with
    the staff. They are saying what do you need, what is going to
    happen, what is going to make a difference, but we are going to
    hold you accountable. And I am real pleased to say that over a
    2-year period one of our lowest functioning schools is now
    beginning to catch up with some of our more affluent schools
    that didn't have to do the work as difficult as this building
    did. It can be done.
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, I will offer about four of the
    examples of the wraparound services that we provide. This is
    one of those things that one plus one is more than two, the
    value of partnerships, community partnerships. So number one,
    you know, I never met a broken kid but I have met a lot of--I
    have come across a lot of broken systems and broken systems
    usually allow for broken kids to come into our system. So
    important factors in a wraparound service are those first and
    foremost dealing with school health. So we partner through our
    school Health Connect partnership with the University of Miami
    and other entities that provide early screening even before
    kids come to our schools and provide school clinics in schools
    to make sure our kids don't have to leave school and be absent
    to get critical care. We have gone actually and put an RFP on
    the street to open our own health care clinics, not only for
    our workforce, but for parents of those kids, managed privately
    but in our schools.
        Second, the value of social work as a school psychologist,
    privately funded, as well as publicly funded, provides an
    essential component of the wraparound model.
        I spoke about the value of the Parent Academy in providing
    educational services to the parent community in the three
    different pillars so that parents understand the school system
    that they send their child to and make wise choices that lead
    to demand driven reform in our public schools.
        And last but not least, you know, we are a county-wide
    system spanning over 34 different municipalities. So as
    superintendent I have negotiated about 14 different municipal
    compacts with mayors, to in a very regional almost zip code
    driven way arrive at negotiations that bring value added to the
    lives of kids and parents. So cities make actual investments in
    social issues in our schools. If a community decides to have an
    international baccalaureate guarantee for all the schools, you
    know, help me get there, let's pony up money to afford the
    professional development for the IB program for teachers. That
    is the case for the City of Miami Beach.
        So that is sort of just the flavor for the wraparound
    services we have in our school system.
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question to be
    answered in writing?
        Chairman Kline. You may, if it is a short question.
        Ms. Woolsey. It is a very short question. I would love it
    if each one of you would answer. Should the waivers be--should
    wraparound services be evaluated in part of the decision on
    whether a district or a State should receive waivers?
        Chairman Kline. We will take those for the record. Mr.
    Andrews.
        Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
    this hearing and for bringing us four excellent witnesses that
    have been very responsive and really cleared up a lot of
    issues. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
        Dr. Sichel, did I pronounce your name correctly, Sichel.
        Ms. Sichel. Sichel.
        Mr. Andrews. Dr. Sichel, I think you have accentuated a
    point the committee takes very seriously, that there has been
    more closure in the gap between minority students and white
    students in the 10 years since No Child Left Behind than there
    was in all the other years put together since 1965, and it has
    accelerated I think because of No Child Left Behind. And I
    think we need to be very careful not to lose sight of that
    fact.
        Is there anything--and you cite the remarkable progress
    that you are making with African American children in your
    district and young people. Is there anything in No Child Left
    Behind as it is presently written that impedes your ability to
    continue that progress?
        Ms. Sichel. In thinking about how to respond to that I want
    to balance the positive impact that No Child Left Behind has
    made, but I also must share with you that we have had a
    problem--we have had a process, excuse me, of data driven
    decision making since 1990. It is not new to the Abington
    School District. If you have data, you need to manage it. And
    we have been managing it for well over 20 years.
        So that needs to be the forefront of any single program
    that goes on. Now, what No Child Left Behind did for us is
    opened our eyes to the fact that the old group wasn't the only
    data that we should manage, that we should be looking at it
    from a desegregated point of view.
        Now, what gets in the way is this whole issue of one-size-
    fits-all, and let me give you an example of Abington Senior
    High School, where presently over 80 percent of our children
    are proficient in reading and mathematics, where our
    economically disadvantaged and our African American children
    are approaching 70 percent in many cases. What is happening is
    with our special education students, they are at best 40 to 50
    percent proficient, though when we started this process they
    were 20 percent proficient. So they have made remarkable
    results.
        I think we have to be flexible. We have to look at
