[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EDUCATION REFORMS: ENSURING THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ACCOUNTABLE
TO PARENTS AND COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-367 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
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 David Wu, Oregon
Richard L. Hanna, New York Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Todd Rokita, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania David Loebsack, Iowa
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Martha Roby, Alabama
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Richard L. Hanna, New York Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Martha Roby, Alabama Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania Lynn C. Woolsey, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 21, 2011............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., ranking member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Gooden, Benny L., Ed.D., superintendent, Fort Smith Public
Schools, Fort Smith, AR.................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Greene, Jay P., 21st century professor of education reform,
University of Arkansas..................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Jackson, Bill, founder and CEO, GreatSchools................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Kaloi, Laura W., MPA, parent, National Center for Learning
Disabilities, Inc.......................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional Submissions:
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, questions submitted for the record:
To Mr. Jackson........................................... 50
To Ms. Kaloi............................................. 52
Chairman Hunter:
Letter, dated Sept. 28, 2011, from Linda Dawson,
superintendent, School for Integrated Academics &
Technologies (SIAT).................................... 42
Mr. Jackson, response to question submitted.................. 51
Ms. Kaloi, response to question submitted.................... 53
EDUCATION REFORMS: ENSURING THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ACCOUNTABLE
TO PARENTS AND COMMUNITIES
----------
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan D. Hunter
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hunter, Kline, Biggert, Foxx,
Goodlatte, Hanna, Roby, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Holt, Davis,
Hirono and Woolsey.
Staff Present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine
Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; Heather Couri,
Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Lindsay
Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Daniela Garcia, 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; 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; 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; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel.
Chairman Hunter. A quorum being present, the subcommittee
will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for
being here. We appreciate your time and you coming to join us.
Good morning, and welcome to today's subcommittee hearing.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
appreciate the opportunity to get your perspectives on how
States and local school districts can ensure public schools are
held accountable to parents and communities for improving
student achievement.
We can all agree a strong accountability system is vital
for effectively monitoring and improving student achievement.
However, the current system under elementary and secondary
education law is failing. Decades of growing Federal
intervention in the Nation's classrooms have done little to
boost student achievement levels and make our schools more
successful. Instead, we now face a system in which the majority
of public schools will soon be labeled as failing. It is time
to reexamine the way schools are held responsible for preparing
children for success.
The four components of the existing Federal measure of
accountability, academic standards, assessments, adequate
yearly progress and school improvement, constitute a one-size-
fits-all approach that is ineffective in gauging the
performance of schools. Not only is this Federal accountability
system entirely too rigid, it also fails to take into account
the various challenges facing unique schools. Instead of
allowing State and local leaders to develop innovative
solutions to improve area schools, the Federal system
established by No Child Left Behind requires all schools
failing to make AYP for 2 consecutive years or more to follow
the same overly prescriptive set of interventions.
It does not matter if the school narrowly missed the mark
in achieving AYP or if the school failed by a large margin, the
Federal improvement remedies are nonnegotiable. It seems
obvious that the problems facing a rural school in Alaska are
probably very different from those facing a school in inner-
city Los Angeles, which is even different from a school in San
Diego. A one-size-fits-all process developed by Washington
bureaucrats is extremely unlikely to adequately and efficiently
address the needs of both institutions.
Just last week the full committee heard from a panel of
education officials about the appropriate Federal role in
ensuring accountability. These experts agree the current system
does not offer the flexibility necessary to address
circumstances at the State and local level. As one witness
stated, ``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.''
Instead of forcing a narrow and inflexible system on States
and school districts, the Federal Government should encourage
State and local officials to create new approaches for
measuring student achievement and engaging parents and
community members in the performance of schools. Over the past
few months, members of this committee have heard countless
stories of the innovative ways communities and States are
working to more effectively monitor student progress, motivate
parents to play a more active role in their children's
education, and improve the transparency of important school
performance data. The more we can encourage this kind of
grassroots engagement in our schools, the better the result.
In my home State of California, some 1,300 schools are
persistently failing. Rather than stand by and wait for the
Federal Government to do something about it, parents have been
banding together to demand change in their local schools.
Thanks to a groundbreaking ``parent trigger'' State law
that allows a majority group of parents to spur reform in an
underperforming public school, more communities have been
inspired to take action. For example, the law empowered parents
in Compton to push to overhaul a failing public elementary
school by turning it into a charter school. Already States like
California, Texas and Connecticut have enacted parent trigger
laws, and several other States are considering similar
proposals. This is just one example of how folks on the ground
are taking matters into their own hands to ensure schools are
held accountable for student performance.
The witnesses here today have fresh ideas about improving
accountability and student achievement at the State and local
levels. They have an intrinsic knowledge of the needs of their
communities and students, and we should listen carefully to
their thoughts and ideas as we work to redefine the Federal
Government's role in school accountability. I look forward to a
productive discussion on this critical issue with our
witnesses, as well as my committee colleagues.
[The statement of Chairman Hunter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Good morning, and welcome to today's subcommittee hearing. I'd like
to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the
opportunity to get your perspectives on how states and local school
districts can ensure public schools are held accountable to parents and
communities for improving student achievement.
We can all agree a strong accountability system is vital for
effectively monitoring and improving student achievement. However, the
current system under elementary and secondary education law is failing.
Decades of growing federal intervention in the nation's classrooms have
done little to boost student achievement levels and make our schools
more successful; instead, we now face a system in which the majority of
public schools will soon be labeled as ``failing.'' It is time to
reexamine the way schools are held responsible for preparing children
for success.
The four components of the existing federal measure of
accountability--academic standards, assessments, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and school improvement--constitute a one-size-fits-all
approach that is ineffective in gauging the performance of schools. Not
only is this federal accountability system entirely too rigid, it also
fails to take into account the various challenges facing unique
schools.
Instead of allowing state and local leaders to develop innovative
solutions to improve area schools, the federal system established by No
Child Left Behind requires all schools failing to make AYP for two
consecutive years or more to follow the same overly-prescriptive set of
interventions.
It does not matter if the school narrowly missed the mark in
achieving AYP, or if the school failed by a large margin. The federal
improvement remedies are nonnegotiable. It seems obvious that the
problems facing a rural school in Alaska are probably very different
from those facing a school in inner-city Los Angeles, which is even
different from a school in San Diego. A one-size-fits-all process
developed by Washington bureaucrats is extremely unlikely to adequately
and efficiently address the needs of both institutions.
Just last week, the full committee heard from a panel of education
officials about the appropriate federal role in ensuring
accountability. These experts agreed the current system does not offer
the flexibility necessary to address circumstances at the state and
local level. As one witness stated, ``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.''
Instead of forcing a narrow and inflexible system on states and
school districts, the federal government should encourage state and
local officials to create new approaches for measuring student
achievement and engaging parents and community members in the
performance of schools. Over the past few months, members of this
committee have heard countless stories of the innovative ways
communities and states are working to more effectively monitor student
progress, motivate parents to play a more active role in their
children's education, and improve transparency of important school
performance data. The more we can encourage this kind of grassroots
engagement in our schools, the better the result.
In my home state of California, some 1,300 schools are persistently
failing. Rather than stand by and wait for the federal government to do
something about it, parents have been banding together to demand change
in their local schools.
Thanks to a ground-breaking ``parent trigger'' state law that
allows a majority group of parents to spur reform in an underperforming
public school, more communities have been inspired to take action. For
example, the law empowered parents in Compton to push to overhaul a
failing public elementary school by turning it into a charter school.
Already, states like California, Texas, and Connecticut have enacted
``parent trigger'' laws, and several other states are considering
similar proposals. This is just one example of how folks on the ground
are taking matters into their own hands to ensure schools are held
accountable for student performance.
The witnesses here today have fresh ideas about improving
accountability and student achievement at the state and local levels.
They have an intrinsic knowledge of the needs of their communities and
students, and we should listen carefully to their thoughts and ideas as
we work to redefine the federal government's role in school
accountability. I look forward to a productive discussion on this
critical issue with our witnesses, as well as my committee colleagues.
______
Chairman Hunter. I would now like to recognize the ranking
member Mr. Dale Kildee for his opening remarks.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for calling this subcommittee hearing. I was impressed by
the quality of our discussion on accountability issues in the
full committee last week and look forward to an in-depth
discussion today.
I like the use of the subcommittee. For a while
subcommittees were kind of falling into desuetude, but it is
nice that we are really reactivating them and have them play a
role in writing legislation.
I am pleased to welcome the witnesses to this hearing.
Thank you for taking time from your very busy schedules to
provide us with guidance on how we should strengthen
accountability and where that should be centered or where it
should be spread.
The No Child Left Behind Act called for the disaggregation
of data for low-income students, minority students, students
with disabilities, and English language learners and shed light
on the inequalities in our education system. Prior to the law,
achievement among these students was masked or hidden by the
system. A call for information and accountability was the right
thing to do.
Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach of current
law did not do enough to close the achievement gap. We need to
give States the support and the flexibility they need, while
still ensuring equal opportunity for diverse student groups. I
hope we can adopt an approach that rewards growth and progress
so we can better focus our resources on the districts and
schools that need help moving students forward.
What level of direction might come from the Federal
Government to create coherence in a system, maintain
accountability and increase student achievement? I
fundamentally believe that education is a local function, a
State responsibility, and a very, very important Federal
concern. And that has been early on in our country, the
development. The Michigan Constitution says the legislature
shall provide for a system of free and public schools, and then
gradually the local school districts wereformed by the State
government.Then the Federal Government, because we live in a
very mobile society, there was a role for the Federal
Government.
We are competing in a global economy also, and what will
give us the edge in that competition is an educated populace.
So I think if we can keep that balance of a local function, a
State responsibility and a Federal concern--and we may disagree
how much weight should be given each one of those. That is
basically what we would agree upon is the three components,
three elements, who have a creative interest in education.
Increasing equity in education is crucial for our Nation's
economic success, we know that. I remember a few years ago in
Flint, Michigan, we had to--in order to keep the Buick plant
open at that time, we really had to retrain workers. And much
of that retraining was reeducating. We found that there were--
some people functionally illiterate who were able to perform,
but not really in the new technology. So they had to--we gave
some Federal aid there, too, to help reeducate,--retrain these
people to operate in that new economy.
So I look forward to the testimony today to see how we can
improve accountability, see where accountability should be
focused, and the role of the various levels of government in
education. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hunter. I thank the ranking member.
[The statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this subcommittee hearing. I
was impressed by the quality of our discussion on accountability issues
in the Full Committee last week and look forward to an in-depth
discussion today.
I am pleased to welcome the witnesses to this hearing. Thank you
for taking time out of your busy schedules to provide us with guidance
on how we can improve student achievement and strengthen
accountability.
The No Child Left Behind Act called for the disaggregation of data
for low income students, minorities, students with disabilities and
English language learners and shed light on the inequalities in our
education system. Prior to the law, achievement among these students
was masked or hidden by the system. The call for information and
accountability was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the one-size fits all approach of current law did
not do enough to close the achievement gap. We need to give states the
support and flexibility they need, while still ensuring equal
opportunity for diverse student groups.
I hope we can adopt an approach that rewards growth and progress so
we can better focus our resources on the districts and schools that
need help moving students forward.
What level of direction might come from the federal government to
create coherence in the system, maintain accountability, and increase
student achievement? I fundamentally believe that education is a local
function, a state responsibility, and finally a federal concern.
Increasing equity in education is crucial for our nation's economic
success. Our future global competitiveness rests on the education of
our students and ensuring that all of our nation's students graduate
ready to compete. I look forward to the testimony today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
______
Chairman Hunter. Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all
subcommittee 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. First, Dr. Benny Gooden has served as
superintendent of the Fort Smith Public Schools in Fort Smith,
Arkansas, since 1986. He was installed as president-elect of
the American Association of School Administrators in July 2011
and will assume the presidency in 2012.
Dr. Jay P. Greene is department head and 21st Century Chair
in Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. Greene
conducts research, and writes about education policy, and is
the author of the book Education Myths.
Ms. Laura W. Kaloi is a public policy director at the
National Center for Learning Disabilities, where she has led
NCLD's advocacy program since 1999.
And Mr. Bill Jackson founded GreatSchools in 1998.
GreatSchools compiles data on school performance and
educational resources in order to inform parents as they
interact with their child's school and weigh educational
options.
