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

                      H.R. 3989, THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT,
                         AND H.R. 3990, THE ENCOURAGING
                     INNOVATION AND EFFECTIVE TEACHERS ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-52

                                   __________

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

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

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    72-814 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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          Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Richard L. Hanna, New York           Susan A. Davis, California
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Larry Bucshon, Indiana               Timothy H. Bishop, New York
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           David Loebsack, Iowa
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
    Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota         Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
    Martha Roby, Alabama
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida
    Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania

                          Barrett Karr, Staff Director
                     Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on February 16, 2012................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
          Workforce..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
          Education and the Workforce................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Balfanz, Robert, research scientist and co-director, Everyone
          Graduates Center, Center for Social Organization of
          Schools, School of Education, Johns Hopkins University.....    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    33
        Cunningham, Jimmy, superintendent, Hampton School District...    40
            Prepared statement of....................................    42
        Kazmier, Felicia, art teacher, Otero Elementary School,
          Colorado Springs, CO.......................................    37
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Luna, Tom, Idaho superintendent of public instruction;
          president, Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)..     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Pompa, Delia, senior vice president of programs, National
          Council of La Raza.........................................    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Schaffer, Hon. Bob, chairman, Colorado State Board of
          Education; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives....    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    29

    Additional Submissions:
        Mr. Balfanz, response to questions submitted for the record..   143
        Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Illinois, questions submitted for the record to:
            Ms. Kazmier..............................................   136
            Mr. Luna.................................................   137
            Mr. Schaffer.............................................   139
            Mr. Cunningham...........................................   141
            Mr. Balfanz..............................................   143
        Mr. Cunningham, response to questions submitted for the
          record.....................................................   142
        Ms. Kazmier, response to questions submitted for the record..   136
        Mr. Kline:
            The National School Boards Association, prepared
              statement of...........................................   131
        Mr. Luna, response to questions submitted for the record.....   138
        Mr. Miller:
            Betsy Landers, president, National Parent Teacher
              Association, prepared statement of.....................    75
            James H. Wendorf, executive director, National Center for
              Learning Disabilities, prepared statement of...........    78
            National Association of School Psychologists (NASP),
              letter, dated January 17, 2012.........................    78
            National School Boards Association (NSBA), letter, dated
              January 19, 2012.......................................    85
            American Association of School Administrators (AASA),
              letter?.87.............................................
            Organizations (38) in opposition to the Student Success
              Act, letter, dated January 24, 2012....................    89
            U.S. Chamber of Commerce, letter, dated February 13, 2012    90
            ``Cut and Run: House Republicans' Education Plan Would
              Shortchange Disadvantaged Students and Schools,''
              article, Center for American Progress, February 2012...    92
            Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), letter,
              dated February 2, 2012.................................   101
            First Focus Campaign for Children, letter, dated February
              13, 2012...............................................   102
            National Association of Elementary Schools (NAESP),
              National Association of Secondary School Principals
              (NASSP), letter, dated February 3, 2012................   104
            Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with
              Disabilities (CCD), letter, dated February 6, 2012.....   106
            Coalition for Teaching Quality, letter, dated February
              13, 2012...............................................   108
            Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA),
              letter, dated February 13, 2012........................   110
            Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), letter, dated
              February 13, 2012......................................   112
            Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
              Education Coalition, letter, dated February 10, 2012...   113
            Partner for Children, et al, letter, dated February 13,
              2012...................................................   115
            Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the United South
              and Eastern Tribes (USET), letter, dated February 13,
              2012...................................................   116
            National Education Association: ``Equity in Education for
              All Students: How the House Bills Fall Short''.........   120
            New America Foundation: ``House ESEA Bill Would Lift
              Title I Spending Requirements''........................   121
            Center for American Progress: ``Denying Poor Children an
              Equitable Education Conservatives' Student Success Act
              Guarantees Anything but Success,'' article, February
              15, 2012...............................................   123
            Letter, dated February 9, 2012, from the Business
              Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA)...............   125
        Mr. Schaffer, response to questions submitted for the record.   139
        Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Pennsylvania:
            The American Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement
              of.....................................................    63

                      H.R. 3989, THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT,
                         AND H.R. 3990, THE ENCOURAGING
                     INNOVATION AND EFFECTIVE TEACHERS ACT

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, February 16, 2012

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room
    2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
    of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Biggert, Platts,
    Foxx, Goodlatte, Hunter, Roe, Thompson, DesJarlais, Hanna,
    Bucshon, Roby, Heck, Ross, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Scott,
    Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Holt, Davis,
    Grijalva, Bishop, and Altmire.
        Also present: Representative Polis.
        Staff present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine
    Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; James
    Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
    Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
    Policy; Cristin Datch, Professional Staff Member; Lindsay
    Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Staff Director;
    Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Krisann Pearce,
    General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services
    Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex
    Sollberger, Communications Director; Linda Stevens, Chief
    Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter,
    Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor;
    Kate Ahlgren, Minority Investigative Counsel; Tylease Alli,
    Clerk; Kelly Broughan, Minority Staff Assistant; Daniel Brown,
    Minority Policy Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff
    Director; Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press Secretary for
    Education; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy Director of Education
    Policy; Ruth Friedman, Minority Director of Education Policy;
    Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Kara
    Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Megan
    O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director; Laura Schifter, Minority Senior
    Education and Disablity Advisor; and Michele Varnhagen,
    Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor Policy Director.
        Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
    come to order. Well, good morning. Welcome to our legislative
    hearing on the Student Success Act and the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act.
        I want to thank our witnesses, of course, and to everybody
    sitting out there. There seems to be some interest in this
    subject this morning, as there should be. So I am very, very
    glad to see all of you here.
        I was just wondering--Mr. Miller and I were just talking
    and suddenly the room became quiet, and I am trying to figure
    out what made that happen. I am looking for that tool so we----
        Well, last January--last year--we began discussion on the
    importance of rewriting elementary and secondary education law.
    We acknowledged No Child Left Behind's shortcomings and
    convened a series of hearings in which dozens of witnesses
    described the challenges facing our nation's education system.
    We discussed the overly prescriptive accountability system that
    has labeled half our schools as failures, explored the
    inadequacies of federal teacher policies, and examined the
    regulatory burdens confronting states and school districts.
        Through these conversations we have forged areas of
    agreement among members on both sides of the aisle. We can all
    see the value of parental engagement and support the
    development of more highly--high quality charter schools. We
    also agree student progress should be a larger factor in
    teacher evaluations and we support the continued use of
    disaggregated data to help protect vulnerable student
    populations and ensure all students have access to quality
    education opportunities.
        No one said rewriting a law as influential as the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be easy, and the
    no one was right. Just as we found common ground we also
    unearthed differences. All members shared the desire to see our
    schools improve and have negotiated in good faith.
        Education reform is an issue that will shape future
    generations and we cannot afford to let the conversation stall.
    For the sake of our children we must continue working toward a
    consensus.
        We are here today to discuss the merits of two proposals:
    the Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act, which I believe present a new way
    forward for K-12 education. These proposals build upon the
    progress made under No Child Left Behind while also offering
    thoughtful solutions to address its shortfalls. However, this
    is a legislative hearing, and as such, I expect and welcome a
    robust debate on ways the policies in these bills could be
    modified to better meet our shared goal of empowering students
    to achieve their full potential.
        The Student Success Act will restore each state's authority
    and responsibility to meet the needs of its students and
    schools. Instead of a one-size-fits-all federal accountability
    system, our bill directs each state to develop its own system
    that takes into account the unique needs of students and
    communities with the flexibility to use multiple measures of
    student achievement. Each state will also implement its own
    methods for identifying low-performing schools and implementing
    successful strategies for turning failing schools around.
        Most notably, the legislation recognizes the need to
    preserve a high bar for student success. The bill maintains
    important requirements that states and school districts
    continue to make and meet high benchmarks for student learning.
    States must administer annual reading and math assessments and
    report the results disaggregated by student population,
    providing parents important information about their child's
    school.
        The second bill we will discuss today, the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, consolidates several
    federal teacher programs into a flexible grant state and local
    leaders can use to fund programs that work. It also empowers
    states to develop their own teacher evaluation systems based on
    student learning and supports creative approaches, such as
    performance pay and alternative paths to certification, which
    will help recruit and keep the most effective educators in our
    schools.
        The provisions included in the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act reflect the
    input we have received from parents, teachers, principals,
    superintendents, and others in the education community.
    Additionally, these proposals strike a more appropriate balance
    between the need for a limited federal role to ensure
    transparency and the demand for state and local control.
        Unlike the administration's plan to offer temporary waivers
    that keep schools tied to a failing law, the proposals before
    us today take a step closer to enacting lasting education
    reforms that will raise the bar for student achievement and
    improve the classroom experience for children nationwide.
        I have no doubt that there will be differences of opinion
    today. However, I look forward to getting feedback from our
    excellent panel of witnesses, stakeholders in the education
    community, and from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
        With that, I will now yield to the senior Democratic member
    of the committee, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks.
        [The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]

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

        Last January, we began a discussion on the importance of rewriting
    elementary and secondary education law. We acknowledged No Child Left
    Behind's shortcomings, and convened a series of hearings in which
    dozens of witnesses described the challenges facing our nation's
    education system. We discussed the overly prescriptive accountability
    system that has labeled half our schools as failures, explored the
    inadequacies of federal teacher policies, and examined the regulatory
    burdens confronting states and school districts.
        Through these conversations, we have forged areas of agreement
    among members on both sides of the aisle. We can all see the value of
    parental engagement and support the development of more high quality
    charter schools. We also agree student progress should be a larger
    factor in teacher evaluations, and we support the continued use of
    disaggregated data to help protect vulnerable student populations and
    ensure all students have access to quality education opportunities.
        No one said rewriting a law as influential as the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act would be easy. Just as we found common ground,
    we also unearthed differences. All members share the desire to see our
    schools improve and have negotiated in good faith. Education reform is
    an issue that will shape future generations, and we cannot afford to
    let the conversation stall. For the sake of our children, we must
    continue working toward a consensus.
        We are here today to discuss the merits of two proposals, the
    Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teachers Act, which I believe present a new way forward for K-12
    education. These proposals build upon the progress made under No Child
    Left Behind, while also offering thoughtful solutions to address its
    shortfalls. However, this is a legislative hearing, and as such, I
    expect and welcome a robust debate on ways the policies in these bills
    could be modified to better meet our shared goal of empowering students
    to achieve their full potential.
        The Student Success Act will restore each state's authority and
    responsibility to meet the needs of its students and schools. Instead
    of a one-size-fits-all federal accountability system, our bill directs
    each state to develop its own system that takes into account the unique
    needs of students and communities, with the flexibility to use multiple
    measures of student achievement. Each state will also implement its own
    methods for identifying low-performing schools and implementing
    successful strategies for turning failing schools around.
        Most notably, the legislation recognizes the need to preserve a
    high bar for student success. The bill maintains important requirements
    that states and school districts continue to make and meet high
    benchmarks for student learning. States must administer annual reading
    and math assessments and report the results disaggregated by student
    population, providing parents important information about their child's
    school.
        The second bill we will discuss today, the Encouraging Innovation
    and Effective Teachers Act, consolidates several federal teacher
    programs into a flexible grant state and local leaders can use to fund
    programs that work. It also empowers states to develop their own
    teacher evaluation systems based on student learning and supports
    creative approaches, such as performance pay and alternative paths to
    certification, which will help recruit and keep the most effective
    educators in our schools.
        The provisions included in the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act reflect the input we
    have received from parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and
    others in the education community. Additionally, these proposals strike
    a more appropriate balance between the need for a limited federal role
    to ensure transparency and the demand for state and local control.
        Unlike the administration's plan to offer temporary waivers that
    keep schools tied to a failing law, the proposals before us today take
    a step closer to enacting lasting education reforms that will raise the
    bar for student achievement and improve the classroom experience for
    children nationwide.
        I have no doubt there will be differences of opinion today.
    However, I look forward to getting feedback from our excellent panel of
    witnesses, stakeholders in the education community, and from my
    colleagues on either side of the aisle.
                                     ______

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good morning to our witnesses, and thank you for
    sharing your experiences and your knowledge with the committee
    this morning.
        There is nothing more important for families around this
    country than the quality of education for their children. We
    all agree that--on one thing: that we must act to reauthorize
    No Child Left Behind, and I have said before in this committee
    and I will say again, I am a very proud coauthor of that law.
    But over the last 10 years we have learned many things about
    our children's education thanks to that law.
        It is, however, long overdue for a rewrite. This fact is
    evident in nearly 40 states signaling interest in applying for
    flexibility from No Child Left Behind under the Department of
    Education's waiver process. Just last week 10 states--and I
    guess another state yesterday, New Mexico--11 states have been
    granted the--to go through the process of receiving the
    waivers, and a number of states are expected to apply in the
    next few weeks.
        What is exciting about this announcement is that these
    states aren't just running away from one-size-fits-all approach
    of NCLB. Instead, they are running toward a system that strikes
    the right balance between flexibility and accountability.
        The department's approach demonstrates that the federal
    education policy can provide flexibility without losing sight
    of the core values of equal opportunity for all. Regrettably,
    the two bills we are examining today do not reflect those
    values. Rather than looking toward the future, these bills have
    the real potential to turn back the clock decades.
        I have heard a full range of views on NCLB since its
    enactment. For instance, I have heard the word ``flexibility''
    thrown around and offered up as the solution to the problems of
    our current law, but I have found that flexibility often gets
    raised when people are trying to avoid accountability.
        Clearly there are places in the current law where the
    federal policy needs to be more flexible, such as in school
    improvement and consolidating programs. But at no point should
    we be promoting flexibility at the expense of accountability or
    at the expense of equity in education.
        As with all of the--all other policy changes, the only
    question we should be asking is whether or not the flexibility
    will lead to better outcomes for the students, which is why the
    federal role in education exists, to support better and more
    equitable outcomes for all students. Given the state of
    education debate in our country today you might think that the
    role of education started with NCLB, but it didn't; it started
    with the Brown v. Board of Education decision and the
    Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965.
        We cannot ignore the history of how education of millions
    of children has improved since then and how student performance
    has increased across the board. The fact is elementary and
    secondary education was not better before Brown, or the first
    ESEA, or even NCLB. To say so ignores the chapters in our
    history that we are not proud of, but neither should be
    forgotten nor repeated.
        We must not shrink from our responsibility to provide
    children with an equal opportunity at a first-class education.
    With that comes the responsibility to demand accountability.
        I visit schools at every opportunity. I admire the
    teachers, the principals, and other school personnel who work
    with students daily and care deeply about their education and
    their advancement. Requiring accountability and good outcomes
    isn't a criticism of their work; it is a recognition that there
    are enormous pressures at all levels and sometimes in different
    directions within an education system.
        The federal government plays a critical role here. It can
    create guardrails to ensure equity. It can ensure that when
    states and districts and schools have to make hard decisions
    those decisions are made in the best interest of the children.
        The federal government should never be expected to
    micromanage the improvement of an individual school nor should
    it try. However, we can and should require action on behalf of
    the students where willingness to act doesn't exist.
        We must continue to support the simple idea that low-
    performing schools should be identified and required to
    improve. As members of Congress it is our job to update the law
    and to reflect the current best practices and protect kids in
    the process. Through the rewrite of ESEA we can alter roles, we
    can increase flexibility, but we cannot abandon the principles
    of equity and accountability.
        If we want to uphold the promise of Brown v. Board of
    Education and the Elementary Secondary Education Act in its
    most recent iteration reducing the federal footprint in
    education should not be single-minded goal of this
    reauthorization. Improving the educational outcomes for
    children and strengthening our nation's global competitiveness.
    The question is how best to achieve that goal.
        These bills don't come close. Democrats believe that
    education must continue to be a driver of opportunity, not a
    system that locks you into a station in life, not a system that
    impedes a child taking advantage of the opportunities that
    America has to offer.
        We are proud to stand with the voices of opposition on
    these bills, and once again, we are in good company on opposing
    the majority's efforts. Groups from across the political
    educational ideological spectrum have rejected the attempts
    here to turn back the clock on America's schools. Teachers,
    business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, local
    education groups, civil rights and disability groups, and the
    national PTA have all raised serious concerns over the
    majority's rewrite of this nation's education law.
        Chairman Kline, this hearing is important for us to explore
    the weight of opposition from all corners of the country. We
    take seriously the task at hand. Kids' lives and their ability
    to have an opportunity to succeed are at stake, and I am very
    protective of a single year of a child's life; they don't get
    it back and it is very hard to make up.
        Our kids only get one shot at a decent education and that
    is why we in the Congress need to work together, not apart, to
    support state and local efforts to build a world-class
    education system, and the stakes could not be higher. It is the
    most important thing we can do--important to our nation's
    economic competitiveness and important to the lives of our
    nation's children and their families. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Good morning, Chairman Kline. I would like to welcome our witnesses
    to this very important hearing.
        There is nothing more important for families around this country
    than the quality education of their children. We all agree on one
    thing--that we must reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act. I have
    said before in this Committee and I will say it again. I am a proud co-
    author of that law.
        Over the last ten years, we have learned many things about our
    children's education thanks to that law. It is, however, long-overdue
    for a rewrite.
        This fact is evident in the nearly 40 states signaling interest in
    applying for flexibility from NCLB under the Department of Education's
    waiver process. Just last week, ten states were given the green light
    to proceed with their new plans for improving public education and
    dozens more are expected to apply in the next few weeks.
        As I said last week, what is exciting about this announcement is
    that these states aren't just running away from the one-size-fits-all
    approach of NCLB. Instead, they are running towards a system that
    strikes the right balance between flexibility and accountability. The
    Department's approach demonstrates that federal education policy can
    provide flexibility without losing sight of the core values of equal
    opportunity for all.
        Regrettably, the two bills we are examining today do not reflect
    those values. Rather than looking toward the future, these bills have
    the very real potential to turn the clock back decades.
        I have heard the full range of views on NCLB since its enactment.
    For instance, I have heard the word ``flexibility'' thrown around and
    offered up as the solution to the problems with our current law. But, I
    have found that ``flexibility'' often gets raised when people are
    trying to avoid accountability.
        Clearly, there are places in the current law where federal policy
    needs to be more flexible, such as in school improvement and in
    consolidating programs. But, at no point should we be promoting
    flexibility at the expense of accountability or at the expense of
    equity in education.
        As with all other policy changes, the only question we should be
    asking is whether flexibility will lead to better outcomes for kids.
    Which is why the federal role in education exists--to support better
    and more equitable outcomes for all students.
        Given the state of the education debate in our country today, you
    might think that our role in education started with NCLB, but it
    didn't. It started with the Brown v. Board of Education decision and
    the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965.
        We cannot ignore the history of how the education of millions of
    children has improved since then and how student performance has
    increased across the board. The fact is, elementary and secondary
    education was not better before Brown or the first ESEA or even NCLB.
    To say so ignores chapters in our history that we are not proud of, but
    should neither be forgotten, nor repeated. We must not shirk our
    responsibility to provide children with equal opportunity. With that
    comes a responsibility to demand accountability.
        I visit schools at every opportunity. I admire the teachers,
    principals and other school personnel who work with students daily and
    care deeply about their education.
        Requiring accountability and good outcomes isn't a criticism of
    their work. It is recognition that there are enormous pressures at all
    levels, sometimes in different directions, within an education system.
        The federal government plays a critical role here. It can create
    guardrails to ensure equity. It can ensure that, when states, districts
    and schools have to make hard decisions, those decisions are not made
    on the backs of children.
        The federal government should never be expected to micromanage the
    improvement of an individual school, nor should it try. However, we can
    and should require action on behalf of students where willingness to
    act doesn't exist.
        We must continue to support the simple idea that low-performing
    schools should be identified and required to improve.
        As members of Congress, it's our job to update the law to reflect
    current best practice and protect kids in the process. Through a
    rewrite of ESEA, we can alter roles. We can increase flexibility. But
    we cannot abandon the principles of equity and accountability if we
    want to uphold the promise of Brown v. the Board of Education, the
    first ESEA and its most recent iteration.
        Reducing the federal footprint in education should not be the
    single-minded goal of this reauthorization. Improving the educational
    outcomes for children and strengthening our nation's global
    competitiveness should be the goal.
        The question is how best to achieve that goal. These bills don't
    come close.
        Democrats believe that education must continue to be a driver of
    opportunity, not a system that locks you into a station in life.
        We are proud to stand with the voices of opposition to these bills.
    And once again, we're in good company in opposing the majority's
    effort. Groups from across the political, educational and ideological
    spectrum have rejected the attempt here to turn back the clock on
    America's schools.
        Teachers, business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, local
    education groups, civil rights and disability groups, and the national
    PTA have all raised deep concerns over the majority's rewrite of the
    nation's education law.
        Chairman Kline, this hearing is important for us to explore the
    weight of opposition from all corners of the country. We need to take
    seriously the task at hand. Kids' lives and their ability to have the
    opportunity to succeed are at stake.
        I am very protective of a single year in a child's life--they don't
    get that back. Our kids only get one shot at a decent education.
        That's why we in Congress need to work together, not apart, to
    support state and local efforts to build a world class education
    system. The stakes couldn't be higher.
        It's the most important thing we can do: Important to our nation's
    economic competitiveness and important to the lives of our nation's
    children.
        I yield back.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7c all committee members will be
    permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
    permanent hearing record, and without objection the hearing
    record will remain open for 14 days to allow 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. I will just go across this way.
        Mr. Tom Luna is the superintendent of public instruction
    for the Idaho Department of Education. He served as a senior
    advisor to former U.S. secretary of education, Rod Paige, from
    2003 to 2005. Additionally, he currently serves as president of
    the Council of Chief State School Officers, the national
    organization representing state education chiefs, and will be
    testifying on their behalf during this hearing.
        Ms. Delia Pompa is the senior vice president of programs at
    the National Council of La Raza, where she conducts oversight
    of NCLR programs, including housing and community development,
    education, Institute for Hispanic Health, and workforce
    development. Ms. Pompa is former director of the Office of
    Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs in the U.S.
    Department of Education and former executive director of the
    National Association for Bilingual Education.
        Former Representative--boy, you are a brave man, coming
    back and sitting on that side--Former Representative Bob
    Schaffer is the chairman of the Colorado State Board of
    Education. He also serves as the principal of Liberty Common
    High School, a public, tuition-free, college preparatory
    charter school serving students in grades seven through 12 that
    consistently rates among the state's top-performing schools.
    From 1997 until early 2003 he represented Colorado's fourth
    congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives and
    served on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
        Welcome back.
        Dr. Robert Balfanz is co-director at the Everyone Graduates
    Center in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University.
    He currently works with more than 50 high-poverty secondary
    schools to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive,
    whole-school reforms. Dr. Balfanz has published widely on
    secondary school reform, high school dropouts, and
    instructional interventions in high-poverty schools.
        Ms. Felicia Kazmier is an art teacher at Otero Elementary
    School in Colorado Springs, Colorado. She is a graduate of the
    University of Colorado at Colorado Springs with a master of
    arts and special education and completed the University of
    Colorado at Colorado Springs certification program for teachers
    of gifted and talented students. She earned a distinguished
    teacher designation through the school district's teacher
    evaluation system.
        And Mr. Jimmy Cunningham is the superintendent of schools
    for Hampton School District in Hampton, Arkansas. He has worked
    in education for 35 years, including 24 years as an
    administrator. He is on the governing board of the American
    Association of School Administrators and is president elect of
    the National Rural Education Association. He is testifying on
    behalf of the American Association of School Administrators.
        Welcome to you all. Before I recognize each of you to
    provide your testimony let me briefly explain our lighting
    system. You can see it now there in front of you.
        You will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony.
    When you begin the light in front of you will turn green; when
    1 minute is left the light will turn yellow; when your time has
    expired the light will turn red, at which point I ask that you
    wrap up your remarks as best you are able.
        After everyone has testified members will each have 5
    minutes to ask questions of the panel.
        So, it looks like we are ready to go. And again, we will
    just go this way down the panel and we will start with Mr.
    Luna.
        Sir, you are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF TOM LUNA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
                     IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Mr. Luna. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller,
    and members of the committee, for inviting me here today to
    testify. As was stated, my name is Tom Luna and I am the
    superintendent of public instruction for the great state of
    Idaho and the current president of the Council of Chief State
    School Officers.
        Again, I want to thank Chairman Kline for these proposals
    to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
    1965, what today we refer to as No Child Left Behind. I am
    pleased to be here today to discuss how to best preserve and
    advance the focus on ensuring that all children have access to
    high-quality education opportunities and ensure that they are
    all prepared for success after graduation.
        States have demonstrated that they are staunchly committed
    to raising the bar with college and career ready standards for
    all students, and we believe that federal policy must support
    the ultimate goal of ensuring that all students graduate from
    high school prepared to go on to post-secondary education and
    the workforce, and once they get there they do not need
    remediation. We urgently need Congress to reauthorize the ESEA
    law because for the past 10 years American schools have lived
    under a law that I have referred to as--it reminds me of the
    old Clint Eastwood movie, ``The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,''
    because there is a little bit of all of that found in this law.
        The good is that No Child Left Behind has placed a
    spotlight on student achievement in America with a heavy focus
    on math and reading, and it has had a specific focus on
    disadvantaged students, and it has established grade level
    proficiency as a target for every child. The bad is that the
    current law doesn't recognize student growth, so schools have
    numerous ways to not meet state goals but very few avenues to
    demonstrate success. The ugly: Because the law has not been
    authorized in a timely manner--going on 5 years--it has become
    a stumbling block to state and local education reforms. The
    longer reauthorization stalls the uglier the law becomes and
    the good parts become overshadowed.
        Thankfully, states have not waited for the federal
    government to act on ESEA and we have acted on our own to
    advance meaningful, state-driven levels of high accountability.
    There is a renaissance happening all across the country when it
    comes to education reform to better help our students meet the
    needs of the 21st century.
        In Idaho, for example, last year we passed the most
    comprehensive education reform laws in the country. We
    implemented a robust, statewide, pay-for-performance plan,
    giving our teachers the opportunity to not only be recognized
    but financially rewarded for their great work. We created a
    21st century schools by making historic investments in
    technology for teachers and students and quality-focused
    professional development for all teachers.
        We have eliminated tenure. We have eliminated antiquated
    last-hired-first-fired laws. We have adopted academic standards
    that are equal to any other academic standards in the world.
    And today in Idaho 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation is tied
    to student achievement, and parental input must be part of a
    teacher evaluation.
        Idaho is not alone. More than 30 states last year passed
    some form of comprehensive education reform legislation and has
    led to increased levels of accountability.
        We know states are willing and ready to take the lead. And
    how do we know this? It is because they have.
        Just look at the common core standards as just one example.
    Today 45 states have worked together with CCSSO to develop,
    adopt, and implement college and career ready standards for all
    public schools. This was a state-led effort and voluntary; the
    federal government did not lead in this effort nor did it
    compel states to participate.
        And states did not stop there. We are also collaborating to
    build the next generation of assessments aligned to these
    higher standards. Now that we have the standards in place and
    are working towards the next generation of assessments we must
    have new systems of increased accountability, and 45 states are
    working with CCSSO to develop and adopt next-generation
    accountability principles aimed at assuring better outcomes for
    all students.
        In short, state and local leaders are not running from
    accountability and improvement; we are stepping up and
    embracing high levels of it on our own accord and now we need
    for Congress to reauthorize ESEA to recognize states' rights
    and give states the flexibility and authority to continue this
    great work.
        What I am suggesting is a 10th Amendment approach to the
    federal government's role in education, where states define the
    federal government's role in education rather than the other
    way around. This is already happening around the country as
    governors, state superintendents, legislators, and others have
    helped to move education reform forward.
        So I commend Chairman Kline for offering a bill that
    acknowledges and respects that it is the state and local
    leaders who are driving education reform. Specifically, we
    support the elements of the Student Access--or Success Act and
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act that--and we
    have a number of different points that we support, Mr.
    Chairman, and a number of areas that we think need to be
    improved in the law, and they are part of my testimony.
        So since the red light is on and I will be a good example
    for the others, let me just say that I do believe that as long
    as the federal government spends tax dollars to fund public
    education there must be accountability for how those dollars
    are spent. Accountability means results, and results means that
    student--higher student achievement. And so we must define and
    lead education reforms with a limited federal role in
    supporting authentic, comprehensive state and local reform
    efforts.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Mr. Luna follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Tom Luna, Idaho Superintendent of Public
     Instruction; President of the Council of Chief State School Officers
                                    (CCSSO)

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, Members of the Committee,
    thank you for inviting me to testify today about the Student Success
    Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, Chairman
    Kline's proposals to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act of 1965 (ESEA). My name is Tom Luna, and I am the Superintendent of
    Public Instruction for Idaho and the current President of the Council
    of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
        I am pleased to be here today to discuss how to best preserve and
    advance the ESEA's longstanding focus on ensuring that all children--
    especially children of color, low-income students, English Language
    Learners, and students with disabilities--have access to high quality
    educational opportunities to ensure they are prepared for success after
    graduation. States remain staunchly committed to raising the bar with
    college and career ready standards for all students, and we believe
    that federal policy must support the ultimate goal of ensuring that all
    students graduate ready for higher learning or entering the workforce.
    We urgently need for Congress to reauthorize the ESEA now, because for
    the last 10 years, American schools have lived under a law that is akin
    to the classic Clint Eastwood movie, ``The Good, the Bad and the
    Ugly.''
        First the good: No Child Left Behind has placed a spotlight on
    student achievement in America, especially among disadvantaged
    students, and it has established grade level proficiency as the target
    for every child. But while No Child Left Behind has focused America's
    schools upon improving learning for every child, it also has many bad
    parts. Notably, current law doesn't recognize student growth, so
    schools have numerous ways to fail but few avenues to demonstrate
    success. And now the ugly: because the law has not been reauthorized in
    a timely manner, its rigid accountability system has become a stumbling
    block to state and local education reforms.
        Thankfully, the states have not waited for the federal government
    to act on ESEA and have acted on our own to advance meaningful state-
    driven accountability; in fact, States are currently engaged in a
    ``renaissance'' of education reform. More than 30 states last year
    passed some form of comprehensive education reform legislation. States
    across the nation are addressing antiquated labor practices, improving
    student access to technology, engaging in system redesign, adopting
    clear and high academic standards, and developing data systems that
    support targeted student interventions and improved program evaluation.
        States' record of also initiating and tenaciously pursuing
    educational improvements at the national level in recent years speaks
    for itself. Working without federal involvement, 45 states worked
    together with CCSSO to develop, adopt, and now implement college and
    career ready standards for all public school students. Nearly every
    state is also currently collaborating to develop next generation
    assessments aligned to those standards to better measure what students
    know and can do; Idaho is the lead state in one of the two state
    assessment coalitions. Building on these successes, 45 states have
    worked with CCSSO to develop and adopt next generation accountability
    principles aimed at ensuring better outcomes for all students,
    including but not limited to a continued commitment to regular
    assessments, a continued focus on accountability for subgroup
    performance, and ongoing public transparency and reporting to ensure
    that parents and communities understand how their schools are
    performing. In short, state and local leaders are not running from
    accountability and improvement; we are stepping up and embracing higher
    levels of it on our own accord.
        Let me be clear: these education reform efforts have been carried
    out across the country willingly and without coercion by engaged and
    reform-oriented state leaders. We do not need the federal government to
    dictate the specific terms of state and local reforms, because we are
    situated best to develop and implement state, local, and national
    initiatives that benefit students in our state. I know of no Governor
    or State Superintendent who passively accepts current conditions in our
    public schools or seeks to conceal inadequacies in their systems; in
    fact, almost every state is, to an extent unprecedented in recent
    history, pursuing aggressive education reforms on our own accord.
    Federal law must now recognize state leadership by holding us to high
    standards and requiring adherence to core principles while unleashing
    and empowering state innovation, evaluation, and continuous
    improvement.
        And yet Congress and the Administration are still broadly debating
    what federal role is appropriate for education. As a conservative
    Republican, I submit to you that where taxpayer dollars are spent there
    is an appropriate federal role in ensuring accountability for student
    performance. The freedom for states to innovate must be built into
    statute, however. I prefer a 10th Amendment approach to the federal
    government's role in education. The 10th Amendment to the United States
    Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by
    the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
    the States respectively, or to the people.'' The states should
    therefore define the federal government's role in education, instead of
    the federal government defining the states' role.
        The fact that states have waited almost five years for Congress and
    the President to reauthorize the ESEA is further evidence that the
    federal role in education should be minimal. Today, states are left to
    live under an outdated law or submit ESEA waiver requests to the U.S.
    Department of Education. Last week, the President announced that 10
    states will receive waivers from central provisions of current law;
    nearly 30 states, including Idaho, are in the process of submitting
    waivers at the end of February. Many states are driven to submit
    waivers to secure temporary relief from NCLB, but what we really want
    is reauthorization of the entire law.
        As I stated above, the new ESEA must support, not hinder, the
    innovative work being done at the state and local levels. State and
    local leaders must be empowered to develop and implement a range of new
    educational models that would ensure that all students graduate college
    and career ready. That includes allowing states to develop meaningful
    accountability, improvement, teacher effectiveness, professional
    development, and other systems that reflect local conditions and needs,
    while holding us accountable for achieving the outcomes that we
    promise. In other words, the new law must set clear expectations for
    states across core areas of reform, but should not prescribe a single
    approach for how states must meet these reform objectives. We must stop
    legislating and regulating to the lowest common denominator, and begin
    to unleash educators to educate.
        ESEA must help more states continue on the road to better
    performance by incentivizing continued state leadership, clearing away
    hurdles like those I described, and creating the necessary flexibility
    for states, districts and schools to customize solutions aimed at
    addressing persistent underperformance. Regardless of federal action,
    Idaho intends to implement college and career ready standards and
    establish a new accountability system consistent with the principles
    outlined in the Council of Chief State School Officers accountability
    framework. Passage of a strong ESEA reauthorization would enable our
    state to forgo costly and burdensome implementation and administration
    of dual federal and state systems at this critical junction of reform.
        We commend Chairman Kline for offering a bill that acknowledges and
    respects that it is state and local leaders who are driving education
    reform. Specifically, we support the elements of the Student Success
    Act and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act that:
         Maintain a strong focus on accountability for all schools
    and recognition of the need to accurately measure student growth in
    addition to proficiency. We support eliminating the federally-defined
    100% proficiency target (AYP), but requiring states to define, report,
    and act using authentic student growth;
         Seek annual determinations, disaggregation, and reporting
    on the performance of all schools by overall student performance and
    subgroup population performance;
         Ensure states have a school improvement intervention
    strategy in place while granting states flexibility from the
    prescriptive federal turnaround models set forth in the School
    Improvement Grant program;
         Allow states to develop and implement computer adaptive
    assessments; and
         Promote policies that advance teacher and leader
    evaluation reforms, which are a top ESEA priority for Idaho and CCSSO.
        CCSSO supports modifications to the legislation, however, to
    strengthen the ability of states to deliver on their commitments to
    stronger accountability systems rooted in the ultimate goal of college
    and career readiness for all students. These include:
         Including two additional parameters for state
    accountability and school improvement systems: states identifying at
    least a baseline percentage of lowest-performing schools and asking
    states to establish ambitious yet achievable performance targets for
    their students, without mandating a single goal or approach;
         Granting states the express authority to withhold federal
    school improvement funding from districts that fail to implement their
    school improvement plans or strategies adequately or if those
    strategies fail to improve student achievement;
         Clarifying that the legislation does not bar federal funds
    from being used to support the two existing state-led assessment
    consortia that are working to develop next-generation assessments
    capable of more accurately measuring student performance. Nearly every
    state is a member of one of these consortia and has a strong interest
    in maintaining a limited federal role in the support of these
    consortia; and
         In keeping with your legislation's reliance upon increased
    state and local leadership in education, ensuring that the new ESEA
    authorizes sufficient funding to support the capacity-building and
    programmatic support necessary to advance education reform at the state
    and local levels and avoid unfunded federal mandates.
        Addressing these issues is critically important as the bill moves
    through the legislative process, but I see the Committee's upcoming
    consideration of this legislation as an important step in moving toward
    a much more effective law.
        Let me reiterate that as long as the federal government contributes
    to funding public education, it should play a limited role in ensuring
    accountability both for ensuring positive results for all students and
    encouraging the best and highest use of taxpayer dollars towards
    achieving those results. Congress must empower states also to define
    and lead education reform efforts, while limiting the federal role to
    supporting authentic, comprehensive state and local reform efforts. One
    needs only look at what is going on in Idaho, Indiana, Ohio, Florida
    and dozens of other states across the country to see evidence of our
    commitment to accountability and comprehensive reform.
        Four years ago, states were told to wait for reauthorization until
    a new Congress and a new President were elected. We cannot wait another
    two or four years. CCSSO and I look forward to working with this
    Committee and the full Congress to support a sensible and timely
    reauthorization.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Luna.
        And for all the witnesses, your entire testimony will be
    included in the record.
        Ms. Pompa, you are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF DELIA POMPA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS,
                      NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA

        Ms. Pompa. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
    Miller, and all members of the committee for providing me the
    opportunity to present testimony this morning. My name is Delia
    Pompa. I am the senior vice president for programs at the
    National Council of La Raza, or NCLR. NCLR, the largest
    national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the
    United States, works to improve opportunities for Hispanic
    Americans in the United States.
        In my role at NCLR I oversee all education programs,
    including a network of over 100 charter schools. My work on
    public school reform is shaped by more than 35 years of
    experience leading local, state, and federal agencies and
    national and international organizations.
        I began my career as a kindergarten teacher and went on to
    serve as the district administrator and as assistant
    commissioner for the Texas Education Agency. I was formerly the
    director of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
    Language Affairs in the U.S. Department of Education, as noted,
    and my focus has always been on helping schools and teachers
    understand and respond to the needs of underserved children.
        In 2009 students of color represented 41.3 percent of all
    public school students. It is important to note that suburban
    schools added 3.4 million students between 1993 and 2006, with
    nearly all of this increase due to an increase in the
    enrollment of children of color. Given these demographic shifts
    the academic achievement of students of color and other
    underserved groups of children becomes particularly important.
        Over the last 15 years student achievement, as measured by
    the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, has
    improved much too slowly for Hispanic, Black, and economically
    disadvantaged students. English language learners and students
    with disabilities have lost ground on NAEP after years of
    improvement.
        Addressing these challenges requires federal policy
    interventions grounded in the origins of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act. The Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act of 1965 is a civil rights law, enacted along with the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
        Similar to those laws, ESEA was designed to break down
    legal and social barriers to equal opportunity. Since then our
    nation has made enormous progress in many areas of American
    life, including the elimination of Jim Crow laws, greater
    access to the ballot box, as well as the end of legal school
    segregation. However, challenges remain and ESEA remains the
    main vehicle for addressing the needs of all children and
    subgroups of children.
        Early versions of ESEA relied almost exclusively on
    additional resources to schools serving poor students with no
    real performance standards. Low expectations and poor results
    pervaded many schools attended by Latino, African American, and
    other economically disadvantaged students.
        Before NCLB the question was whether or not children with
    disabilities and English language learners could be educated.
    Now the question is, how can we prepare them for success in
    college and the workplace?
        While NCLB hasn't achieved everything we had hoped for
    there is no question that this change in mindset has been
    immensely important for these children and their families.
    Changes to ESEA must be undertaken with great care with an eye
    toward the law's initial purpose to provide an excellent
    education to all children.
        The fact that changes to NCLB contained in the Student
    Success Act seem to be designed to addressed mainly the
    challenges that school administrators face in implementing
    current law is unacceptable to the civil rights community.
    Rarely in the debate has there been an emphasis on what
    children need in order to compete in a 21st century global
    workforce, what parents hope for their children, and what
    taxpayers would expect the school system to achieve with its
    taxpayer dollars.
        If this legislation is to make a positive difference in the
    lives of children it must be improved in the following ways: We
    must require states to develop and implement college and career
    ready standards, including English language proficiency
    standards. States, districts, and schools must be accountable
    for all students by setting progress targets and a timeframe in
    which to provide results.
        Graduation rates must be disaggregated by subgroups and
    must include targets and a timeframe in which to produce
    results. The comparability loophole must be closed. Gender and
    migrant status must be included in state and school district
    report cards.
        The cap on alternate assessments on alternate achievement
    standards for students with disabilities must be restored. And
    finally, English proficiency and achievement targets for ELLs
    must be maintained.
        In closing, some say that family poverty predetermines the
    academic prospects of millions of children and that poverty
    must be eradicated before schools can be held accountable for
    helping children learn. We reject this notion.
        Our policies should ensure that all children have the
    opportunity to obtain an excellent education irrespective of
    the neighborhoods in which they live, their parents' education
    level, or their family's income. We believe that a smart and
    robust federal role is necessary to achieve this.
        I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
    Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Pompa follows:]

                                    ------

        Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Schaffer, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SCHAFFER, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO STATE BOARD
    OF EDUCATION; FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
                              OF COLORADO

        Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Miller.
    Thank you very much for your kind invitation to be here today
    and to comment on the proposed legislation as it relates to
    reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
        Throughout the 6 years that I represented Colorado's fourth
    district in the U.S. House I considered it a privilege to serve
    on this very committee and I really enjoyed the chance to
    discuss and act on issues similar to the ones you are
    considering today and I regard it as the most important work in
    public policy.
        Just a couple of years ago I left the private sector and
    became principal of Liberty Common High School, a public
    charter school in Fort Collins and a junior high school in my
    home town of Fort Collins. My wife and I were founding parents
    that helped start Liberty Common 16 years ago and all of our
    children have attended it--two of them are students there
    today--and I am proud to say the school continues to grow and
    has consistently been one of the state's top-performing
    schools, with over 900 students attending and about 1,300 more
    on our waiting list.
        And with that background I have become deeply convinced of
    the value of parental involvement in education, of the
    marketplace-driven benefits of school choice, of the value of
    local control in education and streamlined systems to get more
    dollars to classrooms where they are most needed. These beliefs
    are among the chief reasons I am here today. These broad
    strategies enjoy general bipartisan consensus among the seven
    members of the Colorado State Board of Education, and as
    chairman I can assure you that Colorado's board also shares an
    ambitious vision for the future of Colorado's education system.
        And we have led the country in transforming our teacher
    corps. First, let me say, Coloradans agree it is the
    fundamental right and obligation of parents to direct the
    education and upbringing of their children. Parents play the
    most important role in determining the academic success of a
    student. After that it is curriculum, and that influences the
    children tremendously.
        In exercising their rights and fulfilling their greatest
    responsibilities, parents most often look to and rely upon
    proficient teachers to assist in shaping the academic success
    of their children. And Colorado is leading the way and
    legitimately leaving behind the concept of teacher tenure.
        My colleagues and I recently passed, unanimously on a
    bipartisan basis, a new system to evaluate public school
    teachers on the basis of performance. These performance
    measures are tied 50 percent to student performance scores. The
    other half is comprised of a combination of objective and
    subjective evaluations and observations. Those teachers who are
    able to meet the performance expectations of the new system
    will receive--sorry--those teachers who are unable to meet the
    performance expectations of the new system will receive focused
    professional support for a period of time, and if that proves
    insufficient they will be replaced.
        For the vast majority of Colorado's teachers who will
    thrive under the new system they will begin, finally, to be
    treated like real professionals with compensation, recognition,
    and advancement being directly associated with performance, and
    most importantly, with useful and constructive feedback on
    their professional practice and student results. To be sure,
    Colorado still has a long way to go, but we have cleared the
    highest hurdle in this regard. We have managed to pass the
    underlying legislation and begun overhauling the necessary
    administrative structure in the state with support from a
    Republican-led board of education, two Democratic governors,
    and a split state legislature.
        In fact, last week our board received a report from the
    State Department--our education licensing unit. The question
    is, once we have an ongoing, objective teacher evaluation
    system in place, what would be the purpose of a teacher's
    license? Think about it: At a time when our schools are pressed
    for cash why do we continue to require teachers to shell out
    thousands of dollars or more per year to maintain a piece of
    paper that essentially tells us nothing about that teacher's
    suitability to teach?
        Now, when I asked our licensing staff that question they
    indicated we probably have to keep issuing meaningless and
    expensive state licenses to teachers who can barely afford to
    buy them. They told the board that we have to do this because
    the federal government would cut off a few hundred million
    dollars in funding to our state that is predicated on the old-
    fashioned idea of a teacher's license. And frankly, we would
    like to move on quickly to a better measure, a results-based
    indicator of teacher quality and performance-based assessments
    to identify truly outstanding teachers in the classroom.
        Whether it is through waivers or through a restored
    regulatory relief that is a function of H.R. 3989 and H.R.
    3990, granting more freedom from federal mandates of--federal
    mandates of NCLB--does not mean lowering the bar for any child.
    Quite to the contrary, Colorado's proposal actually holds more
    schools and districts accountable to higher academic standards
    and for more students in historically disadvantaged subgroups
    than NCLB ever did.
        And we are proud of the state leadership that we have
    exerted in pushing accountability even further in a freer post-
    NCLB world. Our systems are built upon disaggregated data. Our
    accountability systems track all of this and are oriented
    toward closing achievement gaps.
        We are turning underperforming schools upside down. We are
    creating more charter school options all the time in
    neighborhoods where choice creates pressure for immediate
    improvement and where customized education services are needed
    most. We did this all on our own without the federal government
    telling us we had to.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share with
    you the perspective from the Rocky Mountain West. It is a
    perspective that favors choice, local control, a professional
    transformation of the teaching craft, transparency,
    accountability, competitiveness, and marketplace
    entrepreneurship. It is a perspective that to me seems more
    possible and likely with the introduction of the two bills you
    are considering today.
        And that concludes my remarks.
        [The statement of Mr. Schaffer follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Schaffer, Chairman of the Colorado State
        Board of Education; Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for
    your kind invitation to be here today and to comment on proposed
    legislation as it relates to reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act.
        Throughout the six years that I represented Colorado's Fourth
    Congressional District in the U.S. House, I considered it a privilege
    to serve on this very Committee. I really enjoyed the chance to discuss
    and act on issues similar to the ones you're considering today and I
    regard it as the most important work in public policy.
        Though time has passed and a few of the faces have changed, I know
    the object of your interest is still the same--the wellbeing of
    America's schoolchildren. As a parent of five public-school educated
    children, my interest in this topic is personal. It's also central to
    my overall civic-leadership interest in helping build a stronger
    America for every school-aged citizen.
        The experiences of being a parent active in my kids' schools,
    serving on this Committee, and before that nine years of involvement in
    education issues as a Member of the Colorado State Senate makes for
    some habits that I've found impossible to break. A couple years after
    leaving Congress in 2003, I became an elected member of the Colorado
    State Board of Education where I now serve as Chairman.
        Just a couple years ago, I left the private sector and became the
    principal of Liberty Common High School, a public, charter high-school
    and junior-high school in my hometown of Fort Collins, Colorado. My
    wife and I were founding parents and helped start the Liberty Common
    system over 16 years ago and all of our children have attended it. Two
    of them are students there today and I'm proud to say, the school
    continues to grow, it has consistently been one of the state's top-
    performing schools with over 900 students attending and about 1,300
    more on our waiting list.
        With that background, I have become deeply convinced of the value
    of parental involvement in education, of the marketplace-driven
    benefits of school choice, of the value of local control in education
    and streamlined systems to get more dollars to classrooms where they're
    needed most.
        These beliefs are among the chief reasons I am here today. These
    broad strategies enjoy general bipartisan consensus among the seven
    Members of the Colorado State Board of Education. As chairman, I can
    assure you that Colorado's board also shares an ambitious vision for
    the future of Colorado's education system.
        We've led the country in transforming our teaching corps. First,
    let me say that Coloradans agree it is the fundamental right and
    obligation of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their
    children. Parents play the most important role in determining the
    academic success of a student. After that, it is curriculum that
    influences the success of a student.
        In exercising their rights and fulfilling their great
    responsibilities, parents most often look to and rely upon proficient
    teachers to assist in shaping the academic success of their children.
    Colorado is leading the way in legitimately leaving behind the concept
    of teacher tenure. My colleagues and I recently passed--unanimously on
    a bi-partisan basis--a new system to evaluate public-school teachers on
    the basis of performance.
        These performance measures are tied fifty percent to student
    performance scores. The other half is comprised of a combination of
    objective and subjective observations. Those teachers, who are unable
    to meet the performance expectations of the new system, will receive
    focused professional support for a period of time, and if that proves
    insufficient, they'll be replaced.
        For the vast majority of Colorado's teachers who will thrive under
    the new system, they will finally begin to be treated like real
    professionals with compensation, recognition and advancement being
    directly associated with performance, and most importantly with useful
    and constructive feedback on their professional practice and student
    results. To be sure, Colorado still has a long way to go, but we've
    cleared the highest hurdles in this regard. We managed to pass the
    underlying legislation and begun overhauling the necessary
    administrative structure in the state with support from a Republican-
    led State Board of Education, two Democratic governors and a split
    state legislature.
        In fact, just last week, our Board received a report from our State
    Department of Education's licensing staff. The question is, once we
    have an ongoing, objective teacher evaluation system in place, what
    would be the purpose of a teachers' license? Think about it, at a time
    when our schools are pressed for cash, why do we continue to require
    teachers to shell out a thousand dollars or more a year to maintain a
    piece of paper that essentially tells us nothing about a teacher's
    suitability to teach?
        When I asked our licensing staff that question, they indicated we
    probably have to keep issuing meaningless and expensive state licenses
    to teachers who can barely afford to buy them. They told the Board we
    have to do this because the federal government would cut off a few
    hundred million in funding to our state that is predicated on the old-
    fashioned idea of a teacher license. We'd frankly like to move on--
    quickly--to a better measure, a results-based indicator of teacher
    quality and a performance-based assessment to identify truly
    outstanding classroom instructors.
        H.R. 3990, the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act,
    encourages more of this kind of reform by relying more on local
    teacher-evaluation systems and by allowing state and local leaders more
    flexibility in the use of federal education funding.
        Colorado has also been rather aggressive about updating our
    academic standards and modernizing our assessment system to meet the
    expectations of our state's higher-education system. In adopting new
    standards and developing new assessments, it would be our preference to
    make decisions based upon our values as a Western state that competes
    well in an international economy.
        While Colorado is certainly free to be at the table in developing,
    for example, the Common Core State Standards and assessments developed
    through consortia efforts with other states--which we do--we strongly
    object to and resent federal efforts to use federal funds or cash
    awards to push our state, or any state, in a direction it might not be
    inclined to go on its own volition.
        Moreover, I am concerned whether the Common Core State Standards,
    the corresponding assessments developed through the two consortia, and
    the NCLB Conditional Waivers are effectively pushing states toward a
    national curriculum. I direct your attention to the recent study
    published by the Pioneer Institute entitled, The Road to a National
    Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the
    Top, and Conditional Wavers for additional information on this issue.
        This is why the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989) and the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R. 3990) are big steps in the
    right direction, and why the Committee should pass them. The combined
    effect of these bills is to rely on state-designed accountability
    systems, state-designed academic standards and state-designed
    assessments. The bills would allow us to move forward with teacher
    assessments predicated upon verifiable success rather than the current
    federal definition which is predicated upon credentials, tenure and
    meaningless, expensive certificates from state bureaucracies.
        As you all probably know, Colorado was one of the states to receive
    one of these new NCLB waivers last week. Of course we applied for
    regulatory relief from the federal government. But the more fundamental
    question is, why should we have to go through all that effort, time and
    expense just to be able to act like an actual state and exercise the
    authority the U.S. Constitution suggests we already have?
        I have to tell you, the U.S. Department of Education was actually
    quite helpful in Colorado's application. The Department even seemed to
    want to help us to go further than your law allows us to go with
    respect to Title I portability. You see, in Colorado, we have some
    Title I schools where the students take online courses from districts a
    county or two away. Why can't the Title I funds associated with that
    child be used to assist the child at the school that can actually help
    him?
        We've done extensive analysis, consulted lawyers, agency experts
    and others and we've actually identified a way we could do this in
    Colorado. The U.S. Department of Education has given us every
    encouragement. But, the current federal law is the only thing left that
    stands in the way preventing us from helping the children of Denver to
    get the better education that their parents have chosen and that they
    deserve. I hope you'll consider these kinds of freedoms, which are very
    consistent with H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990, as you go into markup.
        Incidentally, whether through waivers or through the restored
    regulatory relief of H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990, granting more freedom
    from the federal mandates of NCLB does not mean lowering the bar for
    any child. Quite to the contrary, Colorado's proposal actually holds
    more schools and districts accountable to higher academic standards,
    and for more students in historically disadvantaged subgroups than NCLB
    ever did. We are proud of state leadership in pushing accountability
    even further in a freer, post-NCLB world.
        Our systems are built upon disaggregated data. Our accountability
    systems track all of this and are oriented toward closing achievement
    gaps. We're turning underperforming schools upside down. We're creating
    more charter-school options all the time in neighborhoods where choice
    creates pressure for immediate improvement and where customized
    education services are needed most. We did all of this on our own
    without the feds telling us we had to.
        In Colorado, as in every state, parents deserve to be treated like
    real customers, teachers deserve to be treated like real professionals,
    and children--all children--deserve to be treated like real Americans.
    H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 are promising proposals because they recognize
    that schools should enjoy the freedom to teach, and students should be
    given the liberty to learn.
        Again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you a perspective
    from the Rocky Mountain West. It's a perspective that favors choice,
    local control, a professional transformation of the teaching craft,
    transparency, accountability, competitiveness and marketplace
    entrepreneurship. It's a perspective that, to me, seems more possible
    and likely with the introduction of the two bills you're considering
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Balfanz?

        STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT BALFANZ, CO-DIRECTOR, EVERYONE
    GRADUATES CENTER, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Balfanz. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, members
    of the committee, thank you for letting me testify today. My
    remarks today are based on 15 years of experience working as a
    researcher and practitioner with high-poverty middle and high
    schools. And what this experience tells me is that the nation
    is at a crossroads.
        Right now there is no work in the 21st century to support a
    family if you don't have a high school diploma and some post-
    secondary schooling or training. Yet every year we continually
    produce 1 million young adults--we are propelling them into
    young adulthood without a high school diploma, for which there
    is really little future. And we are also--about 25 percent of
    our graduates from high school are not prepared for post-
    secondary success.
        No business can survive when it only works half the time.
    No nation can be economically competitive under the same
    conditions.
        The good news is some progress is being made. Graduation
    rates are actually up, achievement is up, and low graduation
    rate high schools--those high schools that produce half our
    nation's dropouts, called dropout factories--have actually
    declined from 2,000 to 1,500. The number of students passing
    A.P. exams has doubled.
        We have also learned a lot more about what works, and we
    have also learned the early warning signs of dropping out, so
    now it is much more--we are much more able to intervene early
    and effectively. But this progress has not been fast enough,
    deep enough, or wide enough, and that is why today's hearing is
    so important.
        We have to get this right. We have to figure out how we can
    combine local energy and initiative and choice with federal
    guideposts, guardrails, and catalysts so we can have--so we can
    step on the gas. We have got to step on the gas. We have got to
    have much higher outcomes at the end of this decade than we do
    now.
        So there is an important federal role here that I just want
    to give three ideas on from my work in the field. First, we do
    need federal guideposts. We have had a great natural experiment
    in the past decade on what happens when we leave the states
    alone to set targets and goals.
        NCLB let all states figure out how they wanted to measure
    graduation rates, set their own goals, set their own targets,
    and what happened? About a dozen states stepped forward, put
    forward comprehensive plans, and saw double-digit gains in
    their graduation rates. New York and Tennessee were the
    leaders.
        Another dozen states, quite frankly, took a pass. They used
    inflated graduation rates. They said any progress matters, even
    if we go from 50 to 50.5 percent. And actually, 10 states now
    have lower graduation rates than they did in 2001.
        So we have got to find a way to build upon the work done by
    the National Governors Association with a grad rate compact and
    the Department of Ed 2008 regulations, which means that this
    year we finally have grad rate accountability in the nation.
    And the reauthorization can't go backward. It needs to build on
    that and add college readiness.
        A second area where we need a federal role is with
    guardrails. Put yourself in a place of a principal of a high-
    poverty middle or high school. You have 1,000 to 2,000
    students; you have 100 adults to manage. Most of your students
    enter the building below grade level, most have waning
    motivations, many are chronically absent.
        Add several years of budget cuts, now. Enter Title I
    dollars. This is a lifeline. It is the only discretionary
    dollars you have and you are now under tremendous pressure from
    all quarters to spend that money all kinds of different ways.
        Giving some guardrails will give principals the cover and
    the support they need to do what they know is right, and that
    is why we need at least some separate, protected funding
    streams for principals doing comprehensive, evidence-based
    reform and bringing in external partners with proven track
    records of success to help build capacity. And in these regards
    the bills put forward today have good guidance. The final area
    we need the federal role is to be a catalyst. We need to
    basically soup-up the engine, right? We have got to go faster
    to get where we need to go.
        And that is about R&D, it is about innovation, but it is
    also about better dissemination. Because when I am in schools I
    admit I always see at least one great local innovation that is
    really powerful and really strong, and they almost all have
    very short shelf lives. They last as long as the developer of
    that innovation is in the school, in the district, in the
    state. So there is very little cumulative learning and we have
    very low educational productivity because of that.
        So we have to rethink how we disseminate good, local ideas
    by building learning networks and having some funding to
    support local and state dissemination efforts so we can really
    spread evidence-based and practice-validated educational
    improvements.
        In closing, we need to combine local energy, innovation,
    and wisdom with federal guideposts, guardrails, and catalysts
    to accelerate our educational outcomes and graduate all our
    students prepared for adult success. If at the end of this
    decade we are still debating how to do this and some nations
    have built more universities than we have fixed failing schools
    we will be on the wrong track.
        It is only by learning from the past decade's successes and
    struggles that we can effectively build a partnership between
    the federal government, states, and local schools and teachers
    to provide all our students with a pathway to high school
    graduation, college, and career ready. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Balfanz follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Robert Balfanz, Research Scientist, and Co-
         Director of the Everyone Graduates Center, Center for Social
     Organization of Schools, School of Education, Johns Hopkins University

        Chairmen Kline, Ranking Minority Member Miller, members of the
    Education Committee thank you for inviting me to testify today. My
    remarks are shaped by my experience over the past decade and half, as
    both a researcher and practitioner, working to improve educational
    outcomes for high-poverty middle and high schools at the federal,
    state, district, and school levels. Most recently, this has involved
    working with 12 school districts including Philadelphia, East Baton
    Rouge, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Antonio on a school reform effort
    called Diplomas Now, an Investing in Innovation I3 winner, designed for
    the highest needs middle and high schools that drive the nation's
    dropout crisis. It combines evidence-based whole school reform, with
    enhanced student supports provided by non-profit partners, guided by an
    early warning system
        What our research and this experience tell me is that our nation
    stands at a crossroads.
        The recent economic challenges have brought into stark relief that
    in order to prosper in the 21st century, our nation needs to graduate
    all its students from high school prepared for post-secondary success,
    be it through college, job training or the military. Simply put, there
    is little work for young adults who do not have a high school diploma.
    Currently, nearly three out of four high school dropouts in their 20s
    are not employed full time. If you are 25 years old, without a high
    school diploma, and no work history, are you ever going to find
    sustained work? Moreover, there is little work that will support a
    family, unless you have not only a high school diploma but also some
    post-secondary schooling or training. At its core our nation is based
    on work and family. Yet we are turning out more than a million students
    a year, who lack the education needed to work and support a family.
    Only three out of four students in each high school class are earning
    their high school diplomas, and at least another 25% graduate from high
    school but are unprepared for additional schooling or training. No
    business can survive when it succeeds only half the time, nor can any
    country remain economically competitive. The economic cost of the
    dropout crisis is enormous in terms of lost wages, revenues, and
    productivity. Moreover, my work on the dropout crisis, I have found no
    more passionate advocates for the need to end the crisis, than the
    leaders of the U.S. Army Ascension command. Not only because of its
    ramifications for a strong military, but because they can see, that
    left unchecked, this crisis threatens our nation's fabric.
        The good news is progress has been made over the past decade and
    our knowledge of what needs to be done and how has increased.
    Graduation rates and achievement are up. The number of high schools
    where graduation is at best a 50/50 proposition (the nation's ``dropout
    factories,'' which produce half the nation's dropouts) has declined
    from about 2,000 to 1,500. The number and percent of students taking
    and passing AP tests, indicating that they are doing college level work
    in high school, has doubled.
        Over the past decade, we have also learned the early warning signs
    that indicate students are on the path to dropping out, years before
    this will occur. This means we can now be much more effective and
    efficient in getting the right intervention to the right student at the
    right time, and in so doing, keep many more students on the path to
    high school graduation. The last decade has also seen significant
    advances in building the evidence base needed to improve educational
    practice. As importantly, thanks to NCLB, the idea that schools must be
    accountable for all students, rich and poor, majority and minority,
    English language learner and special education students, learning at
    sufficient levels for success in the 21st century has become firmly
    engrained in our education system.
        The progress though has not been fast enough, deep enough or wide
    enough. While NCLB focused schools attention on the pressing need to
    improve the achievement of all students, it did not provide for
    tailored enough interventions. That is why today's hearing and the re-
    authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is so
    timely, and so important. We have to get this right. Our nation's
    future depends on figuring out how we can step on the gas, and not tap
    on the brakes. Central to this will be figuring out the most beneficial
    federal role.
        Here I would like to offer three suggestions.
        First, my experience and research suggests we need federal
    guideposts. Over the past ten years, we have had a great natural
    experiment about what happens when we let states lead without federal
    guideposts. NCLB left it to the states to set their own high school
    graduation rate goals, select their own means of measuring graduation
    rates, and allowed any improvement to satisfy accountability
    requirements. What was the result? Some states led the way and put
    forth comprehensive and sustained efforts to raise their graduation
    rates, and saw large gains. Tennessee, for example, increased its
    graduation rate by 18 percentage points, New York by 13, and overall
    nine states had average gains of at least one percentage point per
    year. On the other hand, almost an equal number of states used
    inaccurate graduation rate measures and either lulled themselves into a
    false sense of complacency or did not give raising graduation rates
    high priority. Today, 10 states have lower graduation rates than they
    did in 2002, in an economic era when every dropout means lost revenue
    and increased social cost. When the states that moved ahead on their
    own are combined with the states that did not, the nation as a whole
    witnessed only a modest 3 percentage-point increase in high school
    graduation rates. Recognizing that this was not a prescription for
    national prosperity, the Bush administration in 2008 put forth
    regulations that required all states to measure graduation rates in the
    same accurate manner, set forth more aggressive graduation rate goals,
    and established substantial and continuous rates of improvement. To
    give states time to make this shift, it established this year, 2011-12,
    as the first year that federal graduation rate accountability would
    take hold. The re-authorization of ESEA needs to codify these
    graduation rate improvement guideposts that all states have agreed to,
    and in so doing, keep all states focused on graduating all their
    students prepared for college, career, and civic life.
        Second, there is a need for federal guardrails. As we work together
    to increase the nation's rate of educational progress, there is a
    federal role in making sure that all kids and all schools are included,
    that critical performance measures are being used, and that taxpayers
    get a good return on their investment. As I have worked with state
    department of education officials, school district leadership, and
    principals across the nation, I have never seen anything but good
    intentions. I am continually amazed by the level of insight and wisdom
    brought to the day-to-day work of educating students. But we are all
    human, and as such, struggle to make good decisions when faced with too
    many competing needs, too little time, or not enough good information.
    Accordingly, I have also too often seen whole groups of students, or
    whole categories of schools, being put aside, as either not the
    priority of the moment, too challenging to address, or beyond the
    capacity at hand. In particular, I have seen this happen with high
    schools. Districts sometimes view them as too hard to reform, and
    instead focus on improving earlier grades, with the hope that over
    time, these improvements will trickle up and make high schools more
    successful. But in the meantime, thousands of students each year
    continue to drop out of school, but stay in the community, at high
    economic and social costs.
        As a nation, we cannot afford to have whole groups of kids, or sets
    of schools not able to perform at the level needed for success in the
    21st century. Thus, it is important for the re-authorization of ESEA to
    continue to stress that all means all kids and all schools. Over the
    past two years, the number of high schools with low graduation rates,
    the nation's ``dropout factories,'' have declined at an accelerated
    pace. This is good news but we cannot ease up, as 1,500 remain. That is
    why in its re-authorization ESEA needs to maintain a focus on
    transforming the lowest-performing schools, including high schools with
    graduation rates below 60%. It is not enough just to identify these
    schools. Within their communities it is well known that they have not
    been successful, often for decades. In many cases, it was only when
    NCLB, most recently through school improvement grants, finally said
    they must be transformed or replaced that significant and urgent
    efforts to improve the schools commenced. But the re-authorization also
    needs to go beyond current efforts and build up the capacity of state
    educational agencies, school districts, and school leadership teams to
    make good decisions and implement evidence-based reforms so all kids
    and all schools can improve. This is especially essential in high-
    poverty rural areas and smaller, formerly industrial cities, where
    often the only high school in the district has as many dropouts as
    graduates, and the school district fundamentally lacks the capacity to
    transform it.
        There is also a need for federal guardrails with regard to
    performance measures. Take the case of chronic absenteeism. There is
    perhaps no more basic performance measure than how often students
    attend school. Even the greatest teachers and the strongest curriculum
    will not produce learning gains, if students are not regularly in
    class. You have to be there. Yet, while nearly every parent receives an
    accounting with each report card of how many days of school their child
    missed, it is very rare, for schools, districts, and states to report
    to the public how many students in each school are chronically absent
    or have missed a month or more of school. The reason is simple, no one
    has asked them to do it. As a result, left unmeasured, chronic
    absenteeism and its detrimental effects remain unrecognized, and much
    like bacteria in a hospital, chronic absenteeism silently creates
    educational and social havoc. Consider just one statistic. In a report
    we will release in a few months, we found a major state, where 20,000
    students per class of sixth-graders cumulatively missed 6 months or
    more of school between 6th and 8th grades. Ultimately, only 3% of
    students from this group recovered sufficiently to enroll in higher
    education. The irony is that, once identified, chronic absenteeism is
    something communities can do something about. Recently a number of
    mayors, most prominently Mayor Bloomberg of New York, recognizing the
    connection between absenteeism, school achievement and advancement, and
    crime, unemployment, and social costs have led the charge to address
    it. In addition to achievement test scores, graduation and college
    readiness rates, the re-authorization of ESEA should include expanded
    measures of attendance, so all parents, communities, and taxpayers can
    know how many students at the schools they support are missing a month
    or more and a week or less of school.
        The final area where there is a need for federal guardrails is how
    federal funds (in particular Title 1 dollars) get spent at the school
    and district levels. When you spend time in schools (in particular,
    high-poverty middle and high schools) one thing you quickly learn is
    that their principals have some of the most complex and challenging
    jobs in America. Imagine having to organize often 100 or more adults,
    to teach and support, 700 to 2,000 students, the majority of whom enter
    the 6th or 9th grade behind grade level, often with waning motivations,
    impacted by concentrated and often inter-generational poverty, and as
    we have just heard high rates of chronic absenteeism. Add to this, now
    several years of budget cuts. Into this environment comes federal Title
    1 money, which in reality is viewed by principals and school districts
    as often the only discretionary funding they have. As such, this
    funding is very important to enable different high-poverty schools,
    with different needs, to implement the reforms they need to improve. Bu
    we also need to take into account that in this environment, principals
    are not that different from mayors. They seek to use federal funds to
    strategically bring in high value-added resources, but they also feel
    pressure to use money to engender support, buy peace, and reward
    loyalty. Inertia can also play a limiting role, in particular, when
    Title 1 funds have been used for years to cover the salaries of
    employees who are valued by the community, but may not necessarily
    represent the most effective way to off-set the impact of poverty and
    propel student achievement. Hence, it is important to put some
    guardrails on how Title 1 funds are used by districts and states. To
    avoid micro-regulation, perhaps this can best be achieved through
    incentives--by having a base level of discretionary Title 1 funding,
    but then reserving some portions of it, for schools that a) implement
    evidence-based comprehensive reforms, informed by a needs and capacity
    assessment, and b) bring in external partners with track records of
    success in similar schools to enhance school and district capacity. On
    this later point, Chairman Kline's Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teacher Act provides some excellent guidance.
        The last area, where there is a clear need for a federal role, is
    as a catalyst. To accelerate educational improvement fast enough to
    keep the nation competitive, not only do we need federal guidepost and
    guardrails, but we need to soup up the engine. Part of this is enhanced
    research, development, and evaluation, as well as incentives to
    encourage innovation. Here, strategic federal investments to further
    build the knowledge base are essential. But what I want to end my
    testimony with is a brief discussion of the importance of
    dissemination, in particular of evidence- and practice-validated
    educational improvements.
        Much of this nation's wealth can be traced to large improvements in
    agricultural productivity. In many states, this generated the wealth
    that let them invest heavily in education during the first half of the
    20th century, which in turn positioned the nation to be at the
    forefront of the human capital driven technology revolutions that
    powered economic growth in the latter part of the century. One key
    driver of agricultural productivity, in turn, was the federally funded
    agricultural extension agency that spread scientific farming techniques
    throughout the nation, but also worked to customize and adapt them to
    local conditions, while also spreading local innovations more broadly.
    What is the relevance of this history lesson to improving educational
    outcomes today? In my work with states, school districts, and schools,
    I almost always see one or more really powerful practices wherever I
    go. But over time I have realized that many have very short shelf-lives
    and only exist as long as their developer or proponent is in the
    school, or working for the district or state department of education. I
    also often see examples of uninformed practice or efforts that have
    been shown by solid research to be typically ineffective. As a result,
    we are constantly re-inventing things, already proven and established
    elsewhere, but not sustained or spread, while at the same time
    unknowingly implementing a practice that has been shown broadly not to
    work. Consequently, educational productivity is often quite low. This
    tells me we need to re-think how we disseminate evidence-based and
    practice-validated educational improvements, in part, by funding
    dissemination efforts at the local and state levels and creating more
    efficient means to spread what works with a means to customize it to
    local conditions. This translation function is not unique to education;
    it is increasingly being practiced in medicine and public health.
        In closing, in my work with schools over the past decade and a
    half, I have seen impressive efforts that have led to large
    improvements in educational outcomes in our highest-poverty schools.
    This has occurred when the adults in the building have been guided by
    ambitious improvement goals and a sense of shared urgency; when they
    have had access to good data to guide diagnosis and performance; when
    they have applied evidence-based strategies that enabled them to
    provide strong and coherent instructional programs school-wide; when
    point professional development enables teachers to organize the school
    around teacher teams led by strong leaders, and when these teams
    partner with their parents and non-profits with track records of
    providing the range of student support to propel all students to
    attend, behave, and try hard. These are the efforts we need to bring to
    scale, for our nation to meet the economic and social challenges of the
    21st century. The federal government has a key checks-and-balances role
    to play in providing the guideposts, guardrails, and catalysts needed.
    If at the end of this decade, we are still debating how to do this,
    while other nations have built more universities than we have fixed
    failing schools, we as nation will be on the wrong track.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Ms. Kazmier?

               STATEMENT OF FELICIA KAZMIER, ART TEACHER,
                        OTERO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

        Ms. Kazmier. Good morning, everyone. My name is Felicia
    Kazmier and I am an art teacher at Otero Elementary School in
    Harrison School District 2 in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
        I would sincerely like to thank Chairman Kline, Ranking
    Member Miller, and other members of the committee for allowing
    me the opportunity today to address the committee and the bills
    they have put forward to reauthorize the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act. It is both an honor and a privilege as
    an ordinary citizen to have the opportunity to possibly
    encourage innovation in the way our students will be educated.
        Let me state for the record that I love my job. Teaching is
    not for everyone, and especially when you are working for a
    district like Harrison School District 2, which holds you
    accountable. Our district has implemented an evaluation system
    that not only evaluates our effectiveness as teachers but
    expects us to produce results in regard to student learning
    while compensating us for our hard work.
        In the last 5 years Harrison has stepped up to the
    challenge that now faces many Americans in this room today:
    Should teacher evaluation be linked to student achievement
    results? At Harrison School District 2 teacher effectiveness is
    measured by formal and information observations, written
    summative and ongoing spot observations. Our administrators
    provide feedback, coaching, and professional development to
    improve teacher effectiveness.
        The teacher's results are divided into eight weights per
    content area. Another teacher, depending on the grade and
    content, will have assessments that reflect achievement in
    their content area.
        The district did not have to compensate teachers but
    chooses to do so. The more effective I am the more students
    achieve and the more money I can potentially earn. If a teacher
    is deemed ineffective than the administrator has decisions to
    make about training, remediation, and removal.
        I believe that what makes our district's system work is
    that all teachers have been given an opportunity to help in
    creating our evaluation system. I was asked by our
    superintendent to sit down with him and other art teachers, as
    non-core subject teachers, to create a system by which we could
    be effectively evaluated. How can I take issue with a system
    that I, myself, have been asked to help create? I have been
    given a voice and for that I am grateful.
        I am a supporter of the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act and the direction that the act is going
    because it requires districts to design teacher evaluation
    systems around broad parameters while giving the districts the
    flexibility they need to create a system that works for their
    needs and their students and staff. When districts make student
    achievement data a significant part of their teacher evaluation
    process they help teachers to better understand the power of
    and utilize the information gleaned from data.
        Our district, our administrators, and all of our teachers
    are daily collecting data because knowing what your students
    are able to do should drive effective instruction. When
    districts use multiple measures of evaluation in assessing
    teacher performance teachers are responsible for two things:
    their effectiveness in the classroom and the results their
    students produce. Multiple measures gives us as teachers more
    than one way to evaluate what our students know and are able to
    do. Shouldn't administrators evaluate their teachers in much
    the same way?
        When districts have more than two rating categories for the
    performance of teachers it gives teachers a way not only to
    increase their effectiveness but also the effectiveness of
    those around them. When working with novice teachers this year
    I looked to our performance evaluation scale as a guideline as
    to how best help them achieve success for their students and
    for themselves. If teachers believe that they can move up the
    scale through improving the quality of their classroom
    performance achievement scores will improve as well.
        When districts make personnel decisions based on
    evaluations they do so to ensure that students will receive the
    best teaching possible provided by the most effective teachers
    available. In our district, if you are a Proficient II teacher
    or above you can be asked to change schools so as to provide
    effective instruction where it is most needed.
        When districts seek input from parents, teachers, school
    leaders, and other staff in the school in the development of
    the evaluation system everyone has a stake in the outcome. Our
    district holds accountability meetings, focus group meetings,
    and shareholder meetings to provide opportunities for
    everyone's voice to be heard.
        When creating a system such as Harrison School District 2
    has it is vital to reach out and invite in those who will be
    most impacted by the system. When so much is at stake it is
    imperative that the district reach both inward and outward in
    order to ensure that everyone has a reason to buy in.
        I support and am excited about the Encouraging Innovation
    and Effective Teachers Act because responsibility for student
    achievement should belong to the districts. I know that before
    I started working for this district I believed I was a good
    teacher. I thought I had been teaching for some time and I knew
    my content area so that must make me a good teacher.
        The quality of the instruction I currently present to my
    students is so far ahead of any teaching that I have ever done.
    Understanding the difference between good teaching and great
    teaching is what inspires me to support the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act.
        Like any other parent, I would want nothing less for my own
    three children than I would give to any of my students, and
    that is effective instruction provided to them by a teacher who
    has proven to get the results while at the same time creating a
    positive learning environment.
        [The statement of Ms. Kazmier follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Felicia Kazmier, Art Teacher,
                 Otero Elementary School, Colorado Springs, CO

        Good morning everyone. My name is Felicia Kazmier and I am the Art
    teacher at Otero Elementary School in Harrison School District 2 in
    Colorado Springs, CO. I would sincerely like to thank Chairman Kline,
    Ranking Member Miller and other members of the Committee for allowing
    me the opportunity today to address the Committee and the bills they
    have put forward to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act. It is both an honor and a privilege as an ordinary citizen to have
    the opportunity to possibly encourage innovation in the way our
    students will be educated. Let me state for the record that I love my
    job. Teaching is not for everyone and especially when you are working
    for a district like Harrison School District 2 which holds you
    accountable. Our district has implemented an evaluation system that not
    only evaluates our effectiveness as teachers, but expects us to produce
    results in regard to student learning while compensating us for our
    hard work.
        In the last five years, Harrison has stepped up to the challenge
    that now faces many Americans today in this room; should teacher
    evaluation be linked to student achievement results? Harrison School
    District 2 has established a pay for performance system that measures
    teachers on effectiveness and results (50/50). Teacher effectiveness is
    measured by formal and informal observations, written summative and
    ongoing spot observations: at least 8 for probationary teachers and 4
    for non-probationary teachers. Our administrators provide feedback,
    coaching, and professional development to improve teacher
    effectiveness. The teacher's results are divided into 8 weights-for
    example for me a District Art Project, a District CBM which is a
    curriculum based measurement, a District Art Assessment set, a Mid-
    semester Performance task, my school's individual state test results
    and lastly my individual achievement goal. Another teacher, depending
    on the grade and content, will have assessments that reflect
    achievement in their content area. Within this process collaboration is
    necessary because all teachers own building scores based on our state
    assessments. I look to my colleagues to assist me in how to best teach
    writing so that my students can not only write about Art but then also
    use these writing skills to improve their state writing scores. In
    order to be Exemplary on individual goals and student achievement, I
    have to impact other students outside of my own building. This year
    while mentoring several first year teachers I focused on one teacher
    and wrote an Exemplary goal with her that would impact how effective
    she would be in her instruction. We not only met her goal but her data
    exceeded our expectations. This type of collaboration cannot be
    overlooked when it comes to impacting the quality of effective teachers
    we employ.
        The district did not have to compensate teachers, but chooses to do
    so. The more effective I am, the more students achieve and the more
    money I can potentially earn. I am currently a Proficient II teacher,
    which is one of nine effectiveness levels. If a teacher is deemed
    ineffective, then the administrator has decisions to make about
    training, remediation, or removal. I believe that what makes our
    District's system work is that all teachers have been given the
    opportunity to help in creating our evaluation system. While I am not a
    classroom teacher, as an Art teacher, I teach the entire school. So
    when it came time to have a say into what my evaluation process would
    look like, I chose the leadership role and stepped up to the challenge.
    I was asked by our Superintendent to sit down with him and other Art
    teachers to create a system by which we could be effectively evaluated.
    How can I take issue with a system that I myself have been asked to
    help create? I have been given a voice and for that I am grateful. We
    took small steps to get to where we are today. First, our district had
    to create an environment where teachers and administrators were
    prepared to recognize and then provide amazing instruction. Our
    principals started coming into our rooms and taking notes. We sat down
    together and started discussing what good instruction looks like. We
    were trained and given instructional feedback. I wanted to get better
    not just for me, but for my students. Side by side we have designed a
    system that allows my students to create amazing art to show what they
    know. Quarterly and semester testing provides me feedback on what my
    students are learning. Day to day assessment occurs and I see growth.
    How can I say that I am a good teacher without having data to justify
    that statement?
        I am a supporter of the Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teachers Act and the direction that the act is going because it
    requires districts to design teacher evaluation systems around broad
    parameters while giving the districts the flexibility they need to
    create a system that works for their needs and the needs of their
    students and staff. When districts make student achievement data a
    significant part of their teacher evaluation process they help teachers
    to better understand the power of and utilize the information gleaned
    from data itself. Our district, our administrators and all of our
    teachers are daily collecting data because knowing what your students
    know and are able to do should drive effective instruction. When
    districts use multiple measures of evaluation in assessing teacher
    performance, teachers are responsible for two things, their
    effectiveness in the classroom and the results their students produce.
    Multiple measures gives us as teachers more than one way to evaluate
    what our students know and are able to do, shouldn't administrators
    evaluate their teachers in much the same way? When districts have more
    than two rating categories for the performance of teachers, it gives
    the teachers a way to not only increase their effectiveness, but also
    the effectiveness of those around them. When working with novice
    teachers this year, I looked to our performance evaluation scale as a
    guideline as to how best help them achieve success for their students
    and for themselves. If teachers believe that they can move up the scale
    through improving the quality of their performance in the classroom,
    achievement scores will improve as well. When districts make personnel
    decisions based on evaluations, they are doing so to ensure that
    students receive the best teaching possible provided by the most
    effective teacher available. In our district, if you are a Proficient
    II teacher or above, you can be asked to change schools so as to
    provide effective instruction where it is most needed. When districts
    seek input from parents, teachers, school leaders, and other staff in
    the school in the development of the evaluation system, everyone has a
    stake in the outcome. Our district holds accountability meetings, FOCUS
    groups and shareholders meetings to provide opportunities for
    everyone's voice to be heard. When creating a system such as Harrison
    School District 2 has, it is vital to reach out and invite in those who
    will be most impacted by the system. When so much is at stake, it is
    imperative that a district reach both inward and outward in order to
    ensure that everyone has reason to buy in.
        I support and am excited about the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act because responsibility for student achievement
    should belong to the districts. I know that before I started working
    for this district, I believed I was a good teacher. I thought that I
    had been teaching for some time and I knew my content area so that must
    make me a good teacher. The quality of the instruction I currently
    present to my students is so far ahead of any teaching I have ever
    done. Understanding the difference between good teaching and great
    teaching is what inspires me to support the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act. Like any other parent, I want nothing less for
    my own three children than I would give to any of my students and that
    is effective instruction provided to them by a teacher who has been
    proven to get results while at the same time creating a positive
    learning environment.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Cunningham, you are recognized.