    attainable goals.
        Mr. Andrews. Are you saying that there are resources that
    you are taking to address the demands on the special ed side
    that are degrading the quality of what you are trying to do for
    nonspecial ed kids? What is the impediment?
        I think you have accurately described a problem with the
    way we measure AYP for special ed kids. I agree with you. The
    question I asked was what is there in the law that is impeding
    you from continuing the progress that you are making.
        Ms. Sichel. Well, there is nothing in the law that is
    continuing from impeding the progress. But what will happen if
    this continues is this high school will be considered a failing
    high school when it is one of the premier high schools in
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Andrews. Let me come to this point. I know it. I live
    in Haddon Heights, New Jersey.
        Ms. Sichel. There you go, so you know.
        Mr. Andrews. And Abington has a great reputation, richly
    deserved.
        I will ask any or all of the four of you this. I think I
    heard a consensus that a growth model should replace the
    present static model. I agree with that. And Mr. Hunter asked a
    question I want to follow up on, which is the ideal growth
    model is one that drills down to the level of the individual
    student. I think we should head in that direction. But given
    that aspiration to get down to one student at a time, what
    parameters should we put around acceptable or unacceptable
    growth?
        And I realize that there should be a different answer for
    every child. But let me phrase the question this way. What do
    you think the mean or median progress should be in any given
    year for a child to have achieved success under a growth model?
    How much is enough?
        And again, I understand it is going to be a wildly
    different answer given the child's situation coming in. But
    looking at the middle, the bell curve, the 50th percentile kid,
    what do you think is enough progress under a growth model?
        Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, how about one year's growth
    during one year's time. One year's worth of teaching results in
    one year's worth of growth.
        Mr. Andrews. Anybody disagree with that?
        Ms. Sichel. No, I don't. And Pennsylvania's model is based
    on that. We have schools that are considered in the green and
    they do more than one year's growth, we have schools that are
    in the yellow which are one year's growth, exactly what it
    should be.
        Mr. Andrews. I completely agree with that proposition. I
    think that is very fair. And I think there should be standard
    deviations.
        Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Andrews. I am not the chairman.
        Ms. Skandera. And members of the committee.
        Mr. Andrews. Am I Mr. Kline?
        Mr. Miller. Apparently. You are using her time.
        Ms. Skandera. Absolutely the expectation of one year's
    worth of growth in one year's time. But I would add an
    additional component. When we begin--and you asked previously
    what is impeding us, and I mentioned multiple times the
    importance of having the freedom and flexibility to acknowledge
    effective teaching linked to improved student achievement, and
    here is why. Because we have students that are coming in so far
    behind that one year's worth of progress in one year's time is
    not going to get to closing the achievement gap in a meaningful
    way. At some point we have got to acknowledge, do you know
    what, an effective teacher, and there is plenty of research
    that tells us this, can close more than one year's progress in
    one year's time. And we need to acknowledge and reward that in
    a way that is meaningful because we must do it.
        Mr. Andrews. I thank the witnesses for excellent
    presentations today. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
    Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
    you. I am going to follow up, Ms. Skandera. You just mentioned,
    and this is really my question, about effective teaching. As I
    have sat here, and I missed some of the discussion, I haven't
    heard much discussion of teacher and principal evaluations. I
    would like to know where you see that fitting in. What is the
    Federal role in either incentivizing, in using a carrot and
    stick approach?
        Obviously all the schools that receive funding from the
    Federal Government should have a system in place. That should
    be a local decision, a statewide decision. I served on the
    school board in a major city, so I understand how important
    this is to have this buy-in at the local level. But what role
    does it play in that? What would you like to see? If there is
    language in the reauthorization, how should it motivate,
    incentivize, have accountable school systems that do this in a
    way that creates a widely acknowledged and accepted system for
    doing that which actually moves toward better achievement of
    kids, not just in and of itself?
        Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as we
    were talking about earlier, I believe the role of the Federal
    Government is to encourage States and provide the freedom for
    them to pursue these different evaluation systems that begin to
    acknowledge improved student achievement. Today the law
    emphasis is the highly qualified status, which is more linked
    to years of experience and credentialing. We need to make that
    shift and encourage that shift in our States.
        Mr. Carvalho. I would add to that that we encourage,