Welcome to you all. Thanks for taking the time to be here.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let
me briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have 5
minutes to present your testimony. When you begin, the light in
front of you will be green. When 1 minute is left, it goes
yellow. And when you are out of time, it goes red. And I would
ask you to wrap up your remarks as best you can when the light
goes red. After everyone has testified, Members will each have
5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Gooden, Dr. Gooden, for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BENNY L. GOODEN, SUPERINTENDENT,
FORT SMITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS
Mr. Gooden. Thank you.
Chairmen Hunter and Kline, Ranking Member Kildee, members
of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address the
committee today. My name is Benny Gooden. I am superintendent
of the Fort Smith Public Schools in Fort Smith, Arkansas. I
currently serve as president-elect to the American Association
of School Administrators.
Fort Smith is an urban community located on Arkansas'
western border with Oklahoma. Fort Smith Public Schools serve
more than 14,000 students. The demographic characteristics
include a district poverty rate approaching 70 percent, almost
5,000 students with non-English home languages, and an ethnic
mix which results in no single group majority in the district
or in more than half of the district's 26 schools.
Students entering our schools bring widely differing skills
to the starting line. During the past decade we have
experienced every aspect of the NCLB protocol. As a diverse
district with large subgroups in several areas, there is no
refuge in small sample sizes to shield schools from
accountability. In fact, many of our schools will present
challenging students who will be counted in several different
subgroups to the detriment of each. We have seen schools defy
the odds and meet the targeted goals, while others face the
disappointment when one subgroup or another will result in the
dreaded label ``failing school.''
Recently we saw two of our persistently low-performing
elementary schools meet standards. Both schools are more than
90 percent free and reduced lunch qualifiers, with non-English
background students in the majority. There was no simple
formula they applied to make the required progress. Their
success was a persistent concentration on performance data, the
use of formative assessments to guide instruction, and a rich
menu of in-time professional development to build capacity in a
dedicated teaching staff. As for the teachers and principals,
this was the hard work of public education.
We are not at the finish line, and under the current
standards it is unlikely that we will ever be at the desired
level of performance in every school or every subgroup.
As Congress pursues a process of ESEA reauthorization, it
is worthwhile to note the successes that we have had. These
include articulating the imperative to serve all children;
requiring that performance data be disaggregated, and using the
power of data to focus upon relative achievement needs; and
emphasizing transparency regarding our results.
All of these successes should be continued and enhanced to
emphasize accountability and expand that accountability to
include all schools.
There are a number of issues which must be addressed in the
interest of college and career readiness. These include the
fact that many State assessment systems fail to instill
confidence that they measure performance uniformly. While few
of us would endorse a national test, moving toward a commonly
accepted set of standards and assessments is needed.
Using a single test to gauge student and school success
fails to support targeted teaching and leads to the
mischaracterization of schools. Using multiple measures to
reflect student achievement will help ensure appropriateness in
testing. Adding formative assessments will make the process of
assessing accountability both valid and reliable.
Using a pass-fail system in which unsuccessful performance
by one or a small group of students brands an entire school or
district as failing is inconsistent with what educators and the
public know about groups of students or schools.
The sanctions which are included in NCLB are inconsistent
with what we know about school improvement or about the
motivation of professionals. Closing the school or replacing
the existing principals and teachers is not appropriate or
reasonable in many rural and urban settings.
An important part of the accountability system must
continue to address high school completion. However, the
comparative methodologies must be refined and standardized to
reflect the realities of our adolescent society.
The overriding effects of poverty in many communities
simply cannot be ignored.
Locally we have quickly realized that there is no silver
bullet of school improvement; however, there is an array of
research-based practices which will yield measured progress.
Are we accountable? Of course. With a system which is
transparent and coherent, and with a system which acknowledges
the well-known fact that one size does not fit all, Congress
can build on what we know to take our schools to where we must
be. Educators want to work with you toward these goals. Thank
you.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Dr. Gooden.
[The statement of Mr. Gooden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Benny L. Gooden, Ed.D., Superintendent,
Fort Smith Public Schools, Fort Smith, AR
Chairmen Hunter and Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of
the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee
today on issues relative to the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
My name is Benny L. Gooden and I am Superintendent of the Fort
Smith Public Schools in Fort Smith Arkansas. I am speaking to you with
more than 45 years in public education in both rural and urban
settings. I am in my 37th year as a superintendent with service in both
Arkansas and Missouri. I currently serve as President-elect of the
American Association of School Administrators. Fort Smith is an urban
community located on Arkansas' western border with Oklahoma. The Fort
Smith Public Schools serve more than 14,000 students. The demographic
characteristics include a district poverty rate approaching 70% based
on free or reduced meal qualifiers, almost 5,000 students with non-
English home languages and an ethnic mix which results in no single
group majority in the District or in more than one-half of our 26
schools.
Understanding the Environment
Students entering our schools bring widely differing skills to the
starting line. Some have had a rich array of home and community
experiences and are ready and eager learners. Others come from a
background which has done little to prepare them for active academic
growth.
During the past decade we have experienced every aspect of the No
Child Left Behind protocol. As a diverse district with large subgroups
in several areas, there is no refuge in small sample sizes to shield
schools from accountability. In fact, many of our schools will present
challenging students who will be counted in several different subgroups
to the detriment of each. We have seen schools defy the odds and meet
the targeted goals, while others face the disappointment when one
subgroup or another will result in the dreaded label ``failing school''
as the newspapers often trumpet.
Recently we saw two of our persistently low performing elementary
schools meet standards--reflecting growth of proficient or advanced
students of more than 20%. Both schools are more than 90% free and
reduced lunch qualifiers with non-English background students in the
majority. There was no simple formula they applied to make the required
progress. Their success was a persistent concentration on the
performance data, the use of formative assessments to guide instruction
and a rich menu of in-time professional development to build capacity
in a dedicated teaching staff. As for the teachers and principals, this
was the hard work of education.
We are not at the finish line, and under the current standards it
is unlikely that we will ever be at the desired level of performance in
every school or subgroup. However, the morale of teachers who see
growth and know that they are appreciated for their work and recognized
for their accomplishments will ensure continued progress. You see, we
were attempting to ``leave no child behind'' long before that phrase
was attached to a piece of federal legislation.
Learning from Experience with NCLB
As Congress actively pursues the process of ESEA reauthorization,
it is worthwhile to note successes from the previous Act and our
experiences during the last decade in schools throughout America. Some
positive highlights the 2001 Act, No Child Left Behind as it is known
include:
As the name implies, articulating the imperative to serve
all children made an important statement. While most serious educators
understand this imperative, it has been positive to emphasize it as a
matter of public policy.
Requiring that performance data be disaggregated in order
to see relative success among several subgroups heightened awareness
and made educators accountable for all students. Using the power of
data to focus upon relative achievement needs validates successes while
bringing low performers into clearer focus.
Emphasizing transparency regarding results has increased
the awareness of stakeholders and the public regarding the need for
improved student performance among all groups. This aspect of
accountability will continue to engage parents and the public regarding
the challenges and successes schools experience at the local, state and
national levels.
These successes in the current legislation should be continued and
enhanced during reauthorization to further emphasize accountability
with integrity for all schools. Any federal accountability mandates
should be applicable to all schools.
There are a number of issues which must be addressed in the
reauthorization if ESEA is to move schools and students to increased
levels of college and career readiness. Necessary changes of which
educators and the public are keenly aware include:
Many state assessment systems fail to instill confidence
that they measure performance uniformly. Fifty different sets of
standards and assessments to measure them simply fail to provide the
evidence of performance which accountability requires. This disparity
was recently reported in a Wall Street Journal article which detailed
the different standards for passage relative to the only real
nationwide measurement, the NAEP. This report was based on an analysis
produced for the U.S. Department of Education. While few would endorse
a ``national test,'' moving toward a commonly accepted set of standards
and assessments should result in confidence that expectations--the
basis for accountability--will be comparable in California, Maine,
Washington and Florida--and all the states in between. This will give
parents some assurance that their schools are on par with others.
Using a single test to gauge student and school success
fails to support targeted teaching and leads to the mischaracterization
of schools. This factor undermines acceptance of an assessment and
accountability system by educators and a skeptical public. In
consideration of the range of needs students bring to our schools--from
disabilities to language minority--using a single measure to determine
success is frustrating to students and parents and demeaning to
educators who know that this is not consistent with best professional
practice. Using multiple measures to reflect student achievement will
help ensure appropriateness in testing. Adding formative assessments
will make the process of assessing for accountability valid and
reliable.
Likewise, using a ``pass/fail'' system in which
unsuccessful performance by one or a small group of students brands an
entire school or district as ``failing'' is inconsistent with what
educators and the public know about groups of students or schools. This
factor has been affirmed by a sequence of Gallup Polls in which an
increasing percentage of the poll respondents hold unfavorable views of
NCLB as a tool to improve schools. Parents and teachers find it
incredible that a scorecard for adequate yearly progress can include
more than 40 ways to fail with uniform consequences whether one or
three dozen categories of students fail to measure up. Simply stated,
it is difficult to find thoughtful educators, parents or the public who
accept a 100% performance standard with onerous penalties for failure
to reach the goal--regardless of the presence of many factors outside
the control of the educators who are held accountable. This is not
unlike assigning an aging competitor like me to run the 1,000 meter run
with a prescribed time standard--and to use the same time standard for
another competitor like my daughter who is half my age and who
regularly competes in triathlons.
The sanctions which were included in NCLB and which are
proposed for continuation under the Department of Education blueprint
are inconsistent with what we know about school improvement or the
motivation of professionals. Closing the school or replacing the
existing principals and teachers because a group of students has failed
to reach the standard is not appropriate or reasonable in many rural
and urban settings. As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once
noted in another context, ``As you know, you go to war with the army
you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later
time.'' Schools will improve student performance by supporting those
teachers and principals who work there every day and by giving them the
resources and building their capacity to address the student needs that
emerge. We are unlikely to reach our goals by demeaning the very
educators we count on to get the results.
Improving ESEA for America's Schools
Congress can take several direct steps to ensure high standards and
accountability for reaching them while building on best practices and
using strategies supported by research.
Assessment Strategies
We must use multiple measures which are appropriate for the content
and students being assessed. Assessing students with serious
disabilities using the same instrument used on the highest academic
performers is highly problematic and fails to address individual needs.
Provisions for portfolio assessments have been so restrictive that they
do not sufficiently address this issue. Likewise requiring students
with little or no facility in English to sit for a test they cannot
comprehend is counterproductive for all concerned. Great teachers
agonize in disbelief at a federally mandated policy which requires
practices that they know are not only contrary to best professional
practice, but which defy common sense. In this context, test design and
implementation should be the purview of the states and must include
adaptive assessments which are designed for the context in which they
are used. This imperative mandates the use of a variety of assessment
tools which are a fit for a variety of situations.
Formative assessments should be used to guide instruction and to
reflect student growth over time. The current ``high stakes'' test
administered annually for accountability is little more than an
educational autopsy. Such tests are of little value in guiding
instructional improvement. Similarly, using only the proficient or
advanced performers as contributors to adequate yearly progress
determinations diminishes the significance of assessments for those
whose progress has not reached the proficient standard. These students
and their teachers need the motivation to show significant growth among
even the lowest performers.
In consideration of this factor, the Fort Smith Public Schools have
targeted students scoring below basic on the state Benchmark exam for
special attention. This targeted instruction by our best staff has
resulted in a dramatic reduction of total students in this category. We
are now at the point where we believe that a ``zero out'' goal is
within our grasp. For these persistently challenged students, raising
their performance to higher levels literally means the difference
between a bleak future and one which presents hope and the potential
for success.
Accountability for Results
Success for all schools and students must be an attainable goal.
The 100% goal is noble, but it is unlikely to be achieved if rigor in
teaching and testing is to be emphasized. Measuring growth is critical
and must be an integral part of any accountability system. A fair and
balanced system includes absolute levels of attainment with credit for
growth over time. A focus on individual students and their longitudinal
progress must be a component in any improved accountability system.
Simply looking at different cohorts and noting their relative
performance reveals very little about real progress.
The overriding effects of poverty in many communities cannot be
ignored. The 2011 Kids Count data released by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation documents the steady increase in the percentage of students
in America living in poverty. This factor is especially prevalent in
the South. A challenging economy has only exacerbated this situation.
By failing to acknowledge the pervasive impact which intractable
situational and generational poverty has on families and the children
in our schools, we are attempting to do the educational equivalent of
treating an epidemic of a contagious disease by raising the
requirements for health care workers and punishing them as more cases
appear.