       STATEMENT OF JIMMY CUNNINGHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
                        HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

        Mr. Cunningham. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
    members of the committee, it is my honor to testify today and I
    appreciate your invitation to hear my concerns as I report from
    a public school administrator's perspective.
        My name is Jimmy Cunningham and I serve as superintendent
    of the Hampton School District in Hampton, Arkansas. We are a
    small, rural community serving 550 students.
        Let me begin by highlighting the improvement of Arkansas'
    performance as measured in the recently released Education Week
    Quality Counts. Arkansas has improved from average in policy
    and performance to a current ranking of fifth in the nation.
    This is due to the hard work of dedicated teachers,
    administrators, and the State Department of Education that
    remains committed to improving instruction, and a governor that
    always has an open door.
        I am here to provide testimony about recently released--
    introduced legislation to reauthorize ESEA, currently known as
    No Child Left Behind. The sincere, ongoing efforts of this
    committee to reauthorize ESEA and improve America's schools
    over the last 4 years are recognized across this nation.
    Reauthorization is crucial to providing the nation's schools
    with relief from current law, which is both broken and lacking
    in flexibility states and local school districts need to
    support student learning and achievement.
        The recently introduced Student Success Act and Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act represent a strong step
    in the right direction in large part because they re-center the
    balance of federal involvement in education, returning
    leadership to education stakeholders at the state and local
    level. The Hampton School District receives $153,922 in Title I
    funding, which represents a mere 1.7 percent of our $8.8
    million operating budget. For this reason we strongly support
    the efforts of these bills to balance the proper role of the
    federal government in education, including returning ownership
    of the accountability and assessment system to the state and
    local levels.
        Accountability measures must be transparent, fair, and use
    multiple measures of evidence of growth. We believe in the
    requirements for annual assessment, but under state direction.
    The assessment measures should measure proficiency and growth
    while also allowing the IEP team to ensure that children under
    IDEA receive alternative assessments.
        I am pleased to see Chairman Kline's proposal allows
    students with the most significant cognitive abilities to be
    assessed alternatively. The bill makes significant improvements
    in the federal role in accountability, standards, and
    assessments.
        As an example of these improvements I found the proposed
    legislation maintains student disaggregation by subgroup;
    eliminates the utopian 100 percent proficiency requirement;
    eliminates SES/Choice; returns ownership of the accountability
    system to the state and local level; maintains school
    improvement by low-performing schools under state direction;
    maintains the requirement of annual assessments under state
    direction; requires that assessments measure proficiency and
    growth; removes caps on alternative assessments by allowing the
    IEP team to ensure that children are assessed in a meaningful,
    fair, and accurate manner; maintains current law related to
    comparability calculations; maintains supplement/supplant
    language; reduces federal overreach in school improvement/
    turnaround strategies; puts states and districts in charge of
    designing teacher evaluation system; includes student
    performance in teacher evaluation; provides funding flexibility
    between certain programs within Title I; eliminates the
    requirements of highly qualified teacher provisions while
    allowing the states the flexibility to maintain appropriate
    qualifications; consolidates 21st century funds and allows
    school districts to use these funds to expand learning time;
    and reauthorizes the Rural Education Achievement Program.
        Delving deeper into an issue I am personally vested, I want
    to talk about the concerns of Title I formula. A major flaw in
    the Title I formula is the current weighting system, which in
    theory is designed to drive Title I funding to districts with
    the highest concentrations of Title I-eligible students.
        I, along with AASA and NREA, am strongly committed to this
    intent. Regrettably, current law sometimes does the exact
    opposite. Current law uses two weighting systems, one based on
    percent of a district's students who are Title I-eligible,
    percentage weighting, and the other based on sheer number of
    Title I-eligible students, number weighting.
        Every LEA in the nation runs a poverty indicator through
    both the number and percentage weighting brackets and whichever
    one yields the highest per-pupil allocation is the one used in
    final allocation of funds. Unfortunately, the number weighting
    bracket is mathematically far more powerful than the percentage
    weighting bracket, meaning that money diverted away from
    smaller, poorer districts to larger, less poor districts. This
    adversely affects small districts, both rural and urban, and
    inflate benefits to low-poverty districts.
        Fortunately, there is a legislative fix introduced by
    Congressmen Glenn Thompson, House Resolution 2485, that has the
    ACE Act as a part of the Formula Fairness Campaign, both of
    which are championed by a broad range of national
    organizations, including the Rural School and Community Trust,
    American Association of School Administrators, National Rural
    Education Advocacy Coalition, American Farm Bureau, Save the
    Children, and National Alliance of Black School Educators.
        Our job is far from complete. I commend this committee's
    ongoing efforts to reauthorize ESEA and look forward to the
    continued leadership committed to the current improvement in
    and support of our nation's public schools. After all is said
    and done, it is still about our kids.
        [The statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Jimmy Cunningham, Superintendent,
                            Hampton School District

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and members of the Committee:
    It is my honor to testify today, and I appreciate your invitation to
    hear my concerns, as I report from a public school administrator's
    perspective.
        My name is Jimmy Cunningham and I currently serve as the
    superintendent of Hampton School District in Hampton, Arkansas. We are
    a small, rural community, serving 550 students. I speak to you from my
    35 years as an educator, including 24 years as an administrator, as
    well as a member of the American Association of School Administrator's
    (AASA) Governing Board and President-Elect of the National Rural
    Education Association (NREA).
        Let me begin by highlighting the improvement of Arkansas'
    performance as measured in the recently released Education Week Quality
    Counts. Arkansas has improved from `average' in policy and performance
    to a current ranking of fifth in the nation. This is due to the hard
    work of dedicated teachers, administrators and the State Department of
    Education that remains committed to improving instruction, and a
    governor that always has an open door.
        I am here to provide testimony about recently introduced
    legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The sincere,
    ongoing efforts of this committee to reauthorize ESEA and improve
    America's schools over the last four years are recognized across this
    nation. Reauthorization is crucial to providing the nation's schools
    with relief from current law, which is both broken and lacking in the
    flexibility states and local school districts need to support student
    learning and achievement.
        The recently introduced Student Success Act and Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act represent a strong step in the
    right direction in large part because they re-center the balance of
    federal involvement in education, returning leadership to education
    stakeholders at the state and local level. The Hampton School District
    receives $153,922 in Title I funding, which represents a mere 1.74
    percent of our $8,840,245.00 operating budget. For this reason, we
    strongly support the efforts of these bills to balance the proper role
    of the federal government in education, including returning ownership
    of the accountability and assessment systems to the state and local
    levels.
        Accountability measures must be transparent, fair and use multiple
    measures of evidence of growth. We also believe in the requirements for
    annual assessment, but under state direction. The assessment measures
    should measure proficiency and growth while also allowing the IEP team
    to ensure that children under IDEA receive alternative assessments. I
    was pleased to see Chairman Kline's proposal allows students with the
    most significant cognitive abilities to be assessed alternatively. The
    bills make significant improvements in the federal role in
    accountability, standards and assessments. As an example of the
    improvements I found in the proposed legislation, the bills:
         Maintain student disaggregation by subgroup
         Eliminate the utopian 100 percent proficiency requirement
         Eliminate SES/Choice
         Return ownership of the accountability system to the
    state/local level
         Maintain school improvement for low performing schools,
    under state direction
         Maintain the requirement for annual assessments under
    state direction
         Require that assessments measure proficiency and measure
    growth
         Remove caps on alternate assessments, allowing the IEP
    team to ensure that children are assessed in a meaningful, fair and
    accurate manner
         Maintain current law related to comparability calculations
         Maintain supplement/supplant language
         Reduce federal overreach into school improvement/
    turnaround strategies
         Put states and districts in charge of designing a teacher
    evaluation system
         Include student performance in teacher evaluation
         Require multiple measures for teacher evaluation
         Provide for funding flexibility between certain programs
    within Title I
         Eliminate requirements related to Highly Qualified Teacher
    provisions while allowing states the flexibility to maintain
    appropriate qualifications
         Consolidate 21st Century funds and allows school districts
    to use the funds for expanded learning time
         Reauthorize the Rural Education Achievement Program
        Delving deeper into an issue I am personally vested in, I want to
    talk about concerns within the Title I formula. A major flaw with the
    current Title I formula is the current weighting system, which in
    theory is designed to drive Title I funding to districts with the
    highest concentrations of Title I-eligible students. I, along with AASA
    and NREA, am strongly committed to this intent. Regrettably, current
    law sometimes does the exact opposite. Current law uses two weighting
    systems, one based on the percentage of a district's students who are
    Title I eligible (percentage weighting) and the other based on the
    sheer number of Title I-eligible students (number weighting).
        Every LEA in the nation runs their poverty indicator through both
    the number and percentage weighting brackets, and whichever one yields
    the highest per-pupil allocation is the one used in the final
    allocation of funds. Unfortunately, the number weighting bracket is
    mathematically far more powerful than the percentage weighting bracket,
    meaning that money is diverted away from smaller, poorer districts to
    larger, less poor districts. This adversely affects small districts,
    both rural and urban, and inflates benefits to low-poverty districts.
        Fortunately, there is a legislative fix that has been introduced to
    this Committee and will hopefully be included as the bill moves through
    the rest of the reauthorization process. The All Children Are Equal
    (ACE) Act (HR 2485) was introduced by Congressman Glenn Thompson and
    garnered broad, bipartisan support from 17 House colleagues. ACE
    addresses the issue of number-vs-percentage weighting by gradually
    phasing out number weighting so that after four years, virtually all of
    the nation's schools will receive Title I allocations based on the
    percentage of students in poverty, in line with the original intent of
    Title I dollars being targeted to concentrations of poverty.
        The ACE Act is part of the Formula Fairness Campaign, both of which
    are championed by a broad range of national organizations, including
    the Rural School and Community Trust, American Association of School
    Administrators, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, American
    Farm Bureau Federation, Save the Children, National Alliance of Black
    School Educators and more. I, along with the above listed
    organizations, strongly urge the Committee to include the ACE Act in
    the ESEA bills as they move through the reauthorization process.
        It is imperative that federal education policy makers, while
    continuing to work to improve the currently flawed law, recognize the
    success our nation's public schools have had while placing an emphasis
    on our standards and accountability measures. Our schools continue to
    improve even with limited resources, resources that have been
    increasingly limited--at the federal, state and local level--as the
    recession wears on. We realize these are tough economic times for our
    nation and states. That said, now is the time for this Committee and
    Congress to create and support education policy that best serves our
    students. There is a direct correlation between the strength of the
    nation's education system and long-term economic prosperity.
        Our job is far from complete. I commend this Committee's ongoing
    efforts to reauthorize ESEA and look forward to continued leadership
    committed to the continued improvement in and support of our nation's
    public schools. After all is said and done, it is still all about the
    kids.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham.
        Thank you very much to all the witnesses. As we thought
    when I was introducing you, it is an excellent panel--great
    experience. I appreciate all of your testimony.
        Mr. Luna, let me start with you if I could. We have heard
    some criticism, including today and over the days, that the
    Student Success Act is a--roll back of accountability for
    student achievement, particularly for our most vulnerable
    student populations. Do you believe that is what this bill
    does?
        Mr. Luna. I don't believe that is accurate, Mr. Chairman,
    and I--the reason is because I think states have demonstrated
    that without being compelled by the federal government they
    have adopted higher academic standards than they have had in
    the past--standards that are equal to any other academic
    standard in the world, recognizing that our children will
    compete in a global environment. States are now working
    together to develop the next generation of assessments so that
    we can assess all students at higher levels. And also, states
    have worked together to develop the next generation of
    accountability systems.
        And as I mentioned in my comments, without any compulsion
    from the federal government there is a renaissance going on
    across the country in education reform, and without waiting for
    reauthorization states have taken the lead, and I think they
    will continue to do so. So I don't think the fact that the
    federal government doesn't specifically address the issue does
    not mean that states will not raise the standards because we
    have already demonstrated not only that we will but that we
    have.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Ms. Kazmier, in your testimony you talk about the teacher
    evaluation system that if teachers were deemed ineffective
    through this system that they could be subject to additional
    training, remediation, or removal. What does that process look
    like?
        Ms. Kazmier. Well, Chairman, having absolutely no
    experience with that personally, which is----
        Chairman Kline. Congratulations.
        Ms. Kazmier. Thank you very much--I do know that my
    district has set up a system that allows for teacher success.
    We prepare our teachers for that. This was not a system that
    was thrust upon us, as I have stated, that we all had a stake
    in it, we all had a say.
        However, when teachers are failing to provide the quality
    of instruction that our district deems necessary for our
    students what we end up doing as a team--and this happens in
    each building--we work together with the teacher. The
    administrators, of course, are in the classrooms every day. We
    are having spot observations, formal evaluations, and so what
    happens is, is when that teacher is not getting what they need
    we give them opportunity for continued professional
    development. We mentor them up.
        Currently, I work with teachers who have been teaching for
    several years who, in fact, need help on designing good
    objectives for our students, proper assessment for
    understanding what they have learned and are able to do. So it
    starts, actually, in the building level.
        Once our teachers are given what they need at the building
    level the district also provides them with opportunities to
    continue to improve and be able to give the students the
    quality of instruction that they deserve to have. So it is a
    building first and then a district-level decision that is made.
    If the teacher is ineffective then there is a process for
    reevaluation, and eventually the administrators within the
    building can decide to have the teachers replaced or moved.
        Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Kazmier. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. Mr. Schaffer, again, welcome back to these
    halls. In your testimony you discussed the value of choice in
    the education system, your words, a couple of times, and the
    importance of allowing parents to choose other educational
    providers, such as tutoring services and so forth. Can you talk
    about the importance of that and why you think that is
    important?
        Mr. Schaffer. Sure. The example in my hometown is a perfect
    one. I have seen it replicated 200 times across the state.
        Just the introduction of one charter school in my
    community--there is more than that now, but the introduction of
    one charter school in my community changed the entire
    environment. Just the fact that parents had the ability to move
    their kids from one school to another across town not only
    improved the opportunity for parents to move their kids to that
    school, but it transformed all of the other elementary schools
    because there was a waiting list right away. Every principal in
    town realized that they had a certain number of families in
    their schools that actually wanted to leave. And those
    principals immediately became more responsive to the community,
    holding town meetings, and so on, and engaging those parents in
    defining the future of not just the new charter school--the one
    choice--but improving the quality of education in all of the
    schools.
        Just giving parents the opportunity to choose empowers them
    in a way that is helpful.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        I see my time is expired.
        Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
        I am really impressed with all of the changes that have
    been made in states and all of the progress that has been
    allowed under this one-size-fits-all law. Seems to me you can't
    quite have it both ways. You can't have all of this change that
    has been developed in the states or all of the reluctance to
    change that has been developed in other states and say that
    this is somehow one-size-fits-all.
        What we asked was whether or not children in the fourth
    grade from all the social strata and economic strata of this
    country--were they reading at fourth grade level, and were they
    reading at eighth grade level? And the resounding answer early
    on was no--horribly so. That was the tough criteria.
        Mr. Schaffer, you would be surprised to find out that you
    are not required to have a teacher's license in Colorado under
    federal law and I have the bruises to show it, because we said
    you could certify teachers a number of different ways, at which
    time the states attacked the federal government for tampering
    with the license law. So do however you would like under the
    law.
        And it is interesting because what as Mr. Luna strikes out
    of what he thinks is necessary in terms of college and career
    ready standards, accountability systems, and school improvement
    system, and goals, and meaningful targets, and the rest of
    that, and Mr. Balfanz, what you point out, your testimonies are
    essentially the same, that we need to move in this direction,
    and we need some incentives, and we need some sideboards, if
    you will, to make sure that the states do it.
        Because, Mr. Balfanz, as you pointed out, 10 states
    increased their graduation rates and 10 states seemed to go in
    the other direction. My own state increased the standards,
    reduced the cut scores. My own state is dumping huge numbers of
    children into the alternative assessments way beyond the
    students who cannot take advantage of the regular assessment
    program, be it with disabilities or other factors, they have
    decided to avoid it to make the test scores go up. These games
    have historically been played.
        The question is now, when we see all of the reform that is
    taking place, before you didn't know where your qualified
    teachers were, you wouldn't say where the distribution was,
    your graduation rate--any improvement made you AYP. We had this
    great example of where the dropout factories were making AYP
    but they were graduating less than 40 percent of their
    students, and that is why we put in the federal regulation to
    start asking these questions.
        So schools and states have had it sort of both ways along
    the way, but we see this remarkable--and I agree with Mr. Luna.
    This is the greatest environment for school reform I have seen
    in my career in here, in 38 years on this committee, and we
    should be taking advantage of it.
        We just went through this process where now 11 states have
    been approved for the waiver program. Those states had to make
    submissions on how they would deal with the common core
    standards, with how they would deal with assessments, how they
    would deal with graduation rates. And apparently another 28 are
    waiting in the wings, or maybe 30 states are waiting in the
    wings of starting to make application again, and New Mexico, of
    course, was approved yesterday.
        Mr. Balfanz, you were on the peer review and I have looked
    at some of the comments of the various peer reviewers as a
    negotiation for going back and forth on the waiver process.
    Could you enlighten us to sort of what you saw there, in terms
    of proposals for accountability, for targets for performance
    for these systems under the waiver system?
        Mr. Balfanz. Right, sure. Yes. I think it is a good example
    of, actually, of good federal check and balance on state
    initiative. So if you read across the public peer review
    comments you can see a very common theme across all
    applications that there was concerns about insufficient
    subgroup accountability, insufficient grad rate accountability,
    and potentially not enough attention to capacity-building to
    actually turn around the lowest-performing schools. And
    essentially all the states were asked to revise and resubmit
    and they all got stronger accountability at the end of the day
    because of that--that sort of check and balance.
        And the grad rate accountability--it was often
    unintentional, and that is why we just need to have these
    checks and balance. People aren't always intending to try to
    game the system; they are complicated things.
        So many states have created performance indexes, they have
    added important college and career readiness measures which are
    really good, but then they almost inadvertently weighted
    graduation rates as only 10 percent of the index, which means
    you could actually--there is an incentive to push out kids
    because you only get a small penalty for that and a very big
    achievement gain by having fewer kids with lower abilities
    taking those tests. And as soon as that was pointed out to the
    states the states were more than willing to sort of up the
    accountability but they needed that check and balance for that
    to happen uniformly.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        Time is running out here, but I just want to say, Ms.
    Kazmier, thank you for your testimony. It would be hard for me
    to believe that a bill would leave this Congress to go to the
    president's desk without an evaluation system. But as you know,
    as you describe your own evaluation system, your ability to
    participate and to have design, to have feedback is critical on
    how those evaluation systems are--are--are dealt. You know, I
    don't--I am one of those who don't believe the federal
    government should impose a single evaluation system on it but
    we ought to have a system to make sure that we are--we are
    sorting through the best talent available for the greatest
    number of students.
        Ms. Kazmier. Absolutely. I----
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        Ms. Kazmier [continuing]. Completely agree.
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Petri, you are recognized.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank the panel for your testimony and prepared statements,
    and particularly my former colleague, Bob Schaffer. I think
    there is an image of Congress out there that everyone comes
    here and then becomes a lobbyist in Washington, and you are
    living proof that that is not true, that an awful lot of people
    engage in public service in a variety of ways throughout their
    lives, whether it is in Congress, or you and Hank Brown have
    both been very active in education in the state of Colorado,
    and as you are here today at the national level, as well. So
    thank you for your service.
        One or two other observations: Wisconsin is number one or
    number two in manufacturing in the country in percentage of
    people working in manufacturing. The president was out there
    yesterday visiting a company.
        In my district there is a lot of unemployment and there are
    a lot of employers seeking employees. Thousands of jobs are
    going unfilled--good, high-paying, middle class jobs--because
    unfortunately there is a mismatch between the preparation that
    students are getting and the changing job market that we now
    live ourselves--live in. And we need to address that or we are
    going to be in a world of trouble down the road.
        There are alliances trying to do that in the business
    community and in the education community--21st Century Skills
    is one example in my state, along with 16 other states
    participating in such an alliance, and there are a variety of
    other efforts out there that are good, well-meaning efforts
    from the public to improve it but are also self-serving in the
    sense that these companies desperately need, in order to grow
    and compete, a skilled workforce. And my question is whether
    this legislation advances this effort that is going on at the
    states and in partnership with others in the community and the
    private sector or whether it will put up barriers to those
    collaborative efforts that are going forward to prepare young
    people for the modern world of work more effectively?
        I don't know if any of you have any comments on that but I
    would be interested if you did.
        Mr. Luna. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, I think the proper
    balance is--and what I mentioned in my comments is the proper
    role of the federal government in determining what is best for
    any state, whether it is Wisconsin, or Idaho, or California.
    And so I think it is incumbent that this law hold states to a
    certain level of accountability, but the flexibility has to be
    there because what you described in Wisconsin is similar to
    what we experience in Idaho but the solutions are not the same.
        And so I think when you look at what we have done with the
    common core, where it doesn't focus just on college ready but
    also career ready, we recognize that many of our students are
    graduating from high school not ready for college or career
    ready, and so the standards we have adopted, the curriculums--
    aligned to those assessments that will measure students against
    those standards are not only college but career ready, also. I
    think we recognize that there is an inseparable link between a
    high-quality education system and a growing, robust economy.
    You cannot have one without the other.
        Mr. Petri. I have spent a lot of time visiting with
    principals and teachers in--of the superintendents and
    principals told me they used to be able to educate 20 percent
    of the kids to a fairly high level of literacy and so on, and
    if we could get the rest to show up on time, work as a group,
    and follow instructions they could all get pretty good jobs.
    Now we have got to educate 80 percent to high levels of
    cognitive and the ability to work together with people of
    different skill levels because in the modern world the old
    blue-collar, white-collar, officer, enlisted model that we have
    in the military has broken down and it is a collaborative
    effort at the--in factories all across our country and
    throughout our society. And education needs to adapt to that
    more effectively or we are going to be in a world of trouble. I
    hope this legislation furthers that effort.
        Ms. Pompa. Could I take this opportunity to agree with you
    and to point out the fact that as you--have changed
    tremendously, and what is required to be successful in many
    careers--most careers these days--is a high level of ability in
    both math and English. My concern and the concern of the civil
    rights community is when you look at NAEP scores--and I just
    pulled out from my testimony math scores at grade eight--there
    is a 20-point difference between the achievement of white
    students and Hispanic students, 30 points between white
    students and African American students, and I won't even talk
    about the other gaps.
        I believe that your--the interest that you and many others,
    including NCLR, have in making sure that we have a productive
    workforce in the coming years depends on making sure we educate
    all children. As I look around at how states have fared with
    all students I believe that there is a necessary role for
    building the capacity of states to understand the needs of all
    children, to respond to those needs with appropriate targets,
    and a bit of a push from the community and the federal
    government.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Andrews?
        Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    for making such a good faith effort to raise an issue we really
    need to raise. I appreciate the effort you are making and I
    hope we can work together and achieve it.
        I want to talk about 9-year-olds and math tests. And, Mr.
    Luna, I want to ask you some questions about 9-year-olds and
    math tests.
        Looking at the NAEP test, the National Achievement test, in
    1973 for African American 9-year-olds scored 35 points lower in
    math than white children. In 1999 African American children
    scored 35 points lower than white children. So 26 years, no
    progress.
        In 2008 9-year-old African American children scored 25
    points lower than white children. The intervening development--
    at least one of the intervening developments--was the passage
    and enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2001, implementation
    in 2002.
        Given your premise, which is that states operating without
    a federal accountability system is a preferable option to
    states operating within one, how can you explain the lack of
    progress from 1973 to 1999 and the rather considerable progress
    from 1999 on?
        Mr. Luna. Mr. Chairman, Representative, just to be clear,
    my testimony was that the federal government should have a role
    and I actually stated that No Child Left Behind, the good, the
    bad, and the ugly--the good was that it focused every state to
    be responsible and accountable for----
        Mr. Andrews. Well, let's talk about how it focused every
    state. Do you favor a federal accountability system like
    adequate yearly progress--in other words, should there be a law
    that says if a state doesn't meet certain standards that are
    established at a federal level something happens to the state?
    Do you favor that or not?
        Mr. Luna. As long as the federal government continues to
    spend tax dollars on education there has to be accountability
    for how those dollars are spent, and so I do think that there
    is a proper role.
        Mr. Andrews. Well, under the bill that is in front of us,
    if a state failed to meet whatever accountability standards it
    adopted under this new system what would happen to that state
    under the bill that is in front of us? Do you know?
        Mr. Luna. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, part of the
    testimony that you will have in the record that I didn't have
    time to get to stated that CCSSO and--and myself, we think
    there should be an expectation of focusing on a certain number
    of schools, if you will, or a gap that is not----
        Mr. Andrews. If I may, because my time is limited, when you
    focus on a limited number of schools and some number of them
    fail to meet the standard that is established what should the
    federal law say should happen to those schools?
        Mr. Luna. I think states should have the ability to
    withhold federal funds if schools are not meeting the goals and
    expectations that have been set for them.
        Mr. Andrews. Which they sort of do under No Child Left
    Behind because that would be the provision that lets the state
    school officer go in and reorganize the district, right?
        Mr. Luna. Well, that is the nuclear bomb option. Before
    that there----
        Mr. Andrews. But should that option stay in the law or not?
        Mr. Luna. Yes. I think there should be an expectation and a
    level of accountability for how those dollars are spent.
        Mr. Andrews. Well, that is the same as existing law. What
    other--it is not the same as existing law. How does it differ?
        Mr. Luna. Well, because the law that we currently have is
    putting us on track for 100 percent of our schools to be under
    federal sanctions----
        Mr. Andrews. With all due respect, that is a different
    question. That is a different question. That is what the
    standard should be.
        I understood your testimony as meaning that the
    accountability mechanisms in federal law we have now are
    somehow undesirable. You just testified that the nuclear
    accountability standard is okay with you. Is that what you
    said?
        Mr. Luna. No. Mr. Chairman, and just let me finish a
    sentence and I will give you my answer.
        Mr. Andrews. But what is your answer, because we have had a
    hard time getting it out----
        Mr. Luna. As long as the federal government spends tax
    dollars on education there must be accountability for those
    dollars. That accountability needs to focus on student
    achievement. And how states get schools and students to meet
    those academic goals should be determined at the state level,
    not the federal level.
        Mr. Andrews. How is that standard different than adequate
    yearly progress that is in the present law? How does that
    differ?
        Mr. Luna. Well, adequate yearly progress focuses on
    proficiency, and what states want to focus on is recognizing
    multiple measures of school and student success, meaning
    academic growth.
        Mr. Andrews. I don't disagree with that. I think that is
    not quite what your testimony says.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mrs.Biggert, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have several
    questions, which I hope I can get in as many as possible, but--
    --
        Ms. Kazmier, one of the--you have described the need for
    student achievement to be significant, which is what this
    legislation also says, but the achievement to be a significant
    part of teacher evaluations. And my problem is I don't think--
    what do you mean by significant? And it is not defined in--in
    this bill. Are you concerned that the--the student achievement
    data, such as standardized testing, could compromise a
    disproportionate share of your evaluation?
        Ms. Kazmier. No, I am not. And in actuality--and just to
    state this for the record, obviously, on our school district
    Web site the entire program is laid out. So instead of going
    into a great deal and specifics I would ask that you go to the
    Harrison School District Web site to look at more of that
    information.
        When it comes to teacher evaluations, the state scores that
    our buildings receive are only one part of eight weights for
    our evaluation process. So we all, as a building, own the
    scores that our students have achieved, and that is just one
    part of our evaluation process.
        Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that if this bill is passed then
    that that could be different, because it seems to be that is
    the lead criteria, and then the others, but significant could
    be--is that 50 percent plus one, or is it just all the same?
        Ms. Kazmier. Speaking at what I am currently looking at
    when it comes to my own evaluation, I believe it to remain the
    same. And the biggest reason is because that is just one small
    snapshot of what our students are capable of doing.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
        Then does anyone else have some concern about the
    significant definition, which is not defined?
        Okay.
        Then, Ms. Kazmier, one of the provisions of H.R. 3990 would
    make the details of individual teacher's evaluations available
    to parents. In one of my former lives, as a school board member
    and president, I can see--and now with the Internet,
    particularly, that if a parent can go in and see the
    evaluations--I have no problems with, you know, what the
    teacher's education was, what--and things like that, but to
    have them see the evaluations, and parents can go in and then
    would really get all of the teachers' evaluations in the
    school. And I think that that is--do you have any problems with
    that?
        Ms. Kazmier. No. Why would I? Thinking about how
    responsible I am for the learning of my students, I owe it to
    their parents in order to have complete transparency into the
    type of quality of teaching that I am providing for their
    students. I would want that as a parent. I would want to know
    that my children had the best possible teacher.
        Mrs. Biggert. And if they don't then they arrive at the
    school board to say that they want the best teacher.
        Ms. Kazmier. Yes. And if they don't then I think it is up
    to the district and the building itself to rectify that
    situation and to create a learning environment that is going to
    be conducive to progress for their students.
        Mrs. Biggert. How do you think giving parents access to the
    evaluations will enhance parental participation?
        Ms. Kazmier. Any time that our parents have an
    opportunity--and I hope that this is the case--our parents are
    invited to our schools. That doesn't happen in every school in
    every state, but I think if parents who are truly concerned
    about what their students are learning have the opportunity
    to--to seek that information it will probably not only increase
    the amount of time that they get into the buildings but it will
    give them a better understanding of what their students are
    learning.
        Mrs. Biggert. And what other ways would you encourage
    parental involvement?
        Ms. Kazmier. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
        Mrs. Biggert. What other ways would you encourage parental
    involvement and communication in your classroom and in your----
        Ms. Kazmier. Oh, for my classroom clearly that is going to
    be daily phone calls home. And within my building there are
    team letters that go home from each of the grade level teams.
    There is a newsletter that goes home within our buildings. Our
    district holds meetings as well as our building administrators.
        So there are probably countless ways that I can encourage
    it, but it has to happen on their part.
        Mrs. Biggert. Is anyone else here concerned about the lack
    of privacy?
        Mr. Luna, do you----
        Mr. Luna. Congresswoman, there--we are confident that the
    state and federal laws that protect privacy of students and
    educators are adequate and I agree with the good teacher here
    that----
        Mrs. Biggert. But this bill would say that--that you could
    go in and get those evaluations. This doesn't happen in any
    other area, for firefighters or, you know, public--police or
    anything. I just think it goes too far.
        Ms. Kazmier. Can I ask why you think it goes too far?
        Mr. Luna. Yes. I guess that would be my question, also.
        Mrs. Biggert. Because I think that it is that there won't
    be a really true evaluation if every--if the administration
    knows that it is going to be put out to the public.
        Ms. Kazmier. Okay.
        Mrs. Biggert. And I think that is going to really--and
    rather than having the--being able to make sure that the
    teachers have high quality that they won't be able to give a
    fair and really real evaluation.
        Ms. Kazmier. So would you suggest that maybe we would leave
    it to the teachers to put that information forward? Because as
    a high-achieving teacher I want my parents to know what their
    students are getting and I would be the first to step up and
    say, ``These are the scores. This is what I am providing to
    your students, and this is how well I have done.'' However,
    there are going to be teachers, as you said, who don't want
    that information out there. However, those are the teachers who
    I try to work with in order to improve their scores so that
    that type of transparency can happen for the students and the
    parents.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Woolsey?
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to this panel. You have got a broad consensus of
    what is going on here.
        Dr. Balfanz, you stress in your testimony, and your major
    emphasis is reducing the dropout rate----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Which I certainly credit you for.
    And if this country is going to have a workforce that is
    something we have to do immediately.
        And so you also underscore that without a strong federal
    commitment to the--our nation's education system there actually
    will be an achievement disparity----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. With--between states--those that
    have successful programs versus those without. One of the
    things that concerns me greatly about the bill that is put
    forward is that it would not include--in fact, it would
    eliminate essential wraparound services that I believe help
    disadvantaged families bridge the gap----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. And help the teacher who has this
    new student or a student that comes from a disadvantaged family
    that is either not prepared, not well, not nourished. Tell me
    what you think wraparound services bring to the school site.
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes. They are really essential because what
    has happened is we have concentrated our neediest students in a
    subset of schools that weren't really designed for that high
    level of need. So in many schools, just take the simple thing
    of attending school, right? You can have the best teacher in
    the world, the best curriculum; if kids don't come every day it
    is not going to work.
        Ms. Woolsey. Right.
        Mr. Balfanz. At our highest-need schools chronic
    absenteeism is 15 percent of the elementary school, 30 percent
    in the middle school, up to 50 percent in the high school,
    which means--and chronic absenteeism is kids who miss a month
    or more of school. That is a lot of school; it is not a little
    school. And it means teachers have different kids in their
    classroom every day, which slows instruction down for everyone.
        You need other adults to help get those kids to school.
    When it is identified absenteeism is a thing communities can do
    a lot about, but one thing is we don't measure it. So we have
    to start measuring it. And then secondly, we have to have the
    other adults to help make sure that kids can come to school
    ready to learn and then teachers can do their high-quality job
    will have much better results.
        And that is especially important both to have wraparound
    services and have a dedicated funding stream for it because----
        Ms. Woolsey. Well, yes. And tell us, just to amplify, what
    you mean by not ready to learn. What are some of the reasons
    that a young person would walk in the classroom not ready to
    learn?
        Mr. Balfanz. Well, I mean, the thing is that in high-
    poverty environments kids face a lot of different stressors. In
    many cases they have to take on care-giving responsibilities
    themselves--get younger siblings to schools, do elder care for
    elderly relatives even when they are just young, teenage girls.
    And other times there are, you know, the neighborhood is
    unsafe, there is a lot of crime and violence, which puts kids
    under enormous stress. You know, there are problems of alcohol
    and substance abuse at home sometimes.
        And without some other adults helping to guide them,
    shepherd them, get them ready for school, it doesn't happen for
    enough kids. And we really need to have that level of supports
    to really be able to have the high levels of achievement we
    need.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. So what do you think
    about cutting those services?
        Mr. Balfanz. I think they are essential and I think we need
    to continue to fund and have ways to make sure that we get
    enough skilled adults to help kids come to school ready to
    learn so teachers can teach.
        Ms. Woolsey. And that is quite unfair, I believe, to the
    teacher that we evaluate on that student's achievement----
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. When some kids are ready to learn
    and some aren't and depends on where your zip code makes a
    difference quite often. Thank you.
        Ms. Pompa?
        Ms. Pompa. Yes?
        Ms. Woolsey. In fact, Congressman Petri talked about this,
    about the future of our workforce and how important it is that
    we educate all children, and there is--it is very important
    that--I believe--that we educate all kids in the STEM fields--
    science, technology, engineering, and math. The chairman's bill
    would remove the requirement included in No Child Left Behind
    that all schools adopt science standards and assessments.
        I can't imagine what that means to the--our nation,
    nationwide. I mean, I know we--some of you want each school to
    decide how they are going to do, you know, the--make the
    decision, whether they want science or whatever, but how are we
    going to compete in worldwide if our kids aren't technically
    ready--at least have the choice to go into these fields? And
    would you speak to that and include the need for young women
    and underserved students?
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. If we
    could have the answer for the record, please?
        Dr. Heck, you are recognized.
        Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all the members of the panel for being here
    today and for your commitment to educating our future leaders.
    As someone who spent 23 years in the classroom and as somebody
    with a degree in education who decided after doing his student
    teaching that I wasn't meant to be a teacher, I really
    appreciate all that you do for our kids.
        You know, much of the criticism we have heard on the
    Student Success Act centers around the idea that states can't
    be trusted with education of our students. Yet, the
    administration must trust the states, as evidenced by the
    waivers to ESEA to, and I quote from the Department of
    Education's Web site, ``provide educators and state and local
    leaders the flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB
    in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed
    plans designed to improve incomes for all students, close
    achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of
    instruction.''
        And we have seen 45 states voluntarily adopt the common
    core standards, which have specific applications for ELL and
    students with disabilities. We see many districts starting to
    adopt and move to a growth model to better measure achievement
    by proficiency.
        So, Mr. Luna and Mr. Schaffer, I would ask you, in your
    opinion, what would be an appropriate federal accountability
    standard or measurement to ensure that states can be trusted to
    move forward with that flexibility to develop their own
    accountability standards?
        Mr. Luna. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, I think requiring
    states to identify a certain number of persistently low-
    performing schools, those schools that struggle to eliminate
    achievement gaps, and then requiring states to report
    information on student progress in--down to the individual
    student level as well as subgroups, I think those are minimum
    requirements that should be part of a federal law.
        Mr. Schaffer. I am sorry. Congressman, your question is
    what is an appropriate level of----
        Mr. Heck [continuing]. That we talk about, as Mr. Luna
    stated, as long as tax dollars are going to fund education
    there needs to be some accountability standard at the federal
    level. In your opinion, what would be a federal accountability
    standard or measurement standard that would be appropriate?
        Mr. Schaffer. Well, within the context of whether states
    should be trusted, yes, states ought to be trusted completely.
    That is kind of what the premise of the country is, I had
    always believed. And, I mean, these are our kids that are--we
    operate an education system in our state predicated on the
    notion that as parents, as community leaders of those, in my
    case, who was elected to serve on the state board, that we are
    held accountable to our communities and to our--the parents who
    vote for us. Those are the ones who ought to be holding states
    most accountable in my state, and I think in most states they
    do.
        And my belief is that from our perspective in Colorado--I
    can't speak for all--but that the expectation level of
    accountability and the immediacy of a response is far quicker,
    and greater, and more precise, and more meaningful when we move
    authority actually away from Washington and back to the
    neighborhood. And so in my opinion, the greatest way to achieve
    accountability is in that direction.
        The federal government certainly spends an awful lot of
    money. That is a decision you have made. And when you spend
    that kind of cash, if I were you--and I was--I want to make
    sure those dollars are spent effectively.
        But there are some practical realities. I mean, you are
    2,000 miles away from where it is being spent, in many cases.
    You are not going to get efficiency in those cases. The only
    individuals who can guarantee that these dollars are being
    spent efficiently are the ones who are closest to the children
    who are affected. The further away you get from that the more
    waste you are going to have. It is unavoidable.
        Mr. Heck. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Grijalva?
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I--we ought to
    trust the states, but I think our role here today and with this
    legislation is to also verify. I don't believe in blind trust.
    The children that we are talking about in this
    reauthorization--we are here for a reason, and let's not forget
    that history.
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act was built on dealing
    with inequities at the state level, dealing with discrimination
    at the state level, and dealing with the lack of access at the
    state level. So I have to say that, you know, we have this--Mr.
    Luna said, had a renaissance in the last few decades, but the
    fact remains that those children that we are talking about are
    still behind and the accountability portion of it is really
    important.
        Ms. Pompa, the different titles--you know, they get all
    collapsed into one pot and the states will decide how that pot
    gets distributed, but with regard to that I want to ask, it has
    been suggested--let's--Title III--that maybe a school district
    would be--school district would be better off instead of using
    that for acquisition of English it would be better off with
    those--but we just bought computers for the school. Your
    comment on that?
        Ms. Pompa. Certainly. As you point out, there is a history
    of a need for a federal role in education, which is why we have
    the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. English language
    learners are one of the populations that has needed the most
    protection because states and local districts have not
    responded to their needs over the years. To this day we see
    failure at the state and district level to respond to the needs
    of these kids.
        Turning the ability over to states and districts to move
    money around, and in this case move Title III funds around so
    that they can spend the money on purposes other than which were
    designated for Title III just adds to the ability of states to
    put aside the needs of these children. And I have great
    concerns--the civil rights community has great concerns about
    that.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Mr. Balfanz, if I may, Doctor, let me--what do you see the
    effects of removing so many reporting requirements under the
    legislation? Under this bill states will not have to report
    their standards, what their standards are tied to, what
    alternative assessments are being used or what they mean. You
    think states will do that on their own.
        For example, prior to 2008 the great state of Idaho and the
    great state of Arkansas didn't have any accountability for
    subgroups in that state. So, if you don't mind?
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes. No, I think--and again, this is--the
    point I make is that there just needs to be checks and
    balances. So there is always good intention at the state level.
    They all want to have all their kids succeed. But there is
    often limited time, and energy, and focus, and you sort of--you
    pick a way to go and you go that way and you don't always
    recognize the tradeoffs you are making.
        So, for example, a movement now is to sort of lump all low-
    performing kids together and say we want to improve the bottom
    25 percent of low-performing students as a group. But the truth
    is, is that you can still have progress in that group but have
    identified subgroups making no progress or going backwards and
    being averaged in----
        Mr. Grijalva. Okay, for example, what does this legislation
    do in terms of the initiatives to deal with--the need to deal
    with dropout factories in this country, the kind of--the
    lingering in the middle school that we are not really
    addressing that?
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Grijalva. What does this legislation do for that?
        Mr. Balfanz. It sort of takes the foot off the gas,
    basically. It has only been most recently, actually with the
    school improvement grants, which there is a lot of room to
    improve the how, but basically those grants are the ones that
    have set up--if you are a high school with a grad rate below 60
    percent you must reform yourself; you have no choice.
        And the truth is, is there is--in 25 percent of the dropout
    factories are in single high school towns. It is the only high
    school in that town and graduation is not the norm. And it has
    been that way for decades, and everybody knows it. It is well-
    known. It is not like it is a--just showing a spotlight will
    make a difference.
        And it is only when there was ultimately federal compulsion
    saying, ``This school has got to be reformed. You can have some
    latitude in how, but we can't have another decade where half
    the kids aren't graduating when there is absolutely no work for
    them.''
        And related to that is also their feeder middle schools,
    because we know from the early warning indicators that it is
    actually in middle schools that kids start on the pathway to
    dropping out. And if we don't have focused attention to those
    schools the problem will continue.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Ms. Kazmier, just a question: On the 2011 Colorado Student
    Assessment Program the 398 kids at Otero School, pre-K-5, the
    mathematics and writing for students with disability, they
    didn't make AYP in that particular exam. My question is
    relative to educators. So the educator responsible for that
    subgroup of kids--or maybe it is shared educators--does their
    evaluation reflect that--the fact they didn't make AYP? And if
    so, what are the consequences there?
        Ms. Kazmier. Well, let me start by saying that I am a non-
    core teacher, and as an art teacher my evaluations look
    different than that of a core teacher or a special----
        Mr. Grijalva. Okay, this teacher is responsible for
    disability students. They should--then they are not eligible
    for the merit pay and their evaluation based on the assessment
    would be lower than everybody else----
        Ms. Kazmier. They----
        Chairman Kline. I am sorry. The gentleman's time----
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline [continuing]. Has expired.
        Dr. Roe?
        Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and
    I also want to thank this committee for bringing up the--we
    have huge challenges in this country, and obviously there are a
    lot of different opinions about education, and it is tough. And
    having spent 24 years in the public education system, never in
    the private system, I am absolutely committed so that every
    young person in this country gets a quality education and can
    enjoy the fruits of their education, as I have.
        But let me just point out--and, Mr. Schaffer, you brought
    out, when I moved my young family to Johnson City, Tennessee I
    looked for a home near a good school, where my kids could go to
    school. A lot of kids in poorer areas can't do that, and they
    shouldn't be held hostage in poor-performing schools forever
    because they only have one chance to get that education. Doing
    it again when you are in your 20s and 30s is really tough.
        Let me point out a good friend of mine, Jan Lindsay, second
    grade teacher and patient for 30 years, invited me down to her
    second grade class last year, and I read to the class. And as
    she got ready to leave she pointed out one young student and
    said, ``Well, he will be with me again next year.'' And I said,
    ``What is the problem, Jan? Has he been ill, or what''--you
    know, like a doctor I am thinking, has he been sick? No. His
    dad is in jail, his mother won't get him up to get him out the
    door; he has missed 60 days of school.
        So I said, ``Well, let me make sure I understand this. This
    child's mother won't get him up to get him out the front door
    to get to the school, so he doesn't make AYP, so you are a bad
    teacher and this is a failing school.'' And that is the system
    that is bad. I think we have to look at that and say to those
    teachers--and it is frustrating our teachers. If you want to
    see a--go talk to a frustrated bunch of people--and I knew this
    hearing was coming up so Monday I went to two schools, a middle
    school and an elementary school, and I can assure you, we are
    putting a burden on our teachers and a standard they cannot
    reach.
        So you are absolutely right--all of you on this panel. By
    2014 every school will be failing and every teacher will be
    failing. It is the same as me, as a physician, if I got any
    patient in any condition, that they came in with cancer,
    whatever it may be, and said, ``You have got to cure them all
    by 2014,'' I will be a failing doctor. So that is, I think,
    some of the frustration I see.
        The other frustration--and I would like to hear you talk
    about this--any of you that would like to--I hear it all the
    time, is, ``I have to teach to the test.'' And is that real, or
    is that perceived by our teachers? And any of you can jump on
    that if you would like.
        Ms. Pompa. Let me jump on it. Teaching to the test is a
    phrase that people have tossed around and--to criticize the
    implementation of high standards and good assessments.
    Teachers----
        Mr. Roe. Just to interrupt you, I have never heard any of
    my teachers that I have talked to at home complain about
    transparency, accountability. They all want to be--and I think
    you make a great point that it is--you want--people want to
    know who a good teacher is, and basically they do understand.
        I knew who the good teachers in high school were. The kids
    knew. But we didn't have an--but we put a system together that
    made them failing teachers because of something totally out of
    their control.
        I think the control needs to be back at the local level. I
    think the arrogance of Washington to be able to go down and
    tell--because I was a mayor of the city that had control of the
    school board, and I trust my school board and I trust the
    teachers in my community. And we will set the--they will reach
    those. But we are frustrating them to death--our teachers.
        Ms. Kazmier. How do we get rid of the misconception of
    teaching to the test? I think the transparency has a lot to do
    with that.
        Mr. Roe. Okay.
        Ms. Kazmier. As a teacher in the classroom every day, if I
    spent all of my energy teaching to a test my students would not
    be able to make art. They make art because they understand
    art----
        Mr. Roe. You wouldn't be any fun.
        Ms. Kazmier [continuing]. Because they have learned about
    it. Well, and it wouldn't be any fun.
        So teaching to the test in my school district is not an
    option. There are going to be tests; there are going to be
    assessments; we are held accountable. However, the transparency
    of this type of system will allow parents--I mean, education
    shouldn't be a mystery. We should know exactly what our kids
    are doing and what they are learning, and when my child comes
    home from school I should be able to have a discussion with her
    and then go to the teacher and have that same discussion.
        Mr. Roe. And the parents would love to do that.
        Before my time expires I want to go out to one local
    private-public partnership. We had a man, Scott Nicewander, who
    lives in the first congressional district of Tennessee,
    recognize that we have a lot of rural schools Mr. Cunningham
    deals with. And what he did was he set up distance learning.
        There were some small, rural schools that had 50 students,
    and they didn't have access to a calculus teacher, or an
    algebra--good algebra teacher, maybe. So he set a distance
    learning through the Internet, and the--and I have been on his
    class and been in classrooms in multiple schools at the same
    time. We have seen low-performing schools without any federal
    dollars doing this now.
        He did get a grant for his foundation to improve this and
    expand it. It has been fantastic. And it hasn't been a top-down
    approach; this was a bottom-up approach, where innovative
    people at the local level figured out how to get to these rural
    areas.
        And I know in Arkansas you are dealing with the same issues
    in rural areas. And rural and urban areas are different.
        And I realize my time is expired.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mrs. Davis?
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I wanted to turn for a minute to special education,
    because we haven't really focused on that too much and I know
    that there certainly have been concerns with No Child Left
    Behind in that area. But I think that one of my constituents,
    actually, who is a special education teacher, wrote and said
    that she hopes that these discussions are moving well for
    special ed kids because she feels we have to look 30 or 50
    years, really, ahead, and build for the future where young
    people, of course, can joyfully learn and grow.
        And there are concerns that the Republican bill that is
    before us would allow any number of students with disabilities
    to be tested using alternate achievement standards and that
    perhaps parents wouldn't understand the full consequences of
    these assessments, including a decision that might be made in
    third grade, for example, that would prevent their child from
    achieving a regular diploma as they move down their educational
    path.
        The other concern is that it doesn't require separate
    reporting on alternate assessments, and it would mean that
    schools could report 100 percent of students are proficient but
    without any indication of whether those students were held to
    lower standards and tested using alternative tests. So I wonder
    if you could respond, you know, to at least the information
    that we have about these provisions, whether you think these
    are acceptable or not.
        Ms. Pompa, do you want to respond, or others? What do you
    think we are going to see in 30 or 50 years if these provisions
    were passed into law?
        Ms. Pompa. We are going to see great backsliding on all the
    progress we have made on behalf of students with disabilities.
    Over the last several years the disability community has worked
    very hard to ensure that these children have a free and
    appropriate education and the least restrictive environment,
    and through many reauthorizations of IDEA we have made great
    progress, and now we are able to connect the progress there to
    the progress that was--the targets that were laid out in the No
    Child Left Behind Act.
        I don't see how raising the cap on alternate assessments is
    going to allow us to continue to make that sort of progress.
    Most students in special education do not have cognitive
    disabilities. Most students in special education are able to be
    taught and are able to meet the same standards as all students,
    and taking--and following through on this proposal would set us
    back several years.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Because I want to try and use my time well, I have been
    very interested--and I am going to move to evaluations for a
    second--in teacher evaluations and, along with my colleague,
    have put forth a piece of legislation in that regard. And some
    of the issues that you are talking about resonate and certainly
    are incorporated into that.
        But I also was concerned, and particularly with Colorado--
    it is my understanding--and certainly correct me if I am
    wrong--that Colorado doesn't report federally required data on
    the distribution of inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
    teachers in high-and low-minority schools in its equity plans
    so that, in fact, you really--the public certainly doesn't have
    an opportunity to look at those issues.
        And so I am wondering--I mean, Ms. Kazmier, does your
    school report that?
        Ms. Kazmier. Does my--repeat the question--my school
    report----
        Mrs. Davis. The number of teachers who are either
    inexperienced, unqualified, or working out of their field.
        Ms. Kazmier. It is my understanding that currently we don't
    report that. I know that the qualifications that get you to, in
    my case, Proficient II or above are, yes, published. Whether
    that is going to change or not, I couldn't speak to that.
        Mrs. Davis. Because I am wondering how, then--I mean, I
    think, actually, there is a level of transparency that is
    important, and I think trying to figure out where exactly that
    is in terms of full disclosure, you know, may be something that
    we need to talk about, but----
        Ms. Kazmier. I agree.
        Mrs. Davis [continuing]. But I am interested in knowing
    that how--it sounded as if the--how teachers fare on
    evaluations has some role to play in whether or not they are
    encouraged to move to a school in which perhaps their talents
    can be better used.
        Ms. Kazmier. Yes.
        Mrs. Davis. And so----
        Ms. Kazmier. If you are a Proficient II teacher or above
    and there is a need at another school for the quality of
    teaching that you can provide the district will place you in a
    position where you can do the most good for the students. That
    is correct.
        Mrs. Davis. Do you think that it should be very, very clear
    on any bill that goes forward that professional development and
    how it is used is going to be part of any evaluation process?
        Ms. Kazmier. I think in the case of a teacher who is in
    need of professional development--and I hope I am explaining
    this well--if a teacher does, in fact, need professional
    development in order to become a better teacher it should be
    very clear, and that is what our system has set up. We weren't
    just thrown into this system. This was 5 years in the making.
        And what our administrators did is explain to us, teach us,
    and show us, and provide feedback how to become the best
    possible teacher you can become. So it is available to those
    teachers who are not performing to get the help through the
    district and through their own buildings to become that
    proficient teacher.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Dr. Bucshon?
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to
    make a few comments. I don't really have any specific
    questions.
        Excellent panel, and thanks for your input.
        For 40 or 50 years we have been doing things in a very
    similar way. We have made some progress. But any time, I think,
    that you see change being made like is being made in the state
    of Indiana, where I am from, with Governor Daniels and Tony
    Bennett, that there is going to be a lot of discussion and a
    lot of disagreement, and ultimately, I think as long as we keep
    the focus on the end product, which is the success of our
    students, we are going to come out in the end and be more
    competitive globally.
        So I thank the chairman for this hearing and I think the
    committee on both sides of the aisle wants to work together to
    improve the product, which is our students. And I have four
    children; that is what I want and I think that is what we all
    want.
        But this type of discussion is very healthy and we know we
    cannot continue to do the same things we have been doing
    literally for decades without definitive success, and in
    addition to that, let the--let the rest of the world continue
    to outpace us, especially in science and engineering and other
    areas, we have to grab the bull by the horns and make some
    changes, and that is what we are trying to do.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
        Mrs. McCarthy?
        Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate--and I
    appreciate all the testimony that we have heard today.
        Two of the areas that I have special interest in: children
    with disabilities--learning disabilities--because my son grew
    up with them, I grew up with them; the second part is the high
    dropout rate. And going through the legislation, you know, and
    there are many things in this particular bill that I, you know,
    I agree with. But I still see a shortchange on dealing with the
    issue of dropouts, which makes me a little upset, and certainly
    with children with disabilities.
        We have fought for a long, long time. I go back to the
    years when a child with--was born with Down syndrome, they
    basically were put into an institution. Today we see them in
    our society working out in the stores being part of society.
        And I think that we have come such a long way, and as you
    had said, Ms. Pompa, that these young people can learn, and
    they can learn, but they do take extra resources, they do take
    extra time, and to be very honest with you, take special
    teachers to have the patience with it.
        What I would like to see is both of you, Ms. Pompa and Dr.
    Balfanz, explain what is in this legislation that is going to
    make lives for those children that are going to drop out--how
    do we reach them? How do we keep them in school?
        And also, I know that you talked about it a little bit, but
    children with special needs that are in our community--many of
    us feel enough is still not being done for them to get them
    into society. And if you could address those issues, both of
    you.
        Ms. Pompa. Thank you. I will begin.
        I think the notion of high expectations is missing from
    this piece of legislation. And when I say that I mean that we
    have not set targets in this legislation that would say, ``All
    kids can reach this standard, and states, we expect you to get
    there.'' And if we do not set these expectations I think we
    have seen a lot of evidence that all children don't get the
    same treatment and aren't held to the same standard. So that is
    one thing that is missing from this for both children with
    disabilities and children who, unfortunately, too often become
    dropouts.
        Setting the targets for these children is something that
    has become very important. We have seen too many years where
    the performance for these groups of children was shoved under
    the rug, and we have got to change that.
        In addition to the high expectations you mentioned that it
    takes a special teacher. It is going to take teachers who have
    the capacity to work not only with children with disabilities
    but with children who have many of the challenges they bring to
    school and then become dropouts.
        Moving the funding around, doing away with some of the
    expectations of what teachers--how teachers--how states would
    hold teachers accountable I believe undermines the capacity we
    would have to serve these children well.
        Mr. Balfanz. And all I would quickly add is that we really
    have to have graduation rate goals, and all children have got
    to be expected to graduate regardless of how they walked into
    the school because there is no work if they don't graduate, and
    we have to say that is an expectation, not something nice that
    happens.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thanks to all the panelists for bringing your passion and
    your expertise. Very important topic.
        Mr. Cunningham, I want to greatly appreciate your prepared
    remarks and include the mention of the current inequity in the
    Title I formulas. At the core of this issue is a misallocation
    of funds because of two separate weighting systems, one that
    focuses on percentages or concentrations of poverty, and the
    second which incorporates sheer number of students. You
    referred to that in your testimony.
        While well-intended, number weighting has the perverse
    effect of diverting funding from higher-poverty school
    districts to lower-poverty school districts. As you know, these
    formulas are complicated, yet I believe H.R. 2485, the ACE Act
    and the language of that will be an eloquent correction to
    eliminate the effect that numbering weighting has upon formula
    without sending any one school district off a cliff or costing
    additional funds.
        Now, the bill has received bipartisan support from many of
    the committee's members and we look forward to continuing the
    debate on how best to address this current injustice and move
    forward so that there is fairness in Title I formulas.
        Mr. Cunningham, my question is, could you briefly describe
    how number weighting affects schools in Arkansas? This is a
    somewhat nuisance issue and I believe that members of the
    committee are certainly going to benefit from your state----
        Mr. Cunningham. Yes. Thank you for that question.
        I believe, Congressman Thompson's House Resolution 2485
    corrects that problem because we have a system that benefits
    large numbers of poverty. We don't recognize--I think the
    general intent is to recognize percent of kids in poverty and
    that--I think that bill corrects that situation over a 4-year
    period by reallocating those funds on a consistent basis, which
    was in the intent of the law.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent--I have a letter from
    the American Farm Bureau Federation on this issue I would like
    to submit for the record.
        [The information follows:]

           Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation

        The American Farm Bureau Federation believes strong rural schools
    are vital to enhancing the lives of rural Americans and will lead to
    building strong and prosperous rural communities.
        Farm Bureau represents more than 6 million families who rely on a
    strong school system to provide their children with a world-class
    education. As hearings begin on H.R. 3989, the Student Success Act,
    Farm Bureau asks the committee to change the current Title I funding
    formula used by the federal government to determine the amount of money
    state and local school districts receive, as it puts rural and small
    town school districts at a disadvantage.
        Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides
    $14.5 billion in federal funding to school districts to help them meet
    the educational needs of financially disadvantaged students. Title I
    funding was intended to send funds to school districts with high
    concentrations of poverty. Instead, the current formula systematically
    discriminates against the school districts it was intended to benefit:
    rural, small town and moderate-sized urban school districts with a high
    concentration of poverty.
        Farm Bureau supports H.R. 2485, the All Children are Equal (ACE)
    Act. The ACE Act corrects a major flaw related to number weighting in
    the current formula used to allocate Title I funds for the education of
    disadvantaged students under the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act.
        Number weighting redirects funds from smaller districts, both rural
    and urban, no matter how high the poverty rate, to a handful of the
    largest districts, regardless of poverty rate. The ACE Act corrects the
    Title I formula and secures funding for school districts with the
    highest concentrations of poverty.
        The ACE Act corrects the number weighting problem by gradually
    reducing the weighting factors used in the number weighting system. The
    weighting factors would be reduced by 10 percent each year for four
    years, gradually reducing the influence of number weighting on the
    distribution of funds.
        Title I should function as Congress intended, which the current
    formula fails to accomplish. Including the ACE Act makes the Title I
    formula more effective and the distribution of Title I funding more
    fair by treating all children equally.
        Farm Bureau supports the inclusion of the ACE Act in H.R. 3989, the
    Student Success Act.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Without objection.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
        Ms. Kazmier, you know, we have had a lot of discussion
    about student-teacher evaluation, different questions going
    back and forth. Now, the Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teacher Act requires that evaluation systems be developed in
    consultation with teachers and other stakeholders in the
    process.
        In your testimony you discuss how that happened in your
    district. Could you talk more about the importance of that
    consultation in creating trust among teachers in the new
    evaluation?
        Ms. Kazmier. Absolutely. Let's go back to the idea that
    education shouldn't be a mystery, and to have open discussion
    with everyone who is involved is the only way to open up the
    mystery that we have all been, I guess, hiding behind as
    educators.
        In order to have a full understanding and a full buy-in at
    the district level, at the community level, and at the building
    level it is important, as our district did, to invite all
    stakeholders, all shareholders. Anyone who could be possibly
    involved in the way that the children are going to be educated
    should be there.
        Our conversations started, as I said a few minutes ago, 5
    years ago. What does our district need? In the state of
    Colorado our district, in particular, was on watch, and on
    watch essentially means you are not getting the job done. Our
    district is no longer on watch.
        We have had an administration that has come in and our
    superintendent has stepped up to the challenge. Opening up
    these conversations means that we all understand what we are
    trying to achieve. We have to work for the common goal.
        Clearly, the bottom line is it is about the students. So if
    parents understand what direction we are trying to take their
    students, if teachers understand what their role is in getting
    the students to that goal, if the administrators help us as
    teachers to give those students what they need to get to that
    goal then we have all bought in, and if we all buy in then
    there is no smoke and mirrors, there is no mystery.
        That is why I think the transparency should be there,
    because teachers not only should be accountable, but as a good
    teacher, what have you got to fear? If you are doing your job,
    and you are getting it done, and your students are achieving,
    why wouldn't you be proud of that? Why wouldn't you want that
    for your students?
        So that transparency will be there if everyone who is
    involved has a buy-in and an understanding of what the
    decisions are going to be when they get made.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
        Chairman, I see my time is about to expire so I will yield
    back.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Tierney?
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Pompa, let me start with you if I can. You seem to have
    a historical perspective in your written remarks and I want to
    follow up on that.
        Mr. Schaffer, in his remarks, indicated that some--and I am
    assume he is talking about Colorado in that--``strongly object
    to and resent federal efforts to use federal funds or cash
    awards to push any state in a direction it might not be
    inclined to go on its own volition.'' So I want to talk a
    little bit about own volition of states on this. And stop me if
    I am wrong in the--I think it is useful to go back in the
    historical perspective.
        At the outset there was no federal money and no federal law
    regarding elementary and secondary education. Am I right?
        Ms. Pompa. That is right.
        Mr. Tierney. And then all of a sudden the courts had some
    hearings and determined that states were not meeting their
    obligations. In your words, I think you said they were either
    not inclined or not able to provide enough resources to educate
    low-income students. And I think it is clear that it was the
    states that had the obligation and it was a constitutional--a
    judicial mandate that they do so.
        The law still doesn't require states to participate in any
    federal legislation. I think you will agree with me that it
    starts off for any state desiring to receive a grant under this
    part--so states have to affirmatively opt in on this situation.
        So we have gotten to a point where the states, obviously
    left to their own devices and their own volition, were not even
    meeting the basic standards of educating children that were
    low-income, and then, subsequently, children with disabilities.
    So the federal law made an offer to them: Here is the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act; here is the money. But
    as Mr. Schaffer said, if you were us you would make sure there
    is some accountability attached to it, and that is really, I
    guess, what this long trail of laws over the years has been
    trying to do--find the right balance between accountability and
    flexibility. Is that a fair statement?
        Ms. Pompa. That is fair.
        Mr. Tierney. So first we had the original law, and that
    seemed to sort of give resources to schools for poor students
    and just hoping things got better. And I think you indicated
    you don't think the performance got better; you thought there
    were low expectations and poor results.
        So then we went to the Improving America's Schools Act in
    1994 where we encouraged states to set higher academic
    standards, rather--and they failed to close the achievement gap
    between those poor students and their better-off peers at that
    point, you think because using the term ``substantial
    improvement'' or ``continuing substantial improvement'' wasn't
    definitive enough, was too vague.
        So now we have gone to the next iteration, which is so-
    called No Child Left Behind, where there are loopholes on that.
    But this is the struggle we keep going back and forth.
        So with respect to the legislation in front of us today,
    let me ask you, it doesn't set any goals--overall goals for
    achievement. Do you think that is a good idea?
        Ms. Pompa. No, I don't think that is a good idea. And
    before I go on, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Colorado
    and many other states who have made tremendous progress.
    Adoption of high standards, working on new assessments is very,
    very important and it is a step that continues the work that we
    have been doing. However----
        Mr. Tierney [continuing]. Right to do that. I just take
    issue with Mr. Schaffer's indication that they might have done
    it all on their own. I mean, before No Child Left Behind
    Colorado didn't even have goals for subgroups. And after No
    Child Left Behind, of course, they did not even federally
    report the required data for distribution of inexperienced or
    unqualified or out-of-field teachers.
        And I agree with Ms. Kazmier, parents have a right to know,
    you know, who is teaching in their classroom, but Colorado
    didn't do that without having some prompting. They didn't
    initially even set a graduation rate that was 80 percent; they
    had it below 60 percent, and all you had to do to show progress
    was go from 50 percent to 50.1 percent. So they didn't do it on
    their own; they were prompted with some of the accountability
    standards on that. So I am sorry to interrupt.
        Ms. Pompa. No, yes, absolutely. The great standards, the
    great assessments do not work if you don't set goals for
    children and if you don't set goals and targets for all
    subgroups and a timeframe in which this is going to happen. We
    have seen states set goals that show extremely slow growth
    expected, and in that case some children would be in school 12
    years and never reach the high standards, so that is a great
    concern.
        Mr. Tierney. So you would agree that a law that doesn't
    have any overall goal for achievement, that doesn't set
    performance targets, that doesn't set--use graduation rates
    included in those, and doesn't set parameters for students
    achievement really isn't going to be a law that is going to
    move us in the right direction?
        Ms. Pompa. I do agree.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Platts?
        Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate
    you and the ranking member and staff on both sides and great
    work getting to this day and this hearing, and as we move
    forward with this legislation.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses.
        Bob, great to see you again. Glad to welcome you back to
    the House.
        And to you and to all the witnesses, we certainly
    appreciate your expertise.
        Ms. Kazmier, as a co-chair of the Republican--co-chair of
    the Congressional Arts Caucus I appreciate your work in the
    classroom, and as a parent of a 15-year-old and 12-year-old
    boys I see the great impact that arts has on them across the
    spectrum of their learning, not just in art class. And their
    art talent they got from their mom because unfortunately I
    don't have any, so----
        Ms. Kazmier. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Platts [continuing]. My office upstairs is a collection
    of their artwork, so----
        Ms. Kazmier. As is my classroom.
        Mr. Platts. I want to try to focus on a couple issues here.
        Mr. Cunningham, certainly your testimony--and I apologize
    coming from another hearing and being late, but in your written
    testimony you talk about Title I, and Mr. Thompson is leading
    the charge on that and I appreciate your insights. But I want
    to address a different issue.
        I am very concerned about--while there are a lot of great
    things in this legislation, I think, in trying to reform No
    Child Left Behind, one of my concerns is flexibility--not that
    we don't want to give more flexibility to state and local, but
    specifically in the bill that flexibility that would allow
    public funds to be used to fund private school vouchers.
        As a product of public education and a parent of public
    school students I think our commitment needs to be to public
    education. I believe in choice within the public school system,
    but we are the land of opportunity because of access to a
    quality education for every child, and while I have got great
    private schools in my district, you know, they are private
    schools and the public dollars should be used for the public
    school system.
        If the bill is adopted as currently written and your state
    would then adopt, in Arkansas, a voucher plan so that federal
    dollars could be used for private school vouchers, what impact
    do you think that would have on schools in your state, and
    especially rural schools such as your--excuse me--such as your
    own?
        Mr. Cunningham. Well, I truly believe the limited funding
    that we have available should be focused on public school
    districts and--and districts that face public accountability.
        Mr. Platts. It is fair to say, I imagine, in Arkansas,
    similar to Pennsylvania, that the private schools in your state
    are free from the mandates and the requirements that you have
    to comply with to----
        Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Platts [continuing]. Receive state or federal funding--
    --
        Mr. Cunningham. Absolutely.
        Mr. Platts. And if they are going to accept those public
    dollars they should accept the same requirements that you have
    to accept to receive them.
        Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Platts. Is that a fair statement?
        And I would agree, you know, when we are not used as a
    special ed IDEA funding, you know, we promised 40 percent; we
    are at about 18 percent or so. If we have got additional
    dollars we should keep our commitments that already exist to
    our public schools before we start funding private----
        Mr. Cunningham. Well, federal dollars should not be funded
    for private schools. That is my position and our state's
    position, the National Rural Education----
        Mr. Platts. Yes.
        And I am going to try to run through here quick.
        Dr. Luna, I also am very engaged with parents' involvement
    and the importance of parents to that success of any school is
    having engaged parents. And the Chairman, in the legislation
    put forth, has tried to raise a focus on parent engagement. Can
    you talk about, in your state, what initiatives--or how you are
    approaching ideas to strengthen parental engagement,
    especially, maybe, in low-performing schools where I see is one
    of the challenges is one of the challenges for low-performing
    schools is the socioeconomics of the community maybe drive less
    parental engagement, which then makes it harder to have that
    partnership between everybody to be successful.
        Mr. Luna. I think, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, we
    recognize how critical it is to--for parental involvement in
    education, and I think the things that you will see that we do
    in Idaho to engage more and more parents number one is to offer
    them more choice in public education. By giving parents more
    choice it definitely raises their engagement in their child's
    education.
        One of the laws that we passed last year now requires
    school districts to collect parental input, and that is part of
    a teacher's performance evaluation. The district decides how
    much weight to give it and how to collect it, but allowing
    parents to have some say in teacher performance evaluation,
    again, helps engage parents.
        Through our pay-for-performance plan local districts can
    choose a number of different measures to--that have an impact
    on student achievement. We recognize that parental involvement
    is one of those and so there is actually some local school
    districts that a small portion of the pay-for-performance for
    teachers is based on parental involvement. And so those--you
    asked about things we are doing at the state level?
        Mr. Platts. Yes. And that is not mandated; that is a local
    decision?
        Mr. Luna. It is not mandated, and so back to your earlier
    comment about the flexibility of federal dollars, whether they
    could be used for private schools or what have you, I think
    allowing those decisions to be made at the state level, again,
    would give us the flexibility to tailor all resources, whether
    they are federal, state, or local, to meet the best needs of
    our state, which may be different from your state, or Colorado.
    But the flexibility is necessary if we are going to get maximum
    from those dollars.
        Mr. Platts. If I----
        Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has----
        Mr. Platts. Okay.
        Chairman Kline [continuing]. Expired.
        Mr. Platts. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. Mr. Holt?
        Mr. Holt. Thank you.
        I thank the witnesses for good testimony. But it really
    highlights what we are facing here with the legislation in
    front of us and this whole debate this year and last.
        I look to make decisions on the basis of evidence rather
    than ideology. I realize that in education the evidence is
    noisy, but it doesn't mean we should ignore it. And as Mr.
    Miller said, you can't have it both ways and say that the
    successes are the result of the states using their flexibility
    independent of federal standards and federal compulsion but the
    failures are a direct result of federal compulsion, and
    standards, and accountability. You can't have it both ways.
        We should actually look at the evidence. And there has,
    since 1965, as Mr. Tierney points out--there have been
    improvements. Mr. Andrews talked about the NAEP math tests
    that, you know, for--it was static in the educational gap
    between African American 9-year-olds and others for 3 decades,
    until the last decade. So there are data that we should be
    going on and not just falling back on our ideology and saying
    let's not--you know, let's do away with standards and
    accountability.
        Because I like evidence so much I wish that everyone in
    this room had had a better education in science to be able to
    recognize and interpret evidence.
        Now, Mr. Balfanz, you talk about needing a spotlight,
    guardrails, and catalysts. I have looked through the
    legislation in front of us here and in this important subject
    area of science I find no spotlight, I find no guardrails, I
    find no catalysts. There is no agricultural extension service
    that is bringing best practices to light. There is hardly even
    the word ``science.''
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Holt. Let me ask, first starting with Dr. Balfanz,
    since you used that, and then I will turn to the other
    witnesses, can you tell me what is in this legislation that
    would actually lead, based on our evaluation of past evidence--
    that would lead to students' growth and understanding in
    science?
        Mr. Balfanz. I don't see it. I mean, and if we think about
    it right the--what we have come to realize in these most recent
    economic times is that the future of the nation depends on our
    human capital, and the future of our nation depends on
    innovation and knowledge. And that is what science is. It is
    bedrock of innovation and knowledge. We are not going to
    innovate off of, you know, something that is not science,
    right?
        And science is also----
        Mr. Holt. So do you find science standards in here?
        Mr. Balfanz. I do not.
        Mr. Holt. Do you find accountability holding schools,
    teachers, school systems accountable----
        Mr. Balfanz. It is given as an option but not a
    requirement.
        Mr. Holt. And, you know, I am a little concerned that in
    some of these areas where you have--in Title II, the--you know,
    the--I am afraid that although it is an option the money will
    go into certification reform, performance pay, differential and
    bonus pay long before it ever gets to evidence-based,
    effective, research-based teaching.
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Holt. Ms. Pompa? And then let me turn to Mr. Luna as
    time allows.
        Ms. Pompa. There are no requirements. And unfortunately, we
    have a lot of evidence that states find other ways to spend
    their money.
        There are efforts by the scientific foundation to work with
    schools and we have a lot of excellent programs but they are
    islands of excellence. We do not have a systematic approach to
    teaching science or a systematic expectation that all students
    will reach high levels of achievement in science.
        Mr. Holt. Mr. Luna?
        Mr. Luna. Congressman, I am seeing 30 seconds here. I don't
    think we will be able to give the reason that science is more
    difficult to measure than math or reading because it is not
    sequential like math and reading is. And giving a science test
    at the end of the high school career like we do in math and
    science does not work when you want--if you want that to be a
    test that includes physical science, chemistry, and biology
    because those are taught in--they are not sequential. So it is
    very, very difficult to measure.
        Mr. Holt [continuing]. This bill anything that addresses
    those points that we were----
        Mr. Luna. No. What I think this bill recognizes is that the
    federal government does not have to compel the states to do
    everything. If it is not found in this bill the assumption
    shouldn't be it is not going to happen.
        Mr. Holt. So for all those decades before we were--all
    these states were just doing wonderful things in science----
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Luna. I never said that, but----
        Mr. Holt. Okay. All right.
        Mr. Luna [continuing]. It is hard----
        Chairman Kline. Mr. Kildee?
        Mr. Kildee. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
        While there are many problems with No Child Left Behind,
    and George and I and--worked hard on this many years ago--we
    never have written a perfect bill here on Capitol Hill. This is
    not Mt. Sinai, but we should always--each reauthorization makes
    it better.
        And it did bring attention to the needs of students with
    disabilities who were largely neglected prior to the passage of
    this legislation. Prior to that they were more than neglected;
    they were very often closeted. It was terrible.
        We still, I don't believe, have really reached out to take
    care of the needs of those who are special ed students.
        Dr. Balfanz, do you think that this Student Success Act
    would help, hurt, or do a little more relative to those
    students who we have always had to recognize have special
    needs, and there are, of course, some special ways to reach
    them so they can progress?
        Mr. Balfanz. Right. Yes. I mean, this work is hard, right?
    It is really hard to educate all students to the standards they
    need to achieve, and we are all human, and if we are told that,
    ``Yes, you can if you want but you don't really have to,'' in
    our busy lives some kids are going to get left behind. And that
    is why it is really important to say all kids have to succeed
    at high levels and we have to find a way for all kids to
    succeed.
        And there actually is the evidence base growing we can do
    that. That is the hard work we have to do is keep building that
    evidence base and then finding ways to spread it. Because there
    is a lot of good stuff going on at the local level and there is
    no way to spread it.
        And that is an important federal role, too, is to take a
    topic like special education, take all that great local
    innovation and find a means to spread it, but then have some
    accountability to use it.
        Mr. Kildee. Do you think the changes in the way we test
    those students in this new bill--what effect would that have?
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes. Because again, it does give an easier
    out, saying these kids need a special accommodation, a special
    test, a test that is not quite as hard, and therefore we don't
    have to quite do the same work to lift them up to the level
    they need to be.
        Mr. Kildee. And my problem is, is that through the years--I
    mean, I have been in--I started teaching over 50 years, and
    very often we look for an easier out----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Kildee [continuing]. For the special ed student.
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Kildee. And I think it is not--you know, it costs some
    dollars, it takes some special training, very often, of the
    teachers--most often. But to look for another special out,
    which I think you find in this bill, another special out is a
    step backwards in trying to make progress for those students
    who really need some special attentions in order to progress.
    And it can be done. I mean, it is--you know, it is more
    difficult, but we do many difficult things around here and some
    jobs around here are easier than others. Some committees are
    easier to serve on than others.
        But we have to address the needs of those students. We
    have, I think, a legal obligation--the courts have ruled we
    have a legal obligation but I think we also have a moral
    obligation to address properly the needs of special ed
    students. And I would like to see progress there rather than
    regression as we approach this. And you would think that the
    changing number of those who get special measurement would be
    regression.
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Mr. Kildee. Well, I certainly find that one of the reasons
    that I myself would want it, as this bill is going to move,
    amended in this area, to take care of those needs of the
    special ed----
        And I thank you.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Balfanz, let me just--let me follow through on that.
    One of the challenges that we have in special ed is to make
    sure that for those that need the flexibility they get it but
    we don't give people an incentive to over-identify----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Because you find all your poorly
    performing students you just label them special ed and they
    don't have to produce.
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Scott. How do you balance the two?
        Mr. Balfanz. Sorry?
        Mr. Scott. How do you balance the two? How do you eliminate
    the incentive to over-identify if you allow too much
    flexibility?
        Mr. Balfanz. Absolutely. And there have actually been a lot
    of advances in things like response intervention, early warning
    systems, that say we can identify kids struggling early, give
    them the help they need rapidly, and therefore, there is no
    need for them to be identified as special ed students. So one
    thing is we have to put more into sort of early intervention to
    keep kids on track so there is no need for the special
    education services.
        And also, oftentimes over-identification for special
    education is done for behavioral issues, not cognitive issues.
    And so I think we have to be very careful to separate kids that
    truly need additional cognitive supports and special assistance
    from kids that we just haven't found a way to help them sort of
    succeed in school and we are trying to actually move them out
    of the classroom because we find them hard to teach.
        So balancing how we identify kids on more of the cognitive,
    not the behavioral----
        Mr. Scott. Now, one way to do this is to put a limited 1
    percent--you can't----
        Mr. Balfanz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Scott. Is that one way to----
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Eliminate the incentive to over-
    identify?
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. You talked about dropouts and the importance of
    dealing with dropouts. One of the problems we tried to deal
    with when this thing started was the incentive--the perverse
    incentive to push kids out because as a dropout they are
    dropping out from the bottom. The more people drop out the
    higher your average goes.
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. If the graduation rate is not part of AYP how
    else can we get it?
        Mr. Balfanz. Absolutely. I mean, if we do not--I mean,
    basically, schools, especially high schools, have got to do two
    things: they have to educate kids to high standards and they
    have to graduate them. Neither one by itself works. If you
    graduate kids and they don't know anything you are not being
    successful; if you make sure some of your kids know lots but a
    lot of your kids drop out you are not successful either. So we
    have to have equal accountabilities for those twin goals--high
    success, high learning, and high graduation rates.
        Mr. Scott. And the idea that a--one of these dropout
    factories can actually achieve AYP because those that were left
    in school----
        Mr. Balfanz. Right.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Performed----
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. With a 50 percent dropout rate
    ought to be disallowed. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Balfanz. Absolutely. And there is actually a danger
    that unintentionally--and this came out in the waivers, is that
    as we push for college readiness, which is very important, and
    we add things--hold schools accountable for things like A.P.
    tests and ACT scores and SAT scores, that further creates the
    implicit push-out effect because if you don't have your lowest-
    achieving students you will have a high rate of students
    passing an A.P. exam.
        Mr. Scott. One of the drawbacks that has been mentioned is
    the fact that after you have identified a failing school we
    don't have resources to help them improve. Should we work on
    that?
        Mr. Balfanz. Yes, absolutely. We have to target resources
    to the highest-need school because they just face a much
    greater educational challenge. Schools were designed with the
    premise that 15 percent of kids need extra help, 15 percent
    acceleration; the rest of the kids will show up, you have a
    good teacher you are good. In the highest need schools it is
    60, 70, 80 percent of kids need a good lesson every day in
    something else, and if we can't provide it that school won't
    succeed.
        Mr. Scott. I guess final question, could some of our
    witnesses talk about the need for education in the arts? And
    how do you make sure it gets taught if you are not testing it?
        Ms. Kazmier. We are testing. How do I make sure it gets
    taught if we are not testing? I suppose I would leave that to
    schools that aren't being held accountable. And our district is
    and my school is.
        And in order for students to get an appropriate education
    in the arts clearly we need funding. We need to make sure that
    the funding isn't cut.
        In our district we have made sure that the arts--let me
    back up. Part of the reason that I decided to take on the
    leadership role of helping to design a template to make sure
    that the art teachers and that the specials teachers are
    reaching their goal and being accountable was because I wanted
    the arts to be looked at as just as vitally important as the
    core classes--very important to me. So I expected to be held
    accountable.
        So testing is going to happen, whether it be a curriculum-
    based measurement, a state assessment, which we don't have in
    art, or a classroom assessment. It gets taught but we are not
    teaching to the test. Honestly, the test is almost like
    practice because my students are creating every day. So when
    the test comes along it is their opportunity to practice what
    they know. That is how I treat the tests themselves.
        It is getting taught on a daily basis when my students are
    there. When I am a Proficient II teacher and I am creating
    objectives--learning objectives, demonstrations of learning at
    the end of the classroom day, all of those things are in place
    because my district holds me accountable to that standard.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Hinojosa?
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Kline. And I want to
    thank you and Ranking Member George Miller for having this
    congressional hearing.
        In my view, H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would take us back
    decades and be a great disservice to our nation's most
    disadvantaged students. They are the ones who have the fewest
    people fighting for them here in Congress.
        These last 15 years that I have been in Congress I have
    seen that those minority students that have been mentioned here
    in this discussion today this morning need an army of lobbyists
    to get Congress to increase their funding and do some of the
    things that we have learned from professors and superintendents
    who have come here in the last 10 years telling us about the
    successful roles--the successful schools that they operate.
        Good example of that was just 2 years ago when
    superintendent from Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, Dr. Daniel King,
    came--taken over what was known as a dropout factory with 50
    percent graduation rate. In less than 4 years--I was there last
    week and saw how they have turned that around and they are
    graduating at over 75 percent. That is a school district with
    30,000 students.
        Then you take Dr. Marla Guerra, superintendent from the
    South Texas ISD, magnet schools modeled after Houston's magnet
    schools, that they are graduating 97 percent. Yes, it is a
    smaller school district of only 3,500, but gee, they have been
    in the top 100 best high schools in the whole country now for
    about 12 years--75 percent Hispanic.
        So the myth that children of minority families cannot learn
    is, indeed, a myth. What they need is some of the things that
    they have told us that this--that, in my opinion, these
    documents do not have. What they are doing to turn things
    around, to help these disadvantaged students, are not--is not
    here.
        Ms. Pompa, I am going to thank you for coming to speak to
    us today, and I have followed your distinguished career for
    decades. In a change to current law, H.R. 3989 would cap the
    funding levels at fiscal year 2011 appropriations levels and
    cap annual increases based on the inflation rate. How would
    this funding cap impact English language learners?
        Ms. Pompa. Well, as you know, it takes a lot of resources
    to serve students with special needs. English language
    learners' appropriation has been frozen for many, many years or
    has grown only a little while the number of children who are
    English language learners in this country has grown
    exponentially and continues to grow. We see that happening for
    many years to come.
        Cutting back on funding for English language learners hurts
    these children in two ways: One, most states do not provide
    sufficient, and in some cases any, money for English language
    learners, and that is why the federal role in providing these
    funds is so important.
        Two, it hurts them because states rely on this money for
    capacity-building for their teachers. Unfortunately, there is a
    great reliance on the federal role. We have not had teacher
    training programs. I can think of very few cases where a
    university set up a teacher training program without Title III,
    Title VII dollars.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you. Time is running out. I want
    to ask you another question. Why are college and career
    standards vitally important to our nation's global
    competitiveness?
        Ms. Pompa. Well, that question is kind of a softball. I
    think all of us have talked today about how the economy is
    changing, how the world is changing, and how jobs are changing.
    And if all our students are not prepared at the highest level
    to compete with students all around the world this country is
    going to lose.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I want to ask the--Dr. Felicia Kazmier, as an
    art teacher you must believe that art education is an essential
    component of a well-rounded education, and I strongly agree
    with you.
        Ms. Kazmier. Thank you.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Do you support the use of federal funds to
    bolster the performing arts and programs like yours?
        Ms. Kazmier. Oh, I don't even know where to begin. Any
    support of the arts in any capacity, I would agree that that is
    quite important, yes. I support that.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        We have gone through all members. I certainly want to thank
    the panel for being here, for great testimony, and for being so
    responsive to our questions. And I will turn to Mr. Miller for
    any closing remarks that he might have.
        Mr. Miller. First, Mr. Chairman, if I might, thank you,
    some housekeeping: I would like to submit for the record the
    testimony of the National PTA president raising serious
    concerns about the legislation and letters in opposition to the
    legislation that have been sent to the committee; also, the
    report, ``Moving Your Numbers,'' a report on how districts are
    using tests and accountability to increase student performance
    for students with disabilities. And I would also like to
    recognize many of the parents who are in the audience today who
    are the parents of students with disabilities who have serious
    concerns about this legislation.
        [The information follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Betsy Landers, President,
                      National Parent Teacher Association