    incentivize, financially incentivize. And I think it is fair to
    even push as hard as the establishment of new qualification
    requirements for teachers and leaders across the board that
    result in pay consideration for teachers in fields in which
    there are shortages in high need communities, create career
    ladders. Because right now if a teacher wants to move on, move
    up, usually the only option is to leave the teaching profession
    and become an administrator. There has to be career ladder
    options for teachers that recognize great talent.
        And last, perhaps even envisioning assistance with housing,
    particularly in areas where housing costs are extremely high,
    to incentivize great teachers and reward them with housing
    assistance.
        Ms. Sichel. Mr. Chairman and the committee, I would share
    with you that school districts that are making a difference do
    have very fine-tuned teacher and principal evaluation systems
    that do have components of student accountability built in.
    Pennsylvania is very much moving in a direction to require that
    statewide. I think there has to be some ability for the school
    district and the State to negotiate what that should look like
    based upon the needs of the school and where you are at. Some
    of us are ready to do that, some of us are not ready to do
    that. But it is important that we are product-driven when it
    comes to children, we need to be product driven when it comes
    to professionals as well.
        Mrs. Davis. Is there a reasonable amount of time that one
    could ask of a system, I assume this would be at the State
    level initially, to develop that? I mean, you have seen--you
    have a strong data system.
        Ms. Sichel. Yes.
        Mrs. Davis. Performance-based data system, as I understand
    it, and that is great. But absent that, I mean, if you don't
    have that in your district and yet you want to use performance,
    but you don't want to use it entirely based on data, I think
    the industrial skills that we are talking about is also a
    measure of success for students and something that should be
    built in. How do you do that? What does that take on your--and
    where does that buy in? How do you do that?
        Mr. Carvalho. Well, Mr. Chairman, to the chair, in Florida
    there is legislation that requires that every district by a
    certain timeline develop and negotiate in many cases a
    performance system for evaluation of teachers, and in my
    position for leaders as well, that incorporates student
    outcomes as part of that measure, usually along the lines of 50
    percent. It is actually objectively driven by the State's
    accountability exam, the FCAT, the Florida Comprehensive
    Assessment Test. And 50 percent of that evaluation is relegated
    to the local districts to develop, some of which can
    incorporate objective local data as well, and we do. The same
    thing applies to the leaders, to principals and assistant
    principals. And what we have gone as far as doing this year,
    and the ratification vote took place 2 weeks ago and benefited
    from an 84 percent ratification vote on the part of the
    teachers, is that we arrived at that model 3 years earlier than
    some of the requirements that take full advantage of a race to
    the top Federal investment. We arrived at that model, we
    developed a contract and a performance evaluation system that
    incorporated objective measures, and many of those tied to
    student performance data.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. I would
    like to recognize Mr. Miller for any closing remarks.
        Mr. Miller. Well, thank you very much. And first of all,
    Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for assembling this panel. I
    think it has been a remarkable morning. And I think given their
    very backgrounds in the districts and the levels of which they
    operate in our educational system, they have really described
    where I think we would like to end up in the reauthorization of
    No Child Left Behind and where I think new teachers would like
    to go to work. Because the districts that you are
    administering, the schools that you are administering, start to
    begin to sound like the modern workplaces that their friends go
    to work in and not something that is stuck in the past, a
    workplace that is stuck in the past.
        I think it also recognizes that school districts are a very
    different place than they were 10 years ago when we did No
    Child Left Behind and they were a very different place when we
    did No Child Left Behind for whatever preceded it on ESEA.
        And what I also think I am hearing from this panel, and you
    can respond to that in writing if I didn't hear it right, but
    is the idea that the stakeholders are greater than we
    traditionally thought about in schools. It is no longer just
    the principal or the teacher, it is no longer just the school
    board.
        Dr. Sichel, you mentioned in your opening statement about a
    collaborative process that goes through with these
    stakeholders. And a number of you have mentioned the question
    of the involvement in the community, whether it is the academy
    or it is the process of meeting with the community, is getting
    a lot of attention, because I think a lot of people are asking
    the same question, what return am I getting for sending my kid
    to this school and paying my taxes to support this school.
        I think the most dramatic example of that is in California,
    and I think being adopted in some other States. I don't think
    it is the best necessarily, but I think it is indicative of how