An important part of the accountability system must continue to
address high school completion. The Diplomas Count project continues to
document the abysmal graduation rates reflected in school districts
large and small across America. While the Fort Smith Schools have been
recognized by the Diplomas Count report as ``beating the odds'' and
``overachieving'' and while we lead large districts in our state, our
performance is not enough. Nonetheless, when the completion methodology
is finalized, it is essential that factors outside the control of
schools be considered. Just as a four-year college degree is a faint
memory for which parents dream in today's higher education market, so a
rigid four-year high school cohort measurement is inadequate.
Consideration must also be given to career and technical students whose
apprenticeship or modified instructional programs vary from the
traditional norm. The entire methodology must be refined and
standardized to reflect the realities of our adolescent society.
High school improvement is a heavy lift. At the core of improving
high schools must be enrolling more students into more challenging
classes while increasing rigor in all classes. Fort Smith's two high
schools have emphasized Advanced Placement courses. While our more
affluent high school has been a leader in AP enrollment and performance
for many years, enrollment was significantly lower at our more diverse
campus as many students believed that AP classes were for others, but
not for them. Through participation in the AAIMS initiative, AP
enrollment has more than doubled and the district-wide test performance
has continued to be strong. Rigor pays dividends for students as we
raise expectations. The data continue to support more rigor and can be
used to guide students to college and career readiness.
The sanctions and models for turnaround mandated for schools which
fail to reach the arbitrary adequate yearly progress goal are quite
narrow and present no real choices in some communities. Washington does
not know best in addressing low performance. The state education
agencies can and must hold local schools accountable for improving
student academic progress in a quest for rigorous college and career
readiness for every student. However, what is best for a school in
rural Arkansas may be vastly different from the remedy for a school in
urban Chicago. Selecting remedies is not something easily done from
Washington--and sometimes, not even from Little Rock. Technical
assistance to support local efforts is definitely appropriate, but a
narrow menu of mandated actions has not been found to be successful.
Some of our most challenging campuses with more than 90% poverty,
ethnic diversity, more than 50% limited English students, and a highly
mobile population demonstrate growth--if not achieving adequate yearly
progress. Various campuses find successful strategies which may vary--
just as the neighborhood culture varies. The common ingredients which
yield results are a committed faculty and school leadership with
support from skilled professionals appropriate to the school's needs.
Transforming these campuses from advanced school improvement status to
achieving is a source of justifiable satisfaction to those educators
who chose to work in a challenging environment.
The only way schools in Fort Smith, in New York or across America
will be able to compete with those international counterparts against
whom we are often measured is through a strong corps of trained
teachers and school leaders. When Marc Tucker recently released a paper
for the National Center on Education and the Economy comparing school
reform initiatives currently in vogue in the United States with
practices in the highest-performing countries, the message was
compelling. All our emphasis on testing, sanctions, choice, competition
and other popular trends appears to be absent in some of the highest
achieving countries. Despite the many demographic and systemic
differences between our nations, our successful counterparts recruit
teachers from among the most able students in our high schools and
colleges, compensate them well and give them the respect and support
afforded to the most elite professionals in the various nations. We
might want to consider some of these examples as long-term strategies
to help our system of public education to improve its performance.
Locally, we have quickly realized that there is no ``silver
bullet'' of school improvement. However, there is an array of research-
based practices which will yield measured progress. At the top of the
list must be a culture of instructional leadership by school
principals. Building the knowledge base and helping principals to be
true instructional experts is critical. In a related way, the placement
of highly proficient instructional facilitators in struggling schools
makes it possible to provide in-time professional development
opportunities for teachers which are directly related to the student
needs of the day. Collaboration opportunities for teachers and the
collegial focus on school-wide instruction are also vital for
improvement to occur. Specific professional development to address
needs at a particular campus is a must. Many English language learners
(ELL) requires training for all staff who will serve these students.
The Fort Smith Schools made a significant investment of available funds
in the area of professional development to build capacity in staff who
serve the ELL population.
Our Imperative
In summary, public education is the vehicle which can determine the
difference between bright futures and lifetimes of failure and
dependency. Are we accountable? Of course! With a system which is
transparent and coherent, and with a system which acknowledges the
well-known fact that one size does not fit all, Congress can build on
what we know to take our schools where we must be. The system leaders,
building leaders and teachers in schools throughout America eagerly
anticipate a positive reauthorization.
references
Bandeira de Mello, V. (2011), Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto
the NAEP Scales: Variation and Change in State Standards for
Reading and Mathematics, 2005--2009 (NCES 2011-458). National
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Bushaw, William J., & Lopez, Shane J. (2010). A Time for Change: The
42nd Annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.
Kappan, V92 N1, 8-26.
Edweek Maps, (2011). Education Week: Diplomas Count, www.edweek.org/go/
gradmap.
``Identifying Overachievers,'' (2009). Education Week: Diplomas Count,
V28 N34, 30.
``State Profiles of Child Well-Being,'' (2011). 2011 Kids Count(r) Data
Book, 58.
Tucker, Marc S. (2011). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An
American Agenda for Education Reform. National Center on
Education and the Economy.
``21 Urban Districts Beat the Odds,'' (2010). Education Week: Diplomas
Count, V29 N34, 26.
______
Chairman Hunter. I would now like to recognize Dr. Greene
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAY P. GREENE, 21ST CENTURY PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
REFORM, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Greene. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for having me here to testify today. My name is Jay P.
Greene, and I am the 21st Century Professor of Education Reform
at the University of Arkansas. I am here today to talk with you
about how we can best achieve high standards and improve
outcomes in education.
There is a large effort under way to change educational
standards, curriculum and assessments by centralizing the
process. This effort is based on the belief that we will get
more rigorous and better student outcomes if standards,
curriculum and assessments are determined, or at least
coordinated, at the national level. It began with the use of
Race to the Top to push States to adopt the Common Core
Standards, but will also require national curriculum and
assessments to be fully implemented.
I believe the centralized approach is mistaken. The best
way to produce high academic standards and better student
learning is by decentralizing the process of determining
standards, curriculum and assessments. When we have choice and
competition among different sets of standards, curriculum and
assessments, they tend to improve in quality to better suit
student needs and result in better outcomes.
One thing that should be understood with respect to
nationalized approaches is that there is no evidence that
countries that have nationalized systems get better results.
Advocates for nationalization will point to other countries,
such as Singapore, with higher achievement that also have a
nationalized system as proof that we should do the same. But
they fail to acknowledge that many countries that do worse than
the United States on international tests also have nationalized
systems. Conversely, many of the countries that do better than
the United States, such as Canada, Australia and Belgium, have
decentralized systems. The research shows little or no
relationship between nationalized approaches and student
achievement.
If that is true, what is the harm in pursuing a
nationalized approach? First, nationalized approaches lack a
mechanism for continual improvement. Given how difficult it is
to agree upon them once we set national standards, curriculum
and assessments, they are nearly impossible to change. If we
discover a mistake or wish to try a new and possibly better
approach, we can't switch. We are stuck with whatever national
choices we make for a very long time. And if we make a mistake,
we will impose it on the entire country.
Second, to the extent that there will be change in the
nationalized system, it will be directed by the most powerful
organized interests in education and probably not by reformers.
So reformers--in general it is unwise to build a national
church if you are a minority religion. And reformers should
recognize that they are the political minority, and so it is a
bad idea to build a nationalized system that the unions and
other forces of the status quo will likely control over time.
Third, we are a large and diverse country. Teaching
everyone the same material at the same time and in the same way
may work in small, homogenous countries like Finland, but it
cannot work in the United States. There is no single best way
that would be appropriate for all students in all
circumstances.
I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one
place than it is in another, but the way in which we best
approach math, the age and sequence in which we introduce
material, may vary significantly. As a concrete example,
California currently introduces algebra in the eighth grade,
but the Common Core calls for this to be done in the ninth
grade. We don't really know the best way for all students, and
it is dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose
it on everyone.
I understand that there is great frustration with the weak
standards, low cut-scores and abysmal achievements in many
States, but this problem was not caused by a lack of
centralization and cannot be fixed by nationalizing key aspects
of education. Instead, the solution to weak State results is to
decentralize further so that we increase choice and competition
in education. If school systems have to earn students and the
revenue they generate, they will gravitate toward more
effective standards, curriculum and assessments.
This decentralized system I am describing of choice and
competition producing better outcomes is not purely
theoretical. It actually existed in the United States and
helped build an education system that was the envy of the
world. Remember that public education was not created by the
order of the national government. Local communities built their
own schools, set their own standards, devised their own
curriculum and evaluated their own efforts. At one time there
were nearly 100,000 local school districts operating almost
entirely autonomously.
In our highly mobile society, people had choices about
where to live, and communities had to compete for residents and
tax base by offering an education system that people would
want. Standards were raised, and outcomes improved through this
decentralized system of choice and competition among local
school districts.
The progress we were making in education, however, stalled
when we started significantly centralizing education and
reducing the extent of choice and competition among districts.
The policies, practices and funding of schools have
increasingly shifted to the State and national governments, and
greater uniformity has been imposed by unionization. The enemy
of high standards and improving outcomes is centralization.
Fortunately, the nationalization effort is still in its
early stages, and there is time for Congress to exercise its
authority and preserve a decentralized system for setting
standards, curriculum and assessments, which is a far more
effective way of producing progress in student learning.
Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may
have.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Doctor.
[The statement of Mr. Greene follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay P. Greene, 21st Century Professor of
Education Reform, University of Arkansas
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for having me
here to testify today. My name is Jay P. Greene and I am the 21st
Century Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. I
am also a fellow at the George W. Bush Institute located at Southern
Methodist University.
I am here today to talk with you about how we can best achieve high
standards and improve outcomes in education. There is a large effort
underway to change educational standards, curriculum, and assessments
by centralizing the process. This effort is based on the belief that we
will get more rigorous standards and better student outcomes if
standards, curriculum, and assessments are determined, or at least
coordinated, at the national level. It began with the use of Race to
the Top to push states to adopt the Common Core standards, but will
also require national curriculum and assessments to be fully
implemented.
I believe this centralized approach is mistaken. The best way to
produce high academic standards and better student learning is by
decentralizing the process of determining standards, curriculum, and
assessments. When we have choice and competition among different sets
of standards, curricula, and assessments, they tend to improve in
quality to better suit student needs and result in better outcomes.
One thing that should be understood with respect to nationalized
approaches is that there is no evidence that countries that have
nationalized systems get better results. Advocates for nationalization
will point to other countries, such as Singapore, with higher
achievement that also have a nationalized system as proof that we
should do the same. But they fail to acknowledge that many countries
that do worse than the United States on international tests also have
nationalized systems. Conversely, many of the countries that do better
than the United States, such as Canada, Australia, and Belgium, have
decentralized systems. The research shows little or no relationship
between nationalized approaches and student achievement.
In addition, there is no evidence that the Common Core standards
are rigorous or will help produce better results. The only evidence in
support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or
indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts
are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core
standards. Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of Common
Core believe that Common Core is good. This is not research; this is
just advocates of Common Core re-stating their support. The few
independent evaluations of Common Core that exist suggest that its
standards are mediocre and represent little change from what most
states already have.
If that's true, what's the harm in pursuing a nationalized
approach? First, nationalized approaches lack a mechanism for continual
improvement. Given how difficult it is to agree upon them, once we set
national standards, curriculum, and assessments, they are nearly
impossible to change. If we discover a mistake or wish to try a new and
possibly better approach, we can't switch. We are stuck with whatever
national choices we make for a very long time. And if we make a mistake
we will impose it on the entire country.
Second, to the extent that there will be change in a nationalized
system of standards, curriculum, and assessments, it will be directed
by the most powerful organized interests in education, and probably not
by reformers. Making standards more rigorous and setting cut scores on
assessments higher would show the education system in a more negative
light, so teachers unions and other organized interests in education
may attempt to steer the nationalized system in a less rigorous
direction. In general, it is unwise to build a national church if you
are a minority religion. Reformers should recognize that they are the
political minority and should avoid building a nationalized system that
the unions and other forces of the status quo will likely control.
Third, we are a large and diverse country. Teaching everyone the
same material at the same time and in the same way may work in small
homogenous countries, like Finland, but it cannot work in the United
States. There is no single best way that would be appropriate for all
students in all circumstances.