        The National PTA submits this testimony to the United States House
    of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce for the
    committee hearing on The Student Success Act of 2012 (H.R. 3989) and
    The Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act of 2012 (H.R.
    3990). The purpose of this testimony is to outline top areas of support
    and concern for PTA within both acts.
        National PTA comprises millions of families, students, teachers,
    administrators, and business and community leaders devoted to the
    educational success of children. As the nation's oldest and largest
    child advocacy organization, PTA is a powerful voice for all children,
    a relevant resource for families, schools, and communities, and a
    strong advocate for public education.
    Promoting Family Engagement in Education
        Research shows that family engagement in education is a leading
    contributor to student academic success and whole school turnaround.
    PTA applauds the Chairman's recognition of the important role parents
    and families play in educational achievement, as evidenced through the
    retention of section 1118 and the inclusion of the Statewide Family
    Engagement Center competitive grant program. Both provisions are
    necessary steps toward ensuring that all State and local educational
    agencies, especially those serving disadvantaged students, are equipped
    with the tools to partner with parents to improve student learning.
        Access to statewide support and technical assistance for local
    implementation of research-based, proven effective policies and
    programs to improve communication between schools and families, improve
    parent understanding of school accountability and data, inform families
    of public school choice options, and enable parents to support learning
    at home and in the community is necessary to maintain momentum and
    ensure sustainability of education reforms.
        Additionally, PTA is pleased with the inclusion of provisions to
    ensure parent and family access to data on state, district, school,
    teacher, and student performance. However, PTA does caution that access
    to performance information is only valuable if the available data is
    high quality, understandable and actionable for parents and families.
    If parents are not equipped with meaningful information, transparency
    achieves limited results.
    Ensuring Educational Equity While Allowing Increased Local and State
            Flexibility
        PTA applauds efforts to return the bulk of responsibility for
    education to state and local educational agencies; however, we
    recognize the need for a well-defined and appropriate federal role in
    holding states and districts accountable for improvements in student
    achievement and expenditure of funds. We are concerned that both acts
    allow federal formula dollars to flow, yet require little to nothing in
    return--which is bad for parents and families, both as our children's
    first educators and as taxpayers. This is important not only to ensure
    effective implementation of scarce federal resources, but also to
    maintain and improve educational equity and opportunity for all
    children, especially historically disadvantaged groups of students:
    minority, low-income, English language learners, and students with
    disabilities.
    Performance Targets within State-Developed Accountability Systems
        While the current system of Adequate Yearly Progress is outdated
    and too prescriptive, PTA believes federal education dollars must come
    with the expectation of and demand for higher student achievement and
    graduation rates and marked progress in narrowing achievement gaps. PTA
    feels strongly that any reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act (ESEA) must include a requirement for states to self-
    determine and set ambitious, yet attainable performance targets for all
    students.
        States and districts are leading innovative education reform
    efforts. The federal government should not hinder the progress that is
    underway, yet we must not forget history. In decades when
    accountability for educating all children was the sole responsibility
    of individual states, our children suffered the consequences, even if
    unintended. Accountability provisions enacted in No Child Left Behind
    (NCLB) sought to remedy gross inequities, and while PTA believes the
    law's current accountability provisions are deeply flawed, we are
    confident that there is a happy medium to be met between rigid and
    unattainable federal mandates and the return to an era in which
    disadvantaged students suffer the consequences of low academic
    standards and lack of access to quality education.
    Cap on Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards
        In addition to the omission of performance targets, PTA fears H.R.
    3989's codification of the elimination of the current cap on alternate
    assessment on alternate achievement standards will further exacerbate
    educational inequity. The current ``1% regulation'' restricts the use
    of scores on less challenging assessments being given to students with
    disabilities. Alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards
    are intended only for a very small portion of the student population
    with the most severe cognitive disabilities. Research consistently
    shows the incidence of such students in the public school system to be
    far less than even one percent.
        Students who are placed in the alternate assessment on alternate
    achievement standards experience limitations on access to general
    curriculum and impediments to on-time matriculation and graduation--it
    is intended only for a very narrow student population. Thus, there is
    inherent risk in broadening the alternate assessment to apply to
    students not truly deserving of the classification. To remove this
    regulatory cap would mean not only the discontinuation of support to
    students with disabilities in achieving on-time graduation, but also
    lower expectations placed on students deemed special need; whether
    deserving of the classification or not.
    Removal of State Maintenance of Effort
        PTA strongly opposes H.R. 3839's provision to eliminate Maintenance
    of Effort (MoE). MoE is vital to ensuring the continuity of services
    through state and local funding efforts. Especially in austere budget
    times, removal of the MoE requirement would likely trigger a rapid
    decline in government support for public education at a time when
    public school enrollment is continually rising. The current MoE
    provisions provide the greatest protection to low-wealth/higher poverty
    school districts that suffer from dwindling sources of local revenue
    and receive the majority of their education funding from the state.
    Low-income districts serve low-income and disadvantaged student
    populations. If the state is allowed, through removal of MoE
    provisions, to cut funding, the vulnerable districts and students
    within those districts will suffer disproportionately.
        Additionally, removal of MoE stands to undermine the driving
    principle of Title I, as federal dollars would inevitably be used to
    plug large holes in state and local support for public education,
    leaving less federal dollars available to expend on meaningful academic
    achievement and reform efforts to graduate college- and career-ready
    students.
    Ensuring Federal Funds Serve and Improve Public Schools
        America's public schools enroll more than 90 percent of our
    nation's students. Public schools are the only schools bound by law to
    best serve and meet the needs of all students; including those with
    physical and cognitive disabilities, behavioral challenges, and
    students of all socioeconomic backgrounds. PTA feels strongly that all
    stakeholders must foster a supportive environment for our public school
    system while assisting it to adjust and respond to changing
    demographics and needs, and reforming appropriately. Reauthorization of
    ESEA should carry with it no provisions intended to divert public funds
    from public schools. H.R. 3990 expands private school authority over
    the allocation and implementation of public education funds.
    Federal Funds Used for Private Scholarships
        Part B of this act includes explicit reference to the ability of
    states and districts to use federal dollars for non-public use,
    including scholarships, or vouchers, for private school tuition. PTA is
    opposed to the allowable expenditure of federal funds on private school
    vouchers. Voucher programs fail to promulgate the statutory intent of
    ESEA--to provide equal access to quality education for all students.
    Instead, voucher programs place a select few students into qualifying
    private schools, leaving students who are most challenging to educate
    behind in the public schools, and creating a barrier to success for
    those students not enrolled in the program.
        Additionally, research of ongoing voucher programs in cities across
    the country consistently shows a lack of effectiveness in improving
    student academic achievement, especially for low-income students. For
    example, a recent five-year longitudinal study released by the
    Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau concluded that Milwaukee students
    receiving vouchers to attend private and religious schools perform no
    better on summative assessments than do their peers enrolled in the
    Milwaukee public school system.
        PTA believes federal funds should go toward research-based,
    effective programs, instruction, and curriculum support to improve
    academic achievement and close achievement gaps. The need for
    efficiently utilized federal education resources is profound, as our
    schools and districts struggle to keep pace with demand in a stalled
    economy. The committee should amend H.R. 3989 to explicitly deny the
    use of federal education funds for private school supports and voucher
    programs.
    Expansion of Equitable Services
        Provisions in H.R. 3990 regarding provision of services to eligible
    students not enrolled in public schools will result in a higher cost
    burden shouldered by public school districts, and will likely decrease
    the availability and quality of base services without at all improving
    student outcomes. The proposed requirement that services be provided to
    private school students on an equitable and individual basis represents
    a significant expansion from current statute. Again, PTA strongly
    supports public funds in support of public schools and the students
    they serve.
        PTA is thankful to Chairman Kline for his efforts to reauthorize
    and improve ESEA this Congress. PTA remains committed to a true
    bipartisan reauthorization and is hopeful that both majority and
    minority committee members and leadership will be afforded the
    opportunity to meaningfully contribute to the reauthorization process,
    and that the resulting legislative vehicle(s), either the acts under
    consideration in today's proceedings or acts yet-to-be introduced, move
    forward from the Committee with strong consensus among all
    stakeholders. ESEA is in desperate need of serious revisions. PTA
    recognizes that sound policy solutions for improvements to our nation's
    education delivery system are not held exclusively by either side of
    the aisle.
        National PTA looks forward to close collaboration with majority and
    minority leadership and committee members on improvements to H.R. 3989
    and H.R. 3990 and completion of ESEA reauthorization. Parents,
    students, teachers, and administrators need and deserve a fully-
    functioning federal education law that encourages and rewards
    innovation while safeguarding access to quality education for all
    children.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of James H. Wendorf, Executive Director,
                   National Center for Learning Disabilities

        The draft Elementary and Secondary Education Act bills released by
    Chairman Kline represent a full retreat from accountability for
    students with disabilities and other disadvantaged children. While NCLD
    commends the Committee for signaling its interest in bringing much
    needed change to No Child Left Behind, these bills jeopardize the
    academic progress made by students with disabilities over the past
    decade. Due to these shortcomings, NCLD strongly opposes passage of
    this legislation in Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives.
        Chief among NCLD's concerns is that the bills fail to focus on
    closing the destructive achievement gaps that impact students with
    disabilities and other disadvantaged students. Even with its
    imperfections, NCLB has compelled schools to focus on whether students
    with disabilities were learning and achieving. Rather than require
    schools to address these issues, the bills retreat from setting
    performance goals for students and do not require any meaningful
    instructional interventions and supports for struggling students. The
    Student Success Act would turn all accountability over to the States,
    turning back the clock to a time when students with disabilities were
    not expected to graduate high school or attend college.
        The Student Success Act would radically reduce high expectations
    for students with disabilities. The bill would eliminate the current
    cap (often referred to as the 1% regulation) which restricts, for
    accountability purposes, the use of the scores on less challenging
    assessments being given to students with disabilities. Such assessments
    take students off track for a regular diploma. Rather than continuing
    to support students with disabilities in achieving a high school
    diploma and pursuing employment and postsecondary education, the bill
    virtually encourages schools to expect less from students with
    disabilities. This will jeopardize their true potential to learn and
    achieve.
        Both bills also consolidate numerous critical Federal education
    initiatives, extinguishing literacy and other key focuses designed to
    help struggling students. Worse yet, the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act, through a block grant authority, would allow
    Federal education funds to be used for an unproven and risky private
    school voucher scheme. Vouchers would squander scarce Federal resources
    while terminating the right of students with disabilities to a free
    appropriate public education.
        Lastly, while the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act
    has a much needed focus on evaluation of teachers, it fails to include
    principals. Principals are key to the success of the students in their
    school. In order to improve instruction in our schools and increase
    learning, both teachers and principals need to be evaluated using
    multiple measures and evidence of student achievement. Unfortunately,
    like other aspects of this legislation, the bill falls short in this
    area.
        As the process continues, NCLD urges the Committee to rethink the
    major components of this legislation. Just as school accountability has
    begun to make the difference for students with disabilities, now is not
    the time to turn back the clock on our children.
        NCLD's mission is to ensure success for all individuals with
    learning disabilities in school, at work and in life. We:
         Connect parents and others with resources, guidance and
    support so they can advocate effectively for their children.
         Deliver evidence-based tools, resources and professional
    development to educators to improve student outcomes.
         Develop policies and engage advocates to strengthen
    educational rights and opportunities.
                                     ______

                                                      January 17, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman; Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    RE: The Student Success and Encouraging Innovation and Effective
            Teachers Acts

        Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller: On behalf of the
    National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) we would like to
    thank you for your hard work and efforts in reauthorizing the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). NASP represents
    more than 26,000 school psychologists who work with students,
    educators, and families to support the academic achievement, positive
    behavior, and mental wellness of all students, especially those who
    struggle with barriers to learning. School psychologists work with
    parents and educators to help shape individual and system wide supports
    that provide the necessary prevention and intervention services to
    ensure that students all have access to the mental health, social-
    emotional, behavioral, and academic supports they need to be successful
    at school. We recognize your hard work and dedication to alleviate some
    of the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind, while
    continuing to ensure that all students receive a high quality public
    education. We believe there are many valuable and important components
    included in these bills that will help us reach that goal. We
    appreciate the inclusion of legislative language regarding the
    following:
         Inclusion of the term ``specialized instructional support
    personnel.''
         Encouragement of the use of growth models and formative
    assessments in determining student achievement.
         Encouragement for increased parental involvement at the
    state, district, local, and school building level.
        Despite these positive steps, we have concerns regarding the
    guidance this bill gives in regard to the availability of behavioral,
    emotional, social, and academic supports to all students in regard to
    the following areas.
        Availability of social and mental health services for students as
    part of school improvement plans
        NASP believes that the coordination of services to address
    students' social, emotional, and health needs is necessary at every
    school. These are necessary prevention and intervention services that
    will ensure that all students achieve to their highest potential. Given
    the research that supports the positive academic outcomes associated
    with schools that provide access to mental health services, we ask that
    you provide further guidance to State and Local Education Agencies
    about the importance of these services in school improvement plans. In
    the current draft legislation, there is little to no mention of
    prevention services that are imperative to student success. The absence
    of language surrounding school based mental health services sends the
    unsupported message that effective teachers, high quality curriculum,
    and effective school leaders are the only necessary components to
    ensure student success. Comprehensive and coordinated learning supports
    directly contribute to increased student outcomes and increased
    achievement. Services provided by specialized instructional support
    personnel, who can provide the learning and mental health services,
    supports, and leadership to ensure that student needs are identified
    and met, must be explicitly referenced.
        We understand that the intent of these two bills is to reduce
    federal mandates and regulation as to allow for maximum state and local
    flexibility; however, the absence of statutory language regarding these
    supports could lead to the unintended consequence of reduced or
    eliminated social, emotional, behavioral, and health supports for
    students, which would be detrimental to student success. We believe
    that the statutory language is the most appropriate place to reference
    these supports; however, we ask that at a minimum, further guidance for
    ways in which schools can most effectively address the social,
    emotional, behavioral, and health needs of all students be provided in
    report language.
        The continued explicit authorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary School Counseling Program (ESSCP) priorities and continued
    funding for this program including increases in appropriations
        NASP appreciates the Department of Education's and the Committee's
    intention to improve administrative efficiency and foster innovation
    through changes in funding structures; however, we are very concerned
    about the proposed consolidation or elimination of funding for small to
    medium size programs such as ESSCP. ESSCP is the only federal grant
    program that allows states to implement or expand counseling services,
    including the hiring of specialized instructional support personnel
    (e.g., school counselors, school social workers, and school
    psychologists). We were pleased that funding for the ESSCP was restored
    in the FY 12 appropriations bill; however, the current proposed
    legislation removed the language that focuses on the importance of
    social, emotional, and mental health for students.
        Counseling services are provided to all children when their social,
    emotional, or mental health difficulties interfere with their ability
    to learn and reach their academic potential. Research highlights the
    importance of educating the whole child that includes meeting their
    physical, emotional, social, behavioral, and academic needs. There is
    empirical evidence that interventions to enhance students' social,
    emotional, and decision making skills positively impact academic
    achievement. School psychologists, school counselors, and school social
    workers are specifically trained to deliver these types of
    interventions. NASP urges the Congress to maintain the absolute
    priorities of this program and to maintain or increase the level of
    funding for this program. As indicated in current law, Title IV, Part D
    Subpart 2, Section 5421(c)(2) Each program funded under this section
    shall
        ``(A) be comprehensive in addressing the counseling and educational
    needs of all students;
        ``(B) use a developmental, preventive approach to counseling;
        ``(C) increase the range, availability, quantity, and quality of
    counseling services in the elementary schools and secondary schools of
    the local educational agency;
        ``(D) expand counseling services through qualified school
    counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, other
    qualified psychologists, or child and adolescent psychiatrists;
        ``(E) use innovative approaches to increase children's
    understanding of peer and family relationships, work and self, decision
    making, or academic and career planning, or to improve peer
    interaction;
        ``(F) provide counseling services in settings that meet the range
    of student needs;
        ``(G) include in-service training appropriate to the activities
    funded under this Act for teachers, instructional staff, and
    appropriate identification and early intervention techniques by school
    counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, other
    qualified psychologists, and child and adolescent psychiatrists;
        ``(H) involve parents of participating students in the design,
    implementation, and evaluation of the counseling program;
        ``(I) involve community groups, social service agencies or other
    public or private entities in collaborative efforts to enhance the
    program and promote school-linked integration of services;
        ``(J) evaluate annually the effectiveness and outcomes of the
    counseling services and activities assisted under this section;
        ``(K) ensure a team approach to school counseling in the schools
    served by the local education agency by working toward rations
    recommended by the American School Health Association of one school
    counselor to 250 students, one school social worker to 800 students,
    and one school psychologist to 100 students; and
        ``(L) ensure that school counselors, school psychologists, other
    qualified psychologists, school social workers, or child and adolescent
    psychiatrists paid from funds made available under this section spend a
    majority of their time counseling students or in other activities
    directly related to the counseling process.
        This program helps improve school safety and increase student
    academic achievement. It is imperative that this program continue to be
    explicitly recognized and that the programs goals are prioritized for
    schools. At a minimum it is our expectation that the priorities of
    ESSCP be outlined in legislative language.
        In the current draft, a definition of ``specialized instructional
    support personnel'' is included. We believe that all of the
    professionals included in that definition should be defined and we
    encourage the definition of ``school psychologist.''
        The term ``school psychologist'' means an individual who is
    licensed or certified to provide school psychological services by the
    State in which the individual is employed.
        It is imperative to acknowledge that we have a specific set of
    skills needed to work in a school setting. Our training is consistent
    with the mission of education, and techniques we use in the school
    setting are designed to enhance and support student learning. School
    psychologists and school counselors possess a unique set of skills that
    set us apart from community psychologists and community counselors and
    it is important that schools and parents understand that distinction.
    NASP recently (March 6, 2010) adopted a ``Model for Comprehensive
    Integrate School Psychological Services'' that outlines how we
    collaborate with school staff to support student learning and student
    success. A copy of this model is attached to this letter.
        Incorporation of Multi-Tier Systems of Support and Universal Design
    for Learning (UDL) principles
        We urge you to include the use of Multi-Tier Systems of Support
    (MTSS), including positive behavioral interventions and supports and
    response to intervention, as an allowable use of funds in the proposed
    legislation. This will encourage the systemic use of best practices
    that include early identification and intervention of both behavioral
    and academic difficulties that will help students achieve their best at
    school. The specific permission for use of funds to assist schools in
    implementing MTSS, as well as providing professional development for
    educators, will ensure that resources are targeted to serve struggling
    learners as soon as possible and equip teachers with the skills needed
    to identify and intervene with students as early as possible. We
    understand the intent of removing prescriptive programmatic mandates
    from the statute; however, MTSS can encompass a wide range of
    curriculum and programs that are tailored to meet the specific needs of
    individual schools. We would like to urge the Committee to include a
    definition of MTSS. According to the federally funded National Center
    on Response to Intervention, there are four essential components to
    multi-tiered systems of supports. We suggest the following definition:
        MULTI-TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORTS. The term `multi-tiered system of
    supports' means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that
    includes these four essential components:
        A. a school-wide, multi-level instructional and behavioral system
    for preventing school failure;
        B. screening;
        C. progress monitoring; and
        D. data-based decision making for instruction, movement within the
    multi-level system, and disability identification (in accordance with
    state law).
        The most effective MTSS efforts involve this comprehensive and
    inclusive approach to helping students who are struggling in meeting
    academic standards. A specific definition would ensure that schools are
    using their funds most effectively, using their resources to maximize
    the impact MTSS can have on student success. Additionally, we recommend
    that these components be defined so that there is clear alignment
    between statute and the Department of Education's federally funded
    national technical assistance center guiding this evidence-based work.
        We also urge the Committee to include language on Universal Design
    for Learning (UDL) as it relates to school wide improvement strategies,
    design of assessments, and professional development instruction.
    Assessments that incorporate these principles can provide educators
    with more accurate reflections of student achievement. In addition, we
    ask that you include specific language regarding high quality
    professional development in the use of UDL strategies and practices for
    all teachers. This will ensure that all teachers will be able to gain
    skills to incorporate these strategies into their teaching methods.
    Challenging Academic Standards for All Students
        NASP acknowledges and appreciates the desire to remove some of the
    prescriptive Federal mandates to allow States flexibility in designing
    a curriculum that meets the needs of their population. However, we urge
    the Committee to re-instate the word `challenging' when referencing
    state standards. In addition, we urge the Committee to reinstate
    language that requires States to set meaningful performance targets for
    students. Research demonstrates that high expectations correlate with
    high academic achievement. Academic standards should be challenging for
    all students, while at the same time meeting their individual academic
    needs. In addition, NASP believes that challenging curriculum combined
    with high expectations must extend beyond reading and math, as is
    currently indicated in the proposed legislation. NASP understands the
    hesitancy in prescribing which subjects States must include in the
    curriculum; however, we ask that at a minimum, report language provide
    guidance regarding the expansion of curriculum beyond reading and math
    to include the sciences, social sciences, foreign language, fine arts,
    physical and mental health, and work readiness skills.
    Appropriate Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities
        The proposed legislation lifts the cap on the percentage of
    students that can be assessed using alternate or modified achievement
    standard. This would inappropriately take many students off the track
    to receive a regular high school diploma. This bill does not require
    States to set any meaningful performance goals and does not require any
    meaningful instructional interventions or supports for struggling
    students. This combination of low expectations and reduced
    accountability essentially encourages schools to expect less from
    students who have disabilities. It is a significant retreat from
    current law, which was instrumental in ensuring that students with
    disabilities were learning and achieving based on the same academic
    standards as their non-disabled peers. We urge the Committee to re-
    think the statutory language regarding accountability and assessment of
    all students, particularly those with disabilities.
        We appreciate your dedication to students and your hard work on the
    reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and we
    thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. NASP
    welcomes the opportunity to work with you and other Committee members
    in assisting with revision of this most important piece of legislation.
    For further information, please contact Kelly Vaillancourt, Director of
    Government Relations, at kvaillancourt@naspweb.org.
                Sincerely,
                                              Susan Gorin, CAE,
                                                    Executive Director.

                      School-Based Mental Health Services:
                     Essential to Learning and Achievement

        The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) believes
    that achieving excellence in education requires that every student is
    ready to learn and every teacher is empowered to teach. To reach this
    goal, educators, stakeholders, and policy makers must make providing
    comprehensive school-based mental health services and supports for all
    students a priority. These services and supports include prevention and
    early intervention programs to promote school safety, prevent negative
    behaviors (e.g., bullying, violence, gang involvement, substance abuse,
    dropout, and truancy), foster increased student engagement, and support
    students' social--emotional wellness, mental health, and positive
    behavior, all of which directly affect teaching, learning, and student
    achievement.
    History of School Based Mental Health Services
        The potential consideration of reducing or eliminating access to
    school-based mental health services in the reauthorization of ESEA
    marks a retreat from the long-standing, bipartisan recognition of the
    importance of providing these vital comprehensive services to help
    ensure that all children meet their full potential.
        The passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
    Children Act of 1975 (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act) began the era of formally providing comprehensive
    support services in schools. The following three and a half decades
    marked considerable improvements and gains in the level, breadth, and
    quality of these services provided to students through the 1997 and
    2004 reauthorizations of IDEA and the passage of the No Child Left
    Behind Act in 2002. These landmark bipartisan pieces of legislation
    addressed the emotional well-being of all students and outlined a
    number of initiatives designed to ensure that schools were meeting the
    needs of the whole child as well promoting school safety and violence
    prevention (e.g., Safe and Drug Free Schools, Elementary and Secondary
    School Counseling Program [ESSCP]). The delivery model promoted by
    these recent legislative efforts has become more aligned with what we
    know works related to improving student learning and achievement,
    moving from a reactionary perspective to one that involves prevention
    and early intervention, and intensive interventions for those students
    who need it most.
        Alarmingly, recent decisions have begun the unraveling of these
    important programs and the progress made over the last four decades. In
    the last year, many of the programs managed by the Office of Safe and
    Drug Free Schools were eliminated, the office itself was closed, and
    the ESSCP was proposed for elimination or consolidation. Current
    legislation in the House seeks to further consolidate programs (many
    targeted at behavioral, social, and emotional health), and the Student
    Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act,
    designed to address the reauthorization of ESEA, fails to mention
    school-based mental health services at all. The loss of clear
    articulation in federal law regarding the importance of these services
    to children's school and life outcomes will severely diminish or
    eliminate the priorities of these programs and negatively affect the
    delivery of these much needed services to students. At a time when
    devoting resources to proven practices is paramount, failure to
    recognize the wealth of research that documents the need for and
    outcomes associated with school-based mental health services would
    constitute a giant leap away from ensuring that all children will
    succeed in school.
    The Critical Need for School-Based Mental Health Services
        A student's mental health, social, emotional, familial, or academic
    problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, bullying, alcohol and substance
    abuse, stress), can create barriers to learning. Such barriers exist
    for an increasingly large number of students, a trend which shows no
    sign of abating. An estimated one in five school-age students will
    experience a significant mental health problem during their school
    years (Kutash, Duchnowski, & Freidman, 2005; U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, 1999). Negative, antisocial, or violent behaviors
    such as bullying, gang involvement, substance abuse, and truancy
    undermine physical and psychological safety for students and staff and
    can affect a student's ability to be fully engaged and available for
    learning. Students who frequently deal with internalized (e.g.,
    anxiety, depression) and externalized (e.g., anger, fear, frustration)
    feelings of distress demonstrated diminished academic functioning and
    declining test scores (e.g., Roeser, Ecles, & Strobel, 1998; Hanson,
    Austin, & Lee-Bayha, 2004). Further, some research suggests that up to
    71% of youth experience at least one victimization event each year
    (e.g., assault, theft, criminal victimization, child maltreatment),
    with many exposed to multiple victimizations (Finkelhor, Ormrod,
    Turner, & Hamby, 2005).
        Despite these figures, many children and youth do not receive the
    help they need. For example, among the 2.2 million adolescents ages 12
    to 17 who reported a major depressive episode in the past year, nearly
    60% did not receive any treatment (Foster et al., 2005). Failure to
    adequately address students' mental health needs in school increases
    the risk of disengagement, academic failure, and school dropout
    (Reschly & Christenson, 2006). Student achievement and learning are
    clearly linked to mental health--ignoring this connection is not a risk
    that our schools, or the country, can afford.
    School-Based Mental Health Services Improve Outcomes
        The research clearly documents the positive outcomes associated
    with having access to school-based mental health services. Research
    conducted by Jennings, Pearson, and Harris (2000) concluded that school
    mental health programs improve educational outcomes by decreasing
    absences and discipline referrals and improving test scores.
    Comprehensive, school-based mental health services can prevent and
    address a number of problems that have become quite common in our
    schools and that impede students' ability to learn. Having access to
    these services results in improved behavior, improved academics, and
    ultimately prepares our students to be productive citizens. Students
    who have access to and receive social, emotional, and behavioral health
    support achieve better academically in school in terms of both grades
    and standardized test scores (e.g., Fleming et al., 2005; Greenberg et
    al., 2003; Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O'Neil, 2001; Zins, Bloodworth,
    Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). These services are needed across the
    educational life span, as children of all ages can experience
    difficulties. Wood (2006) found that among children 6--13 years old,
    interventions to reduce anxiety improved not only school performance
    but also social functioning, which has been shown to predict students'
    grades both concurrently and over time (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).
    Indeed, well planned and well implemented social and emotional
    programming results in positive academic gains for all students pre-K--
    12, from diverse backgrounds and in rural, suburban, and urban settings
    (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2003).
    Promoting Wellness
        It is important to recognize that mental health is not simply the
    absence of mental illness; it also means having the skills necessary to
    cope with life's challenges. Students, families, schools, and society
    at large benefit when schools meet the needs of the whole child by
    fostering social--emotional skills and identifying and preventing
    mental health problems early. Schools are also ideally positioned to
    promote mental and behavioral wellness, both by teaching new skills and
    by reinforcing the efforts of families and communities. Initiatives
    such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other
    multi-tiered service delivery systems, benefit the entire school
    population and serve as the foundation for more intensive interventions
    and supports for students with greater needs. In an era of education
    reform focused on evidence-based practices, it is imperative (and cost
    effective) to include services designed to support the behavioral,
    social, emotional, and mental health needs of students in ESEA.
    Preventing and addressing student difficulties reduces the need for
    more intensive, and more expensive, interventions for students.
    Impact on Teachers
        Access to school based mental health services benefits not only
    students, but also the teachers tasked with instructing them. Teachers
    frequently cite student behavior, lack of student motivation, and lack
    of adequate support as among the top reasons for leaving the
    profession. School-based mental health providers (e.g., school
    psychologists) are able to coordinate prevention and intervention
    services, both within the school and in the community, that address
    barriers to learning before they escalate. These professionals have the
    expertise needed to provide effective consultation to teachers and
    administrators to ensure that the school environment is meeting the
    needs of students and staff, and is ultimately conducive to learning.
    When students enter the classroom feeling supported and available for
    learning, it allows the teacher to focus attention on curriculum and
    delivering high quality instruction geared to meet the needs of every
    student in the classroom. Value-added assessments are becoming more
    common, and student test scores are increasingly tied to salary and
    personnel decisions. It is unreasonable and inappropriate to assume
    poor student test scores are the result of an ineffective teacher if
    the students in the classroom are not receiving the supports they need
    to be available for instruction and learning.
    A Policy Framework
        Current federal policy is focused on two important components of
    education reform: instruction and curriculum, and school organization.
    However, recent research out of the National Center for Mental Health
    in Schools at UCLA helps articulate a third essential component:
    learning supports that address barriers to learning, which broadly
    encompass school-based mental health services. Having effective
    teachers and principals who attend to the instructional, curricular,
    and organizational needs of a school are essential but alone are not
    sufficient for maximizing student success. Effective instruction is the
    linchpin of successful schooling, but it is counterproductive to expect
    teachers to lower all barriers to learning themselves. Schools must
    also prioritize implementing comprehensive learning supports that
    include: identifying and responding to the social, emotional,
    behavioral, and mental health needs of students and providing access to
    qualified school mental health professionals like school psychologists,
    school social workers, and school counselors. These school-employed
    mental health professionals help teachers and support students in
    school and connect them and their families to additional community
    resources as needed. An overview of the model can be downloaded from
    http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/UCLA--NASP--Brief--FINAL.pdf
    A Cost-Effective Investment in Our Nation's Children and Future
        In a time of lean budgets, schools have very limited monetary
    resources. Every dollar must be invested efficiently to ensure that
    quality of education is not compromised and that all students graduate
    high school ready for college and career. Failure to support students'
    mental health has serious negative consequences, including increased
    risk for school failure, social isolation, unsafe sexual behavior, drug
    and alcohol abuse, and suicide, while exacerbating long-term social
    problems such as incarceration, unemployment, and poor health. All are
    costly societal problems both in terms of personal and economic
    consequences. For example, the Seattle Social Development Project
    (focused on Grades 1 through 6) has been estimated to save $9,837 per
    student in averted long-term social problems (Aos et al., 2004).
    Additionally, it is estimated that the United States loses $192 billion
    (1.6% of the Gross Domestic Product) in combined income and tax-revenue
    losses with each cohort of 18-year-olds that never completes high
    school. Increasing the educational attainment of that cohort by one
    year would recoup nearly half of those losses (Teachers College,
    Columbia University, 2005).
        Failure to address mental health needs of students in schools will
    ultimately result in fewer high school graduates, fewer college
    graduates, increased social costs, and the declining ability for the
    United States to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy.
    Preserving programs such as the Elementary and Secondary School
    Counseling Program, School Improvement Grants, Safe and Drug Free
    Schools and Communities National Programs will further ensure that
    schools are able to provide these needed services in schools. We know
    the positive contribution of school-based mental health services to
    effective schooling and must continue to ensure that the necessary
    supports to address the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental
    health needs of the child are available.
                                   references
    Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller. M., & Pennucci, A. (2004).
            Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention
            programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for
            Public Policy.
    Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The
            victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national
            survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5--25.
    Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. R.,
            Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., & Grumman, D. H. (2005). Do
            social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive
            interventions predict standardized test scores and grades?
            Journal of School Health, 75, 342-349.
    Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E.,
            Fredericks, L., Resnick, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing
            school-based prevention and youth development though
            coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American
            Psychologist, 58, 466--474.
    Foster, S., Rollefson, M., Doksum, T., Noonan, D., Robinson, G., Teich,
            J. (2005) School mental health services in the United States,
            2002-2003. Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse
            and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MD.
    Hanson, T.L., Austin, G. & Lee-Bayha, J. (2004). Ensuring that no child
            is left behind: How are student health risks and resilience
            related to the academic progress of schools? San Francisco:
            WestEd.
    Jennings, J., Pearson, G., & Harris, M. (2000). Children's social
            behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal
            analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1-23.
    Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Freidman, R. M. (2005). The system of
            care twenty years later. In M. H. Epstein, K. Kutash, & A. J.
            Duchnowski (Eds.), Outcomes for children with emotional and
            behavioral disorders and their families: Program and evaluation
            for best practices (2nd ed., pp. 3--22). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    Reschly, A. & Christenson, S. L. (2006). School completion. In G. G.
            Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children's needs III: Development,
            prevention, and intervention (pp. 103--113). Bethesda, MD:
            National Association of School Psychologists.
    Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Strobel, K.R. (1998). Linking the study
            of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical
            illustrations at the level of the individual. Educational
            Psychologist, 33, 153-176.
    U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A
            Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD.
    Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O'Neil, R. (2001). Linkages
            between children's social and academic competence: A
            longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463--
            482.
    Wentzel, K.R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and
            group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle
            school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209.
    Wood, J.J. (2006). Effect of anxiety reduction on children's school
            performance and adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 42, 345-
            349.
    Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J.
            (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional
            learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M.
            C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on
            social and emotional learning: What does the research say?
            (pp.3--22). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
                                     ______

                                                      January 19, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman; Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    RE: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
            (ESEA)

        Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller: The National School
    Boards Association (NSBA), representing over 14, 500 local school
    boards across the nation would like to thank you for your continuing
    leadership and support to public education and to reaffirm the urgency
    in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
    during the Second Session of the 112th Congress.
        Since the time NCLB was enacted ten years ago, both Congress and
    the Administration have acknowledged that law's accountability
    framework has proven to be seriously flawed and the mandated sanctions
    on schools and school districts have been costly with very limited
    impact in improving student or school performance. Further, the
    operational challenges facing States and local school districts in
    implementing the current law have re-affirmed the need for greater
    authority and flexibility to be delegated to States and local school
    districts to address the unique circumstances and conditions in
    improving student achievement and in closing the achievement gap
    between various segments within the school population.
        NSBA developed comprehensive recommendations and priorities for the
    ESEA reauthorization that would:
         Ensure states and local school districts have greater
    overall flexibility to make educationally sound decisions, and be free
    of mandates that unnecessarily or counterproductively hinder school
    districts from achieving their goals.
         Ensure high quality, valid and reliable assessments for
    all students, including English language learners and student with
    disabilities.
         Support the use of multiple measures of academic
    achievement that would more accurately determine students' knowledge
    and performance that reflect the kind of well-rounded education
    necessary to be successful in the 21st Century economy, as opposed to
    judging success on their performance on a single assessment.
         Permit the use of growth models and other measures of
    student achievement that more accurately reflect student and school
    performance.
         Facilitate strategic interventions that are designed at
    the local or state level and are targeted to students and schools most
    in need, rather than impose ineffective and costly sanctions.
         Provide states and school districts support and ensure
    flexibility to establish programs to enhance teacher/principal quality
    focusing on preparation, recruitment, retention and evaluation.
         Support efforts by school districts through a separate
    funding stream to develop, expand, coordinate and enhance the quality
    and availability of voluntary preschool programs for all 3- and 4-year
    old children.
         Fully fund the law, along with other federal assistance
    programs that are critical to successfully achieving the goals of the
    new law, and limit expansion of competitive grants where such expansion
    would result in level funding or formula-based grants so critical to
    students in poverty.
        In reviewing the House discussion drafts released on January 6,
    2012, the general approach of the legislation is closely aligned with
    the priorities and recommendations of local school boards that would:
         Establish a new accountability system that delegates
    authority and flexibility to the States and locals school districts and
    provides for adequate time to design, develop and implement strategies
    over a 6-year time frame.
         Increase the focus on academic achievement to be addressed
    by individual student progress and the elimination of achievement gaps
    between subgroups.
         Increase the State role in standards and assessments to
    support local school districts in improving academic achievement.
         Eliminate the unworkable provisions related to Highly
    Qualified Teacher requirements and increases the emphasis on teacher
    and school leader effectiveness, including support for effective
    performance evaluation systems.
         Increase focus on assessment measures to address higher-
    order thinking skills in addition to mathematics and reading/language
    arts (and the State discretion to add additional subjects)
         Continue the use of disaggregated data collection and
    reporting.
         Strengthen the focus on valid and reliable assessments for
    all students, including English language learners and students with
    disabilities.
         Support the use of multiple measures of student
    achievement and growth models.
         Increase the focus on States to modify or eliminate State
    fiscal and accountings barriers so funds from the federal, state and
    local levels could be consolidated.
         Provide authority to local school districts to transfer
    funds from federal programs (except Title I)
        However, the bill also contains several key provisions that would
    adversely impact local school district operations and would require
    substantial modifications:
        1. Authorizations of Appropriations and CPI. The House bill
    includes language that would restrict future federal funding to the
    FY2012 base and a percentage of the CPI. Such an approach could
    ultimately eliminate any future increased priority for public education
    funding, fail to give any recognition for enrollment growth in general
    as well as with respect to subgroups that may require additional
    support. With significant increases in enrollment, the actual result in
    this approach could reduce per pupil expenses since the cost of living
    increases in school systems rises faster than the CPI considerations.
    Overtime the maximum levels that could be provided would be reduced.
    Rather than using the CPI, the cost of living (COL) index would be much
    fairer.
        NSBA recommends that future K-12 education authorizations of
    appropriations should not be tied to a percentage of the CPI.
        2. Maintenance of Effort Provisions. The House bill includes
    language to eliminate maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements. While
    local school boards recognize the severe economic challenges facing
    their communities in adjusting budgets to reduced revenue streams, we
    believe the elimination of MOE requirements would over time
    significantly lower the incentive for other government investments in
    education at a time when the nation's public schools must become even
    more rigorous and aggressive in the design, development and
    implementation of educational services if we are to successfully
    compete in the global market. NSBA recommends that MOE requirements not
    be completely eliminated. Rather, NSBA recommends that a waiver
    application process based on fiscal need be utilized that would at
    least require the same percentage be allocated to K-12 programs in a
    given year compared to previous budget percentages.
        3. Local School District Capacity Building. The House bill fails to
    adequately address how States would support local school districts in
    building their capacity to assume expanded responsibilities. As a
    result of this legislation, local school districts could expect
    additional challenges in implementing new standards, new assessments,
    new curricula, requirements for additional instructional materials and
    a restructured accountability system. A review of the operational
    impediments and barriers to local school districts would suggest that
    States must assist local school districts to build or strengthen their
    own capacity to ensure their success. Therefore, NSBA recommends that
    state plans specify how state will support local school districts to
    build local school district capacity to successfully carry out their
    accountability responsibilities.
        4. Charter Schools. The House bill continues strong support for
    charter schools, including a focus on funding for planning, facilities
    construction and renovation. Local school boards generally support the
    concept of charter schools provided the local school board is the
    chartering authority. In fact roughly 52% of all charters are
    authorized by local school boards.
        However, what concerns local school boards is the increased
    emphasis to significantly expand both the number of charter schools as
    well as the entities that could authorize new charter schools when
    there is no evidence that charter schools are significantly better than
    traditional schools. In fact, the CREDO study reports that only 17% of
    the charter schools performed better than traditional public schools.
    Further, research has shown that students with disabilities and English
    language learners are under-represented in charter schools, while
    traditional public schools are increasingly serving students who
    require special services. NSBA recommends that in using these federal
    funds the local school district should be designated as the sole
    authorizing entity; and if restricted by State law, local school
    districts should have, as a minimum, the first right of refusal. This
    would ensure that the charter schools develop and sustain supportive
    relationship with the local school district regarding funding, other
    operational requirements that could be shared such as food services or
    transportation, and accountability for student performance and teacher
    and school personnel performance. Federal policy should not create a
    situation that pits one segment in the community against the other.
        Local school boards remain strongly committed to our priorities and
    recommendations and urge that they will be fully addressed in the final
    House bill. We believe that our recommendations will ensure a much more
    effective framework to ensure progress in both improving student
    achievement and in closing the achievement gap.
        Additionally, as you prepare to draft final legislative language,
    we urge you to continue to communicate with and fully engage local
    school board members in your congressional district. Such interactions
    will ensure that the provisions within the final House bill will have
    the greatest likelihood of significantly improving student, school and
    school district success.
        NSBA appreciates the opportunity to re-affirm our commitment to our
    ESEA priorities as well as to the urgency to complete the
    reauthorization before the Second Session for the 112th Congress
    adjourns. We look forward to working with you and the members of your
    staff in finalizing key policies affecting our public schools and to
    discuss additional issues that we believe require clarification or
    modification to the legislative language. Questions regarding our
    concerns may be directed to Reginald M. Felton, assistant executive
    director for Congressional Relations at 703-838-6782, or by e-mail,
    rfelton@nsba.org.
                Sincerely,
                                            Michael A. Resnick,
                                          Associate Executive Director.
                                     ______

    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: AASA's Executive Committee met on January 12,
    13 and 14 to develop its 2012 legislative agenda. During that process
    they met with House and Senate staff, as well as the administration, to
    talk about the progress on ESEA reauthorization and other federal
    education policy issues. AASA's Executive Committee applauds your
    efforts and the efforts of the House Education and the Workforce
    Committee to reauthorize ESEA and strongly believes that
    reauthorization is crucial to providing the nation's schools with
    relief from current law, which is both broken and lacking in the
    flexibility states and local school districts need to support student
    learning and achievement. We also applaud your openness to the views of
    education leaders and stakeholders--including administrators--which has
    resulted in an excellent first step in the reauthorization process.
        AASA believes that The Student Success Act and Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act represent a step in the right
    direction in large part because they balance the proper role of the
    federal government in education. We welcome the opportunity to work
    with you, the Committee, the administration and stakeholders to address
    our concerns and finally conclude the ESEA reauthorization process.
        The Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act make significant improvements in the federal
    role in accountability, standards and assessments that AASA supports.
    For example, AASA supports much of the Student Success Act and Teacher
    Encouragement Acts that:
         Maintain student disaggregation by subgroup
         Eliminate the utopian 100 percent proficiency
         Eliminate SES/Choice
         Return ownership of the accountability system to the
    state/local level
         Maintain school improvement for low performing schools,
    under state direction
         Maintain the requirement for annual assessment under state
    direction
         Require that assessments measure proficiency and growth
    models
         Remove caps on alternate assessments, allowing the IEP
    team to ensure that children are assessed in a meaningful, fair and
    accurate manner
         Maintain current law related to comparability calculations
         Maintain supplement/supplant language
         Reduce federal overreach into school improvement/
    turnaround strategies
         Put states in charge of designing a teacher evaluation
    system
         Include student performance in teacher evaluation
         Require multiple measures for teacher evaluation
         Provide for funding flexibility between certain programs
    within Title I
         Eliminate requirements related to Highly Qualified Teacher
    provisions
         Provide that 21st Century funds to school districts to be
    used for expanded learning time.
        For all that is good within both the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, both contain
    provisions that greatly concern AASA. We strongly urge the Committee to
    make improvements as both bills move to mark up and the floor. Further,
    we emphasize the importance of ensuring that the reauthorization
    process remains both transparent and open, allowing stakeholders ample
    opportunity to weigh in and participate.
         Maintenance of Effort: AASA supports current maintenance
    of effort language to ensure continuity of state and local efforts. We
    support maintaining a lever to maintain state and local spending. The
    current MOE provisions provide the greatest protection to those low-
    wealth districts that generally educate more low-income children. Low-
    wealth districts generally get the greatest share of their funding from
    the state and if states are allowed to cut funding the most vulnerable
    districts and the most vulnerable children will be hurt
    disproportionately.
         Eliminating maintenance of effort language completely
    could compound fiscal pressures at the local level as LEAs would have
    to cover state reductions with local dollars. MOE provisions do need to
    be modified, however, because under current MOE local school districts
    are held responsible for state reductions in spending and forced to
    make up state reductions. MOE should not force local school districts,
    particularly low-wealth districts, to compensate for reductions in
    state effort.
         Rural Education: AASA supports a REAP reauthorization that
    maintains the current program, which has proven effective in its goal
    of driving formula, flexible dollars to the nation's rural schools to
    support improved student achievement. AASA prefers the Senate REAP
    language, which more closely mirrors our legislative priorities. We
    strongly urge the poverty indicator for the REAP program be changed in
    both bills to free and reduced lunch from census poverty.
         Funding: The Senate bill codifies Race to the Top and
    Investing in Innovation. AASA prefers the House language that
    eliminates the programs and allows a focus on formula, flexible
    programs such as Title I and IDEA. AASA is opposed to the House
    proposal to cap Title I increases to inflation.
         Charter Schools: AASA supports public school choice and
    charter schools that operate under the governance of local public
    school boards. Both bills include charter school language that lacks
    accountability by allowing independent charter sponsorship and poses a
    fiscal burden in the current fiscal environment. Further, we believe
    charter and traditional public schools should face the same
    environmental, labor, due process and fiscal laws, which is neither
    clear nor directed in the current ESEA proposals.
         Vouchers: AASA believes public dollars are for public
    schools and opposes a House measure that would allow education spending
    for non-public use, including scholarships for private-school tuition.
    Some provisions of the Encouraging Teachers Act clearly allow federal
    funds to flow to private religious schools, which encourages rationing
    of education to schools not open to all children and employees. While
    private schools can discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes
    to accepting students and hiring staff, such discrimination should not
    be supported or facilitated by public taxpayer dollars.
         Equitable Participation: The House provisions regarding
    services to eligible students in private schools have been made more
    costly, cumbersome and bureaucratic, which will cut into services.
        The AASA Executive Committee's greatest concerns with the Student
    Success Act and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act in
    order of importance are:
         Education Technology: AASA is concerned by the disconnect
    between a federal focus on requiring schools to prepare students to be
    college-and career-ready in the 21st century but then failing to
    recognize the importance of continued support for education technology
    and the related professional development. AASA supports the Senate
    education technology amendment (ATTAIN Act) and urges the House to
    provide similar language or similar flexibility within its proposal.
        AASA looks forward to working with you and the other members of the
    Education and Work Force Committee to move ESEA through Committee mark
    up and the House floor. If you have questions or need further
    information, please contact Bruce Hunter (bhunter@aasa.org), the head
    of our advocacy and communications team, or Noelle Ellerson
    (nellerson@aasa.org) from our Advocacy and Policy team.