    we have to pay attention, and that is the parent trigger. That
    there are parents who just say, wait a minute, this school has
    been failing for year after year after year after year, I
    happen to live here, I need to live here, I want a better
    school and I am not going to--you know. And that is viewed as--
    some people believe that is a warning shot in combat. No, it is
    not, it is a cry for help, and hopefully a cry to be involved
    in how that is designed.
        Ms. Woolsey raised a question about wraparound services.
    Many of the members certainly on this side of the aisle are
    very concerned about that. And when I look at districts now,
    and Mr. Carvalho, you sort of suggested this, but in my
    discussions with Oakland School District in California with
    Tony Smith, the partnerships that you have to create to keep
    this district viable and responsive to your constituents, the
    students, are numerous. And what we are working our way through
    is to try to figure out how you can look, you know, again, I
    want this money spent on the poor children. But we understand
    in many instances Title I becomes a block grant with the high
    proportion of students in that school. But the idea of being
    able to repurpose the spending of Title II money and Title III
    money, as you pointed out with the English learners, to think
    about how do we repurpose the SES money, what can schools do
    with that. It starts to give you the opportunity to really
    think about working within existing resources. And I say that
    simply because those are the economic conditions that we are in
    at this time, but I can't--you know, I am not going to
    sacrifice, I am not going to be part of the first generation to
    sacrifice our children to a recession. So we have to rethink
    about how to do this so you can use your best judgment on how
    to cobble that.
        But my sense of flexibility is based upon the idea that we
    do have these high standards and that we maintain this high
    bar, Ms. Skandera, that you kept talking about. That you know
    we went through--out of the last 10 years we have gone through
    about 8 years where people just pounded on it and said but for
    that one kid with disabilities or but for those English
    learners we would be an all-star school. I got news for you,
    they weren't before and there wasn't a lot of likelihood. There
    are some specific cases, but this has become almost urban
    legend. And while we are saying we don't want to accept one-
    size-fits-all, we don't want to give up on one-expectation-for-
    all. And you know playground English isn't good enough if you
    really want those English learners to participate in this
    democracy and this economy. And we can't lose sight of that.
        And we have struggled, and I mean struggled, because we
    know the problems presented by students with disabilities. We
    also know we see again school districts that are doing
    remarkable work with those students. We see the fastest
    acceleration in Massachusetts is among students with
    disabilities on a very rigorous exam. They are not all going to
    get there, but we can't trade that in. And I really appreciate
    you talking about maintaining that high bar and that access to
    that opportunity at that high bar, because if that is there
    then the options for us are greatly expanded in terms of really
    having you administer the outcomes.
        So thank you very, very much for your spending this time
    with us this morning.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I want to extend my
    thanks again to the panel. We have a lot of excellent panels
    here with really, really good witnesses. You are at the top of
    the list. Absolutely fantastic. The work that you are doing,
    the innovation that you are bringing, the challenges, your
    participation here today, you have been fantastic. But you can
    see how we are grappling. It is sometimes easy, and I don't
    mean to be pejorative or anything here, but it is fairly easy
    to say to us that the Federal Government should, quote,
    encourage, it is a lot harder for us to figure out what exactly
    does that encourage mean. And it is, again, fairly easy to say,
    well, you should set a high bar and then leave it to us to
    decide how to achieve that. Well, what is that high bar, how do
    we define that? Is it do we mandate a Common Core, do we
    mandate a common assessment and then it makes it high? I don't
    think so. But those are the things that we are grappling with.
        I mentioned in my opening remarks that Mr. Miller and I
    often agree on a great deal of what the problem is and we agree
    almost exactly on what part of the solution is. It doesn't mean
    that we have yet agreed on what this piece of legislation
    should look like. And so your input today and the input we are
    going to get from other panels, people who are addressing the
    problems of how do we get our kids to achieve what we know they
    can, all of the kids, to the point that Mr. Miller made
    earlier, we don't want to start leaving any children behind,
    those are problems that you are grappling with and have made
    remarkable, remarkable progress. So at the very minimum I want
    to make doggone sure that as we move forward we don't do
    anything that impedes, to the question that was asked by a
    number of my colleagues, what you are trying to do.
        So again, thank you very, very much for your great work,
    and thank you for being here today. There being no further
    business, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]