I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one place than
it is in another, but the way in which we can best approach math, the
age and sequence in which we introduce material, may vary
significantly. As a concrete example, California currently introduces
algebra in 8th grade but Common Core calls for this to be done in 9th
grade. We don't really know the best way for all students and it is
dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose it on
everyone.
I understand that there is great frustration with the weak
standards, low cut-scores, and abysmal achievement in many states. But
this problem was not caused by a lack of centralization and cannot be
fixed by nationalizing standards, curriculum, and assessments. Instead,
the solution to weak state results is to decentralize further so that
we increase choice and competition in education. If school systems have
to earn students and the revenue they generate, they will gravitate
toward more effective standards, curriculum, and assessments.
This decentralized system I am describing of choice and competition
producing improvement is not purely theoretical. It actually existed in
the United States and helped build an education system that was the
envy of the world. Remember that public education was not created by
the order of the national government. Local communities built their own
schools, set their own standards, devised their own curriculum, and
evaluated their own efforts. At one time there were nearly 100,000
local school districts operating almost entirely autonomously.
When people became convinced that students needed a secondary
education, these districts started consolidating to be large enough to
build high schools. No one ordered them to consolidate and build high
schools. They did it because they recognized that people would be
reluctant to move into their community unless it offered a secondary
education. That is, in our highly mobile society people had choices
about where to live and communities had to compete for residents and
tax base by offering an education system that people would want.
Standards were raised and outcomes improved through this decentralized
system of choice and competition among local school districts.
The progress we were making in education, however, stalled when we
started significantly centralizing education and reducing the extent of
choice and competition among districts. The policies, practices, and
funding of schools has increasingly shifted to the state and national
governments and greater uniformity has been imposed by unionization.
The enemy of high standards and improving outcomes is centralization.
We can see this same process of setting better standards through a
decentralized system in other domains. For example, in the video
cassette industry there were competing standards: Betamax and VHS. If
we had simply imposed a national standard through the government or by
a committee of experts, we almost certainly would have ended up with
Betamax. Sony, the producer of Betamax, was larger and more politically
powerful than the consortium backing VHS. And experts were enamored
with the superior picture quality offered by Betamax. But instead we
had a decentralized system of determining the standard, where consumers
could choose which standard they preferred rather than have it imposed
by the government or a committee of experts. As it turns out, consumers
overwhelmingly preferred VHS. It was cheaper and the tapes could play
longer videos. Consumers were willing to trade-off a reduction in
picture quality for the ability to watch an entire movie without having
to get up in the middle to change tapes. Centralized standards-setters
can't know the best way and impose it on everyone. It takes a
decentralized system of choice and competition for us to learn about
the better standard and gravitate toward it.
In addition, if Betamax had been imposed by a centralized
authority, we almost certainly would have been stuck with that
technology for a long time. We would have stifled the innovation that
produced DVDs and now Blu-Ray. Choice and competition not only allows
us to figure out the best standard for today, but leave open the
possibility that new standards will be introduced that are even better
and that consumers may prefer those in the future.
There is an unfortunate tendency in public policy to stifle this
decentralized process of setting standards. Policymakers are often
tempted to identify the best approach, often through a panel of
experts, and then impose that approach on everyone. After all, if
something is the best, why would we want to allow people to do
something else? This is a temptation I urge you to resist in education.
Even the best-intentioned experts have a hard time recognizing what the
best approach would be. And once it is set by experts, there is no
mechanism like the one we get from choice and competition for improving
upon that whatever ``best'' standards, curriculum, and assessments are
identified. Essentially, what we are talking about is the danger of
central planning. It doesn't work in running the economy any more than
it would in running our education system.
Fortunately, the nationalization effort is still in its early
stages and there is time for Congress to exercise its authority and
preserve a decentralized system for setting standards, curriculum, and
assessments. I should emphasize that the movement toward a nationalized
system has not been voluntary on the part of the states. It was coerced
by the U.S. Department of Education as a condition for receiving Race
to the Top funds and I fear that coercion may be continued with the
offer of selective waivers from No Child Left Behind requirements.
I hope that you will help restore our decentralized system of
setting standards, curriculum, and assessments, which is a far more
effective ways of producing progress in student learning.
______
Chairman Hunter. I would like to now recognize Ms. Kaloi
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LAURA W. KALOI, PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES
Ms. Kaloi. Chairmen Hunter and Kline, Ranking Member Kildee
and members of the committee, I am Laura Kaloi, public policy
director for the National Center for Learning Disabilities.
NCLD represents nearly half of the students with disabilities
in public school. I am also here in my most important role as a
mom. I have three children attending Virginia public schools,
including Ethan, my 11-year-old son, who has dyslexia and
dysgraphia.
Fortunately, my husband and I have the education and
capability to ensure Ethan gets what he needs. Although Ethan's
principal had told us last year that we should just accept Cs
might be good enough from someone like our son, I am happy to
report that Ethan left the fourth grade with As and Bs and
scored proficient and above proficient on the Virginia State
assessments last June.
Today I would like to share the parent perspective about
the status of people with LD, how subgroup accountability shows
us that struggling students comprise more than just students
with disabilities, how NCLB has helped schools improve outcomes
for students with disabilities, and what Congress can do to
fully support the progress of students with disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA,
contains no provisions setting high academic expectations and
holding schools accountable for student progress. It is NCLB
that has provided the long-needed accountability and emphasis
on doing what works to improve results.
Prior to NCLB, most parents of children with disabilities
had no idea where their child's reading or math performance
stood as compared to their child's peers. Most students with
disabilities were not included in State assessments and were
not taught to State standards, and there were pervasive low
expectations for students with disabilities. Today there are
5.9 million students eligible for special education in public
school. The vast majority, nearly 85 percent, are classified
with disabilities that by definition do not include any type of
cognitive or intellectual impairment. In fact, 42 percent are
students with learning disabilities. I would like to say this
again, nearly 85 percent by definition and classification by
our schools do not have cognitive or intellectual impairments.
2.5 million students receive services under both Title I
and IDEA. Many are indistinguishable from students who do not
receive special education. And, in fact, most spend more than
80 percent of their school day in the general classroom taught
by general education teachers.
As reported in my organization's State of Learning
Disabilities report, people living in poverty are most likely
to have LD. Students with LD continue to lag behind their peers
in reading and math. And 64 percent of students with LD
graduated with a regular diploma compared to 52 percent in
1999.
As you can see, we have made great strides, yet there are
still families waiting for their child to be college and career
ready, and achieving a regular high school diploma is the
golden ticket. I want this for my son, and schools should
provide this basic opportunity to every child.
Some people support the myth that it is only students with
disabilities who are underperforming, and that they are the
reasons schools can't make AYP, so they have proposed separate
assessments and accountability mechanisms and promote that by
taking students with disabilities out, data will automatically
right itself. However, this just isn't true. There are millions
of Black, Latino and poor students consistently underperforming
in reading and math, and we aren't proposing to carve those
students out. As one assistant superintendent stated in our
Challenging Change report, we had an instruction problem, not a
special education problem.
Longitudinal research in Alabama, Hawaii, South Dakota and
Wisconsin show that certain struggling students without
disabilities are consistently not proficient. These students
are male, minority and poor. We must focus on the instructional
challenges for all of these students, and we must face the
questions about how students with disabilities fit into a State
accountability system.
NCLB had a positive impact for students with disabilities
primarily because schools and districts raised expectations for
students with disabilities, promoted sustainable collaboration
between general education and special education teachers,
supported inclusive practices, assessed students with
disabilities on the general assessment, and shared data with
parents.
In revising the law, please build on the most valuable
aspects of current law, to maintain a focus on subgroup
accountability. Transparency is not enough. Include all schools
in any accountability system. Identify struggling learners
early through response to intervention. Allow growth models
that include all students. Promote universal designs for
learning. And support more training for general and special
education teachers.
Yours is a difficult job. The Federal role in education is
complicated. However, for parents the answer is simple. If
taxes are spent to help struggling students, you must ensure
that all students count in the very same way and are held to
the very same high expectations.
My friends with children with disabilities, we share one
common goal. Our child's academic progress should matter as
much as any other child in the school building. Ethan asked me
last week, ``How much education do I need to be a writer, a
bachelor's degree, a masters degree?'' Before I could answer,
he answered himself by stating, ``I think more education is
better, don't you?''
I hope we can embrace the goal of every child being college
and career ready and focus our educational resources on this
important endeavor together. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Ms. Kaloi.
[The statement of Ms. Kaloi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura W. Kaloi, MPA, Parent,
National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc.
Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Kildee and Members of the
Committee, I'm Laura Kaloi, public policy director for the National
Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) where I've advocated for
individuals with learning disabilities (LD) for over twelve years. NCLD
represents nearly half of the students identified with disabilities in
our nation's public schools. I'm also here in my most important role as
a Mom. I have three children attending public school in Virginia,
including Ethan, my eleven year old son who has dyslexia and
dysgraphia.
Dyslexia and dysgraphia are language based learning disabilities
which for Ethan, cause difficulty with short-term and working memory
and this primarily impacts his ability to retrieve words from memory,
remember letters and numbers in a sequence, memorize letters and
numbers, write longhand and spell. Fortunately, I am a parent who,
along with Ethan's Dad--who also has dyslexia--has the education,
knowledge and capability to ensure he gets what he needs. He's also a
very hard working boy. While Ethan's principal had told us that we
should be happy with Cs for someone like our son I'm happy to report
that Ethan left the 4th grade last June with As and Bs and he scored
proficient and above proficient on the VA standards of learning tests
in all subjects.
Today, I'm here to share the parent perspective about:
the status of people with LD and how NCLB has promoted an
increased focus and use of data in making instructional decisions for
students with disabilities
how subgroup accountability and data reporting
requirements have highlighted that struggling students comprise more
than just students with disabilities in today's schools
the effective practices that schools have embraced to
ensure meaningful change for all students, especially students with
disabilities
as ESEA reauthorization proceeds, what Congress can do to
ensure that the progress of students with disabilities moves forward as
they are educated alongside their peers.
While the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
mandates the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
for students with disabilities, it contains no provisions setting high
expectations and holding schools accountable for their progress. In
fact, in its latest reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, Congress reminded
us that ``the implementation of the [IDEA] Act has been impeded by low
expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research
on proven methods of teaching and learning'' (20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1400(c)(4). It is NCLB that has provided the long-needed
requirement of school accountability and emphasis on doing what works
to improve results for students with disabilities.
Prior to the passage of NCLB, most parents of children with
disabilities had no idea where their child's performance stood in
reading and math as compared to their child's peers. Most states had
ignored a 1997 requirement in IDEA law ``to develop guidelines for the
participation of children in alternate assessments for those children
who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessments...''
which was intended for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. Therefore, most students with disabilities were not
included in state assessment systems. Unfortunately, once NCLB was
passed, pervasive low expectations for students with disabilities led
some schools and districts to react negatively to the new requirements
of NCLB--the thought that students with disabilities should be expected
to achieve meaningful academic progress seemed completely unattainable
by some school professionals. Mainly, this was due to the fact that
until NCLB's passage in 2002, schools had not provided curriculum to
these students that focused on state standards. It was the rare parent
that had been able to ensure that their student with a learning
disability was included in the core work and making progress with the
additional support that special education is intended to provide.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 5.9
million students eligible for special education under the nation's
federal special education law--the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)--in public school today. The vast majority--nearly
85%--are classified with disabilities that by definition do not include
any type of cognitive or intellectual impairment. In fact, 42% are
students with LD.
There are 2.5 million students receiving services under both Title
I and IDEA and many are indistinguishable from students who do not
receive special education services. In fact, most students with
disabilities spend the vast majority of their school day in general
education classrooms--taught by general education teachers--using the
same instructional materials as all other students in the class. And
their parents have the same aspirations for their success in life.
As reported in NCLD's State of Learning Disabilities report:
people living in poverty are most likely to have LD
Students with LD continue to lag behind their peers in
reading and math
55% of adults with LD are employed compared to 76% of
general population
64% of students with LD graduated with a regular diploma
compared to 52% in 1999 and 22% dropped out compared to 40%.
These statistics demonstrate both the good and the bad news
regarding the status of people with LD. We've made good strides yet
there are still thousands families waiting to see their child
experience the reality of being college and career ready. Parents know
that achieving graduation with a high school diploma is the golden
ticket to moving on to college or meaningful career training. I want
this for my son and I want you to send a strong message to states that
we should expect every child to have this opportunity.