                           Daniel Domenech, Executive Director,
                         American Association of School Administrators.
                                     ______

                                                      January 24, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: The 38 undersigned organizations--representing
    a broad cross section of civil rights, disability, business and
    education organizations--write to firmly oppose the recently released
    draft of the Student Success Act, which would amend and reauthorize
    Title I and other parts of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA). Together we represent parents, educators, employers, and
    millions of students with disabilities, low-income students, students
    of color, English language learners (ELLs), and the children of migrant
    workers--all boys and girls who, through education, are working to
    build bright futures.
        All agree that ESEA must be updated. However, the draft bill is not
    an update; it is a rollback. It undermines the core American value of
    equal opportunity in education embodied in Brown v. Board of Education.
    Specifically, it abandons accountability for the achievement and
    learning gains of subgroups of disadvantaged students who for
    generations have been harmed by low academic expectations. The draft
    also eliminates performance targets, removes parameters regarding the
    use of federal funds to help improve struggling schools, does not
    address key disparities in opportunity such as access to high-quality
    college preparatory curricula, restricts the federal government from
    protecting underprivileged students, and fails to advance the current
    movement toward college-and career-ready standards. As a result, the
    draft would thrust us back to an earlier time when states could choose
    to ignore disparities for children of color, low-income students, ELLs,
    and students with disabilities. The results, for these groups of
    students and for our nation as a whole, were devastating.
        The last time the federal government left accountability completely
    to the states, two-thirds decided to do nothing; only two states
    included the performance of individual groups of students in their
    systems. The rest took action in name only, setting targets too low or
    too vague to meaningfully drive student improvement. The students we
    represent cannot withstand the risk of Congress allowing states to
    return to old habits--aiming low and abandoning children deemed too
    difficult or inconsequential to educate. The draft, as written, would
    invite such a result.
        This draft bill also would allow federal dollars to flow but
    require virtually nothing in return. This is bad for students and bad
    for taxpayers. Federal funding must be attached to firm, ambitious, and
    unequivocal demands for higher achievement, improved high school
    graduation rates, and progress in closing both achievement and
    opportunity gaps. Any reauthorization of ESEA must, at minimum, require
    states to set clear goals and provide instructional support so that all
    students receive an education that prepares them for success in college
    and careers.
        We also believe ESEA should respect the important contributions and
    roles of all those responsible for providing public education: states,
    districts, schools, and teachers. This includes holding all responsible
    parties accountable, something the draft does not accomplish. And while
    the ESEA must continue to balance federal oversight and decisionmaking
    at the state level, it must ensure that the federal government retains
    its long-standing and crucial role in safeguarding equal educational
    opportunity.
        We hope to work with you and the committee to address our concerns
    if this proposed legislation is introduced and moves forward. For
    additional information please contact Dianne Piche at
    Piche@civilrights.org or Kate Tromble at KTromble@edtrust.org.
                Sincerely,
              50CAN: The 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now;
                                        The Advocacy Institute;
              American Association of People with Disabilities;
                  The American Association of University Women;
                                American Civil Liberties Union;
                               American Federation of Teachers;
                                                       The Arc;
                                     Autism National Committee;
                          Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law;
                    Business Coalition for Student Achievement;
                  The Center for American Progress Action Fund;
                              The Center for Law and Education;
                                       Children's Defense Fund;
               Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.;
                                Democrats for Education Reform;
                  Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund;
                                           The Education Trust;
                 Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law;
           The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
                      League of United Latin American Citizens;
     MALDEF (the Mexican American League Defense and Education
                                                         Fund);
                                         Mental Health America;
                                                         NAACP;
                NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;
                     National Center for Learning Disabilities;
                        National Council on Independent Living;
                                   National Council of La Raza;
                            National Disability Rights Network;
                               National Down Syndrome Congress;
                                National Down Syndrome Society;
                                         National Urban League;
                                   National Women's Law Center;
                                       The New Teacher Project;
                        Poverty & Race Research Action Council;
                                              Public Advocates;
                         Southeast Asia Research Action Center;
                                            Stand for Children;
                                      U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                     ______

                                                     February 13, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's
    largest business federation representing the interests of more than
    three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and
    region, is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your recently
    released draft legislation to reauthorize key aspects of the Elementary
    and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
        The Chamber applauds your commitment to reauthorize ESEA. There is
    broad consensus that the last reauthorization, which brought about the
    No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), needs to be updated to reflect what we
    have learned over the past decade. The comments below align with the
    Chamber's ESEA reauthorization statement that was released on May 4,
    2011.
        There are many provisions of the draft legislation that improve
    upon the current law. In particular, the Chamber supports the focus on
    ``effective'' teachers based significantly upon how well they improve
    the academic achievement of their students, the consolidation of
    education programs, expanding competition for education funds, and
    allowing for greater private sector innovation. Should you move forward
    in introducing legislation, we urge you to include these provisions.
        However, the Chamber is deeply concerned with several other key
    provisions of the draft legislation.
        Accountability: NCLB set an ambitious goal of having all students
    in America reach grade level proficiency in reading and math in twelve
    years. While that goal is far from being accomplished, having both the
    overall target of proficiency, as well as assistance and interventions
    attached to annual targets has driven improvements in student academic
    achievement. In this program, millions of additional students have
    received the attention needed to be successful in school. This includes
    the option for students to leave a low-performing school and choose to
    attend a higher performing school. This has also resulted in millions
    of parents having the option to direct a portion of federal funds to
    choose a tutor based upon the needs of their child.
        Unfortunately, the draft legislation lacks a clear goal for student
    achievement. Additionally, states would not be required to set annual
    goals and hold all schools accountable for reaching those goals.
    Without annual goals, states and school districts could effectively
    identify no or few schools for school improvement, and schools that
    have continually failed year after year would not be subject to
    rigorous, targeted interventions. By repealing Section 1116 of current
    law, the draft legislation would eliminate any options for students
    stuck in low-performing schools to receive immediate assistance through
    public school choice and free tutoring.
        Some have suggested that because the current accountability system
    has identified so many schools as ``failing''--nearly half of Title I
    schools--the problem is with the accountability system. While there may
    be faults with the current accountability system, the real problem is
    too few schools are preparing too few students to succeed in today's
    economy. The easy and expedient route may be to sweep this issue under
    the rug along with millions of students in underperforming schools, but
    the Chamber believes the long-term consequences of such action would be
    devastating.
        While recognizing that federal law should move away from the pass/
    fail accountability approach, the Chamber urges you to retain the
    concept of state accountability systems with clear academic goals and
    targets that require states, districts, and schools to be held
    accountable for meeting such goals for all students and subgroups of
    students. Furthermore, states must design accountability systems that
    hold all schools accountable for progress with assistance and
    interventions for schools not meeting their annual targets. Finally,
    there needs to be more, not less, involvement and choice for parents
    who have a child stuck in a school that simply does not work.
        Academic Standards and Assessments: The draft legislation would
    continue to require states to adopt academic content standards, and
    assessments aligned to those standards in mathematics and reading or
    language arts. While the Chamber has supported the recent efforts of
    states to join together in the development of Common Core Standards, we
    have not advocated any requirement that states adopt such standards.
    However, the Chamber has supported the concept of requiring states to
    be serious about their standards and ensure they truly represent what
    it means for all students to be ``college and career ready'' when they
    graduate from high school.
        The Chamber urges you to support college and career ready standards
    and assessments as well as reinforce the need for all states to develop
    a partnership with the business and higher education communities in the
    development of such standards.
        Science Standards and Assessments: NCLB currently requires states
    to adopt science standards and assessments, but the draft legislation
    leaves out these important provisions. While many states would
    presumably continue to update and refine their current science
    standards--and continue assessing students in this subject--removing
    these provisions from current law sends a message that this country no
    longer needs to focus on the critical area of science. There is no
    shortage of examples of how important science and technology is to the
    future competitiveness of this nation. At the same time the U.S.
    continues to lose ground in this area relative to the rest of the
    world. As such, America must make science education a national priority
    and commitment. The Chamber urges you to retain the current law
    requiring states to adopt science standards and continue to assess
    students in this area, as well as use the results for accountability
    purposes.
        While there are other aspects of the draft which merit more
    detailed comments, the issues raised above are critically important.
    The Chamber hopes to have the opportunity to meet with you and your
    staff in the coming days and weeks to discuss your draft in more
    detail.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to respond to the draft
    legislation.
                                     ______

                                    ------

                                                      February 2, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: I am writing on behalf of the nation's chief
    state school officers to provide input on the Student Success Act and
    the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, your draft
    legislation to fix and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act (ESEA). At a time when states are seeking interim relief
    from dated ESEA requirements, we applaud your effort to advance the
    congressional reauthorization process in the interest of sustainable
    and viable federal policies that reconfigure the federal-state-local
    partnership in American education. The Council of Chief State School
    Officers (CCSSO) looks forward to working with you to secure ESEA
    reauthorization as soon as possible, ideally before the beginning of
    the next school year.
        I applaud your legislation's recognition of the primacy of state
    and local leadership in education. CCSSO has long called for
    transforming ESEA into a law that reinforces state leadership and
    promotes deference to state and local judgment; we strongly believe
    that state and local leaders are best situated to make improvements
    that benefit students in our states. Our commitment to meaningful
    accountability on behalf of students is resolute. To an extent
    unprecedented in our recent history, state and local governments are
    answering the national call for education reform. We remain staunchly
    committed to raising the bar by developing college and career ready
    standards for all students and ensuring that federal policy supports
    the ultimate goal of ensuring that all students graduate ready for
    higher learning or entering the workforce. States are also working
    together to develop aligned high-quality assessments and corresponding
    data systems and educator evaluation systems. We are eager to build
    upon these foundational reforms and tackle the challenge of turning
    around low-performing schools, improving student achievement for all
    students, and closing achievement gaps.
        In order for the federal-state-local partnership in education to
    succeed, state and local leaders must be provided greater authority to
    develop and implement education reforms that are designed primarily at
    the state and local levels and targeted to students' needs. We believe
    that federal law must promote greater state and local leadership in a
    manner consistent with CCSSO's Next Generation Accountability
    Principles, which states are currently using as a framework to govern
    the development of stronger accountability systems. CCSSO believes your
    bill reflects a shared vision of education reform driven by state and
    local leaders with limited federal supports:
         We applaud your bill's continued focus on accountability
    for all schools and recognizing the need to accurately measure student
    growth in addition to proficiency. We support eliminating the
    federally-defined 100% proficiency target (AYP), but requiring states
    to define, report, and act using authentic student growth.
         We strongly support your bill's continued call for annual
    determinations, disaggregation, and reporting on the performance of all
    schools by overall student performance and subgroup population
    performance.
         We commend your legislation for ensuring that states have
    a school improvement intervention strategy in place while granting
    states flexibility from the prescriptive federal turnaround models set
    forth in the School Improvement Grant program.
         We support your inclusion of policies that advance teacher
    and leader evaluation reforms, which are a top ESEA priority for CCSSO
    and our members.
        While we support the overall direction of the bill and believe that
    it will allow states to continue to lead on behalf of their students, a
    few modifications could strengthen the ability of states to deliver on
    their commitments to stronger accountability systems rooted in the
    ultimate goal of college and career readiness for all students. These
    include:
         In the absence of a set requirement for the designation of
    low-performing schools, we are concerned that school districts will not
    identify and intervene in enough schools and that States will lack
    leverage to require such interventions where they are most needed.
         We believe that federal education law should ask states to
    establish an ambitious yet achievable goal for our students. We do not
    support a universal academic performance target set at the federal
    level, as AYP was in NCLB, but we do embrace state-established
    performance targets. The Secretary should defer to state judgments on
    these targets, not second-guess state determinations.
         Like you, we believe ESEA should empower states to drive
    meaningful interventions in the lowest-performing schools to ensure
    significant improvement. In order for this to be realized, states
    should have the authority to withhold funding from districts that fail
    to implement their school improvement plans or strategies adequately or
    if those strategies fail to improve student achievement. We believe in
    a state and local partnership and trust our local school districts, but
    just as ESEA puts in place protections against inaction, we too ask for
    such protections.
        As stated above, we applaud your call for a return to state
    leadership in K-12 education and to task us with additional
    responsibilities on behalf of our schools and students. In order for us
    to take on the addition of certain new state responsibilities,
    corresponding support is warranted. Otherwise it may lead to unfunded
    mandates that limit state and local flexibility:
         Your bill properly continues a call for annual testing in
    grades 3-8 and once in high school, but it simultaneously eliminates
    the authorization that states have depended on to fund such a
    requirement. We strongly urge you to restore the dedicated allocation
    of funds authorized in Sections 6111 and 6112 of current law and urge
    you to permit states to use these funds to acquire the necessary
    technologies to implement next generation assessments. In addition,
    your bill as currently written would seem to prohibit direct federal
    funding of the two existing state assessment consortia working to
    develop next-generation assessments capable of more accurately
    measuring student performance. Nearly every state is a member of one of
    these consortia and has a strong interest in maintaining a limited
    federal role in the support of these consortia. In the interest of
    voluntary state collaboration, efficiency in the use of federal funds,
    and quality assessment practices, we urge you to be silent on common
    standards and assessments in your legislation. In the alternative,
    please clarify that your bill intends only to restrict that the
    Secretary mandate participation in common standards or assessments
    consortia through the use of absolute or competitive requirements in
    formula or competitive grants.
         In keeping with your legislation's reliance upon increased
    state and local leadership in education, we urge you to ensure that it
    authorizes sufficient funding to support the capacity-building
    necessary to advance education reform at the state and local levels and
    avoid unfunded federal mandates.
        In sum, I applaud your leadership in moving forward on ESEA
    reauthorization and appreciate and support the direction that your bill
    moves the ESEA debate in Congress. As you know, I've been out of the
    office for several weeks, but will be back in D.C. the week of Feb.
    13th and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss these
    matters with you in more detail. My staff will also connect with yours
    next week to follow up on this letter. We look forward to working
    collaboratively with you and your colleagues to pass a bill this year
    that supports state and local educators.
                Sincerely,
                              Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director,
                        Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
                                     ______

                                                     February 13, 2012.
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the upcoming
    reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I
    am writing on behalf of the First Focus Campaign for Children, a
    501(c)(4) nonprofit organization affiliated with First Focus, a
    bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to making
    children and families a priority in federal policy and budget
    decisions. In all of our work, we seek to raise awareness regarding
    public policies impacting children and families and to ensure that
    related programs have the resources necessary to help children grow up
    in a nurturing environment.
        As you know, the future strength of this nation's democracy, as
    well as its economy, depends on the investments made in children and
    youth today. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act (ESEA) presents a valuable opportunity to positively
    impact the lives of millions of children and families. We write to
    express severe concerns regarding the released drafts of the following
    reauthorization bills: The Student Success Act, which would amend and
    reauthorize Title I and other parts of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act (ESEA) and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teachers Act which engages parents in the education of their children.
        Chief among our organization's priorities for K-12 education policy
    is reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA). However, we respectfully draw your attention to the following
    segments of the bill that we believe would hurt our most deserving
    students and families if the draft language remained in its current
    form:
        Transferability & Flexibility in Using Funds: While it is argued
    that this is needed to create greater local control over education
    decisions and encourage local innovation, funding flexibility could
    lead to some vital programs going unfunded at the expense of
    disadvantaged students. This would perpetrate inequity in funding for
    special populations. Rather, we need to sustain an appropriate federal
    role in public education by protecting the funding for federal programs
    that were created to level the playing field for populations vulnerable
    to the effect of educational disparities. Though they remain
    underfunded, Title I, Title III and Title VII, which address the needs
    of low income, ELL and Native American students respectively, have
    helped close achievement gaps for our most deserving students. Instead
    of pursuing flexibility in this sense, we should allow states and
    school districts the flexibility to target 75 percent of their non-
    Title I, III, or VII federal resources for flexibility to best serve
    the needs of their students. States should also be allowed to apply for
    waivers by the Department of Education to exempt them from certain
    statutory or regulatory requirements under law, consolidate federal
    education programs while being accountable for results, and use an
    alternative method for making allocations to school districts instead
    of the current formula if their new proposal targets funds more
    effectively to those areas with high concentrations of low-income
    families.
        Accountability Systems: While we do believe there are benefits to
    be gained from letting go of the punitive restrictions of Adequate
    Yearly Progress (AYP), we oppose any policies that potentially abandon
    accountability for the achievement and learning gains of subgroups of
    disadvantaged students. The draft also eliminates performance targets
    (Annual Measurable Objectives), and removes parameters regarding the
    use of federal funds to help improve struggling schools. As the bills
    do not permit the Secretary of Education to establish any criteria that
    specifies or prescribes any aspect of a state's accountability system,
    nor does it provide a definition for low-performing schools, it
    restricts the federal government from protecting underserved students.
        Highly Qualified Teachers: We are opposed to eliminating any
    requirements related to the definition of highly qualified teachers.
    The draft bill eliminates all baseline preparation standards for
    teachers, instead focusing solely on measuring teacher effectiveness
    once teachers are already in the classroom. We believe it is a grave
    mistake to eliminate NCLB's ``highly qualified teacher'' provisions,
    which required all teachers to be fully certified by their state and to
    demonstrate competency in their subject matter. A wealth of research
    shows that high need students are most likely to be taught by teachers
    who have not completed their training, have not demonstrated competency
    in their subject matter, and are inexperienced. These bills will do
    nothing to change this reality. While your proposals' focus on
    measuring teacher effectiveness is important, these bills fail to
    recognize that teacher effectiveness cannot be measured until a teacher
    has actually taught. All students--especially low-income students,
    students of color, students with disabilities, English language
    learners, and students from high-need rural communities--deserve
    teachers who are fully-prepared on their first day in the classroom and
    who prove themselves effective once there. Related to the issue of
    highly qualified teachers, we are also concerned with the lowering of
    Title II (Teacher Quality) funds for students who are in poverty,
    especially during a time when we should be enhancing our highly
    qualified teacher workforce.
        Comparability: Your proposal does not address the issue of
    comparability of per pupil funding between schools within the same
    district. We have a key opportunity to amend part A of title I of ESEA
    to remedy the inequitable distribution of State and local funds within
    the areas served by local educational agencies by: (1) Reinforcing the
    supplementary intent of funds made available under Title I of ESEA, to
    ensure these funds serve their original purpose of subsidizing the
    increased costs associated with educating students in concentrated
    poverty; (2) Addressing the statutory, regulatory, and enforcement
    weaknesses that undermine the role of the comparability requirement in
    ensuring comparability within school districts; (3) Requiring the
    inclusion of real teacher salaries in calculations of per-pupil
    expenditures; and (4) Providing sufficient transparency,
    accountability, and disclosure to allow parents, communities,
    educators, and district officials to ensure students have access to the
    resources they need to achieve at high levels.
        English Learners: We applaud the fact that the legislation
    continues support for primary language assessments for English Learners
    where appropriate, and supports programs and instruction based on
    evidence-based research and standards for English language proficiency.
    We are deeply concerned with folding Title III (language instruction
    for English Learners) into Title I and the loss of a national focus on
    English Learners.
        Class Size Reduction: The proposed legislation limits class size
    reduction efforts to 10 percent of Title II (current use is about 38
    percent). Research indicates that students benefiting the most from
    class size reduction efforts are disadvantaged students in the early
    grades. By capping this funding, we are concerned that school districts
    will not be able to find funding to continue paying the teacher
    salaries that were previously funded through federal class size
    reduction funds. This would lead to a direct decrease in services for
    our most deserving students. Rather, we recommend awarding formula
    grants to states for allocation to their local school districts to: (1)
    Reduce class size, particularly in the early elementary grades, by
    using highly qualified teachers; and (2) Create a continuum of small
    classes from kindergarten to third grade.
        Early Education: The draft proposals currently lack a focus on
    early education or the creation of school improvement and professional
    development activities with early childhood development and education
    programs. We have a key opportunity to amend the school improvement
    program under part A of Title I of ESEA to require states to create or
    revise early learning guidelines for preschool age children and early
    learning standards for children in kindergarten through grade three.
    Improving the early years of the education continuum--beginning with
    pre-kindergarten and continuing through third grade--is essential to
    ensuring that every child is college and career ready. Research shows
    that high-quality classroom experiences throughout this period of a
    child's life can lead to significant gains in achievement. Research
    also shows that a child who is still struggling to read by the third
    grade may never catch up. Current policies in the draft language are
    simply not enough to address this problem.
        As you work to finalize these ESEA reauthorization bills, we urge
    you to consider the following four priorities:
         Making Schools the Centers of Our Communities
         Increasing High School Graduation Rates and Reconnecting
    High School Dropouts
         Strengthening Educational Opportunities for Children and
    Youth in Unstable Housing
         Expanding High Quality Early Learning Opportunities
        We appreciate your leadership and initiative to help improve the
    current situation of public schools in America. We look forward in
    working with you to ensure that our most disadvantaged students and
    communities are given the resources and support needed to provide an
    equitable education.
                Sincerely,
                                       Bruce Lesley, President,
                                     First Focus Campaign for Children.
                                     ______

                                                      February 3, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: On behalf of over 65,000 of our nation's
    elementary, middle level and high school principals, the National
    Association of Elementary Schools (NAESP) and the National Association
    of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) are writing to comment on the
    provisions contained in the proposed Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act. We appreciate any
    steps taken by the committee to reauthorize the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the law is long overdue for renewal,
    and many of the ill-fated provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
    continue to pose unnecessary barriers to student success.
        Collectively, principals applaud many of the provisions contained
    in the draft legislation, specifically the elimination of Adequate
    Yearly Progress (AYP); removal of the arbitrary 100% proficiency
    requirements; requiring disaggregation of subgroup data; and allowing
    states ample time (six years) to adopt and implement new standards,
    assessments, and accountability systems.
        NAESP and NASSP also applaud the removal of the overly prescriptive
    federal models of school improvement that all require the principal's
    removal without an evaluation of the principal's performance. Recent
    studies find that the effects of implementation substantiate the
    ineffectiveness that continue to be the basis of the ill-informed
    policies of the School Improvement Grant program, which are perpetuated
    by misguided regulation. The program and the illogical policy upon
    which it is based does nothing short of creating chaos and disruption
    in school communities, and perpetuates the hallmark of underperforming
    schools--high teacher and principal turnover rates.
        While the proposals make several notable and positive changes that
    are critically important to improving our nation's education system,
    the proposals will continue to encourage the NCLB-era overreliance on
    standardized tests for accountability and teacher evaluation purposes.
    Principals believe it is imperative to move to accountability systems
    that rely on multiple measures to better gauge student academic
    performance and higher-order thinking skills.
        The appropriate federal role in education is to promote equity and
    target resources to assist states and local districts. Federal policies
    must provide support for principals and their role in fostering high-
    quality instruction and learning. The emphasis on school-level outcomes
    and student achievement places the school leader at the center of all
    school reform efforts. Today's principals and assistant principals are
    expected to be visionary leaders, instructional experts, building
    managers, assessment specialists, disciplinarians, community builders,
    and more. The impact of principals is second only to that of effective
    teachers in classrooms.
        The proposals inadvertently diminish the role of the principal as
    an instructional leader, and provide no direction for states and local
    districts to build their capacity to improve student learning and
    support teachers. Foremost, NAESP and NASSP believes that the term
    ``school leader'' must be defined to include principals and assistant
    principals so as not to confuse the complexity of the roles and
    responsibilities various educators have in the school building.
        To clarify and strengthen the draft proposals, NAESP and NASSP
    recommend the following:
        1. Reinstate and clarify the term school leader by including a
    definition (language suggested below);
        2. Increase capacity-building measures for principals in both
    proposals, and include the ``core competencies of effective school
    leadership'' (language suggested below).
        Excellent teachers can and do create high-performing classrooms,
    but only an excellent principal can create and sustain a high-
    performing school. Given the role of principals in our nation's
    schools, federal policy must support greater emphasis on and
    recognition of their responsibilities, and set the guidance for states
    and local districts to provide professional development that will build
    capacity as instructional leaders. Professional development for
    principals and assistant principals has been largely overlooked by
    states and local districts, and the proposal blatantly excludes these
    school leaders as a key ingredient in our nation's schools.
        NAESP and NASSP represent instructional leaders from grade levels
    spanning Pre-K to 12. As such, collectively we support strengthening
    and coordinating services from early childhood to the early elementary
    grades (P3 alignment), and joint professional development between early
    childhood educators and early elementary educators. The bill also calls
    for greater support for secondary schools and their role in the
    education continuum.
        Again, NAESP and NASSP thank you for your efforts to reauthorize
    ESEA and work to better support principals to lead learning
    communities. We share your commitment to providing every student with a
    high quality education and the opportunity to succeed. As the committee
    moves forward with consideration of the bills, we look forward to
    continuing to work with you to better support principals.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Gail Connelly,
                                             Executive Director, NAESP.
                                              JoAnn Bartoletti,
                                             Executive Director, NASSP.
          attachment: suggested language submitted by naesp and nassp
    Student Success Act and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers
            Act
        To clarify and strengthen the draft proposals, NAESP and NASSP
    recommend the following:
        1. Reinstate and clarify the term school leader by including a
    definition.
        SEC. 1221. Definitions
        Insert:
        (11) SCHOOL LEADER--The term `school leader' means a principal,
    assistant principal or individual who----
        (A) is an employee or officer of a school; and
        (B) is responsible for----
        (i) the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations of
    the school; and
        (ii) creating the optimum conditions for student learning.
        2. Increase capacity-building measures for principals in both
    proposals, and include the ``core competencies of effective school
    leadership''.
        In the Student Success Act:
         SEC. 1112. Local Educational Agency Plans.
        Insert:
        ``(b)(8) how the local educational agency will align professional
    development programs for school leaders as described in section 1221
    (11) ``
        In the Innovation for Effective Teachers Act:
         SEC. 2122. Local Applications.
        (pg. 17, Line 15)
        (1)(B) insert after school leader effectiveness ``based on the core
    competencies of effective school leadership described in section 2123
    (2)(B)(v) * * *''
         SEC. 2123. Local Use of Funds.
        (pg. 19, Line 14)
        Strike ``may'', insert ``shall''
         SEC. 2123. Local Use of Funds.
        (pg. 20, Line 12)
        (2)(B)(v) insert after mentorship programs for such leaders
    ``aligned to the core competencies of effective school leadership that
    include----
        (i) understanding how to use student data to make instructional
    decisions;
        (ii) creating a learning culture within the school that provides a
    climate conducive to the development of all members of the school
    community;
        (iii) engaging in continuous professional development by utilizing
    a combination of academic study, developmental simulation exercises,
    self-reflection, mentorship and internship;
        (iv) understanding youth development appropriate to the age level
    served by the school, including the state standards for the academic,
    social, emotional and physical development of all students; and
        (v) engaging the community to create shared responsibility for
    student academic performance and successful development.
                                     ______

                                                      February 6, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: We write on behalf of the Education Task Force
    of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) to oppose both
    draft Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) bills you released.
    While we have many concerns with the draft bills, we are writing today
    with regard to three fundamental issues that seriously undermine the
    progress and academic achievement of students with disabilities. They
    are:
         The lack of subgroup accountability
         The lifting of the cap on the Alternate Assessment on
    Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS)
         The rollback on teacher quality
    Subgroup Accountability
        As you know, students with disabilities have made considerable
    gains thanks to the current focus of the ESEA on all schools and all
    subgroups. These improvements have come in participation rates,
    academic achievement on grade level reading and math assessments and
    more generally in having increased access to the general curriculum and
    higher expectations for student achievement. We believe these gains are
    due largely to the requirement that the participation and proficiency
    of all subgroups be measured, reported, and used for the planning of
    interventions needed for improvement.
        Students with disabilities may be most at risk if revisions to the
    law do not ensure all schools are accountable for student achievement
    at the subgroup level and receive extra resources and attention when
    they fail to produce progress. While the reauthorization of ESEA should
    explore ways to grant appropriate flexibility to ensure schools can
    best meet local needs and design instructional needs and interventions
    at the local level, this flexibility should not eliminate the current
    focus of ESEA's accountability framework on all schools and all
    subgroups or eliminate targeted help to schools that need it. To do so
    ignores the real challenge facing our education systems--that too many
    schools are not providing an educational experience that enables all
    students with disabilities to make academic gains.
        Furthermore, we still believe that states and school districts must
    intervene in all schools in which subgroups of students, including
    students with disabilities, are not meeting state standards.
    Elimination of the Cap on Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement
            Standards
        The Student Success Act would radically reduce high expectations
    for all students with disabilities. The bill would eliminate the
    current cap (often referred to as the 1% regulation) which restricts,
    for accountability purposes, the use of the scores on less challenging
    assessments being given to students with disabilities. Such
    assessments--known as the alternate assessment on alternate achievement
    standards--are intended for only a small number of students with the
    most significant cognitive disabilities. The incidence of students with
    the most significant cognitive disabilities is known to be far less
    than 1%. To ignore this data by raising or eliminating the cap would
    violate the legal rights of students who do not have the most
    significant cognitive disabilities and who should not be assessed on
    alternate academic achievement standards.
        As data and student/family experience show, the decision to place a
    student in the alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards
    can limit or impede access to the general curriculum and take students
    off track for a regular diploma as early as elementary school. These
    limitations raise concerns for many students who are currently placed
    in these assessments. The problem would grow if the cap were
    eliminated. The alternate assessments were not designed or intended to
    be applied to a broader population of students. Rather than continuing
    to support students with disabilities in achieving a high school
    diploma and pursuing employment and postsecondary education, the lack
    of a cap on the use of the assessment virtually encourages schools to
    expect less from students with disabilities. This will jeopardize their
    true potential to learn and achieve.
    Teacher Quality
        Your bills eliminate all baseline preparation standards for
    teachers, instead focusing solely on measuring teacher effectiveness
    once teachers are already in the classroom. We believe it is a grave
    mistake to eliminate requirements that all teachers should be fully
    certified by their state and have demonstrated competency in their
    subject matter. All students deserve teachers who are fully-prepared on
    their first day in the classroom and who prove themselves effective
    once there.
        Additionally, your bills lack any significant equity protections,
    particularly with respect to ensuring equal access to fully-prepared
    and effective teachers for our nation's most vulnerable students. The
    proposals eliminate the current requirement that low-income and
    minority students not be disproportionately taught by teachers who are
    unqualified, inexperienced, or teaching out of field. More generally,
    by failing to address comparability requirements, the proposals fail to
    ensure that resources--including fully-prepared and effective
    teachers--are equitably distributed within school districts.
        Finally, these bills represent a significant step backwards in the
    area of transparency, particularly with respect to providing parents
    with information about their child's teachers. Where current law
    requires districts to inform parents when their child was taught for
    four or more weeks by a teacher who lacked full certification and/or
    subject matter competency, your proposal eliminates this required
    disclosure. In so doing, it eliminates parents' access to information
    that is critical to allowing them to hold their schools accountable for
    providing students with the resources they need to learn.
        We urge you to revise your bill to unequivocally support high
    achievement for all students, especially students with disabilities. We
    would be happy to discuss this further as you prepare to introduce your
    bills and the process moves forward.
                Sincerely,
              American Association of People with Disabilities;
                            American Dance Therapy Association;
                             American Foundation for the Blind;
              Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs;
             Association of University Centers on Disabilities;
                                     Autism National Committee;
                          Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law;
                     Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates;
                              Council for Exceptional Children;
                             Council for Learning Disabilities;
                  Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund;
                                                  Easter Seals;
             Higher Education Consortium for Special Education;
                  Learning Disabilities Association of America;
                                         Mental Health America;
             National Association of Councils on Developmental
                                                  Disabilities;
                  National Association of School Psychologists;
            National Association of State Directors of Special
                                                     Education;
                     National Center for Learning Disabilities;
                        National Council on Independent Living;
                            National Disability Rights Network;
                               National Down Syndrome Congress;
                                National Down Syndrome Society;
                     School Social Work Association of America;
     Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
                                                      Children;
                                        The Advocacy Institute;
                                  The Arc of the United States;
                       The National Alliance on Mental Illness.
                                     ______

                                                     February 13, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    RE: Student Success Act and Encouraging Innovation and Effective
            Teachers Act

        Dear Chairman Kline: On behalf of the nation's 50 million
    elementary and secondary students, the Coalition for Teaching Quality
    would like to voice our concerns with provisions regarding teacher
    quality and equitable distribution of teachers in the `Student Success
    Act' and the `Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act.' As a
    coalition of 86 organizations concerned with promoting educational
    quality and equity, particularly for students who have traditionally
    been least well served by our public education system, we are deeply
    committed to the development of well-prepared and effective teachers
    for all communities, and to the equitable distribution of these
    teachers to all students. Unfortunately, the Student Success Act and
    the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act represent a
    significant step backward from these goals.
        First, these bills eliminate all baseline preparation standards for
    teachers, instead focusing solely on measuring teacher effectiveness
    once teachers are already in the classroom. We believe policy must
    enhance and improve current ``highly qualified teacher'' provisions
    requiring all teachers to be fully certified by their state and have
    demonstrated competency in their subject matter, not eliminate this
    requirement altogether. A wealth of research shows that high need
    students are most likely to be taught by teachers who have not
    completed their training, have not demonstrated competency in their
    subject matter, and are inexperienced. These bills will do nothing to
    change this reality. Even if well-proven strategies to evaluate teacher
    effectiveness were widely available, which is not now the case, these
    bills fail to recognize that teacher effectiveness cannot be measured
    until a teacher has actually taught. All students--especially low-
    income students, students of color, students with disabilities, English
    language learners, and students from high-need rural communities--
    deserve teachers who are fully-prepared on their first day in the
    classroom and who prove themselves effective once there.
        Second, these bills lack any significant equity protections,
    particularly with respect to ensuring equal access to fully-prepared
    and effective teachers for our nation's most vulnerable students. The
    proposals eliminate existing requirements that low-income and minority
    students not be disproportionately taught by teachers who are
    unqualified, inexperienced, or teaching out of field. More generally,
    by failing to address comparability requirements, the proposals fail to
    ensure that resources--including fully-prepared and effective
    teachers--are equitably distributed within school districts.
        Finally, these bills move away from a focus on transparency,
    particularly with respect to providing parents with information about
    the background qualifications and training of their child's teachers.
    Whereas current law requires districts to inform parents when their
    child is taught for four or more weeks by a teacher who is not ``highly
    qualified,'' your proposal eliminates this required disclosure. In so
    doing, it eliminates parents' access to one piece of information that
    is critical to allowing them to hold their schools accountable for
    providing students with the resources they need to learn.
        Like you, we continue to support the ESEA reauthorization process
    and hope that ESEA will be reauthorized before the end of this year. In
    our ongoing meetings regarding reauthorization with Congressional
    offices, we continue to advocate for the inclusion of the attached
    principles on fully-prepared, well-supported, and effective teachers
    for all students in any reauthorization bill.
        We also continue to support other legislation that reflects our
    coalition's principles, such as H.R. 2902 by Representative Judy Chu
    (D-CA), which strengthens high-quality pathways into teaching,
    increases the supply of fully-prepared teachers who have made a long-
    term commitment to serving in high-need communities, and supports
    induction and retention programs in order to promote a stable learning
    environment for educators and students. As another mechanism to improve
    teacher quality and increase access to effective teachers, we also
    support S. 1716 by Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT). S. 1716 not only
    defines a ``highly qualified teacher'' as someone who has fully
    completed a State-approved traditional or alternative teacher
    preparation program, but also changes state plans to include a strategy
    for recruitment, support, retention, and equitable distribution of
    highly qualified and effective teachers.
        The nation's growth and the strength of our democracy are dependent
    on the educational success of our students. The Coalition for Teaching
    Quality remains committed to working in partnership with the House
    Committee on Education and the Workforce to ensure students in all
    communities have access to fully-prepared, well-supported, and
    effective teachers.
                Sincerely,

           Members of the Coalition for Teaching Quality (list
                                                     attached):

    Coalition for Teaching Quality (86 members)
    National Organizations
    Alliance for Multilingual Multicultural Education
    American Council on Education
    American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
    American Association of People with Disabilities
    American Association of State Colleges and Universities
    American Council for School Social Work
    Association of University Centers on Disabilities
    ASPIRA Association
    Autistic Self Advocacy Network
    Autism National Committee
    Center for Teaching Quality
    Citizens for Effective Schools
    Communities for Excellent Public Schools
    Council for Exceptional Children
    Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
    Disability Policy Collaboration, A Partnership of The Arc and UCP
    Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc
    Easter Seals
    Education Law Center
    FairTest, The National Center for Fair & Open Testing
    First Focus Campaign for Children
    Gamaliel Foundation
    Helen Keller National Center
    Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
    Knowledge Alliance
    Latino Elected and Appointed Officials National Taskforce on Education
    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
    League of United Latin American Citizens
    Learning Disabilities Association of America
    Movement Strategy Center
    NAACP
    NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
    National Alliance of Black School Educators
    National Association of School Psychologists
    National Association of State Directors of Special Education
    National Center for Learning Disabilities
    National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness
    National Council for Educating Black Children
    National Council of Teachers of English
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
    National Disability Rights Network
    National Down Syndrome Congress
    National Down Syndrome Society
    National Education Association
    National Indian Education Association
    National Latino Education Research & Policy Project
    National PTA
    National Urban League
    League of United Latin American Citizens
    Parents Across America
    Partnership for 21st Century Skills
    Public Advocates Inc.
    Public Education Network
    Rural School and Community Trust
    School Social Work Association of America
    South East Asia Resource Action Center
    TASH--Equity, Opportunity, and Inclusion for People with Disabilities
    Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
    Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages International, Inc.
    United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries
    State and Local Organizations
    Action Now--Illinois
    Action Now--North Carolina
    ACTION United
    Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
    Arkansas Community Organizations
    Bay Area Parent Leadership Action Network
    Brighton Park Neighborhood Council--Chicago
    California Association for Bilingual Education
    Californians for Justice
    Californians Together
    California Latino School Boards Association
    Campaign for Quality Education
    Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning Coalition for
            Educational Justice
    Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice
    Grow Your Own Illinois
    Inner City Struggle
    Justice Matters
    Legal Advocates for Children and Youth
    Parent-U-Turn
    Parents for Unity
    RYSE Center
    San Francisco Teacher Residency
    Texas Association of Chicanos in Higher Education
    Youth On Board--Somerville, MA
    Youth Together
                                     ______