                                                 U.S. Congress,
                                    Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
    Mr. Alberto Carvalho,
    Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 912,
            Miami, FL 33132.
        Dear Mr. Carvalho:  Thank you for testifying before the Committee
    on Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
    Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
    on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
        Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
    Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
    than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
    Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
    be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
        Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
    Committee.
                Sincerely,
                                          John Kline, Chairman,
                              Committee on Education and the Workforce.
                       representative mazie hirono (d-hi)
        1. Mr. Carvalho, could you please provide me with a little more
    information about how the Parent Academy works in your state?
                                     ______

                                                 U.S. Congress,
                                    Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
    Ms. A. Blaine Hawley,
    Red Pump Elementary, 600 Red Pump Road, Bel Air, MD 21014.
        Dear Ms. Hawley: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
    Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
    Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
    on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
        Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
    Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
    than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
    Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
    be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
        Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
    Committee.
                Sincerely,
                                          John Kline, Chairman,
                              Committee on Education and the Workforce.

                        REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

        1. Effectively using assessment data is an important part of
    quality classroom instruction. Could you describe how that process
    works, what you are developing and implementing in your school to build
    this capacity among your teachers, and the impacts of such an approach
    on student learning?
        2. What types of parental engagement strategies have you
    implemented to engage parents in their children's education?
        3. Your written statement discussed the importance of locally
    developed curriculum and instruction. Why is the freedom to develop
    curriculum and instruction strategies for your students important?

                       REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

        1. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
    ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    quote ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the
    test' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
    actually best for their students.
        a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?
        b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
    are still currently struggling?
                                     ______

         Response From Ms. Hawley to Questions Submitted for the Record

        On behalf of our nation's elementary level principals, thank you
    for the opportunity to provide testimony at the hearing held on
    September 14, 2011, ``Education Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in
    Public School Accountability'' as the Committee considers legislation
    to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
        The role of the principal continues to change and become more
    complex and challenging. The current social and educational context of
    the principalship--which combines high-stakes accountability with the
    high ideals of supporting social, physical and emotional needs of
    children--demands that all principals demonstrate the vision, courage
    and skill to lead effective learning communities where all students
    reach their highest potential.
        As requested by you and your staff, please find the attached
    responses to the additional questions for the hearing record.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the principals'
    perspective and considering the view of school leaders in the
    Committee's important deliberations. If you or your staff have any
    questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
    blaine.hawley@hcps.org.

                         QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN KLINE

        1. Effectively using assessment data is an important part of
    quality classroom instruction. Could you describe how that process
    works, what you are developing and implementing in your school to build
    this capacity among your teachers, and the impacts of such an approach
    on student learning?

        Principals understand the importance of the role the teacher plays
    in the classroom with data driven instruction and ongoing assessment of
    student progress. The foremost signature of a successful school
    includes a culture of collaboration and teamwork to help every student
    succeed. At Red Pump Elementary, the tactical expectation to achieve
    collaboration includes grade level teams that participate in on-going
    in a Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) protocols. To begin
    this process, which is implemented district-wide, principals are
    trained on the protocol and provided the necessary materials to allow
    them to bring the professional development back to the teachers.
        As a school, our School Improvement Team develops an annual plan to
    keep our focus on what is crucial for the students we serve in our
    school. Additionally, one of the charges of the team is to find the
    time necessary, often in creative ways utilizing all staff members, to
    allow teachers to meet together--purposefully, to study student work
    instead of faculty meetings. This often occurs before or after the
    school day, as well as carving out other times during the day, and
    includes a cycle of analysis, knowledge of research- based practices,
    instruction, varied assessments and reflection. Together, grade level
    teams and building specialists make collaborative decisions that inform
    instructional practices. Teachers know and understand their students,
    and can better provide a differentiated program for student success.
    Decisions about individual student remediation, enrichment, and
    intervention are essential to the process. Reflection then helps bring
    teachers back together to evaluate the effectiveness of their
    instruction to ensure all students are moving forward.
        In sum, teachers work together as teams utilizing a protocol for
    examining student data, typically gathered from the use of formative
    and summative assessments to have a full picture of a student's
    learning and progress. This approach helps to ground the culture on a
    continuous cycle of effective teaching and improved student
    achievement.

        2. What types of parental engagement strategies have you
    implemented to engage parents involvement in their children's
    education?

        At Red Pump Elementary, parental engagement is the cornerstone of
    our students success. Our mission is to involve parents in every step
    of the learning process and ensure that the social and emotional needs
    associated with learning are also addressed as part of helping all
    students move forward.
        As a principal, a core standard of effective school leadership
    includes engaging the entire learning community focusing on parental
    outreach. In addition to traditional on-going communication routes to
    parents such as monthly newsletters and website updates, we host
    sessions with parents to provide information about academic subject
    areas featuring 'make and take' activities that help parents support
    their children's learning at home. The topic and focus of the
    activities is driven both by the student body, and the School
    Improvement team. As with many school communities, the PTA also plays a
    critical role in our communications and outreach efforts with parents.