As we all know, there are those that continue to stand by the myth
that it is only students with disabilities who are struggling and
underperforming and that students with disabilities are the reason
schools can't make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). So, they purport
that by creating a separate assessment system, a separate reporting
system and accountability mechanism(s) that the data would just
automatically right itself and abracadabra, we're good--every other
student is on target. However, this just isn't true. As reported this
year by the U.S. Department of Education:
only 24% of schools miss AYP for just one subgroup, and of
those, just 14% miss ONLY for the students with disabilities subgroup.
Only 30% of schools are held accountable for the students
with disabilities subgroup in AYP due to `N' size.
Since NCLB's passage, much research has been conducted and data
examined to see what is really happening in schools and districts.
Through the lens of disaggregated data and reporting on subgroups, we
know there are millions of struggling students in schools. Such
students are Black, Latino and poor and they consistently underperform
in reading and math--and we aren't proposing policy fixes to carve
those students out because of their learning gaps. As one assistant
superintendent stated in our report Challenging Change, `we had an
instructional problem, not a special education problem.' (Cortiella,
C., Burnette, J. (2008). Challenging Change: How Schools and Districts
are Improving the Performance of Special Education Students. New York,
NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.)
Both best practice and current research show us that when
principals use their data to understand how students are performing and
provide teachers with the training and support they need, the
difference this can make in the progress of any struggling student is
monumental.
As Abigail, an 8th grader with LD said,''Finally in third grade I
found a teacher that changed my life. She never gave up, even when I
gave up on myself. She taught me nothing is impossible even if you have
a disability.''
My son Ethan's 4th grade teacher made this kind of difference. She
connected with his interest in fantasy novels, encouraged him to tell
her what was going on in his book and patiently taught him to write
about it with complete and what we call `juicy sentences.' She made
sure he used a word processor so he could type it instead of write it
and taught him that editing is just part of every good student's life.
Because of this support at school and at home, he went from a low C to
a solid A in writing. This is a different kid than the one who hated
school in 3rd grade.
Furthermore, longitudinal research that examined student-level
demographic data in four states (AL, HI, SD, WI) showed that certain
struggling students--those without disabilities--often called
persistently low performing students consistently are not proficient
year in and year out on state assessments. Findings show these
students--in all 4 states are male, minority and poor. (Lazarus, S.,
Wu, Y-C., Altman, J. & Thurlow, M. 2010). Additionally, an examination
of 4th grade math in one state shows us that the lowest performers are
not solely students receiving special education.
As you can see, and it's no surprise to parents--students with
disabilities are even performing above the range--which is where we
need to set our sites for the majority of students with disabilities.
As author of How It's Being Done, Urgent Lessons from Unexpected
Schools, Karen Chenoweth stated:
``I can't even remember all the times I have heard the sentiment,
``If they could meet standards they wouldn't have a disability,'' a
statement that betrays both a profound misunderstanding of disabilities
and the role special education services is supposed to play, which is
helping to shape and scaffold instruction in order to provide access to
the general curriculum.''
If we are to believe that is only students with disabilities who
are struggling and underperforming in our schools, we are mistaken and
being misled by those who continue to stand on this false premise. As
stated earlier, it is an instructional challenge we face in this
country and parents want you to help our schools do something about it.
It's imperative that we face head-on the question you have grappled
with regarding how students with disabilities fit into a state's
accountability system. To do this, we must be open to:
understanding how NCLB has positively changed the
landscape for students with disabilities in many schools and districts
using the data and best practice to reframe the policy
discussion
Since public opinion data show that people continue to believe that
students with disabilities:
1. Cannot achieve grade level standards
2. Take the same tests as their peers; or
3. Gain a regular high school diploma
NCLD has partnered with national organizations to commission
reports, review valid research, document findings, promote best
practices, and survey parents and teachers. Our findings, along with
others such as the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and
other reports funded by the U.S. Department of Education do show that
NCLB has had a positive impact on not only the academic performance and
outcomes for many students with disabilities, but it has forced schools
and districts to:
raise expectations for students with disabilities which
are the single most common and important component of achieving change.
To end the practice of making excuses and blaming the kids for their
achievement and to look at these students as general education students
first.
promote sustainable collaboration between general and
special education teachers which can range from requiring dual
certification for all personnel to pairing general education and
special education teachers in classrooms. Collaboration extends to
professional development, with teachers forming teams to attend
professional development activities.
support inclusive and school wide practices as the
cornerstone of their improvement plan(s) so that the general education
curriculum is used in instruction and the general and state assessment
are the reference point for all student teaching and learning.
use data from a multi-tier system of supports or response
to intervention program to make instructional decisions so that
teachers can use formative and summative data to design and target
instruction and interventions. Many states and districts are developing
a school-wide framework or multi-tier system of supports (response to
intervention/RTI) so early help can be provided to all students,
including those eligible for IDEA before their learning gaps become
significant and imped their learning. This has contributed to reducing
the overall identification of students for special education; in fact,
the LD identification rate is down by 14% over the past ten years.
Assess students with disabilities on the general
assessments with accommodations as appropriate, end out-of-level
testing and give alternate assessments to only a very small number of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
share data with parents and the community as they are the
ultimate judge of whether the school is providing the skills their
children will need as adults. Parents can be active partners in their
child's education when there is interactive communication about student
learning.
We know the law needs significant change and parents hope you will
build on the most valuable aspects of the law and rely on both research
and practice to create even stronger educational opportunities for all
students. Such improvements should:
Maintain a focus on student subgroup performance--
transparency and access to the data, while wonderful for parents and
families, is not enough. We need to know that our child's performance
counts just as all other students in the school.
Include all schools in an accountability system which
includes uniform calculation, reporting and targets for graduation from
high school. Simply having Federal consequences for the bottom 5 to 15%
of schools will eliminate accountability for the vast majority of
students with disabilities.
Identify struggling learners early and provide targeted
instruction and/or interventions (e.g. MTSS/RTI, PBIS).
Allow use of growth models that must include students with
disabilities and ensure that the growth targets both help catch up
students and keep them on track to graduate from high school with a
regular diploma.
Promote Universal Design for Learning and use of
technology to improve access to general curricula and assessments. Too
many students with disabilities struggle unnecessarily with poorly
designed pencil-and-paper assessments that test their disability rather
than their ability.
Support teacher training that ensures general and special
education teachers have the skills and knowledge necessary for teaching
grade-level content and diverse learners.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kildee and members of the committee--
yours is a difficult job. The federal role in education is complicated;
however, for parents, the answer is quite simple. If our tax dollars
are to be spent on improving educational opportunity and providing
educational benefit to the struggling students in this country then
please make sure any district and school using that money has
sufficient guidelines and requirements to ensure that ALL students
count in the same way and are held to the same high expectations.
The parents I work with professionally have children diagnosed with
all types of disabilities and we all share one common goal--our
children should matter as much as any other in the school building. But
most importantly, our children want to learn and play and have the same
goals as their friends. Ethan asked me last week: how much education do
I need to be a writer--a bachelor's degree, a master's degree? Before I
could answer, he answered himself by stating--I think more education is
better, don't you? It's my wish that we really could embrace the goal
of every child being college and career ready and focus our educational
resources and efforts on this important endeavor together. Thank you
again for this time.
______
Chairman Hunter. Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BILL JACKSON, FOUNDER AND CEO, GREATSCHOOLS
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman Hunter, Chairman Kline and
Ranking Member Kildee, and members of the committee. My name--
well, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak with you
today about parent-driven school accountability and how school
performance data can facilitate that.
My name is Bill Jackson, and I am the founder and CEO of
GreatSchools. Our mission--we are a nonprofit organization with
a mission of improving education by informing parents and
engaging and supporting them to play their role in their
child's success. And perhaps more importantly I am also the
father of two girls, sixth grade and fourth grade.
GreatSchools began publishing an online guide to schools at
about the same time that ESEA was reauthorized in 2002. Our
guide at www.greatschools.org provides a wide range of
information about America's 129,000 K-12 schools, everything
from official State test data to parent reviews. We know that
parents want this information because last year 19 million
parents representing approximately 43 percent of American
households with K-12 children came to greatschools.org to get
information about school performance. In addition, almost 1
million Americans have signed up for weekly emails from grade
schools that provide insight into their children's school
performance.
The parents we serve represent a diverse cross-section of
American families, and they tell us that school performance
information is invaluable to them. On an individual--on an
individual level it helps them choose the right school for
their child and their family. Collectively it helps parents
hold schools accountable. They use this data to start
conversations, sometimes difficult, with teachers, principals
and school boards.
From our perspective, the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA
provided an invaluable new asset to parents: better data about
the performance of children and schools. With this in mind, we
would like to offer three recommendations as you consider next
steps.
First, don't back down on performance data transparency.
School performance data is like sunshine for parents. The data
should continue to be disaggregated. And along with absolute
test score data, growth data, as my colleagues have mentioned,
can shed important insight into how much schools are helping
students grow. It is valuable to parents.
Further, it is critical that school performance data be
continued to be--continue to be made available to third
parties. Today the evidence suggests that more parents are
getting information from third-party sources than from official
government databases. We have more opportunity, more freedom to
experiment and innovate to make data understandable to parents.
Second, ensure that proficiency means what it says. When a
State tells parents that their children are proficient, parents
believe it. Unfortunately, today, however, too many States are
setting the bar too low. As the Governor of Tennessee and the
U.S. Secretary of Education recently remarked on CNN, some
States are essentially lying to parents about whether their
children are mastering the academic skills they will need to
get good jobs and take their place in the world.
This does not mean that all States must have the same
standards and assessments. Some States involved with the Common
Core and their related assessments are embarking on what we
believe is a promising approach to providing parents with an
honest assessment of their children's progress towards college.
Texas has a different and also promising approach. The K-12 and
higher education system got together and they agreed that when
students passed--high school students passed the requisite
test, they are indeed ready for college in Texas. Ultimately
all that matters is that parents have confidence that the
proficient label means what it says.
And finally, catalyze innovation to make accountability
more personal for American families. Many people, after the
passage of ESEA in 2002, I believe, expected that with
increased data sunshine, with more parents able to see how
schools and their students were doing, in some cases--in many
cases--not proficient, that parents would in a sense storm the
barricades to demand better schooling for their children. This
has not happened.
Now, ultimately, I don't think, we don't think, that the
Federal Government can mandate a certain level of school
performance. That is up to local governments, State governments
and ultimately the people, the parents, who have to have it in
their minds and hearts that they want the education system to
prepare their children. But I do suggest in the written
testimony a variety of approaches where policymakers could lay
the groundwork and create the conditions under which that
grassroots demand might grow.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about these
issues, and I look forward to a discussion.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
[The statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Jackson, Founder and CEO, GreatSchools
Good morning Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Kildee, and members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about
school performance data and how it facilitates parent-driven school
accountability.
My name is Bill Jackson. I am the founder and CEO of GreatSchools,
a national nonprofit based in San Francisco, CA. Our mission is to
improve education by inspiring and guiding parents to support their
children's education. I'm also the father of two girls, one in fourth
grade, the other in sixth.
GreatSchools began publishing a national online guide to K-12
schools around the same time ESEA was last reauthorized in 2002. Our
guide at www.greatschools.org provides a wide range of information
about America's 129,000 K-12 schools, with everything from official
state test data to parent reviews. Today, we are the leading source of
information about school quality for parents nationwide, reaching
millions of parents with the information they need to make good school
choice decisions and to advocate for improvements at their children's
schools. We also run programs in Milwaukee, WI and Washington, DC to
help low-income parents make informed choices about where to send their
children to school.
We know that parents want this information because last year 19
million parents--representing approximately 43 percent of American
households with children--came to GreatSchools.org to get information
about school performance. In addition, almost 1 million Americans have
signed up for weekly emails from GreatSchools.org that provide insight
into their children's school and information about how they can be
involved in their children's education.
The parents we serve represent a diverse cross-section of American
families, and they tell us that school performance information is
invaluable to them. On an individual level, this information helps
parents find and choose better schools for their children. But it also
empowers parents to make their children's schools more accountable.
They use this data to start conversations with teachers, principals and
school board, giving parents facts that allow them to speak with ``the
experts'' about challenging issues.
From our perspective, the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA provided an
invaluable new asset to parents seeking a great education for their
children: better data about the academic performance of students and
schools. With this in mind, we'd like to offer three recommendations as
you consider next steps.