                                                      February 9, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: The Business Coalition for Student Achievement
    (BCSA), a coalition of leading chief executive officers, is pleased to
    see the U.S. House of Representatives moving forward with the long
    overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA). BCSA appreciates the transparent nature of the process that you
    have used to solicit input on the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, and looks forward to
    working with the committee as it finalizes these bills through the
    legislative process.
        The nation must strengthen the education provided to its students.
    The U.S. Department of Labor reports that millions of jobs are going
    unfilled despite an historically high unemployment rate, and business
    leaders know why: too few American's are prepared for the jobs of
    today. What is worse, too little is being done to prepare students for
    the jobs of tomorrow.
        Federal education policy must support the success of all students
    by advancing key education principles, including:
         college- and career-ready standards;
         accountability for all students;
         required action for all low-performing schools;
         effective teachers and leaders;
         choices for students attending low-performing schools; and
         clear and transparent data for parents, businesses, and
    the community.
        The proposed bills represent progress in the area of teacher
    evaluation. However, overall, the legislation proposes a striking
    retreat from the principles of education reform that will position
    students to maintain America's competitive edge in the global economy.
    The Student Success Act, for example, virtually eliminates federal
    requirements for the improvement of low performing schools, takes away
    the ability currently given to students attending low performing
    schools to choose higher performing schools and access free tutoring,
    and asks virtually nothing in return for the billions of taxpayer
    dollars invested in the nation's schools.
        The nation's education system is failing to adequately prepare
    students for the workforce. This is demonstrated by data from the U.S.
    Department of Labor stating that 3.2 million jobs were unfilled in
    November 2011 despite an historically high unemployment rate.
    Similarly, McKinsey & Company reports that 40 percent of the 2,000
    businesses they surveyed had at least one position vacant for six
    months. The fact that positions go unfilled because applicants lack the
    skills necessary to fill them is an indictment on the education
    currently being provided to children, and a clear call for reform.
        BCSA calls specific attention to the failure of the Student Success
    Act to support the state-led effort that is currently underway to
    provide all students with a college- and career-ready education. While
    this legislation includes a requirement for standards--an important and
    appropriate provision to be included in federal law--the bill does not
    call for college- and career-ready standards. Further, it removes the
    requirement within current law for assessments in science. The nation
    needs more--not fewer--engineers, scientists, and experts in
    technology. At a time when other countries are growing their capacity
    for innovation by deepening their focus on education, the United States
    cannot afford to stifle its own potential by allowing anything less
    than college- and career-ready standards to drive K--12 education.
        The business community believes that there is a vital Federal role
    in ensuring accountability for academic performance and for
    safeguarding parents' and students' interests, which are too often lost
    in a maze of education bureaucracies. As the reauthorization process
    for ESEA continues, these proposals must be strengthened to ensure that
    all students have the opportunity to succeed. Additionally, it is
    critical that this reauthorization move forward in a bipartisan
    fashion. Education has historically been a bipartisan issue, and the
    best way to move forward is through substantive negotiations including
    both democrats and republicans. BCSA hopes that such bipartisan
    deliberations will produce a bill that can earn the support of the
    business community.
        Mr. Chairman, as you well know, education is at the core of the
    nation's economy. BCSA is eager to assist in any way possible to ensure
    the education system adequately prepares today's students for
    tomorrow's workforce.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Craig Barrett,
             Retired Chairman and CEO Intel Corporation; Cochair, BCSA.
                                              William D. Green,
                                    Chairman, Accenture; Cochair, BCSA.
                                            Edward B. Rust Jr.,
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, State Farm Mutual; Cochair,
                                                                  BCSA.
                                     ______

                                                     February 10, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: On behalf of the 33,000 special education
    teachers, special education administrators, higher education faculty,
    related service personnel and other professionals who are members of
    the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), we are writing to express
    our concerns with the final two bills the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act that you introduced
    on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
        We appreciate your efforts and those of your staff, in addressing
    the pressing issue of the reauthorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act. States and local school districts need
    additional resources and flexibility to provide a quality education to
    all students, including students with disabilities. We are pleased that
    your legislation will eliminate the arbitrary deadline of 2014 and
    along with it Annual Yearly Progress. We are also pleased that your
    legislation will maintain the requirement to disaggregate data by
    subgroup and publically report on that data. But, we are troubled by
    the overall lack of accountability and great weakening of the federal
    role this legislation would represent. In particular we oppose the
    following:
         Elimination of Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions: All
    requirements that entering teachers meet any minimum qualifications are
    eliminated. This lifts a protection for our most vulnerable students,
    including many students with disabilities, who are often placed in
    classrooms with new entering teachers. Under your bill, these students
    fall into an unprotected loophole and simply not guaranteed a qualified
    teacher.
         Lack of Focus on Professional Development: Nothing in this
    legislation requires ongoing professional development, despite evidence
    that this is needed by the field and leads to gains in student
    achievement and student growth. Although Title II funds may be used to
    support professional development, this bill backs away from the federal
    government's long-standing commitment to support education
    professionals. This support is needed now, more than ever.
         Increased Privatization: CEC opposes language in the Local
    Academic Flexible Grant section that would allow public dollars to be
    invested in private schools. CEC opposes vouchers for children and
    youth and those with disabilities because they contradict and undermine
    the central purposes of civil rights laws including these measures.
    Vouchers deprive students of rights and protections they have while in
    public schools. This is especially critical for students with
    disabilities who lose all protections under the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act when they leave public schools and attend a
    private school.
         Reduced, Capped and Eliminated Funding: This legislation
    would mean less resources for students and schools. CEC opposes setting
    caps on Title I funding and eliminating Maintenance of Effort
    Provisions. Eliminating safeguards will not ensure accountability and
    achievement. States and districts need more resources in this
    environment and are working under ever decreasing budget measures.
    Ignoring the real need will not help us address the real concerns about
    achievement.
         Elimination of the 1% Cap: This legislation eliminates the
    current 1% cap on the use of scores for accountability purposes for
    students with significant cognitive disabilities. It is important to
    point out that placing a student on an alternate assessment removes
    them from the general accountability system. It also takes away their
    ability to receive a regular diploma. Experts across the field
    recognize that the 1% amount is important, widely accepted and well
    addresses the proportion of students who may need to take an alternate
    assessment. Yet, removing this cap might create an incentive to exclude
    students from the general assessment and place them on an alternate
    simply to increase the statistical view of achievement in a district.
    It is not a needed change and as such, we cannot support it.
         Reduction of Accountability for Students with
    Disabilities: NCLB brought students with disabilities and the educators
    who serve them to the table in new and important ways. Due to this
    increased focus and inclusion in the accountability system, students
    with disabilities increased participation rates, academic achievement
    on grade level reading and math assessments and more generally in
    having increased access to the general curriculum and higher
    expectations for student achievement. We believe these gains are due
    largely to the requirement that the participation and proficiency of
    all subgroups be measured, reported, and used for the planning of
    interventions needed for improvement. We are concerned with the lack of
    focus on this area in your bill and, if enacted, what impact it may
    have students.
        CEC looks forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that our
    education system raises expectations for students with disabilities and
    ensures that all educators are prepared to meet their needs.
                Sincerely,
                                     Deborah A. Ziegler, Ed.D.,
            Associate Executive Director, Policy and Advocacy Services.
                                     ______

                                                     February 10, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: As members of the Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Coalition, we are writing
    in response to the two bills you recently introduced that would
    reauthorize major portions of the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act (ESEA), otherwise known as the No Child Left Behind Act. We
    appreciate this opportunity to offer our feedback in response to the
    Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective
    Teachers Act.
        An extensive array of economic data has continued to point to the
    close connections between a strong STEM education and a student's
    future success in competing for the best jobs of today and the future.
    The Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce
    recently concluded that:
        The STEM workforce will remain central to our economic vitality
    well into the future, contributing to innovation, technological growth,
    and economic development. Capable STEM students, from K-12 all the way
    through the postgraduate level, will be needed in the pipeline for
    careers that utilize STEM competencies and increase our innovative
    capacities. We cannot win the future without recognizing the growing
    need for STEM competencies across the economy.
        In short, education reforms that are strongly focused on the STEM
    subjects are reforms that are strongly focused on jobs and economic
    recovery. Our specific recommendations:
    Retain Science Testing, Alongside Math and Reading
        We respectfully disagree with the Student Success Act's removal of
    the requirement for states to test students in science. Removing the
    existing requirement for testing in science while maintaining testing
    in math and reading sends a powerful, negative, and unambiguous signal
    to U.S. schools and the public that science--along with all of its
    related subdiscliplines--is no longer a national priority. If the
    requirement for science testing is eliminated, schools will shift their
    limited resources away from science classes, less time will be devoted
    to science, and professional development for science educators will
    suffer.
        While we appreciate your interest in providing more flexibility to
    states, if a future version of the ESEA will continue to establish
    national priorities--as the Student Success Act clearly does for
    reading and math--it is critical that science testing be retained.
    A Strong Federal Focus on STEM Education is Essential to a Strong U.S.
            Workforce, Economy
        The Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act would
    eliminate the U.S. Department of Education's only existing dedicated
    STEM education-focused program--the Math and Science Partnerships
    program (Title II, Part B). While we recognize the bill's goal of
    streamlining a myriad of education programs, we disagree with the
    absence of any strong STEM education focus for Title II grants or any
    significant linkage between Title II activities and workforce needs.
        We support a provision in the bipartisan Harkin-Enzi Senate ESEA
    draft bill that addresses STEM-specific education needs through a
    single competitive grant program (Sec. 4103) that would require state
    applicants to demonstrate that their proposals had robust input from
    the business community and other workforce stakeholders. Our Coalition
    also strongly supports the underlying stand-alone bill (S. 1675)
    introduced by Sen. Merkley upon which Sec. 4013 is based as a balanced
    approach of competitive and formula-based funding dedicated to meet the
    STEM-specific needs of U.S. schools.
        The STEM Education Coalition also aggressively supports
    comprehensive efforts to coordinate, evaluate, and review all federal
    STEM programs on a regular basis to ensure that effective programs are
    scaled up and that underperforming programs are improved or eliminated.
    STEM and the Definition of Core Academic Subjects
        While we appreciate that math and science are included in the
    Student Success Act's definition of ``core academic subjects,'' we feel
    that this definition is overly narrow and static, excluding many areas
    of study that are essential to the needs of the economy and workforce.
    Instead, the broader ``STEM subjects'' should be listed as a core
    subject area, with a provision for defining STEM education in a broad
    and inclusive manner that embraces each STEM discipline and its unique
    needs.
        Given the strong connections between STEM skills and the job
    success of American workers, a strong focus on the STEM-specific needs
    of students, schools, and educators is essential to the practical
    success of education reforms.
        In conclusion, while we agree with you that ``we can't wait'' for
    education reform, we also cannot ``win the future'' without maintaining
    STEM education as a national priority. We look forward to working
    closely with you and your colleagues in both parties on the Committee
    as you reauthorize this critical law. If we may offer any additional
    assistance, please contact us through James Brown, our Coalition's
    Executive Director at jfbrown@stemedcoalition.org or (202) 223-1187.
    Thank you.
                Sincerely,
                                     American Chemical Society;
       American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology;
                                  American Society of Agronomy;
                           American Society of Civil Engineers;
                    American Society for Engineering Education;
                                                          ASME;
                           Association for Computing Machinery;
        ASTRA, Alliance for Science and Technology Research in
                                                       America;
                           Campaign for Environmental Literacy;
                               Crop Science Society of America;
                            Education Development Center, Inc.;
                                  Hands on Science Partnership;
                                                      IEEE-USA;
                         National Science Teachers Association;
                               Soil Science Society of America;
                                    American Geophysical Union;
                                     American Physical Society;
                              American Statistical Association;
                                  Arc Capital Development, LLC;
                      Association of Science Materials Centers;
                                                          BSCS;
                              California STEM Learning Network;
                   Chicago Educational Publishing Company, LLC;
                                    Chicago Science Group, LLC;
                         Computer Science Teachers Association;
                                               EAST Initiative;
                                      Ecocad Design Group, LLP;
                                 Ecological Society of America;
                                 Engineers Without Borders-USA;
                                       Funutation Tekademy LLC;
                                             LearnOnLine, Inc.;
                                         Lyra Enterprises, LLC;
            Maine Center for Research in STEM Education (RiSE);
          National Council for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM);
         National Council of Structural Engineers Associations;
                    National Society of Professional Engineers;
                       National Institute of Building Sciences;
                                                           PBS;
                                    Pico Turbine International;
        Six-to-Six Interdistrict Magnet School, Bridgeport, CT;
                                    Society of Women Engineers;
          South Carolina's Coalition for Mathematics & Science;
                                          SparkFun Electronics;
                STEM Education Center, University of Minnesota;
                                Technology Student Association;
                                 Vernier Software & Technology.
                                     ______

                                                     February 13, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: We, the undersigned providers and advocates
    for high quality after school, summer, and expanded learning programs
    in California, write to thank you for introducing the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act as part of your continuing effort
    to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
    However, we have serious concerns about your legislation and must
    express our strong opposition to provisions in the Encouraging
    Innovation and Effective Teachers Act that would consolidate the 21st
    Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program as part of the
    proposed Local Academic Flexible Grant. In addition, we are
    disappointed that provisions to require community-based partners were
    not maintained from your previously released discussion draft.
        The 21st CCLC program supports the creation of community learning
    centers that provide critical academic enrichment opportunities during
    non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-
    poverty and low-performing schools. The program helps students meet
    state and local student standards in core academic subjects, such as
    reading and math; offers students a broad array of enrichment
    activities that can complement their regular academic programs; and
    offers literacy and other educational services to the families of
    participating children. For example, a 2011 UCLA study found that
    students who participated in LA's BEST after school programs in their
    elementary school years demonstrated gains in both math GPA and
    standardized test scores in 8th grade. Additionally, higher levels of
    participation in LA's BEST led to higher science and history GPA in 8th
    grade.
        In light of the demonstrated impact of our programs on student
    engagement and achievement, we are concerned that the Local Academic
    Flexible Grant (Part B, of Title III of the Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Act) consolidates this successful program that
    currently serves over a million students and is the only federal
    education funding stream that is solely dedicated to supporting before
    school, after school, and summer learning programs.
        Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Encouraging Innovation
    and Effective Teachers Act maintain a separate funding stream for the
    21st CCLC program under the same structure as current law of ESEA.
        In addition to maintaining a separate 21st CCLC program under the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, we believe that
    efforts to broaden the scope of the program through expanded learning
    during the school day can have a positive impact if such activities are
    done in close collaboration with community partners and with local
    investment.
        Accordingly, we recommend that the 21st CCLC program be
    reauthorized so that it better supports the highest-quality learning
    and enrichment programs to promote full day or year learning
    strategies. In order to achieve that goal, we believe the program
    should be updated to:
         Ensure that local communities have full authority without
    state or federal preference or direction to make their own decisions
    about whether to use 21st CCLC funds for (1) after-school, (2) summer
    learning programs, (3) before school, and/or (4) expanded learning
    programs;
         Require partnerships between school districts and
    community-based partners, in which either the community-based partner
    or the school district can be the lead fiscal agent;
         Ensure providers integrate academics, enrichment, and
    skill development through hands-on experiences that make learning
    relevant and engaging;
         Allow programs to serve all students or focus on groups of
    students to best meet the needs of the school and community;
         Fund programs that offer a range of activities that
    capture student interest and strengthen student engagement in learning,
    which promotes higher class attendance, reduces risk for retention or
    drop out, and increases chance for graduation; and
         Support programs that actively address the specific
    learning needs and interests of all types of students, especially those
    who may benefit from approaches and experiences not offered in the
    traditional classroom setting.
        Unfortunately, too many children across the country do not have
    access to high quality expanded learning opportunities. That is why
    dedicated, federal funding for the 21st CCLC program is necessary if we
    truly want to improve academic achievement, reduce the dropout crisis,
    and turn around our nation's low-achieving schools.
        Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. Please
    contact Jennifer Peck at Jennifer@partnerforchildren.org or call (510)
    830-4200 x1601, if you would like further information or have any
    questions regarding our recommendations.
                Sincerely,
                                      Ben Paul, President &CEO,
                                                After-School All-Stars;
                                Ana Campos, Executive Director,
                                   After-School All-Stars, Los Angeles;
                              Mario Vargas, Executive Director,
                                       Bay Area After-School All-Stars;
                                   K.J. Lavoie, State Director,
                           California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs;
                       Ruth Obel-Jorgensen, Executive Director,
                                      California School-Age Consortium;
                                  Catherine Barankin, Director,
                                    California State Alliance of YMCAs;
                                                Chris Roe, CEO,
                                      California STEM Learning Network;
                                 Kim Boyer, Executive Director,
                                 Central Valley Afterschool Foundation;
                                        Ted Lempert, President,
                                              Children Now, California;
                               Carla Sanger, President and CEO,
                                                           L.A.'s BEST;
                             Jennifer Peck, Executive Director,
                                    Partnership for Children and Youth;
                                             Vernon Brown, CEO,
                                     Sunset Neighborhood Beacon Center;
                                       Sarah Mostofi, Director,
                                             The Children's Initiative;
                                  Randy Barth, Founder and CEO,
                      THINK Together, L.A., Orange, Riverside Counties;
                                    Chris Johnson, Interim CEO,
                                        Woodcraft Rangers, Los Angeles.
                                     ______

                                                     February 13, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    RE: NCAI and USET Comments on the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989) and
            the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R.
            3990)

        Dear Chairman Kline: On behalf of the National Congress of American
    Indians (NCAI) and the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), we would
    like to congratulate the US House of Representatives Committee on
    Education and the Workforce for taking an important step in
    reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with
    the recent release of its two new bills, the Student Success Act (H.R.
    3989) and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R.
    3990). While Indian Country is excited about certain aspects of the
    bills, we have serious concerns about the legislation as it is
    currently written.
        NCAI and USET represent tribal governments and education systems
    serving the children of more than five million Native people throughout
    the country. Tribes have an enormous stake in the education of our
    Native children, and we agree with the Committee that the No Child Left
    Behind Act (NCLB) is in need of dramatic reform. The NCLB has done
    little to address the longstanding challenges facing American Indian
    and Alaska Native education, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact
    that over the past ten years, our Native students have been the only
    population to have not improved in reading or math (grades four and
    eight).\i\ Nationwide, our students face some of the lowest high school
    graduation rates, and even fewer enroll in and graduate from
    college.\ii\ Indian education is in nothing less than a state of
    emergency, and tribes have long awaited the opportunity to partner with
    Congress to take bold action that will significantly improve our
    education systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
    National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005, 2007, and 2009 National Indian
    Education Studies.
        \ii\ US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005-2009
    estimates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Indian Country applauds the Committee's focus on promoting
    flexibility, streamlining programs, and reducing regulatory burdens. In
    fact, I highlighted these very topics as critical tribal priorities in
    my 2012 State of Indian Nations Address at the end of January. I called
    upon Congress and the Administration to empower tribes with the
    resource flexibility to concentrate on program development and
    outcomes, rather than on the administrative burdens often inherent in
    utilizing federal programs. This flexibility can be accomplished by
    streamlining tribal programs and, in many cases, by making tribes
    eligible for existing funding streams. The Student Success Act takes an
    important step forward in this regard by making the Bureau of Indian
    Education eligible for competitive grant programs--a top priority for
    tribes in the ESEA reauthorization. Ensuring governmental flexibility
    for tribes will yield more efficient programs and spending because
    decisions will be made by those in the best position to respond to
    community needs.
        In the same vein, we welcome the Committee's emphasis on local
    control over education. Strengthening local, tribal control over the
    education of our Native students has been a tribal priority for decades
    and is currently one of our top priorities for the ESEA
    reauthorization. Tribal governments are in the best position to address
    the educational needs of our Native students for a simple but intuitive
    reason: we know our children and communities the best. We know where
    the needs are, and we know what works for our students. In this area in
    particular, we appreciate that the Student Success Act contains new
    provisions directing local educational agencies to collaborate with
    tribes in the development of comprehensive Indian education programs
    and to share data about Native students' academic progress with tribes.
        Despite these important strides forward, Indian Country has serious
    concerns about the Student Success and Encouraging Innovation and
    Effective Teachers Acts. The two bills, as they are currently written,
    could potentially abrogate the federal trust responsibility to American
    Indians and Alaska Natives, decrease crucial funding and programs for
    our Native students, and eliminate the accountability measures that
    help ensure our children have equitable educational opportunities.
        The legislation potentially abrogates the federal trust
    responsibility: While we appreciate the Committee's intention to
    advance local control and flexibility in education, the Committee's new
    bills propose to accomplish these goals in a manner that potentially
    abrogates the federal trust responsibility. The federal government's
    trust responsibility to tribes--a sacred obligation codified in
    treaties, the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court and federal cases,
    and statutes--includes a duty to educate our Native children. However,
    in striking Title VII--the Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native
    Education title--and merging the ESEA's Indian education programs into
    Title I, the Student Success Act would severely undercut this trust
    responsibility by enabling states to divert funds intended for Native
    students for other purposes.
        Native nations have fought for decades to teach and learn in ways
    that respect our cultures, languages, values, histories, and
    traditions. Current data and research demonstrates that targeted
    funding for Indian education improves academic achievement, revitalizes
    our languages, and strengthens Native self-respect and identity.
    Federal funds dedicated to Indian education--largely through Title
    VII--are the primary source of support that specifically addresses the
    academic, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of Native students.
    Furthermore, programs like Title VII were established expressly because
    states and districts were not providing such services to Native
    students. Providing these services is not an option--it is part of the
    trust responsibility to give Native students the highest quality
    education possible. States cannot be allowed to break this obligation
    and re-direct funds away from Native children at their discretion.
        The legislation potentially decreases crucial funding and programs
    for our Native students: As stated above, the bills potentially
    decrease the amount of resources flowing to our Native students by
    removing the guarantee that states spend the federal dollars
    specifically allocated for Indian education on Indian children. But the
    legislation also explicitly eliminates many other critical Indian
    education programs, including:
        The Alaska Native Education and Native Hawaiian Education Equity
    Programs: These two programs support supplemental educational programs
    and services for Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians by awarding
    competitive grants for a variety of vital activities, including
    curriculum development and implementation, teacher training, special
    education, gifted and talented education, family literacy services, and
    community-based learning centers. Because the need is so great in
    Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian communities, these two programs are
    not duplicative of other Title I services and are essential to closing
    the achievement gap for these Native groups. As such, the Alaska Native
    Education and Native Hawaiian Education Equity programs cannot be
    eliminated in the ESEA reauthorization.
        National Indian Education Study: Administered as part of the
    National Assessment of Educational Progress, the National Indian
    Education Study examines the academic achievement and educational
    experiences of Native students in grades four and eight. As one of the
    only national studies that even includes data on Native students, the
    National Indian Education Study is imperative to assisting Native
    nations, states, and schools in making data driven decisions about the
    education of our Native children. It must be maintained in the ESEA
    reauthorization.
        Other ``National Activities'': The Student Success Act eliminates
    every Indian program listed under ``National Activities'' in current
    law. The fact that these programs have not been recently funded is not
    an acceptable justification for eliminating their authority entirely
    within the ESEA reauthorization. Tribes fought for the authorization of
    these programs years ago and continue to argue that they should be
    funded as a part of the fulfillment of the trust responsibility.
        The legislation potentially eliminates the accountability measures
    that help ensure our Native children have equitable educational
    opportunities: While the bills continue to require states to
    disaggregate subgroup data and assess all students, the legislation
    eliminates performance targets and leaves it up to states' discretion
    whether to hold schools accountable for the performance of low-income
    students, students of color, and other subgroups. Such provisions have
    a troublesome history that Native students cannot afford to repeat. The
    last time the federal government left accountability completely to the
    states, only two states included the performance of individual groups
    of students in their systems; two-thirds decided to do nothing. The
    rest took action in name only, setting targets too low or too vague to
    meaningfully drive improved student achievement.
        Native children cannot withstand the risk of having states set low
    academic expectations and then allowing schools to do little or nothing
    to address their overwhelming academic disparities. Federal funding
    must be attached to firm, ambitious, and unequivocal demands for higher
    achievement, improved high school graduation rates, and progress in
    closing both achievement and opportunity gaps. The ESEA reauthorization
    must, at minimum, require states to set clear goals and provide
    adequate instructional support so that all students receive an
    education that prepares them for success in college and careers.
        We are confident that with your support and by working together,
    our concerns can be remedied. Tribal governments stand ready to partner
    with you in moving ESEA reauthorization forward to improve the
    education of all of our nation's children.
                Sincerely,
                                     Jefferson Keel, President,
                                 National Congress of American Indians.
                                    Brian Patterson, President,
                                       United South and Eastern Tribes.

        Reauthorization of the ESEA: Indian Country Key Recommendations

        Indian nations have the largest stake in improving the education of
    their citizens. We must prepare them for active and equal participation
    in the global market. We must prepare them to be citizens in the 21st
    century. We must prepare them to be positive, involved members of our
    communities. And, most importantly, we must prepare them to be the
    future leaders of our governments. There is no more vital resource to
    the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their
    children.
        Education policies over the last few decades have supported tribes
    exercising sovereignty over education programs serving American Indian
    and Alaska Native children. We are looking forward to this trend
    continuing during this reauthorization and strongly support the current
    efforts of Congress and the Administration in ensuring that the needs
    of Indian students are considered from the beginning of the drafting
    process. To that end, we offer the following key recommendations.
    Key recommendations
                1. Strengthen Tribal Control of Education
         Require States to enter into collaborative agreements with
    tribes.
        In order for tribes and their tribal education agencies (TEA) to
    build capacity and better serve their citizens, States must recognize
    tribal authority over the education of their students. Upon request,
    States should negotiate with tribal governments to transfer education
    programs, funding, services, and administrative responsibilities to the
    tribes. The Department of Education would both facilitate and foster
    the cooperation of the State and the tribes in these agreements through
    financial penalties of Title 1 funding. For example, TEAs should be
    empowered to implement their own school improvement plan via the
    accreditation process. Additionally, tribes should be given funds to
    build capacity for their education departments in the same ways as
    States and districts.
         Statutory collaboration between local education agencies
    and tribes.
        92% of Indian students attend public schools, making collaboration
    between the local education agency (LEAs) and the tribe essential in
    developing a comprehensive plan for Indian student achievement. LEAs
    should develop, in consultation with the local tribe, a plan to improve
    the coordination of activities, specifically relating to Title I.
         Improve data collection and sharing of data with tribes.
        Data for Indian students is often incomplete. There are a number of
    reasons for this--including our incredible diversity which necessitates
    oversampling to achieve generalizability, our remote locations, and
    language barriers. A first step should be to build upon the already
    existing Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system. This
    system will allow for proper enrollment and placement of Indian
    students, while providing an opportunity for the development of a
    complete data collection system to track complete Indian student
    records.
         Restore Director of Indian Education to Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Education.
        The current position for the Director is underutilized and
    functions almost exclusively as a grant manager. This position and
    office must be elevated so that there is authority to engage in all
    titles of the ESEA that impact Indian student education. The Assistant
    Secretary of Indian Education should also be authorized to facilitate
    interagency collaboration and to implement the role of the TEAs in
    various titles.
                2. Invest in Cultural and Language Revitalization
         Use of culturally-based education as a promising practice
    in public schools.
        Culturally-Based Education (CBE) is a teaching model that
    encourages quality instructional practices rooted in cultural and
    linguistically relevant context. We recognize, however, that there is
    little quantitative data to point to, so tribes are calling for CBE to
    be identified as a promising practice in Indian education and for
    programs to be funded longitudinally so we can effectively build an
    evidence base that conclusively distinguishes what works for which
    populations and under what circumstances.
         Formula grant program for immersion schools, culturally
    based charter schools, and early childhood centers. It is largely
    recognized that the best way to learn a language is to fully immerse
    oneself. While we have limited statistical data showing that Native
    language instruction directly improves academic success, there is a
    large body of qualitative data that shows correlation of Native
    language instruction to factors that do improve academic success.
    Therefore it is critically important to have sustainable funding for
    research that will demonstrate this statistical correlation.
                3. Focus on Native Teachers, Administrators, and Leaders
         Pay programs for teachers in Indian Country.
        Indian Country faces some of the highest teacher turnover rates in
    the Nation--tough working conditions, few amenities, and a lack of job
    opportunities for spouses are but some of the challenges our teachers
    face. A pay program for teachers is needed to provide higher salaries
    for those that work in Indian Country. This should include a scaled
    program to incentivize long term employment in Indian schools.
         Strengthen and Expand Native Teachers and Administrators
    Preparation Program.
        Reauthorize and increase annual funding for the Department of
    Education's Professional Development for Teachers and Administrators
    program [20 U.S.C. 7442] and the In-service Training for Teachers of
    Indian Children program [20 U.S.C. 7452], which provide vitally needed
    support for programs that prepare, train, and provide ongoing
    professional training for teachers and administrators currently working
    in or planning to working at tribal schools or schools with a high
    concentration of Indian students. Tribal colleges and universities,
    which are chartered by sovereign Indian nations, and consortia led by
    or including tribal colleges, should be recognized as the primary
    awardees. Specific authority and funding should be provided for special
    education teacher preparation and training; and the existing
    authorities should be amended to include specific credentialing program
    for classroom aids and a requirement for fieldwork in Indian schools.
                4. Promote Intra-Agency Coordination and Collaboration
         Statutory collaboration between the Department of the
    Interior and the Department of Education.
        Increased collaboration should include training and technical
    assistance for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) staff, use of
    alternative assessments for tribal schools, assistance in curriculum
    selection, and instructional practices.
         Include express statutory language to make funding
    available for the BIE schools (either overarching the Act or within
    each ESEA program).
        Without express statutory language, our BIE school system will be
    unable to participate or receive much-needed funding. The most recent
    example of this lies in the ineligibility of BIE for ``Race to the
    Top'' grants.
                5. Consultation
         Establish a tribal advisory committee to advise the
    Secretary of the Interior on policy issues and budget development for
    the BIE school system.
        There has never been a formal, established mechanism for tribally-
    operated schools to raise issues and provide substantive advice to the
    Secretary on an on-going basis--especially on development of the budget
    request for programs serving BIE schools. Since the schools in the BIE
    system are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government, the
    Secretary of the Interior should be consulting closely and regularly
    with representatives selected by the tribes and the tribal school
    boards who operate those schools to learn directly from them about
    their needs and hear ideas about how to fill those needs.
         Increase on-the-ground resources and provisions from the
    BIE for the schools.
        Schools in the BIE system struggle on a daily basis to provide a
    quality education to Indian students with insufficient funding to
    accomplish their mission. Specific direction should be given to the
    Secretary of the Interior to fund BIE schools on the amount of need, as
    regulated at 25 CFR Part 39, Subpart H.
        For additional information, please contact: Ahniwake Rose, Policy
    Director, NCAI at 202.466.7767 or Colin Kippen, Executive Director,
    NIEA at 202.544.7290.
                                     ______

                     Equity in Education for All Students:
                         How the House Bills Fall Short

        The National Education Association, representing more than three
    million educators across the nation, has a long and proud history of
    fighting for educational equity--to ensure every student, regardless of
    poverty, disability, or other challenges, access to a quality
    education. NEA believes that all students have the human and civil
    right to a quality public education and a great public school that
    develops their potential, independence, and character. But, more than
    50 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling, too
    many students are still banished to unequal schools and a lifetime of
    lost opportunities. The federal government must be engaged in these
    issues, to hold states accountable for remedying these untenable
    inequities.
        We must remember the days before ESEA when generations of children
    were denied the basic educational opportunities they deserved. We must
    judge proposals on whether they will strengthen our educational system,
    or whether they will move us backward. We must find an appropriate
    balance of federal and state roles by refocusing on strong state
    accountability systems while continuing to maintain a sharp federal
    focus on equity across state and district lines.
        The House draft bills fail to address equity issues adequately. The
    House proposals do not push states enough to narrow achievement gaps;
    provide equal access to quality education; and ensure that state
    standards and assessment and accountability systems work for students.
    The proposals also lack a comprehensive plan to address existing
    inequities in public education that harm students and communities,
    particularly students and communities of color. In particular, NEA is
    very concerned about gaps affecting equity, access, and opportunity in
    the following areas:
         Vouchers and privatization. The proposals inappropriately
    and dramatically expand private school authority over allocation and
    use of public funds. There is a push to privatize education by shifting
    control to private schools, private for-profit entities, and business.
         Maintenance of effort. The proposals would eliminate
    Maintenance of Effort. This will trigger a race to the bottom in state
    and local support for public education, often under the guise of fiscal
    distress. The driving principle behind Title I would be upended, as
    federal dollars would be reduced to backfilling holes in state and
    local support for economically disadvantaged children and those
    academically behind rather than augmenting those dollars to ameliorate
    the effects of poverty and other factors.
         Funding. The proposals provide significant new flexibility
    for districts and states to transfer money aimed at special
    populations--such as English Language Learners, American Indians/Alaska
    Natives, or neglected students--for other uses. This could undermine
    the historical federal role of ensuring equal opportunity for all
    children in these special populations. In addition, the bills offer
    states and local districts a trade-off--fewer programs and greater
    flexibility in exchange for less money. Simply put, there would not be
    enough funding for the supports and resources necessary to close
    achievement and opportunity gaps and ensure equity for all. Programs
    proven to help close these gaps would remain significantly underfunded
    and not able to provide full services to all students who need them.
         Annual tests. The language continues NCLB's focus on
    measuring schools and students through annual standardized testing in
    grades 3-8, rather than focusing on the broad supports schools and
    students need to improve the achievement of the disadvantaged. Grade
    span testing would provide more time for learning, more flexibility,
    and more useful data to help students achieve.
         Teacher quality. The proposals eliminate all focus on
    quality of teachers coming into the profession. In addition, they
    diminish targeting of Title II (teacher quality) funds to students who
    are in poverty, despite the fact that teacher quality should be
    enhanced and supported even more vigorously in schools in low-income
    communities. A focus on teacher quality is particularly important in
    high poverty communities, as too often these schools are filled with
    the most inexperienced and least skilled teachers.
         School improvement. While the proposals wisely increase
    the school improvement set-aside at the state level to 10 percent and
    eliminate the four turnaround models; they go too far in re-balancing
    the federal role. The language includes no federal program specifically
    designed to support and help improve low-performing schools, and lacks
    enforcement provisions to ensure that school improvement plans are
    strong, robust, comprehensive, and are implemented with fidelity.
         English Language Learners. The proposals merge Title III
    (English Language Learners) into Title I, which could lead to a loss of
    national focus on English Language Learners.
         Charter schools. The proposals reflect a weak and
    inadequate approach to transparency and accountability in charter
    school operations. Charter schools must be held to the same
    accountability standards as other public schools, and should have to
    answer to parents and taxpayers for all of their funding sources.
         Class size. The proposals limit class size reduction
    efforts to 10 percent of Title II (current use is about 38 percent).
    Research indicates that those students benefiting the most from class
    size reduction efforts are disadvantaged students in the early grades.
    If this funding is capped, local districts may not continue paying
    educators previously funded through federal class size reduction funds,
    leading to a direct decrease in services provided to students most in
    need.
         Early education. The proposals lack a focus on early
    education, a proven component of closing achievement gaps and ensuring
    a quality education for children.
         Comprehensive quality education. The proposals continue
    the current curricular focus on English and mathematics, and do not
    address concerns regarding the narrowing of the curriculum.
                                     ______

                             New America Foundation

            House ESEA Bill Would Lift Title I Spending Requirements

               Jennifer Cohen  Published January 24, 2012

    Issues: Title I, Low-Income Students, Education
        The recently-released House ESEA draft reauthorization bill makes
    substantial changes to the federal role in public education. Among
    other changes, the proposal significantly loosens requirements on how
    states and local school districts can spend education dollars. While
    more state and local control is a popular mantra, we would like to
    offer a few words of caution on a few provisions in the House bill.
    Mainly, these changes to existing law would essentially allow states
    and school districts to use federal funds previously intended to
    benefit specific, high-need populations however they see fit without
    requiring consistent state and local support.
        1. First, the bill would move several existing programs to Title I,
    Part A of the law. These programs, which provide specific funding
    streams to local school districts for services for migrant students,
    neglected and delinquent students, English language learners, rural
    students, and Indian education, would be moved to the same section that
    funds grants for low-income students. Currently, these programs are
    authorized and funded under various titles and subparts of NCLB
    separate from Title I, Part A. This change would enable Congress to
    provide a single appropriation for all Title I, Part A programs,
    blurring the lines between funding for the programs. Under the bill
    these five programs would total 9.0 percent of the annual Title I Part
    A allocation, which would be set at $16.7 billion for 2013.
        At the same time, the bill includes a ``flexibility'' provision
    that would allow states and school districts to merge funds from these
    five programs, as well as set-asides for state administration and
    school improvement, and use them for any purposes covered by those
    programs or Title I, Part A Education for the disadvantaged. Under
    current law, states and districts are only allowed to transfer up to 50
    percent of funds allocated under the Education Technology program
    (which is not funded in current law), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
    program, and the school choice program into their Title I, Part A
    accounts. The five programs listed in the proposed flexibility
    provision are not included in any current flexibility provisions. Under
    the House proposal, states would have to notify the U.S. Department of
    Education and school districts would have to notify their state
    agencies if they intend to use any of the funding streams for
    alternative purposes. However, the proposal does not explicitly require
    states or districts to report how they repurposed the funds, what they
    were used for, or what programs or services were eliminated due to the
    flexibility.
        By allowing states and districts to merge funds from several
    funding streams targeted for specific high-need populations, the House
    bill would give them license to overlook the needs of some students in
    exchange for others. While giving state and district leaders more
    autonomy and control over federal funds to tailor services to their
    students' needs is important, these specialized federal programs exist
    to serve students that are typically ignored.
        2. Next, the House bill would allow any school that receives Title
    I, Part A funds to provide school-wide services, regardless of the
    percentage of students living below the poverty line, at that school.
    Currently, the No Child Left Behind Act only allows schools with
    poverty rates over 40 percent to use their Title I funds to provide
    school-wide services. This program is based on the assumption that all
    students at schools with such high poverty rates would benefit from
    additional services. In contrast, schools with poverty rates below 40
    percent can use their Title I funds to implement interventions and
    services targeted just to eligible low-income students. Although the
    proposal would maintain the separate Targeted program, it seems
    unlikely that schools would opt to continue targeted programs when they
    could spread the funds among their whole population.
        By eliminating the poverty threshold for school-wide programs, the
    bill would allow schools with relatively small low-income populations
    to use their Title I, Part A funds to provide services to their entire
    student population, the majority of which would not otherwise be
    eligible for interventions or additional services. Those schools would
    no longer have to provide targeted services to just their high-need
    students, meaning these students could get lost or overlooked in the
    shift.
        3. Finally, as we've written before, the House bill would eliminate
    the maintenance of effort provision of Title I, allowing state and
    local governments to cut per pupil or overall funding for education for
    districts but remain eligible for Title I funding. Current law allows a
    local school district to receive Title I Part A funds in an upcoming
    year only if state and local governments provided the district with at
    least 90 percent of the funding (per pupil or overall) that they
    provided in the preceding year. In other words, a district that
    received $8,000 per pupil in 2010 in state and local funds, must have
    received at least $7,200 per pupil (90 percent of $8,000) in 2011 to
    receive Title I funds in 2012.
        Assuming that states and local governments would take advantage of
    this change and cut their education funding, federal funds could begin
    to account for a much higher percentage of per pupil education funding
    (currently around 10 percent). It is somewhat ironic that lawmakers
    that typically support limiting the federal role in education would
    support a bill that has the potential to increase the percentage of
    education spending the federal government supplies while allowing state
    and local governments to cut their own spending.
        Each of these changes would have a great impact on how states and
    school districts are held accountable for the use of federal Title I
    funds. But all together they would allow states and school districts to
    dramatically change how they use federal funds for education,
    practically turning Title I into an all-purpose block grant. These
    changes, in the name of local control, could make the nation's highest-
    need students more vulnerable than ever.
                                     ______

    Back to this item

                  Denying Poor Children an Equitable Education
       Conservatives' Student Success Act Guarantees Anything but Success

                      By Raegen Miller, February 15, 2012

        Conservatives in the House of Representatives are at it again,
    trying to gut spending for those children in our nation who need extra
    help getting the education they need to succeed in the 21st century.
    Rep. John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the House Committee on Education
    and the Workforce, introduced the thoroughly misnamed Student Success
    Act earlier this month--the latest partisan attempt to repurpose the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act that has done so much to ensure
    federal education funds go to the high-poverty schools that need the
    most help.
        Rep. Kline's bill would go a long way toward turning the law's
    largest program, Title I--which provides federal funding for high-
    poverty elementary and secondary schools--into a block-grant program by
    dispensing with Title I's ``maintenance-of-effort'' provision. Title I
    maintenance of effort requires that in a given year states and
    districts receiving Title I funds spend 90 percent of what they spent
    from nonfederal sources in the previous year. This ensures that states
    and school districts do not shortchange high-poverty schools by
    shifting federal funds toward other purposes.
        Rep. Kline's Student Success Act has other shortcomings, too, but
    the idea of dropping the maintenance-of-effort provision is
    particularly ill advised. It would be one more step advocated by House
    Republicans toward dismantling longstanding federal provisions that
    ensure equitable education for all of our children. House Republicans
    claim they are taking this action to help states cope with budget
    shortfalls and to restore states' rights over education spending. But
    the results would harm our poorest children and squander federal
    taxpayer dollars to boot.
    Tough times
        The first argument put forth by proponents of dropping maintenance
    of effort puts this danger in full relief. Conservatives inaccurately
    contend that states and districts need this kind of assistance in
    ``struggling with budget shortfalls.'' This argument would be stronger
    if maintenance of effort was not already fully equipped to offer
    temporary relief to states and districts receiving Title I funds. The
    requirement can be waived in the event that states and districts suffer
    sudden and severe drops in revenue, and this safety valve rides on top
    of an existing and extraordinary 10 percent cushion for agencies facing
    tough times.
        Take Minnesota. The economic shock absorber inherent in the 90
    percent maintenance-of-effort threshold is hard to miss. Below we show
    how Minnesota, home state of Rep. Kline, already has room to cope with
    economic woes without enduring penalties to its Title I allocation.
    Figure 1 shows Minnesota's current expenditures on education from
    nonfederal sources, in blue, and a cascade of hypothetically reduced
    expenditures from the 2000-01 school year to the 2008-09 school year.
    The important point here is that despite unimaginable reductions in
    education spending, Minnesota would have suffered no penalty at the
    hands of the maintenance-of-effort provision. (see Figure 1)

    Invisible barrier
        The second misplaced argument for dropping the maintenance-of-
    effort requirement is that it discourages states from constructively
    reducing education spending, for example by finding savings or
    improving efficiency. Yet the 90 percent spending threshold is blind to
    whether spending reductions are driven by revenue shortfalls or
    efficiency gains. Adherents of the argument are especially worried that
    states and districts, fearing maintenance-of-effort penalties, will
    fail to embrace technologies such as virtual schooling with some
    promise of radically reducing the cost of providing educational
    services with the same potency as the current mix of services.
        Optimism about schools' abilities to adopt cost-saving technology
    is a good thing, and the potential for radical cost savings is great.
    Moore's law--the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two
    years--and the ever-falling cost of computing have had enormous impact
    on many industries. Yet there are many obstacles to implementing cost-
    saving technologies--what economists call substituting capital for
    labor--in public education. Listing the Title I maintenance-of-effort
    requirement high among them borders on the credulous.
    Straightjacket
        The third misconceived argument for dropping maintenance of effort,
    repeated by Rep. Kline at an American Enterprise Institute event
    celebrating the introduction of his Student Success Act, is that the
    requirement is tainted by a faulty premise--that more spending
    translates to better results. This argument has merit only as an
    example of the straw man fallacy.
        The relationship between inputs and outputs in education is
    notoriously fuzzy, and reasonable people can disagree about what the
    relevant body of evidence says on the matter. But this dispute has
    nothing to do with the purpose of the maintenance-of-effort
    requirement. The purpose of this provision is to prevent grantees from
    using Title I funds to support spending on public services other than
    education, or to offer tax relief.
        The relationship between the receipt of Title I funds and results
    in schools does, however, have a lot to do with the accountability
    provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Student
    Success Act would roll back accountability for academic results to the
    20th century, requiring few results from states in exchange for Title I
    funds.
    Don't tread on me
        The final argument for stripping Title I of its maintenance-of-
    effort provision is basically an ideological principle: ``The federal
    government should not dictate state and local spending decisions as a
    condition of receiving federal funds.'' By this rationale, no federal
    program should have a matching requirement, or condition for the
    receipt of federal funds in any way. Rep. Kline and supporters of the
    Student Success Act apparently believe that states and districts should
    be able to do as they please with their share of the $14.5 billion or
    so in annual appropriations for Title I.
        What would this mean in practice? Well, if a state wants to reduce
    its investment in elementary and secondary education in order to build
    a new prison, or provide tax relief, that's its business, or so the
    reasoning goes. Clearly the federal government has a role to play in
    safeguarding the interests of low-income students by creating some
    parameters around the receipt of federal funds targeting services to
    them.
    The bottom line
        Pushing for block-grant distributions of federal funds to the
    states has gained substantial momentum in the House of Representatives
    in recent years. It seems sadly out of place next to rhetoric about
    fiscal responsibility, and it's certainly incompatible in the context
    of education spending with the original and current purpose of Title I
    funds--to enhance the educational experiences of children raised in
    concentrated poverty. A lot has changed since the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965, but poverty and achievement
    gaps remain serious problems.
        Stripping Title I of a requirement that ensures federal funds
    address educational inequity is dangerous because our nation's economic
    competitiveness and its democratic institutions need, more than ever, a
    well-educated citizenry. We should expect more from Congress in the
    reauthorization process.