        3. Your written statement discussed the importance of locally
    developed curriculum and instruction. Why is the freedom to develop
    curriculum and instruction strategies for your students important?

        While the school district general sets the curricular expectations,
    however, it is the principal's responsibility as an instructional
    leader to provide teachers with the tools and resources needed to have
    the greatest impact on learning in the classroom. Daily formal and
    informal formative assessments are an integral part of every lesson,
    and having the flexibility to tailor the curriculum for appropriate
    instruction to meet the contextual issues in our school building is
    absolutely essential. The principal works to adapt curricular
    strategies that best support teachers and ultimately improved student
    outcomes or learning gains. The reauthorization of ESEA must promote
    the greatest level of flexibility for principals and teachers to retain
    the ability to develop instructional strategies that will best meet the
    individual needs of students--to meet students where they are, and help
    them make progress along a trajectory of successful learning within
    particular content or subject matter area.

                       REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

        1. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
    ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    quote ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the
    test' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
    actually best for their students.
        a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?

        Federal policy must encourage and support state and local
    assessments that include growth models and multiple measures of student
    performance (both formative and summative) to accurately gauge social
    and emotional development, language fluency and comprehension,
    creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
        As noted, the appropriate federal role in education is to promote
    equity and provide targeted resources to assist states and local
    districts. Federal policies should ask states and local districts to
    set high expectations, but also must support state- and locally-
    developed accountability systems, curriculum and instruction to best
    meet the needs of the students in the local school context.
        When alignment between standards, curriculum and assessment is
    successfully accomplished through a mastery of pedagogy and effective
    instructional practice, it is easier to expand the ``core'' content
    areas. Giving teachers the right tools to impact the classroom and
    helping them use data to inform teaching practices on a timely, on-
    going basis can help them expand to additional areas that will give
    students are more robust, well-rounded educational experience.
        At the school building level, our teachers work with our special
    emphasis areas to incorporate content both directions--teachers
    incorporate the arts into their teaching on a regular basis, and the
    arts incorporate content area information into their classes. We have a
    school-wide character education program, and our school counselor is
    on-hand to address social and emotional development. In addition, the
    learning day can be restructured so that students understand and see
    the interconnectedness throughout all areas of the curriculum,
    including art and music.

        b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
    are still currently struggling?

        Children must be educated to meet the demands of the 21st century.
    In addition to succeeding in subject matter, the four C's--creativity,
    collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving, and
    communication--all factor into the quality of an educational
    experience. If we continue to focus solely on math and reading and
    neglect the areas we know give students the 21st century skills needed
    to succeed in today's workforce, our students will continue to fall
    behind their peers in a globally competitive economy. As a nation, we
    need to do a better job of recognizing that, while mastering math and
    reading are pivotal to a student's success, there are other skills and
    knowledge areas we must equip and arm students with in order to succeed
    in today's workforce.
        History Begins With Me!
                                     ______

                                                 U.S. Congress,
                                    Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
    Dr. Amy F. Sichel,
    Abington School District, 970 Highland Avenue, Abington, PA 19001-4535.
        Dear Dr. Sichel: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
    Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
    Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
    on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
        Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
    Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
    than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
    Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
    be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
        Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
    Committee.
                Sincerely,
                                          John Kline, Chairman,
                              Committee on Education and the Workforce.

                        REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

        1. Your school district has built systems to collect and analyze
    data to improve instruction. Could you give some specific examples of
    how this is being implemented in your district and the impact it has
    had on instruction?
        2. Could you provide specific examples of how your Opportunities to
    Learn initiative is helping you address achievement gaps among your
    students?

                       REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

        1. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
    ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    quote ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the
    test' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
    actually best for their students.
        a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?
        b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
    are still currently struggling?
                                     ______

         Response From Dr. Sichel to Questions Submitted for the Record

                        REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

        Question #1: Your school district has built systems to collect and
    analyze data to improve instruction. Could you give some specific
    examples of how this is being implemented in your district and the
    impact it has had on instruction?