First: Don't back down on performance data transparency
School performance data is like sunshine for parents. Parents need
data to make good decisions about their children's education. The data
should continue to be disaggregated so that families can see how
different groups of students are performing in schools and districts.
Along with ``absolute'' test score data, ``growth'' data that sheds
light on how much schools are improving student academic skills is also
valuable to parents. To the maximum extent possible, parents should be
provided with data that shows whether or not their own children are
making progress.
Further, it is critical that school performance data continue to be
made available to third parties, like GreatSchools, so that we can
present it to parents in accessible ways. Today, the evidence suggests
that more parents are getting school information from third-party
sources than from official government databases. As third parties get
access to better data--such as information about student academic
growth--we will be able to continue to innovate and provide even more
value to parents.
Second: Ensure that ``proficiency'' means what it says it means
When a state tells parents that their children are ``proficient,''
parents believe their children are on track academically. When they
believe this, they are less likely to ask tough questions, move their
children to another school, or band together with other parents to
advocate for improvements.
Unfortunately, today many states are setting the bar too low. As
the governor of Tennessee and the US secretary of education
acknowledged in a CNN interview earlier this year, many states are
essentially ``lying'' to parents about whether their children are
mastering the academic skills they will need to get good jobs and to
take their place in the world.
We believe that American parents deserve an honest assessment of
how their children are doing.
This does not mean that all states must have the same standards and
assessments--but that parents have reasonable confidence that these
standards and assessments mean what they say they do. Indeed, there are
different ways of accomplishing this. Some states are involved with the
Common Core Standards and related assessments. This effort is a
promising approach to providing parents with an honest assessment of
their children's progress toward college- and career-ready graduation.
Texas has a different and also promising approach: the K-12 and
higher education systems have agreed on standards and assessments for
K-12 students. The state higher education system is certifying that
when high school students pass the requisite exams, they are indeed
ready for college.
Ultimately, all that matters is that parents have confidence that
the ``proficient'' label really means that their children are on track
to compete in a world where education is the key to opportunity.
Third: Catalyze innovation to make accountability more personal for
American families
When it comes to the performance of the K-12 education system,
nobody has more at stake than America's children. Imagine the impact if
large numbers of American parents were to demand that local school
boards improve school performance and put many more children on track
for college and career success. American schools would improve far more
quickly.
This kind of commitment to children's futures must arise from the
hearts and minds of American parents. But federal, state, and local
policymakers can create conditions to make this kind of activism more
likely.
Parents are first and foremost motivated to ensure that their own
children get a great education. The best way to stimulate an army of
advocates for better schools is to help parents see that their own
children's futures depend on better schooling than they are getting
today.
Policymakers might accelerate this process by catalyzing innovation
that helps parents understand how their children are performing and
that gives parents more tools to put their children on the path to
success. To the extent that policymakers are investing in R&D, here are
three specific ideas for consideration:
New high-quality computer-based assessments that quickly
and frequently provide parents with easy-to-understand feedback on
their child's progress could help draw parents into deeper
understanding of their children's trajectory toward college- and
career-readiness. With deeper insight into their children's
performance, parents might be more likely to intervene early when they
see that their children are not on track.
New ``electronic education records,'' similar to
electronic health records, could put more power in parents' hands by
allowing them to share information about their children's achievement
and progress with schools, after-school programs, summer programs, and
online providers of educational services. Of course, parents would need
control over who has access to this information.
More transparency around assessments could help parents,
students, and third-party education providers better align their
efforts to help students succeed. Eric Hanushek, GreatSchools board
member and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University, recently proposed an idea in this vein: ``open tests'' that
allow parents and students, as well as teachers, to better understand
what ``proficiency'' really means.
Ideas like these can be accelerated through grant programs run or
funded by the federal government, such as Digital Promise.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with you
today. I am happy to answer any questions.
______
Chairman Hunter. And thank you all for your testimony
again, and thanks for being here.
Mr. Jackson, in your testimony you discuss providing
parents with greater access to school records and helping
make--helping parents make more informed decisions about their
students' education. So the question is this: Can you talk
about the idea in more detail and how you expect that to happen
while maintaining student privacy?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. The accountability, I think, becomes
personal to parents, primarily at the level of--first and
foremost at the level of their own children. So while it is
useful to release school results and important to disaggregate,
et cetera, those results, when parents see that their own
child--it may be whether they be--I also have a child with
learning disabilities. She was in second grade when the teacher
raised a red flag and said, we have a problem here.
When a parent has access to honest and reliable data about
the progress of their child, it gets--it is personal. So while
we think that it is critical that States and the Federal
Government encourage this, that States and localities provide
that information at the level of the child so that parents can
grab a hold of the issue that way, privacy issues are
paramount, and parents must give permission, obviously, when
any data is to be shared with a third party or that data is to
be made public in any way that could compromise the privacy and
confidentiality of their children's performance.
Chairman Hunter. The next question is for Dr. Greene. You
talked about the benefits of the decentralized system, and our
education system was strong as it kept growing from the local
level. I would think that some folks, and know that some folks,
do disagree with that, and that the Federal Government is
needed to set requirements for schools. Can you explain the
difference between what you were saying about concern for
national standards and requirements such as disaggregated data?
And speak as loudly as you possibly can.
Mr. Greene. Sure. I am not arguing that there is no
appropriate Federal role here. And one of the appropriate
Federal roles is information provision, sort of a consumer
protection. If we want to facilitate choice and competition
among local districts, local schools, then that market is made
better if there is information available for consumers, and one
of the roles the Federal Government can play is in providing
information. In fact, the Office of Education was created here
in the national government shortly after the Civil War, and its
sole function was information collection and provision, and
that was a longstanding Federal role.
In the 1960s, we expanded the Federal role to include some
redistributed functions. So there are certain kids that are
more expensive to educate, kids with disabilities, students who
are English language learners. And we recognized that
localities had a hard time educating those students because
they are more expensive, and so there is a disincentive to
serve those students. Well, the Federal Government stepped in
and said, we will require you to serve those kids, and we will
help you pay for them. These are, I think, appropriate roles.
We have gone beyond that now, and now what we are doing is
having the Federal Government engage in developmental aspects
of education policy and basically dictating practices and
procedures and policies that localities should follow. And
frankly, the national government is not very good at figuring
that out. The localities are much better at figuring that out
in the competitive environment.
Chairman Hunter. And your point, too, about if we make a
mistake with the institution of national standards, that
mistake is going to be there for a long time. Can you expound
on that a little bit?
Mr. Greene. Sure. There is actually a great example of
this: Japan. Japan has a school calendar that begins in April,
not September. Most of the rest of the developed countries in
the Northern Hemisphere have schools that begin in September.
And this is actually very convenient for people who need to
move from place to place, so they want to be able to pull their
kid out in one grade and enroll them in the next grade, and the
summer is a great time for moving. People move then.
Well, Japan somehow decided centrally at the national level
that they would have--that they would start schools in April,
and the trouble is they are kind of stuck with this. And it is
incredibly inconvenient for Japanese executives who have to be
sent overseas with their families. Their kids have to repeat
grades. So you can make a national mistake and be stuck with it
for a century, and it can be very disruptive for kids. And that
was just kind of a good example of how a country can make that
mistake.
We ended up with our school calendar like it is through a
decentralized system of choice and competition. This is the
work of William Fischel that I would suggest.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Doctor.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I direct my question to Ms. Kaloi. As a parent you discuss
some of the interaction with your school system. How do you
think that you as a parent, or anyone as a parent, would be
able to initiate or enhance the confidence of improvement in
your school system? What experience have you had in that area?
Ms. Kaloi. Thank you for the question.
I think it is very important to think about the role that
parents do play in their local school and that we want our
local schools to be good schools and to be better schools. It
is really about the safe instructional environment in which our
children can learn and grow. Parents have the capacity--some
better than others, such as myself in a suburban area--we have
the capacity to work very closely with our school. Other
parents are more challenged to do that. That is why there is an
opportunity to think about the appropriate role of the Federal
dollar in providing the additional educational benefit to the
students who need it and helping parents know that they at
least have a floor to stand on when they go in to have those
discussions. That floor is very important. Local leaders can
decide to expand and have the ceiling as high as they want it,
but there are parents who need that support.
Mr. Kildee. What role should the Federal Government play in
getting parents more involved in accomplishing this?
Ms. Kaloi. I think we have discussed today on the panel how
important this data--access to your student-level data is and
being able to understand how is my child doing on grade level,
and then be able to have that discussion. For parents with
disabilities, we may have been able to have a discussion about
how to try and increase supports and services for the child.
But until No Child Left Behind, we weren't able to understand
how our children were doing as compared to the other students.
Having access to this data is really important. What does
my child need to know in this grade to be able to move forward,
and be proficient, and learn and grow in the ways that the
other children around them are learning and growing? And so I
think, again, having that opportunity to have access to the
data and understand that the schools are required at some level
to do something if certain students need extra help. That is
the goal of that Federal role is if you are providing the
additional dollars, what is going to happen to help improve
that instruction.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Greene, in Flint, Michigan, where I taught school, we
had many people from Paragould going to school there. I was
teaching during the Little Rock Nine affair down in your State,
and there the Federal Government had to intervene because one
group was so unprotected, they were not even allowed to enter
the building.
Should the Federal Government protect quality education for
subgroups of students? Segregation is not always a physical
thing, but can be in the level of education service. So there
is a concern of the Federal Government to not only abolish
physical segregation, but to make sure that certain people,
certain groups are not deprived of the best quality education
as possible. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Greene. Sure. I agree that that redistributive role of
the Federal Government is appropriate. It can only be provided
by the Federal Government. But the Federal Government has to be
humble about what it is good at and what it is not good at. So
it can ensure access, but it can't ensure that every student
will receive the same education in the same way and receive the
same outcome as a result. That is actually beyond--as much as
we might like it, and as much as we might deplore the
inequalities that might still exist, not all problems can be
fixed by the Federal Government, and some of those have to be
fixed by struggles at the local level which need to be carried
on as well.
Mr. Kildee. But access can also be denied through quality.
It is not just physical access. So if, for example, for one
reason or another a school or school system neglects a certain
group, that is really denying them access to a quality
education; is it not?
Mr. Greene. Well, access to the school building itself is
obviously the most dramatic thing. But there is no measure that
currently exists or that is being proposed or that I could
envision whereby the Federal Government should ensure equal
outcomes for all students from all groups. As much as we might
like it, that is impossible.
Mr. Kildee. Well, we might not achieve--well, my time is
up, and I will come back. Thank you, Dr. Greene.
Chairman Hunter. I thank the ranking member.
The chairman of the full committee Mr. Kline is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for being with us today and for your testimony.
A constant theme in our hearings has come back to the
importance of this data, this information. And I think there is
a growing bipartisan agreement on this committee and
increasingly around the country that that data needs to be
disaggregated, we need to be able to look in and see how
different elements of our student body are doing well.
Obviously we have had terrific testimony today about learning
disabilities in special needs children, but we need to look in
and see how English language learners and the poorer kids and
minority kids are doing. That is a product of No Child Left
Behind that seems to be pretty widely accepted.
And so we are looking and debating and doing some
struggling here in this committee to address the issue of
accountability. One of the themes that stays there is the
necessity for this information. We don't always agree on the
next step, but that is an important part, I think, of our
understanding. We need to do something, and that needs to be
part of it. So I want to thank you for your--all of your
testimony today in that regard, and you are just reinforcing
it.
Now, Dr. Greene, I was interested in your testimony about
how countries with centralized systems are sometimes
outperforming us and sometimes not. We often hear about the
outperforming. I mean, Finland gets thrown in a lot of times.
We have heard some reports coming out of China, and alarm bells
go off because we want to be competing in a world economy, and
so we need to have a world-class education, and all these
alarms go off. And you are saying, well, sometimes it sort of
matters and doesn't.
So should we just ignore those comparisons, or is there
something there that we can pull out of that when we see--we
get these comparison reports that says somebody else is doing a
whole lot better than we are?
Mr. Greene. Well, I think what these comparisons show is
that a lot of factors help explain the academic success in
countries, not just the extent of centralized or decentralized
standards, curriculum and assessments, but also it is important
to have a system that is appropriate for your country. So
Finland is a small, homogenous country of a couple million
people, so is Singapore, and perhaps they can have a
centralized system and have that work reasonably well because
they are so small and homogenous.
We are large and diverse, and we have to recognize that
fact, and we have to have a system that is appropriate for us.
