[Senate Hearing 112-849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-849
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN TO SUCCEED
IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN TO SUCCEED
IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
__________
JULY 15, 2011 (PORTLAND, OR)
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-584 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
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 HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARK KIRK, Illinois
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Daniel Smith, Staff Director
Pamela Smith, Deputy Staff Director
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011
Page
Committee Member
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Witnesses--Panel I
Grotting, Don, Superintendent, David Douglas School District,
Portland, OR................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Cadez, Mary, Assistant Superintendent, Salem-Keizer School
District, North Bend, OR....................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Harms, Rachael, Teacher, Salem, OR............................... 9
Otterlee, Vanessa, Parent, Salem, OR............................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Sipe, Heidi, Superintendent, Umatilla School District, Umatilla,
OR............................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hollensteiner, Beverly June, Superintendent, North Bend School
District, North Bend, OR....................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Angulo, Eduardo, Chairman and Executive Director, Salem/Keizer
Coalition for Equity, Salem, OR................................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Hopson, Tony, Executive Director, Self-Enhancement, Inc.,
Portland, OR................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Witnesses--Panel II
Koch, Roy, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, OR............... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Anderson, Morgan, Northwest Region Higher Education and
Government Affairs Manager, Intel, Hillsboro, OR............... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Knapp, Melinda, Mathematics Teacher, Bend, OR.................... 38
Fuller, Nathan, Student, Senior, Cleveland High School, Portland,
OR............................................................. 41
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Stueber, Nancy, President, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry,
Portland, OR................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Unverzagt, Beth A., Director, Oregon After School for Kids,
Salem, OR...................................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
(iii)
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN TO SUCCEED
IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at
Gilbert Heights Elementary School, 12839 SE Holgate Boulevard,
Portland, OR, Hon. Jeff Merkley presiding.
Present: Senator Merkley.
Opening Statement of Senator Merkley
Senator Merkley. Welcome, everyone. The committee will come
to order.
This is a field hearing of the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee, and I appreciate everyone coming to
participate.
I think we all understand that education is critical to the
success of our children, and education is critical to the
success of our future economy. And yet, as a Nation, we are
struggling. We are becoming the first generation of adults
whose children are getting less education than we got.
We are becoming the first generation in which our children
often do not get hands-on experience through shop classes, a
generation in which we are losing in many schools our music
classes, even our gym classes, things that aren't connected
directly to No Child Left Behind testing. We have testing that
perhaps has some elements that are valuable but has a lot of
shortcomings.
All of this is going to be part of the discussion over the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
And the expertise that all of you bring from the front line is
very, very helpful in going forward and trying to seize this
moment of the reauthorization to have the best possible
supportive framework in terms of national policy.
So that is why we are holding this hearing. It is a hearing
that comes in addition to conversations that I have been
holding with educators throughout the State, as I proceed on my
annual 36-county tour. And we very much expect right now for
ESEA to be marked up later this year.
Now, given the nature of the Senate, nothing is a sure bet.
But we want to be prepared. Senator Wyden and I want to be as
prepared as possible to be fully engaged in that conversation.
I want to thank Superintendent Grotting and Principal
Cherie-Anne May for hosting this hearing at Gilbert Heights
Elementary School. This is the school that I came to when I was
in elementary school to compete in sports--baseball outside,
basketball inside. And it is good to be back.
We have in Oregon a high unemployment rate. It is above the
national average. Unemployment for those who have not gotten a
high school degree and/or gone on to vocational school or a
college degree is much higher than for those who have seized
the various pathways in education.
Our skills as a Nation, as they relate to skills in other
countries around the world, are slipping. And we are now ranked
14th out of 34 countries for reading skills, 17th for science,
25th for mathematics. That is not a path for either the success
of our children in a knowledge-based economy or the success of
our future economy. So it is key.
I am not going to elaborate on what is right and wrong
about the current No Child Left Behind law because you all are
the experts. And Susan and I are here to learn as much as
possible from your expertise.
I want to introduce Susan Lexer, who is my legislative
assistant specializing in education. And also please note that
as you work with my team on issues of education, feel free to
call Susan at any time. Susan has her business cards, and her
phone number is on our Web site. And so, seize that channel as
you have input on how we can make things work better.
I also want to introduce my Oregon State director, Jeanne
Atkins, Jeanne, why don't you just step forward a little bit?
Jeanne runs my Oregon State team. And feel free, if you are not
certain about how to find the right person on my team for the
issues that you are concerned about, to contact our office here
in Portland. We have field offices around the State as well.
We are going to be splitting this hearing into two major
components. One is a panel on ESEA, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, and the second is on STEM issues. That is
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. And so, I am
going to proceed to do very brief introductions of our
witnesses. I am going to introduce both sides. Then we are
going to split our time between the two topics.
Starting with Don Grotting, superintendent of David Douglas
School District. Then we have Mary Cadez, assistant
superintendent of Salem-Keizer School District.
Rachael Harms, a teacher from Salem, OR. Vanessa Otterlee,
a parent. Heidi Sipe, superintendent of Umatilla School
District. Beverly June Hollensteiner, superintendent of North
Bend School District in North Bend, OR.
Eduardo Angulo, chairman and executive director of Salem/
Keizer Coalition for Equality. Tony Hopson, executive director
of Self-Enhancement, Inc. I greatly enjoyed the tour that he
asked to come and see and the work that was being done on the
ground there.
On our STEM panel, we have Dr. Roy Koch, provost and vice
president for academic affairs, Portland State University. Ms.
Morgan Anderson from Intel. Melinda Knapp, mathematics teacher
and recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, from Bend, OR.