        Abington School District has a long history of using multiple data
    sources to improve instruction. Over the past twenty years, principals
    have been given building goals to increase students' proficiency on
    state tests as well as in the district's curriculum-based assessments.
    With the implementation of NCLB, this has included disaggregated groups
    as well. Pennsylvania has a plan for schools that are in Warning,
    School Improvement, or Corrective Action entitled the ``Getting
    Results'' plan. In Abington we have chosen to use this framework even
    though our schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Fortunately,
    all of the Pennsylvania state data is pre-populated in the document in
    an on-line secure portal. Each Abington school, under the direction of
    the building principal, forms a Getting Results team made up of
    teachers, building administrators, and members of central
    administration. The team critically analyzes the school data by
    building, grade levels, disaggregated groups, and individual students.
    They add district and school data as well to the document so that the
    plan is not based on one single measure but rather a variety of
    validated assessments, which are more sensitive to student growth. The
    teams meet extensively to develop the plan. During the school year,
    grade level or department level teams meet to discuss new data as it
    becomes available, and, if necessary, to modify the plan. Continuous
    improvement is the goal.
        By doing the extensive planning process from August until mid
    October, the ``root causes'' for academic and social issues are
    apparent. The data drives the interventions. For example, is the issue
    due to a gap in the curriculum or is there a need for more
    differentiated instruction? Some students may need to be re-taught,
    some may need more time on task, some may need modified testing, some
    may need drill and practice, etc. Instruction needs to be customized to
    the situation. Curriculum issues are addressed with the help of the
    Central Office Curriculum staff. Instructional strategies are developed
    at the building level. The Getting Results teams in each school are
    charged under the direction of the principal with support from Central
    Office staff and the Office of the Superintendent to implement the
    school plan, monitor progress, change course, if needed, and make
    ongoing progress.

        Question #2: Could you provide specific examples of how your
    Opportunities to Learn initiative is helping you address achievement
    gaps among your students?

        The Opportunities to Learn (OTL) Initiative has helped to narrow
    the achievement gap. Over the five years of its implementation, the gap
    between the ``All'' students and students with an IEP or African
    American students has narrowed significantly. The charge for the OTL
    committee in 2005 was ``To identify, collect, and analyze appropriate
    data and to formulate cost effective strategies, programs, activities,
    and other initiatives which encourage and support broader number of
    students to achieve proficiency and success in rigorous academic
    course.'' The results to date are astonishing. On October 11, 2011 an
    update on OTL was presented to the Board of School Directors and the
    public for the purpose of sharing these terrific outcomes. Whether you
    look at grade level data or cohort data, progress continues and the
    achievement gaps are narrowed. (See page 8 to 13 of the attached
    PowerPoint). What is even more encouraging is that our growth data
    indicates that in many areas, our 8th to 11th grade students exceeded
    more than one year of growth in a year (See pages 11 and 12 in the
    PowerPoint).
        The attached PowerPoint recognizes the key initiatives, which
    included de-tracking and offering only rigorous, college preparatory,
    or honors/Advanced Placement courses with the needed supports for
    students to be successful. These are the only academic alternatives,
    for anything less does not prepare students for post secondary
    education and the world of work. School-based supports take priority
    during the school day but not at the expense of courses in the arts and
    the interests of the students. The initiatives are outlined on pages 5
    to 7 on the presentation PowerPoint.
        Members of the Abington School District staff have presented our
    OTL program at local, state, and national meetings for many districts
    want to replicate our model. We have written articles for national
    educational magazines and our work with OTL is noted on many websites.
    Just recently in 2011 the American Association of Curriculum and
    Development published a new book by A. Wade Boykin and Pedro Noguera
    entitled Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving From Research to
    Practice To Close the Achievement Gap (ASCD, 2-11). The Abington School
    District was noted in the following quote:
        ``Sadly, the number of suburban districts that are also achieving
    progress is smaller. Montgomery County, Maryland; Abington,
    Pennsylvania; and Brockton, Massachusetts stand out because they have
    made steady progress in reducing academic disparities between affluent
    White students and more disadvantaged children of color. However, these
    districts are the exceptions.''

                       REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

        Question: I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out
    on ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the test'
    means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
    actually best for their students.
        (a) What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?

        The key to broadening the scope of subject matter while maintaining
    accountability is to ensure that the curriculum is aligned to academic
    standards from both a state and national level, the common core
    curriculum. What is taught in class must be the eligible content and
    not teaching to the test. Teachers must cover this core curriculum and
    use their creative teaching styles and approaches to lead students to
    mastery and proficiency. This can be done in a creative fashion by
    using technology, such as interactive whiteboards, web-based and video-
    based real-time instruction, computer- based learning, etc. To do this
    well a school district must have a pacing guide with instructional time
    for subjects delineated to make sure that the broad curriculum is
    covered and to implement common assessments to ensure that learning is
    taking place. It is possible to create an instructional timeframe that
    allows teachers a limited amount of time for activities of their
    choice.