And we did. We built a system like that. It is called
federalism. And actually it worked really well and built a
world-class education system. I mean, we have to remember there
was a long time when everyone was chasing after us, and they
were chasing after us with our decentralized system. So there
is no reason why we have to throw away what helped us build a
world-class education system. Perhaps we need to return to our
roots rather than to chase after someone else's model that may
be inappropriate for us.
Mr. Kline. Well, let us explore that for just a minute
because we are not--by these comparisons we are talking about,
we are not the destination of choice for a number of places
because test scores internationally show that some countries
are doing better. And you postulated that at one time we were
the destination, we were the model. So what changed? Why aren't
we now?
Mr. Greene. Well, I think a lot of things changed. I mean,
there are obviously things in our culture, our popular culture,
our families, that are very important for the trajectory of our
educational achievement. But another thing that we did
politically is that we significantly centralized the education
system. Now a majority of district funding is coming from State
or Federal sources on average, not from local taxes, and
increasing sets of regulations are being dictated by the State
and national governments. We also consolidated districts quite
significantly so that there is a lot less competition among
them.
I mean, there is actually interesting research, some that I
have done, some that Caroline Hoxby has done out at Stanford,
that shows that actually in States that have more districts
where there is a more competitive environment among localized
providers, you have much better student outcomes. And so when
we centralize, we are reducing the competition, and when we
regulate, we are reducing the competition among those local
providers, and that has been hurting our achievement.
Mr. Kline. Thank you very much.
I am just about to run out of time, so I am not going to
ask this question, but I am very interested, Mr. Jackson, in
the parental information. I think that is an important part of
the progress that we are seeing around the country as real
innovators are stepping up to make changes, because you have
parents--you have got a more formal system in California, the
parental trigger, but parents are getting involved as they
increasingly understand that the status quo is failing their
kid.
So I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hunter. I would like to recognize Ms. Hirono for 5
minutes.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have had so many hearings on the importance of quality
early education, and all of them--I would say almost 100
percent of the people who have been testifying in this
committee over the years have acknowledged that there is much
evidence to support quality early education.
I wanted to ask Ms. Kaloi, with your experience in dealing
with children with learning disabilities, how important is
quality early education for this group of learners?
Ms. Kaloi. It is significantly important, and thank you for
that question. You know the data better than I and the work you
have done in your State in Hawaii. Children who are at risk for
being diagnosed with disabilities or having some kind of
disadvantage, to be able to provide that early start, that
early help is premier.
We know from data that has been substantiated for the last
20 years that students who are not reading by third grade are
at much reduced ability to graduate from high school, and that
alone is one marker that we need to continue to pay attention
to. Reading matters, and it affects opportunities later in
life. So that is one example.
We have several opportunities to work in the early
education arena related to screening, the use of formative
assessment, the use of response to intervention to give
students early help, and it all makes an incredible difference.
Schools have been so willing in this new environment of paying
attention to who needs help sooner that we have seen an
increase in the use of response to intervention, or what we
call a multitier system of support--a framework where you
actually help kids as soon as they begin to struggle, and you
don't wait.
Ms. Hirono. So that being the case then, what percentage of
the children with learning disabilities have access or are in
quality early education programs throughout the country? Do you
have any idea?
Ms. Kaloi. With learning disabilities, it is a little bit
tricky in that we don't tend to diagnose learning disabilities
because of the way the Federal law requires that you diagnose a
learning disability or allows for it to be diagnosed. So we
really look at kids who have early speech delay and early
problems that then lead to and can lead to the evaluation and
diagnosis of a learning disability.
Head Start has 10 percent of its funding to focus on
students who are at risk, and they are doing a very good job of
trying to target those dollars and look at kids who are in Head
Start programs. Some States have taken great strides to begin
to look at this in a very intense and direct way to know what
those early warning signs are.
Ms. Hirono. Since we really don't have a good system for
identifying children with learning disabilities early on, then,
obviously, by the time they are identified, they are beyond 4
years old. So what percentage of those kids who are later
identified have had the quality early learning experience?
Ms. Kaloi. I can get back to you and answer that on the
record, if that is okay. I don't have that number right in
front of me. But we do know there are still far too many
students who we wait to identify them later in the third and
the fourth grade. We know that that is one of the ongoing
dilemmas that we have. One of the challenges that learning
disabilities presents is that we are waiting too long to give
them that early help.
Ms. Hirono. I get from your testimony that having a
learning disability, that is not a permanent condition for the
vast majority of the kids who are deemed as learning disabled,
that they move out of that, into the classroom and they--when
we think of children with learning disabilities, we may think
of the most extreme learning disabled children, but your
testimony says the vast majority of children are not in that
category, that they can move out of this subgroup?
Ms. Kaloi. That is correct. If you look at the chart that
is in my full testimony, it shows you there are 13 ways to
classify students with disabilities in our public schools.
Specific learning disabilities are one category of those 13,
and a learning disability is a language-based disability that
primarily affects one's ability to process information. So it
is lifelong, however, but you can compensate and overcome and
be very successful in life with a learning disability.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
I am running out of time. I did have one short questions
for Mr. Jackson.
You noted in your testimony that the national core
standards help. Because if you are providing national
information to parents, it would help if they were comparing
apples with apples, right, and not apples and oranges? So that
is great for the parents that access your Website. But there
are millions of parents who don't have access, who may not
know, even if they have the information, what to do with it,
how to be an advocate for their children.
So last week we had testimony on an idea of having parent
academies so that parents are empowered to navigate the system
for their children. They may even increase their own ability
to--for many of the parents who may be economically
disadvantaged, et cetera. So is that something that you all
would support, parent academies to really empower parents to
use the information that you are providing?
Chairman Hunter. The gentlelady's time has expired. If you
wouldn't mind taking that for the record.
Ms. Hirono. He is nodding yes.
Mr. Jackson. I would be happy to answer later.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Chairman Hunter. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Mrs. Biggert for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that Dr. Gooden has likened the current high-stakes
test of accountability to an educational autopsy.
Mr. Gooden. I did.
Mrs. Biggert. And I do think that we all think that the
data collection and reporting can be a burden to States and
school districts, but I think we all know that it is very
important to monitor student achievement. And as we move
forward with reauthorization efforts, how do we make sure that
the data is used to improve instruction, not just as reports
that arrive well after the school year is over and in many
cases way into the next year before any of that----
Mr. Gooden. That is my very point, that using one test
given once a year is a little more than an autopsy. Because by
the time the results are received, the students have moved on;
and it actually does very little to shape instruction for a
school, for a classroom, or for an individual student.
Now, what we need are multiple assessments; and by using a
variety of assessments, some of them formative, the teachers
can monitor, adjust their instruction. They can use it to
address specific student needs. We have seen great results from
using interim assessment models during the year as students are
still under our tutelage.
Mrs. Biggert. We have talked about the growth model which
would really change the usage, too, of the data, wouldn't it,
the student performance? So how do we help to develop systems
that the teachers can get the data in timely and----
Mr. Gooden. First, you must have a good electronic data
system that allows for tracking so that when information are
gathered, that they are accessible, that they can be adequately
sorted, and that teachers can have access, and they can know a
specific student's performance deficits and needs and can
modify their instruction to address those.
Growth is an important thing. As I indicated, students come
to the starting line at different levels; and it goes back to
the previous question about early childhood experiences. We
have some youngsters who come to our schools who are, frankly,
not at what we might say the kindergarten level. And while we
have done a great deal to enhance pre-K opportunities in our
school district, the fact is that we still have students who
don't have a viable pre-K experience. And it is very important
for us to acknowledge that when they start at different places
we are going to have to do some dramatic things if we want them
to all end at the finish line at the proper time. And it is not
going to be a good result when students are not up at the
starting line and think that they are going to win the race. So
we have to do some things along the way.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Then my other question is for whoever wants to answer. But
research has confirmed that parental involvement--we have been
talking about this--is important to student success. When I was
in the State legislature--and that was like 16 years before I
came here, maybe--yeah, about 16--in Illinois, we turned the
Chicago public schools over to Mayor Daley, who was the mayor
at that time, to take over the schools and revamp them.
One of the things that the first superintendent then that
came in, Paul Vallas, wanted to really encourage the parental
involvement. So he set up councils of parents for each of the
schools, and there was to be an election. The problem was
nobody showed up and weren't involved. So what he did was to
not--no student got their report card unless their parents came
to the school to pick them up, and that kind of started how
getting the parents interested.
You know, I think that the accountability can really
empower parents, but how do we get the parents there that
should be there to take part of that?
Mr. Gooden. I will be glad to talk about that.
I think parent involvement is absolutely critical. We have
a system of neighborhood elementary schools, and you just
cannot overstate the importance of a viable parent
organization. We have a PTA unit at every school. We have a
district PTA council that works with those individual units to
build their leadership and engagement capacity. And we do a
great deal of things to try to get those parents engaged all
along the way. Just giving them information is important. But
they need to be engaged in their children's education with
formal and informal intermittent conferences.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mrs. Roby [presiding]. Ms. Woolsey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Dr. Greene, you said earlier that there is no measure to
ensure equal outcomes for all students. You have to know I
disagree with that. We do have data. We do have assessments to
identify where students are falling behind, and then we can
target the interventions. That is in fact one way that we can
ensure equal access to a high-quality education.
So I would be interested to know what time period you are
discussing when you talk about our system being the envy of the
world before Federal involvement. I truly believe that the
Little Rock Nine might very much disagree with you, and I think
that minority students and students with disabilities would
disagree in general. It was Federal involvement that turned
this around. So I don't need you to defend this, but I think
that is very wrongheaded.
Mr. Greene. Sure. Well, certainly there were many blemishes
in the history of U.S. public schooling, but this is true
worldwide.
Ms. Woolsey. We are talking about the United States.
Mr. Greene. No, no, no. So the question I think was, is it
the envy of the world?
Ms. Woolsey. When was it the envy of the world before we
had these Federal interventions?
Mr. Greene. Well, like I said, some of the Federal
interventions are desirable and productive. That is when it
comes to redistributive matters, that is ensuring that everyone
has access to the public schooling system and information
provision. I think those are very appropriate roles for the
Federal Government, and that expansion of the Federal role was
desirable.
However, the Federal Government is not good at figuring out
the specific standards, curriculum, and assessments that
schools should be employing; and it is an evolving process. So,
you know, keep in mind local schools try lots of things, and
some of those things work, and some of them don't.
Ms. Woolsey. That is right. So who is--okay. I hear what
you are saying, and I know where you are going.
And I do have another question with a whole different
thought; and it is for you, Ms. Kaloi.
I think I need to tell my story. I married--my children--my
three children and I became a blended family with a young
kindergartner and his dad. And this young kindergartner
actually had very clear speech problems and thought process
problems, a very high IQ but just couldn't quite put that all
together.
So we had him tested. This is in the 1970s. I mean, this
kid is 47 now. He is a college graduate, by the way, and a very
successful dad and the whole thing. But we did it. We had him
tested. We got him in the special education class with the
program that met his specific needs. This is way before IDEA.
And it was very clear that is what it took. It took that
kind of parental involvement. And they told us then--I believe
he was in third grade--if your son has self-respect and
confidence as he is learning around his disability, he will be
fine in his later years. So that is what we knew that we needed
to be working on, and it was a relief to the entire family to
know how to help him. Because he is a great, great person and a
great--he was a great kid.
So we know that parents who are involved can make a huge
difference. So what can we do for the child whose parents
either can't be involved because of lack of education
themselves or can't help this child succeed and provide the
support because they don't have the resources at home? Some
don't have the will to do it. Are there services that we should
be providing to these school systems, wraparound services? What
kind--how do we get them there?
Ms. Kaloi. Thank you for the question. Thank you for
sharing your story.
The most important thing I think you said is you knew this.
I wish more Members of Congress knew what you just said, that
people with learning disabilities can achieve, they can learn
with their peers, they can graduate from high school, and they
can have great success in life. But it does take additional
educational support, it takes intervention, it takes early
help, and it takes consistent support. That is the most
important thing, if we could help spread that message together
instead of perpetuating the myth they are the downfall of what
is happening in the schools.
Secondly, it is a partnership. There is a role for the
Federal Government in providing this floor. Parents need to
know that their child's outcomes matter the same as every other
child in the building.
Jay just said to me, if your kid is exempt, then your kid
is ignored. I like that you just said that. I like that he
believes that.
It is very important to know that we can't exempt any
children. They all need to count because they need not be
ignored.