        Raegen Miller is Associate Director of Education Research at the
    Center for American Progress.
                                     ______

                                                      February 9, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2181 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairman Kline: The Business Coalition for Student Achievement
    (BCSA), a coalition of leading chief executive officers, is pleased to
    see the U.S. House of Representatives moving forward with the long
    overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA). BCSA appreciates the transparent nature of the process that you
    have used to solicit input on the Student Success Act and the
    Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, and looks forward to
    working with the committee as it finalizes these bills through the
    legislative process.
        The nation must strengthen the education provided to its students.
    The U.S. Department of Labor reports that millions of jobs are going
    unfilled despite an historically high unemployment rate, and business
    leaders know why: too few American's are prepared for the jobs of
    today. What is worse, too little is being done to prepare students for
    the jobs of tomorrow.
        Federal education policy must support the success of all students
    by advancing key education principles, including:
         college- and career-ready standards;
         accountability for all students;
         required action for all low-performing schools;
         effective teachers and leaders;
         choices for students attending low-performing schools; and
         clear and transparent data for parents, businesses, and
    the community.
        The proposed bills represent progress in the area of teacher
    evaluation. However, overall, the legislation proposes a striking
    retreat from the principles of education reform that will position
    students to maintain America's competitive edge in the global economy.
    The Student Success Act, for example, virtually eliminates federal
    requirements for the improvement of low performing schools, takes away
    the ability currently given to students attending low performing
    schools to choose higher performing schools and access free tutoring,
    and asks virtually nothing in return for the billions of taxpayer
    dollars invested in the nation's schools.
        The nation's education system is failing to adequately prepare
    students for the workforce. This is demonstrated by data from the U.S.
    Department of Labor stating that 3.2 million jobs were unfilled in
    November 2011 despite an historically high unemployment rate.
    Similarly, McKinsey & Company reports that 40 percent of the 2,000
    businesses they surveyed had at least one position vacant for six
    months. The fact that positions go unfilled because applicants lack the
    skills necessary to fill them is an indictment on the education
    currently being provided to children, and a clear call for reform.
        BCSA calls specific attention to the failure of the Student Success
    Act to support the state-led effort that is currently underway to
    provide all students with a college- and career-ready education. While
    this legislation includes a requirement for standards--an important and
    appropriate provision to be included in federal law--the bill does not
    call for college- and career-ready standards. Further, it removes the
    requirement within current law for assessments in science. The nation
    needs more--not fewer--engineers, scientists, and experts in
    technology. At a time when other countries are growing their capacity
    for innovation by deepening their focus on education, the United States
    cannot afford to stifle its own potential by allowing anything less
    than college- and career-ready standards to drive K--12 education.
        The business community believes that there is a vital Federal role
    in ensuring accountability for academic performance and for
    safeguarding parents' and students' interests, which are too often lost
    in a maze of education bureaucracies. As the reauthorization process
    for ESEA continues, these proposals must be strengthened to ensure that
    all students have the opportunity to succeed. Additionally, it is
    critical that this reauthorization move forward in a bipartisan
    fashion. Education has historically been a bipartisan issue, and the
    best way to move forward is through substantive negotiations including
    both democrats and republicans. BCSA hopes that such bipartisan
    deliberations will produce a bill that can earn the support of the
    business community.
        Mr. Chairman, as you well know, education is at the core of the
    nation's economy. BCSA is eager to assist in any way possible to ensure
    the education system adequately prepares today's students for
    tomorrow's workforce.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Craig Barrett,
             Retired Chairman and CEO Intel Corporation; Cochair, BCSA.
                                              William D. Green,
                                    Chairman, Accenture; Cochair, BCSA.
                                            Edward B. Rust Jr.,
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, State Farm Mutual; Cochair,
                                                                  BCSA.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Of course, without objection, all those----
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        Mr. Kildee's comments reminded me, when we were writing No
    Child Left Behind we inserted the idea that 95 percent of the
    students would have to take the test, and geez, people went
    crazy. They went haywire. States, districts, everybody went
    haywire.
        But the fact of the matter was that we know at that time
    that students were counseled--parents were counseled that you
    might want--if you need a doctor's appointment we are only
    testing today so take your son or daughter to the doctor. Field
    trips were organized to take selected groups of students off
    campus during testing.
        Parents with students with disabilities were told, ``You
    are only going to embarrass your student. This is terrible. He
    or she cannot do this work. You are going to embarrass them in
    the class. Why don't you keep them home or feel free to take
    them, what have you.''
        And that is why we have some of these guideposts. They seem
    onerous or what have you, but the fact of the matter is this is
    about every child in our system. And when I came to Congress if
    you were in a wheelchair you could not get into the classrooms.
    You were prohibited. It is not that you couldn't physically get
    into the classrooms; you were prohibited from going into those
    classrooms.
        The report of children out of school--if you were Hispanic
    in this country your chances of suspension, I don't know how
    many times. You were, in fact, in many instances, if you were
    an English learner and you--a Hispanic English learner--you
    weren't allowed in the school.
        I mean, these are where we come from. It is not that way
    today. Everybody here sitting here today will say, ``I don't
    recognize what you are talking about,'' but the fact is today--
    and we know that tests were manipulated, governors who wanted
    to show--you know, were afraid about that third year of
    progress, or a superintendent wanted to change the exam so they
    could get a reset and start over.
        And we know that we whipped the top 25 percent of the
    students in this nation harder and harder and harder so we
    could say that average school had improved. We never asked the
    question about what happened to the students below average. And
    hence, No Child Left Behind.
        Now as we reconstruct it and now as we see this, if you
    will, education spring about the understanding of
    accountability, about the understanding of real assessments and
    what they can tell, the in-depth, get rid of these check a box
    and check a bubble here. That all has to go by the wayside. It
    is yesterday, as the kids would say.
        And you see states and you see districts embracing it and
    they are doing it under current law. But they shouldn't be the
    exception. And we struggle, as Mr. Balfanz says--how do we
    replicate this? How do we transmit this? How do we translate
    this to other districts?
        People tell us, ``You can't test art,'' and yet you are
    saying your students are tested. People say, ``I only teach to
    the test.'' That was the easy way out. I visited schools all
    over this country--schools that are 100 percent--almost 100
    percent English learning. The test, as you say, is incidental.
    It is like, that is what it is. We teach. We teach and they
    learn.
        But somehow that is considered a freak show because
    everybody else says, ``We can only teach to the test.'' Somehow
    you can't cross over in some schools. I have been on Indian
    reservations where English is taught and it is taught about the
    history of the tribe, the culture of the tribe, the biology of
    the tribe is incorporated, the reservation--the assets are all
    integrated. I see that in schools all over my district, but not
    in every school.
        ``No, no. This is the time to learn to read. You can't read
    this in history.'' Now again, this sounds foreign if you are
    out there on the horizon, right? Nobody would embrace this.
        But there is a lot of evidence that unless there are some
    sideboards, as you say, on this that this happens. It happens.
        You know, the suggestion is, well let's just leave it to an
    IEP. Let's not have a standard. Let's not require them to
    participate in the assessments for students with disabilities.
        We know the tension that exists inside a school when a
    student is recommended for additional education opportunities,
    recommended that he or she needs to be able to take the exam.
    And we see it in my state playing out where we used to pool
    them all at the--what is it, the N-size? Now it is the 1
    percent assessment and a dramatic rise in the number of
    students who are sent into those alternative assessments.
        We know it goes on out there and we want to encourage and
    get out of the way--now, I think that is what the secretary
    tried to say with waivers: Get out of the way of the states and
    the systems that want to ride out on the horizon, want to go to
    the future, don't want to be held back by a bubble test or that
    static measure of how this district is doing. But if we are
    going to have growth it has got to be growth somewhere.
        We tried it in my state and first of all it was--became
    growth to nowhere. And you could end up worse off at the end of
    the year and yet you could meet these standards. Got rid of
    that; we are now getting on track.
        So this is what this contest is about. It is not about
    federal or state; it is about making sure that that federal
    investment is, in fact, yielding a return for the entire
    society.
        And, you know, we see dramatic changes in the participation
    and the improvement and the--of students of disabilities in
    these exams. They are growing, in some cases, faster than the
    general population in terms of their improvements, in terms of
    the size of the improvements that are being made.
        That doesn't mean every child will be able to do that. That
    doesn't mean every child--the classroom will be an appropriate
    place.
        But we do see what early intervention means, so do we
    withhold early intervention when it reduces the number of
    children in special education, when it provides them an
    educational opportunity that would not otherwise be there? But
    a lot of parts of the country are not interested. A lot of
    districts aren't interested in that early intervention. They
    don't see how they can do it. They don't see how it can be
    done. And yet we see it--the return on that investment.
        This is really about maximizing the return on the
    investment of that federal dollar, and to go to places where
    you have made this decision ahead of us that this district has
    to be different, this state has to be different, we have now
    got to move. I remember when Colorado suggested for the first
    time that they were going to--they were going to monitor and
    keep track of where the migrant children were moving in the
    state, we went, ``Oh, geez, don't do that.'' Well, they
    realized that those students were showing up in schools and if
    you didn't know where they came from and you didn't know what
    they had accomplished how did you deal with them when they
    walked through your front door because their parents moved to a
    new locality?
        Now we consider that to be quite proper, except in this
    bill we kind of go back about what are we doing for migrants.
    And yet they are a very important part of your economy, and
    certainly our economy, and the Southeast's economy, and the
    Northeast's economy.
        So this is really about that reevaluation, that real
    assessment of what we should be doing. But it is not about
    giving up on those sideboards to keep it moving forward and
    because we saw what happened when we didn't address graduation
    rates. We saw what happened.
        Those children have paid a price. We now see those children
    borrowing money for remedial education at community colleges
    and state college systems. How can we justify a system where a
    graduate of high school has to borrow money to learn how to
    read at the 12th grade level?
        You know, we have got to have a conversation with that
    family. We have got to have a conversation with that school
    district. And we have got to enable people to do that.
        I mean, this just makes no sense in this day and age when
    families are under this kind of struggle and the opportunities
    for those young people when they complete their high school
    education--I mean, we give a high school exam in California, an
    exit exam from high school. Because there used to be a lot of
    patter in this town about, ``We have students graduating from
    high school who can't read their diploma,'' so we put in--you
    know, the people put in an exit exam.
        In California when you graduate from 12th grade we demand
    to know whether or not you can do eighth grade math and 10th
    grade reading. I want to know what the hell you did in your
    junior and senior year if that is the test. We could have saved
    taxpayers money by giving it in 10th grade and letting you go.
        See what is going on in these systems? Exit exam. Exit
    exam. This is the measure. It just doesn't measure the right
    thing. And that is not in the interest of our economy; it is
    not in the interest of the state school board; it is not in the
    interest of the governor.
        That is why we have--one of the greatest things about No
    Child Left Behind: it turned on the lights. And now if you
    think you want to run for a higher office you better be
    concerned about your local school district if you are a mayor,
    if you are a governor, if you are a superintendent, because I
    don't agree with the characterizations of these school systems
    under No Child Left Behind and that is a big driving force for
    what we are trying to change here, but that is the reality for
    those families. And I think they want to know how you are--how
    you are looking at this.
        I really appreciate this testimony today. I think it has
    been very, very important.
        I also believe that it also makes the case for substantial
    changes in the legislation that is before us. I hope we can
    accomplish them.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        We have been trying in this legislation, I believe, to
    achieve the balance that some of you have talked about today. I
    think that Mr. Miller is correct that No Child Left Behind had
    the very, very best of intentions. When President Bush was
    pushing it, when Mr. Miller was working on it, and Mr. Boehner,
    and Senator Kennedy, and others, they were--had the best of
    intentions and they put some very good things in the law.
        One of those good things was to shine light into corners
    where there had been no light--turn the lights on, as Mr.
    Miller said. And so in this legislation, for example, we retain
    that. We want disaggregated data. We want to see how the
    English language learners are doing, and the minority kids are
    doing, and the children with special needs. We are insisting
    that that be reported.
        I agree with what Mr. Miller just said. Now, today, with
    the light on, if you are in local government--if you are on the
    city council or on the school board or on the state board--you
    better know what is going on and be taking action because
    parents and teachers and others are going to hold you
    accountable.
        I take note of, I think Dr. Balfanz said that sometimes you
    have unintended consequences. So you could, for example, say,
    well this is all about graduation rates. Well heck, everybody
    graduates and nobody can read. So it is important that we watch
    for those unintended consequences, and many of us believe that
    that watch is better performed by people like Mr. Luna and Mr.
    Schaffer and Ms. Kazmier and Mr. Cunningham, and so forth.
        So we are trying to achieve balance here. There has been a
    lot of talk about sideboards and guardrails and so forth; I
    believe those are here. Defining what those are is part of the
    issue as we go forward.
        I have been very interested in the conversation about
    special ed here. I was sadly disappointed the president's
    budget came out and once again there is no increase for special
    ed funding. That seems to be a bipartisan affliction that we
    have here. Both parties talk a lot about making sure that we
    meet the commitment that the federal government is supposed to
    have of 40 percent of the extra costs that come with special ed
    and yet nobody does it.
        So I am hoping that my colleagues here on both sides of the
    aisle will join me in pressing the Congress and the president
    to address that shortfall because every single school board
    member, superintendent, principal, teacher, parent that I have
    talked to says that would be the most important thing, the
    biggest thing. If the federal government would just meet its
    commitment for special ed it would help us--every school. So we
    are going to continue to work towards that end.
        Again, the bill has been introduced. It will be subject to
    a very open amendment process. It is not perfect, although in
    deference to my staff it is close, but there will be changes.
    There will be some changes to this, but I think that in the
    process that we are going to try to keep balance, keep focus on
    what is best for our kids, and frankly, reduce the imprint of
    the federal government, which I think is--gets in the way of
    some of the progress that is being made in dramatic and
    exciting ways around the country.
        So again, I want to thank my colleagues, I want to thank
    the witnesses. And there being no further business, the
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions of Chairman Kline follow:]

          Prepared Statement of the National School Boards Association

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the House
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, on behalf of the National
    School Boards Association (NSBA), representing over 90, 000 local
    school board members across the nation, I am pleased to submit this
    Statement for the Record regarding the Student Success Act, H.R. 3989;
    and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, H.R. 3990.
        In reviewing these specific bills, we acknowledge our support to
    the general approach of the legislation which is closely aligned with
    many of priorities of local school boards across the nation. Among the
    proposed improvements to the current law are provisions that would:
         Establish a new accountability system that supports
    flexibility to the states and local school districts to ensure that
    strategies are developed that can best meet local needs and conditions
    to raise student achievement.
         Increase the focus on academic achievement to be addressed
    through both individual student progress and the elimination of
    achievement gaps between subgroups.
         Support greater state flexibility in developing standards,
    assessments, and accountability systems to support local school
    districts in improving academic achievement.
         Eliminate the unworkable provisions related to Highly
    Qualified Teacher and paraprofessional requirements and increase the
    emphasis on teacher and school leader effectiveness, including support
    for effective performance evaluation systems.
         Require states in their plans to describe how they will
    assist each local school district and each public school to comply with
    accountability requirements, including how the state will work with
    local school districts to provide technical assistance.
         Increase focus on assessment measures to address higher-
    order thinking skills in addition to mathematics and reading/language
    arts (including the state discretion to add additional subjects), and
    expand authority to use adaptive assessments for children with
    cognitive disabilities.
         Continue the use of disaggregated data collection and
    reporting.
         Strengthen the focus on valid and reliable assessments for
    all students, including English language learners and students with
    disabilities.
         Support the use of multiple measures of student
    achievement and growth models.
         Encourage states to modify or eliminate state fiscal and
    accounting barriers so funds from the federal, state and local levels
    could be consolidated.
         Provide authority to local school districts to transfer
    funds among federal programs but not out of Title I.
         Maintain the current enrollment thresholds for targeted
    grants for small and rural schools.
         Clarify and limit the authority of the Executive Branch in
    program implementation of the law.
        In addition to ensuring improvements in those areas identified
    above, we urge you to complete the reauthorization of ESEA during this
    second session of the 112th Congress. Since the enactment of the No
    Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act ten years ago, both Congress and the
    Administration have acknowledged that the law's accountability
    framework has proven to be seriously flawed and the mandated sanctions
    on schools and school districts have been costly--with very limited
    impact in improving student or school performance. As a result, the
    operational challenges facing states and local school districts in
    implementing the current law have caused the mislabeling of schools and
    a noticeable decline in the public's trust and view of the quality of
    educational services being delivered. Therefore, states and local
    school districts should not be forced to wait any longer for new
    legislation that would be fairer, responsive to the needs of local
    communities and meet the original objectives of the law to improve the
    academic achievement of all students.
        We acknowledge the recent actions taken by U.S. Secretary of
    Education Arne Duncan to offer waivers to States from many of the NCLB
    requirements. However, these Department waivers should not be a
    substitute for the representative legislative process. School districts
    should not be placed in a position of implementing the Department of
    Education's Waiver Program this year only to be taken in what could be
    a markedly different policy direction by the reauthorization resulting
    in an unnecessary expenditure of limited staff time and funding if it
    does not occur until next year. Additionally, school districts should
    not be forced to continue to labor under the current flawed system if
    their State does not apply for or is granted a waiver. Therefore, we
    urge you to complete the reauthorization of ESEA now by moving this
    legislation forward.
        Finally, in strengthening and finalizing the House reauthorization
    bill, we urge you to address the following areas:
        1. Authorizations of Appropriations and CPI. The bill includes
    language that would restrict future federal funding to the FY2012 base
    and a percentage of the CPI. Such an approach could ultimately
    eliminate any future increased priority for public education funding,
    fail to give any recognition for enrollment growth in general as well
    as with respect to subgroups that may require additional support. With
    significant projected increases in enrollment, the result of this
    approach will reduce per pupil funding since the cost of living
    increases is on the bottom line. Further, using CPI exclusively may not
    be the best measure. Attachment (1) offers additional information for
    your consideration developed by the Center for Public Education. We
    recommend that you not tie future K-12 education authorizations of
    appropriations solely to a cost of living index, but rather that you
    also accommodate increases in student enrollment.
        2. Maintenance of Effort Provisions. The bill includes language to
    eliminate state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements. While states
    have endured serious revenue losses in recent years, their financial
    picture has largely bottomed out and revenue collections are outpacing
    projections in many states.
        Especially, since states are subject to MOEs, matching fund
    requirements, and mandates in dozens of other federal programs,
    singling out education, in effect, creates an affirmative policy to
    encourage states to cut their education funding in order to leverage
    state funding for each of these other federal programs. Meanwhile,
    local school districts, as a result of this change in policy, will have
    to either raise local property taxes or cut programs in some areas--or
    perhaps risk losing their federal funds if they don't because they may
    still have to meet local federal funding requirements.
        If education is to be valued as a national priority, the rationale
    for totally eliminating MOE rather than creating an exception for
    annual hardships cannot be justified. We recommend that you not
    eliminate MOE requirements completely. Rather, we recommend that you
    provide for an annual waiver application process based on fiscal need
    and request that states allocate not less than the same percentage of
    the state budget to K12 programs in a given year compared to the
    previous year.
        3. Charter Schools. The House bill continues strong support for
    charter schools, including a focus on funding for planning, facilities
    construction and renovation. Local school boards generally support the
    concept of charter schools provided the local school board in the
    community where the charter school is located is the chartering
    authority. In fact roughly 52% of all charters are authorized by local
    school boards. Toward that end, we recommend that in using these
    federal funds that the local school district be designated as the sole
    authorizing entity; and if restricted by State law, that you establish
    the local school district to have the first right of refusal. This
    would ensure that the charter schools develop and sustain supportive
    relationship with the local school district regarding funding and other
    operational requirements that could be shared such as food services or
    transportation, and accountability for student performance and teacher
    and school personnel performance. Federal policy should not create a
    situation that pits one segment in the community against the other.
        Additionally, local school boards are also concerned over the rush
    to significantly expand both the number of charter schools as well as
    the entities that could authorize new charter schools when there is no
    evidence that charter schools are significantly better than traditional
    schools. In fact, the CREDO study reports that only 17% of the charter
    schools performed better than traditional public schools. Further,
    research has shown that students with disabilities and English language
    learners are under-represented in charter schools, while traditional
    public schools are increasingly serving students who require special
    services. We believe that the push to create more charters is ahead of
    their development as a successful option.
        Local school boards across the nation remain strongly committed to
    these priorities and recommendations and urge you to fully address
    these critical concerns in the final House bill. We believe that our
    recommendations will work toward a much more effective framework to
    ensure progress in both improving student achievement and in closing
    the achievement gap.
        We appreciate the opportunity to re-affirm the urgency for
    completion of the ESEA reauthorization during this second session of
    the 112th Congress and to offer specific recommendations that would
    strengthen the federal law. We look forward to working with you and the
    members of your staff in finalizing key policies affecting our public
    schools and to discuss local school board concerns that we believe
    require clarification of or modification to the legislative language.

                      Indexes to Adjust Costs of Education

        The House of Representatives ESEA bill includes a provision to hold
    Title I authorized funding at FY 2012 levels then base all future
    increases on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, basing such
    increase on the CPI is problematic. Although other cost indexes may
    provide a more accurate measure of the true cost of providing an
    education, no current index is accurate enough to base changes in
    future Title I funding.
        It is important to keep in mind the objective to determine how to
    best capture the change in costs associated with providing students the
    same education in future years that is currently provided. Specifically
    related to the House bill, the question would be: which index would
    best reflect changes in costs of providing the same education as is
    being provided in FY2012, in terms of both services provided and the
    quality of those services.
        Unfortunately, there is no perfect index. Each has their own
    strengths and weaknesses which I will examine further below. Keep in
    mind, however, that for any of these indexes to accurately reflect the
    true cost of providing the same education they must be applied on a per
    pupil basis to account for any change in enrollment. Even then, the
    indexes would also have to fully account for any change in the
    demographics of the student population as research shows certain
    students are more expensive to educate than others. For example, an
    increase in the proportion of English Language Learners (ELL) or
    special education students would likely dramatically increase the costs
    of providing the same education to all students even if enrollments and
    the prices of the goods and services schools provided remained
    constant. Furthermore, requiring schools to provide new services (eg.,
    healthier school lunches) or provide additional resources (eg.,
    professional development) would also increase costs but would not be
    reflected in the indexes.
        Determining which index best reflects the change in costs that will
    provide the same education to all students is a challenge. To use an
    index to base future Title I increases must take into account student
    enrollment, student demographics, employee compensation costs
    (including all benefits such as retirement plans and medical
    insurance), along with costs of all goods and services specifically
    related to education such as food, energy, technology, and textbooks to
    name a few. Although research has shown most cost indexes provide
    similar estimates, even small differences can make dramatic differences
    over time. For example, a half a percent difference between indexes
    compounded over 20 years amounts to a 10.5 percent difference in the
    costs of education according to researchers at the American Institutes
    of Research (AIR).
        Here are common indexes used to make cost-of-living adjustments
    (COLA).
        Consumer Price Index (CPI)--Strengths: It is one of the most common
    COLA indexes so it is transparent and easy to understand. Furthermore,
    many teacher pension programs use the CPI at least in part to provide
    COLA to retirees. So the CPI does capture some of the increase in the
    cost of providing pension benefits. The CPI also includes the costs of
    both food and energy which are both significant expenditures for
    schools. The CPI provides specific cost indexes for many goods and
    services schools provide which can be aggregated to calculate an
    education specific CPI.
        Weaknesses: The CPI is a general index that reflects the cost of
    all consumer goods and services. It is designed to measure the
    difference in costs of an individual purchasing the same goods and
    services one year compared to the previous year. It is not designed to
    account for the change in costs of providing specific services, such as
    K-12 education. Since up to 90 percent of education expenditures are
    labor related it isn't likely to provide an accurate measure to the
    change of the true cost of providing a similar education from year to
    year.
                                     trends

      1-year: 3 percent  5-year: 12 percent  10-year: 28
                      percent  20-year: 64 percent

        Employment Cost Index (ECI)--Strengths: Since up to 90 percent of
    education expenditures are labor related the ECI is an effective tool
    to calculate the true change in labor costs in education. As a matter
    of fact, the ECI already calculates the cost of public elementary and
    secondary school personnel. Not only does the ECI incorporate salaries
    but benefits as well. So it provides an accurate measure of labor costs
    in education.
        Weaknesses: Since the ECI is based on employment costs it does not
    include other costs of goods and services schools provide such as
    transportation and food services among others. Although these goods and
    services are a small percent of the cost of educating students, they
    are significant expenditures that need to be accounted for.
                              all workers: trends

      1-year: 2 percent  5-year: 12 percent  10-year: 33
                      percent  20-year: 87 percent

               public elementary and secondary personnel: trends

      1-year: 1 percent  5-year: 12 percent  10-year: 35
                      percent  20-year: 78 percent

        Gross Domestic Product Deflator (GDPD)--Strengths: Provides the
    price difference of all new goods and services produced domestically. A
    number of economists argue it is a more accurate measure of inflation
    because it is more adaptive by including the prices of new goods and
    services while the CPI is based on a set number of goods.
        Weaknesses: Although it is an accurate measure of inflation it does
    not necessarily provide a more accurate measure of the change in prices
    for the resources needed to provide the students the same education
    they received the year before as it includes all goods and services not
    just those related to education.
                                     trends

      1-year: 2 percent  5-year: 10 percent  10-year: 25
                      percent  20-year: 51 percent

        AIR Study: The AIR study, which AASA references, compares each of
    these indexes to an index they developed called the Inflationary Cost-
    of-Education Index (ICEI). The ICEI measures the change in the prices
    of school inputs such as personnel and good and services purchased by
    schools. The study found in the short run there are very small
    differences between the indexes. However, such small differences would
    result in quite large differences over time. For example, a one-half
    percent difference between indexes would result in a 10.5 percent
    difference in costs over a 20-year period. A larger one-year difference
    between indexes such as a 2.5 percentage would lead to a 64 percent
    difference in costs 20 years later.
        Furthermore, although the report found the CPI to provide a higher
    rate of costs on average, this differed depending on what time period
    was being studied. So the CPI did not consistently show higher costs
    than the other indicators. Also, keep in mind the AIR study is from
    1997 and examined cost changes in the late 80's and 90's. Moreover,
    each of these indicators are adjusted annually and have comprehensive
    revisions every 5 to 10 years to more accurately reflect true changes
    in costs. If this study was conducted today the results could be quite
    different, especially considering the escalation of the cost of
    providing retirement and health benefits since the report was
    published.
                                    analysis
        Although the AIR study found the CPI to provide a more favorable
    measure of cost increases in education, this may not be the case today
    or in the future. The CPI is not designed to specifically measure
    employment costs that include providing retirement and health benefits
    which have increased dramatically since AIR conducted their study
    nearly 15 years ago. It is quite likely the ECI would provide a more
    accurate measure of the change in costs of providing the same education
    from year to year since the majority of education costs are labor
    related. As a matter of fact, when comparing the CPI and ECI, the ECI
    found that employment costs have increased 78 percent for K-12 schools
    since 1991 while the CPI found that overall prices have increased just
    64 percent over the same time period. Meaning, Title I schools would be
    receiving 20 percent fewer funds if Title I funding was tied to the CPI
    in 1991 instead of the ECI. Even then, the ECI does not include the
    cost of such items as food, energy, and text books which have increased
    at much higher rates than the overall CPI over this time period.
        What is needed is an index similar to the ICEI (which was only
    calculated for the AIR study) that is specifically designed to measure
    the cost of providing the same education at the same quality to all
    students that also takes into account changes in enrollment--something
    none of the current indexes do. At the very least whichever index used
    should be applied on a per pupil basis just as the CPI is applied to
    Social Security benefits on a per person basis.
        Putting it all together, attempting to restrict growth in Title I
    funds using an index is quite problematic. There is no index that
    accurately captures the true change in costs in providing the same
    education at the same quality level. Furthermore, no index can account
    for any change in enrollment whether in total number or proportion of
    higher needs students that cost more to educate. So any attempt to
    limit the change in Title I funds to any index is likely to have a
    negative impact on the education students will receive in the future.
                                 recommendation
        Due to the fact the CPI does not accurately reflect the change in
    the costs of the goods and services school districts provide their
    students nor does the CPI account for the expected increase in student
    enrollment the CPI should not be used to determine future year's Title
    I funding.
        The reason is the CPI is based on prices of all goods and services
    which may not reflect the costs school districts face in providing
    their students an education. This is particularly true since education
    is a labor-driven industry where up to 90 percent of expenditures are
    labor related. So it is important an index accurately captures total
    labor costs which is not what the CPI is designed to measure. The ECI
    provides a measure of changes in labor costs but it does not included
    other expenditures such as food, utility, and transportation costs
    among other goods and services schools provide their students.
        Furthermore, the CPI does not take into consideration the fact that
    over the next eight years schools are expected to enroll 3.2 million
    more students than in 2012. The CPI only provides a measure of
    providing the same goods and services to the same number of people. So
    the CPI would have to be applied on a per-pupil basis to account for
    the fact that schools will be providing the goods and services to more
    students every year.
        It should also be noted, the CPI does not measure the change of
    future costs. The CPI tells us what the change in costs were in the
    previous year not what the costs will be in the coming year as the CPI
    is proposed to do for Title I funding. Yes, economists provide
    forecasts for future CPI but these are educated guesses where there
    have been large differences between what was forecasted and what the
    actual change in costs was.
        The CPI is a fairly accurate COLA measure when applied to
    individual consumers but it has limited use in measuring the change in
    cost of providing a similar education from year to year. The CPI, nor
    any other index at this time, is capable of accurately measuring how
    much it costs to educate our public school children.

        Prepared by Jim Hull, senior policy analyst, Center for Public
    Education, National School Boards Association, February 2012.
                                     ______

        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]

                                    ------

          Ms. Kazmier's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record

        I am responding to Representative Biggert's questions, which were
    posed to Felicia Kazmier in the attached.
    1. Maintenance of Effort
        In regards to Maintenance of Effort for Special Education, during
    times of reduced funding, this requirement is very restrictive on the
    budgeting process. The requirement to maintain specific program level
    funding at prior year levels increases the burden on all other programs
    to absorb all of the reductions.
        The Special Education MOE does factor into our budgeting process
    because it penalizes Districts that come up with more cost effective or
    innovative alternatives to provide the same level of services. The
    additional administrative tracking and complying with MOE is an
    additional task that requires resources that could be directed
    elsewhere.
    2. STEM
        Harrison supports the assessment of science. With our pay-for-
    performance plan, we administer district common science assessments
    every quarter. If states have the resources, administering a common
    state science assessment would be useful in advancing STEM initiatives.
        I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other
    questions.
                                                    Mike Miles,
                                                        Superintendent.
                                     ______

                                    ------

           Mr. Luna's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record

    RE: Reauthorization of NCLB

        1. Maintenance of Effort (MOE): Under current maintenance of effort
    provisions, districts have flexibility to reduce their funding
    commitment by up to 10 percent, while ensuring education remains a
    priority. However, one proposal within the House bill would eliminate
    language related to Maintenance of Effort.
        a. Does the current Maintenance of Effort requirement help your
    schools?
        I believe that the current Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement
    helps to protect schools from cuts both at the district and state level
    if and when those cuts become necessary, ensuring that the money
    allocated for education is being spent at the classroom level where it
    can have the greatest impact on student achievement. MOE also ensures
    that the federal funds being allocated to schools are targeted towards
    providing additional services and support rather than supplanting the
    services that should be provided through state funds. However, MOE can
    hamstring states and districts in their efforts to reform education as
    they work to prioritize how funds should be spent and at what level.
    Therefore, I believe that the states are in the best position to make
    these determinations. I believe that, through reauthorization, the MOE
    levels and restrictions should be set and determined by the state so
    that they can establish a system that meets the unique needs of their
    schools and districts. By shifting this responsibility to the states,
    it would allow states to establish a MOE system that works with, not
    against any reform efforts that the state may be undertaking.
        b. Does MOE factor into your budgeting process? If so, how?
        MOE does not typically play a role in our budgeting process as we
    always work to ensure that we are funding education in Idaho at a level
    that provides districts and schools with the resources to improve
    student achievement. Through Students Come First, Idaho has made
    unprecedented investments in Idaho schools to financially reward
    teachers, provide professional development statewide, and ensure every
    student has access to a highly effective teacher and the best
    educational opportunities every year they are in school. For example,
    next year, Idaho will be able to offset reductions in teacher pay to
    ensure teacher compensation will actually increase by 5 percent in the
    next school year.
        2. STEM: As you know, current law requires that Math, Reading, and
    albeit less frequently, Science are critical educational skills which
    must be tested. However, this new legislation drops the requirement to
    test Science. As a strong supporter of Science and STEM education, I am
    concerned that this change will signal to states, districts, parents
    and students that Science isn't important. I understand we got a lot
    wrong with NCLB, but we recognized the need to teach and test science
    10 years ago, and the need for high-tech skills has only grown. Are we
    saying it was a mistake to support Science?
        Science is a critical subject area. This is true today and will be
    true in the future. This legislation does not change that. States have
    taken the lead in science and in other areas to ensure that students
    are mastering these skills and graduating from high schools prepared to
    go on and succeed in science. States will continue to do this and test
    science in the future. This legislation, however, will give states the
    flexibility they need to improve on science assessments. In Idaho, we
    recognize that science is difficult to test through and end-of-the-year
    standardized test because science courses, particularly in high school
    do not directly build on one another. A more effective approach to
    ensure students have a specific, discrete set of knowledge might be a
    series of end-of-course assessments or state-designed assessments tied
    to rigorous standards that ensure students have mastered the skills
    they need in each science course. This is the approach we are taking in
    Idaho to ensure greater success for our students. These end-of-course
    assessments in science will be more rigorous than the current
    assessments we are able to give at the end of the year and give
    teachers much more feedback and information on how students are
    learning specific concepts. If approved, this legislation to
    reauthorize No Child Left Behind will support the steps that states
    like Idaho have already taken to improve science assessments because
    this legislation gives states the flexibility they need to increase
    accountability.
                                     ______

                                    ------

         Mr. Schaffer's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record

        Thank you for passing along Rep. Biggert's questions. Following is
    my reply:
        A1: The Maintenance of Effort provision in federal law has little
    practical meaning in my state. Colorado has generally increased year-
    to-year funding for K-12 education. Even with the state's ``Taxpayer
    Bill of Rights,'' which caps overall state spending, we've managed to
    keep reductions from hitting Colorado classrooms. The only exception
    was the past two fiscal years where funding was actually reduced
    (slightly)--but nowhere near 10%. The pressure from Colorado's
    constituency tends to be toward higher levels of state spending on
    education, not less. The state-fund reductions were most often
    (depending on the district) compensated by local property-tax
    increases. The MOE does not help our schools because Colorado's funding
    levels are set by our state legislature at levels it establishes on its
    own volition, and without regard to the MOE. The federal MOE does not
    factor into Colorado's budgeting process.
        A2: With all due respect, the importance of science is not a
    function of the opinion of Congress or the U.S. Department of
    Education. I am confident the high priority Colorado places on science
    will not be diminished in any way by inclusion or exclusion of science-
    assessment requirements in an ESEA reauthorization bill. Our school
    districts get their ``signals'' from local constituents. Generally,
    Colorado's constituents place a high value on science instruction and
    assessment. Their values are aptly reflected in state-initiated policy
    and administration. In omitting science mandates in the current ESEA
    reauthorization strategy, the Congress would not be sending any
    overriding signal to the states or to the local communities. Federal
    support for science is a fine proposition, but doing so without
    additional federal mandates would be the least onerous way to proceed.
    I agree with you that Congress got a lot wrong with NCLB.
                                     ______

                                    ------

          Mr. Balfanz's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record

        Dear Representative Biggert: I am not in a position to respond to
    question 1, but on question 2 on the importance of science, I fully
    agree that it is important to stress science education in the 21st
    century. Moreover, when done well it is an area students find engaging
    and thus helps to increase their attendance and attention in school.
    The reality is that schools pay attention to what they are held
    accountable for, and if they are no longer held accountable for science
    they will inevitably pay less attention to it. Given the advances that
    will be made with assessment from the state collaboratives working on
    assessments for the common core it seems like this could be extended to
    science and in so doing , not make science accountability be burdensome
    to schools and students.
                                                   Bob Balfanz,
                                              Johns Hopkins University.
                                     ______

        [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]