        (b) Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
    are still currently struggling?

        The curriculum in Abington has always been expanded to be far
    broader than just mathematics and reading. All students, including
    struggling students, need a broad-based, comprehensive, standards-based
    curriculum in all subjects including social studies, science, health,
    art, music, physical education, etc. Mathematics and reading underpin,
    support, and are reinforced by the instruction in all of these areas. A
    structured weekly schedule that allocates an appropriate number of
    minutes each day to the various subject areas coupled with required
    lesson planning, common assessments, and data-driven intervention plans
    will establish a setting in which students learn in all subject areas.

                                     ______

                                                 U.S. Congress,
                                    Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
    Ms. Hanna Skandera,
    New Mexico Public Education Department, Jerry Apodaca Education
            Building, 300 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe, NM 87501.
        Ms. Skandera: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
    Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
    Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
    on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
        Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
    Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
    than October 13, 2011 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
    Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
    be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
        Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
    Committee.
                Sincerely,
                                          John Kline, Chairman,
                              Committee on Education and the Workforce.

                        REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

        1. What is the proper federal role in ensuring states are
    intervening in a significant way in schools that are not performing?
        2. Should the federal government dictate how states construct
    growth models, or what type of growth models they use, as part of their
    state accountability systems?
        3. States and districts should provide parents effective options
    when their students' schools are performing poorly. How can the
    presence of additional choices drive improvement within the entire
    system?

                       REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

        1. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
    ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    quote ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the
    test' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
    actually best for their students.
        a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?
        b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
    are still currently struggling?
                                     ______

        Response From Ms. Skandera to Questions Submitted for the Record

        1. What is the proper federal role in ensuring states are
    intervening in a significant way in schools that are not performing?

        While the federal government should require states to intervene in
    low-performing schools, the federal government should not prescribe
    what intervention models and methods must be utilized. For example,
    under the current School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, many schools
    are required to replace the principal. However, in small rural
    communities, that is often unrealistic. Further, depending on why the
    school is low-performing, proven strategies for real change should be
    are the center of what interventions are undertaken. Prescribing
    specific methods and models does not allow states, in collaboration
    with districts, to effectively target the specific need(s) of a school.

        2. Should the federal government dictate how states construct
    growth models, or what type of growth models they use, as part of their
    state accountability system?

        In no way should the federal government prescribe the use of growth
    models for accountability, or specific models that must be used. While
    all states should be encouraged to develop accountability systems that
    measure both student proficiency and growth, the weighting of such
    components and how those components are calculated should be determined
    by the state.
        3. States and districts should provide parents with effective
    options when their students' schools are performing poorly. How can the
    presence of additional choices drive improvement within the entire
    system?

        What is key is that effective options are provided. Further, by
    holding all schools--traditional, charter, virtual, etc--to the same
    expectations, transparency and accountability will be consistent. If a
    school continues to under-perform, the state should have the ability to
    intervene and support the school in its efforts to improve. However, if
    the school continues to under-perform, the state should have the
    discretion to exert more oversight. If a charter school fails to raise
    student achievement, there needs to be a concerted effort to help that
    school improve despite their status as a charter. If a traditional
    public school improves significantly, there should be the opportunity
    for that school to receive more flexibility.

        4. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
    ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
    quote ``instructional time'' and the rigid focus on ``teaching to the
    test'' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know
    is actually best for their students.

        a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
    scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?

        An effective teacher can teach math through a science lesson, teach
    reading as part of a social studies lesson, etc. States should still be
    required to implement accountability systems that include measures of
    student proficiency and growth on core academic subjects. By providing
    states with the flexibility to design accountability systems that
    include additional content areas, it is likely that overtime, states
    will work towards implementation of including subjects such as science
    and writing.

        b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
    the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which are students
    are still currently struggling?

        Currently, New Mexico offers assessments in writing and science in
    addition to reading and math. While those subjects are nor currently
    included in the states A-F school grading initiative, that will be
    considered at a later date. But because reading and math are the
    building blocks in the early grades for future academic success, a
    command focus on those content areas must be maintained. The federal
    government should not require states to include assessments in other
    content areas--that should be a state's decision.
                                     ______

        [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]