And the third thing is there are organizations like mine
and others who are trying to provide that information. We need
stronger partnerships with pushing this information out and
providing support in very high need areas, and many of us are
working very hard to do that. But there is a role here for all
of us to play together to partner in those efforts.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Chairman Hunter. I would like to recognize Mrs. Roby for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today.
And I have to say as all of us travel around our districts
and meet with superintendents and with educators and we
oftentimes bring that testimony to you as the basis for our
questions, but I have to tell you this morning I am excited
because, Mr. Jackson, what you have been talking about is
something that happened just in my life this morning as a mom
of a 6-year-old in the first grade of Montgomery County School
System in Montgomery, Alabama.
My husband went to the first grade powwow last week to meet
with the teachers to make sure that we understood, you know,
Margaret's progression and where she was and what we as parents
need to be doing at home to reinforce what was being taught in
the classroom and had the opportunity to sign up to receive
access to Margaret's grades on line. And so we received a
password--a log-in name and a password.
And she had a math test this Monday; and, of course, it
didn't come home because the teachers can't grade the papers
that quickly and turn them around. But before it came home this
morning, we checked on line and found out what her grade on
that test was and then what her average was for the year in
math.
Now, she is in the first grade, but she is learning skills
that if, of course, we get behind and we don't build upon, then
she can get further behind. And as a parent to know that we had
immediate access to this information where, if she was falling
behind, we could then contact the teacher, set up a conference
if we needed to, and work with Margaret specifically on that
skill so as she builds this week on the next skill, she
wouldn't fall behind.
And I just am thrilled at your testimony because I think
there is a--we can distinguish between that type of
accountability and the accountability of the institution and
the Federal Government's role as you, Dr. Greene, have talked
about on the national level that this type of accountability is
specific to that school, to that classroom, to that child, when
we know that every student population from city to city, State
to State, school district to school district, and even schools
within those school districts vary based on student population
and what the needs are of those children.
So I know that is not really a question, but I just was
thrilled to hear your testimony. And if you want to expand on
that, maybe some of the specific benefits of great schools that
you have seen that can add to that.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you for the question, and I am glad that
Margaret is on track.
Mrs. Roby. I am proud to report that she is this week, but
we will stay on top of it.
Mr. Jackson. With a Member of Congress for a mother, I
think it is probably an extra challenge with the demands of the
job.
One thought is that technology as you have described is an
incredibly powerful tool in this effort. And also to address a
question asked by a member earlier as well, that technology is
increasingly accessible and used by lower income, more
disadvantaged families. The percentage of families whose
parents regularly use a cell phone to communicate is really
quite high and in some low-income communities very high.
And if you as a school were to innovate, building on Dr.
Greene's point about, okay, let us innovate at the local
level--let us say we had a very high population, for example,
of immigrants who don't have on-line access but do have a cell
phone, we could work with--there are already both non-profit
and for-profit providers of services looking at, okay, how do
we use that cell phone and not require that the parent would
have that Internet-connected computer to go on line and log in.
And we could even use text messaging to say your child was or
wasn't at school, and so text messaging is increasingly--not
universal, but keeps inching up there.
So my only additional thought would be, well, first, is
congratulations on being a successful, involved parent and
then, secondly, that local innovation, anything that Federal or
other policymakers can do to support and encourage that local
innovation to use technology to reach, empower, inform parents
is very powerful.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you for that. I have to say it is exciting
to see that there are innovative school districts that are
taking advantage of these things in order to allow the parent
greater access. I think that is something that we have talked
about today, is just having that access to hold the teacher and
the school accountable for what they are doing.
And then, Dr. Greene, just going back to you--and my time
is almost out. But talking about the superintendents and our
educators, they are hungry for parent involvement. I guess any
of you could answer that, and we kind of touched on this. But
what are some ways we can incentivize--and you can submit this
for the record, because my time is out. But what are some ways
specifically that we can incentivize our parents to get
involved in our children's education?
So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Hunter. I would like to recognize Mrs. Davis from
the beautiful city of San Diego for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, from San Diego.
Maybe I will just ask you--thank you all very much for
being here, and I am sorry I missed your earlier remarks. I
hope I can pick this up.
The opportunities for parents to attend parent academies
was mentioned earlier, and I know actually in San Diego that
was started many years ago. I think there are some--I wouldn't
even call it controversy, but I think initially there was a
hope that the achievement levels of children whose parents were
involved would maybe show more incremental success than they
did. I think that has changed some. Partly, it is a little bit
more sophistication perhaps of the academies, and we had a
witness testify to that earlier.
But I wonder if you could comment on that and to what
extent that should be really part and parcel of our schools and
maybe the decisions about what kind of approaches are used, are
different. But the fact that there is a way that parents can
really get more information about how they can help their kids
be successful is important.
The other question I would ask you to go along with is
where would that play into a Federal role that is trying to set
some parameters in a kind of collaborative evaluation of
individual schools as well as districts and, of course, at the
State level. Do you see that there is a Federal role in that
and how does that have anything to do with whether or not you
really provide more opportunities for parents to learn in a
setting that is very welcoming I think for parents to
understand how best to do this?
Mr. Jackson. Thank you for the question.
Your point that there is limited evidence of the efficacy
of programs that target parents is well taken. The evidence
that does exist, stronger evidence, is for programs that
address parents of the youngest children. There is a program
called the Nurse-Family Partnership. There is a program run by
a nonprofit called Avance. These programs have shown, using
randomized control trial methodology, that the students of the
parents served do better in school.
They begin in the case of the Nurse-Family Partnership
when--before children are born, and they help--I think there is
an important point to be made here, which is parents need
information. They also need to develop skills. So you can
know--you can know how your child is doing, but if you develop
certain ways of talking to your child and motivate them that
help them develop their own confidence and capacity, that is
the ultimate goal.
So I think the last comment----
Mrs. Davis. I would agree with you. I think some of those
programs are excellent. Unfortunately, there are a number of
communities in which they are quite controversial.
Mr. Jackson. Yes. Well, I would say it is up to the private
sector, non-profits primarily in this case, given this market,
to burst through some more barriers there.
Can we use a combined technology and on-the-ground
approach? I think that is very promising in looking at the
parent academy concept. A number of districts have done that.
Can we marry communications technology with some old-
fashioned, on-the-ground organizing and education, especially
starting when children are very young and could we show
results? I think that we could in the future.
Mrs. Davis. Yes, Dr. Greene, did you want to comment?
Mr. Greene. I could just--I don't know--to answer that
question, also, though, part of why parents are not more
involved is because they don't have a sense of ownership over
their schools. That is that they may not see the schools as
their school and they may not see that because the school is
increasingly controlled by more distant authorities. And so one
of the ways to increase parental involvement is to decentralize
so that people feel like it is their school.
And just also to help answer Representative Woolsey's
earlier question that one of the kind of golden era when people
were imitating the U.S. is when we had incredibly high
secondary graduation--secondary school attendance and
graduation higher than anywhere in the world, and people wanted
to imitate offering secondary schools. Where did secondary
schools come from? How did we get high schools?
Mrs. Davis. Can I go ahead----
Mr. Greene. Sure. I am sorry.
Mrs. Davis. I am sorry. I appreciate your wanting to do
that, but I don't have very much more time, either.
Just when we talk about access to data on student
achievement and, obviously, there is some States that have had
school accountability report cards and other ways of just
generally getting that information out. In addition, obviously,
every school has an individual report card for a child. I think
that is really just an outline of sorts, doesn't give them as
much information perhaps as they want.
But I am just--again, kind of going back to what the
Federal role is in that, how should the Federal Government play
a role in those systems?
Ms. Kaloi. Just quickly, I think you touched on what kind
of collaboration is effective, and I think one of the findings
that is really compelling is that there is better collaboration
now between general and special education teachers. Having the
Federal Government continue to fund and promote professional
development for teachers is critical. Parents want to know
their child is in a class with a qualified teacher, with an
effective teacher.
And then to this point related to helping the parents
become more engaged, I think we have challenges that are due to
cultural backgrounds, to--I know families--for instance,
Hispanic families may tend to have a feeling that the school
knows best, and asking questions is difficult and challenging.
Other cultures have similar issues.
We know in the research that we have done related to how
parents have discussions related to their students with
disabilities, what are the proper ways to help them feel like
they have the tools to ask the questions? So I think it is
about giving incentives to make sure that there is training for
parents that can be provided. But, again, it is all about
instruction in the classroom and then having parents be able to
know that they can go in and ask those questions without, you
know, any kind of fear attached to it.
Mrs. Davis. My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Hunter. In closing, I would like to thank the
witnesses for taking the time to testify before the
subcommittee today. I think everybody found your testimony
extremely intriguing and spot on, I think, on both sides of the
aisle.
I would like to yield to Mr. Kildee for any closing remarks
he may have.
Mr. Kildee. First of all, I would like to thank you for
assembling a very good panel. We learned some things about
education. We have learned--it is nice to see people who have
some differences of viewpoints and some overlapping viewpoints.
And you and I have always exercised civility. It was nice to
see a panel out there that can give us some good examples of
civility, and I really appreciate the content and the manner in
which you delivered your testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Hunter. I would like to thank the ranking member.
And as one of the other people up here that has--I have got
a fifth grader, a second grader, and a kindergartner. It was
great hearing the word ``parent'' uttered from your mouths over
and over and over again.
We use Face Time with my son. He gives me his math
homework. I was a math nerd in college. We use any technology
we are able to use. Forget about the school. I take it upon
myself to get the information for my kids and help them even
while I am out here. So we use Face Time, and I help them with
their math homework.
But we would just like to thank you all again. Thank you
for your great testimony.
And, with that, there being no further business, this
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[An additional submission of Mr. Hunter follows:]
------
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, October 14, 2011.
Mr. Bill Jackson,
GreatSchools, 160 Spear Street, Suite 1020, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Dear Mr. Jackson: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education at the hearing
entitled, ``Education Reforms: Ensuring the Education System is
Accountable to Parents and Communities,'' on Wednesday, September 21,
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 28, 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,
Duncan D. Hunter, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
representative mazie hirono (d-hi)
1. Socioeconomically disadvantaged parents may not be able to
access your website or understand how to use the information to
advocate for their children. On September 14, in our committee,
Superintendent Carvalho of Miami-Dade schools discussed his district's
Parent Academies (http://theparentacademy.dadeschools.net/). Would you
support Parent Academies to help parents use the information you're
providing?
______
------
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, October 14, 2011.
Ms. Laura W. Kaloi,
National Center for Learning Disabilities, 12523 Summer Place, Oak
Hill, VA 20171.
Dear Ms. Kaloi: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education at the hearing
entitled, ``Education Reforms: Ensuring the Education System is
Accountable to Parents and Communities,'' on Wednesday, September 21,
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 28, 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,
Duncan D. Hunter, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
representative mazie hirono (d-hi)
1. What percent of students who are later identified with
disabilities had access to high-quality early learning experiences?
______
Response to Questions Submitted From Ms. Kaloi
It was my honor to testify before Chairman Duncan Hunter and the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education on
September 21, 2011 at the hearing entitled ``Education Reforms:
Ensuring the Education System is Accountable to Parents and
Communities.'' Thank you for your question, ``What percent of students
who are later identified with disabilities had access to high quality
early learning experiences?''
Studies have found that pre-schooling programs significantly reduce
the rate of special education placement. For example:
An in-depth study of the effect of pre-schooling on
special education undertaken by Conyers et al. (2002), using data from
the Chicago Child-Parent Centers program, showed that special education
placement was lower for pre-school children as far as grade 8 (with no
data collected beyond 8th grade). The effect is broadly consistent
across disability types (not all disability types could be identified
in the research because of small samples). Except for emotional/
behavioral disorders (where there is no difference), pre-school
attendance is associated with special education placement rates which
are lower by: 60% for mental retardation; 32% for speech/language
impairment; 38% for specific learning disabilities.
A study by Temple et al. (2010) found that preschool
participation reduced the likelihood of school remediation. The effects
of preschool were greater for children from families with higher levels
of socio-economic disadvantage. The beneficial effects of preschool on
special education placement were also larger for boys than girls.
Certainly more research needs to be done in this area. However,
given that a nation-wide study by the Center for Special Education
Finance (2004) found that the average expenditure per special education
student is 1.91 times more than for children in regular classes,
avoiding assignment to special education by providing quality early
childhood education has not only a significant human reward but a
substantial financial benefit as well.
Please contact me with any questions and thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]