Nathan Fuller, is a student. He will be a senior now at
Cleveland High School, and he is a participant in the FIRST
Robotics team. And I had a chance to come and see their team in
action, the Pigmice.
[Laughter.]
He will have his own story, I am sure, about how it became
the Pigmice.
Nancy Stueber, president of Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry. And Beth Unverzagt, director of the Oregon After
School for Kids program.
The committee has received your full written testimony for
the record, and we will have 5 minutes for each person to
summarize the key points that you wish to contribute. This
being an official hearing, we have the official timing device.
And basically, when the red light comes on, time is up.
The yellow comes on with a minute to go, so that will give
you a sense to wrap up.
The record will remain open for 10 days for submission of
additional statements, and I will remind people of that at the
end as well.
With that, we are going to jump right in. We do have enough
time for everyone to have the full 5 minutes, and I may
interject a few questions or thoughts along the way.
Don, would you like to kick it off?
STATEMENT OF DON GROTTING, SUPERINTENDENT, DAVID DOUGLAS SCHOOL
DISTRICT, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Grotting. Yes, first of all, thank you, Senator, for
coming back to the school district where you were educated, but
also where his children continue to be educated. So we really
appreciate you coming home.
No Child Left Behind has been responsible for public
education recognizing and acknowledging the achievement gap
that exists for children of poverty, color, children having
learning disabilities, and identified as English language
learners. It has caused educational facilities and educators to
identify the challenges that exist among these groups and as
also responsible for starting to close the achievement gap.
I truly believe without No Child Left Behind legislation
that we would not be where we are today. It has provided a
sense of accountability.
Having said that, I also believe that No Child Left Behind
has failed through the measurement of adequate yearly progress
to recognize the individual challenges of various learning
environments, institutions, and students. A school and a
student are deemed to succeed or fail based on a specific
measurement. There is minimal consideration for individual
student or institutional growth.
In addition, the legislation does not adequately address
the challenges or differences that exist among our students
with disabilities or English language learners. All students
simply have to jump over the same bar at the same height, even
though it may not be physically or mentally possible.
Having attainable and rigorous standards and accountability
measures that address each child is imperative. Each child has
an unlimited capacity to learn. The key variable is determining
their starting point and then measuring and providing growth
milestones for each child.
While we are setting the bar too high for some students, I
would also maintain we have not set the bar high enough for
other students, and they are not being challenged to reach
their potential. In addition, we must have goals that can be
realistically achieved and maintained.
In 2014, every child, every institution will not achieve
AYP under the current accountability and measurement standards.
We must have rigorous goals that can be achieved.
Finally, accountability needs to be embedded within each
institution. Best practices, proficient teaching, professional
development, outstanding educational leadership should become
the expectation, not the exception. When institutions and
educators are provided adequate resources but continue to fail
students, consequences and interventions need to be
implemented. Time is of the essence for every child to be
educated.
On a final note, I truly maintain that we must address our
birth to kindergarten population before any significant and
sustained improvement will be realized in the K-12 system. We
continue to react to a widening achievement gap, rather than
addressing the source of the problem.
Having every student kindergarten ready, as well as having
full-day kindergarten for every child, will truly decrease the
possibility of a child being left behind.
I want to thank you for your time and consideration in
trying to make a positive difference in the lives of all
children in the United States.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grotting follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don Grotting
NCLB has been responsible for public education recognizing and
acknowledging the achievement gap that exists for children of poverty,
color, children having learning disabilities, and identified as English
Language Learners. It has caused educational facilities to identify and
recognize equity, cultural, and other differences and challenges that
are responsible for impacting and widening the achievement gap.
NCLB has failed through the measurement of Adequate Yearly Progress
to recognize the individual challenges of various learning
environments, institutions, and students. A school and a student are
deemed to succeed or fail based on a specific measurement. There is
minimal consideration for individual student or institution growth. In
addition, the legislation does not adequately address the challenges or
differences that exist among our students with disabilities or English
Language Learners. All students simply have to jump over the same bar
at the same height even though it may not be physically or mentally
possible. Having attainable and rigorous standards and accountability
measures that address each child is imperative.
Every child has an unlimited capacity to learn. The key variable is
determining their starting point and then measuring and providing
growth milestones for each child. While we are setting the bar too high
for some students, I would also maintain we have not set the bar high
enough for other students, and they are not being challenged to reach
their potential. In addition, we must have goals that can be
realistically achieved and maintained. In 2014, every child and every
institution will not achieve AYP under the current accountability and
measurement standards. We must have rigorous goals that can be
achieved.
Finally, accountability needs to be imbedded within each
institution. Best practices, proficient teaching, and outstanding
educational leadership should become the expectation, not the
exception. When institutions and educators are provided adequate
resources, but continue to fail students, consequences and
interventions need to be implemented. Time is of the essence for every
child being educated. On a final note, I truly maintain that we must
address our birth to kindergarten population before any significant and
sustained improvement will be realized in our K-12 system. We continue
to react to the widening achievement gap rather than addressing the
source of the problem. Having every student kindergarten-ready, as well
as having full-day kindergarten for every child, will truly decrease
the possibility of a child being left behind.
Thank you for your time and consideration and for your efforts in
making a positive difference in the lives of our children.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
And if I turn the clock back a few years ago, we had a big
push to try to create enough resources so that all parents, who
were eligible to have their children in Head Start--to help get
ready for school--were able to do so. Did we see any
significant impact from that?
Mr. Grotting. Yes. We have data that is showing if we can
impact students, 3- and 4-year-old students, to be kindergarten
ready, the more of those students that have that availability,
we are making gains.
For every student that comes to first grade unable to read,
we are failing seven of them. Those are the kids that are
dropping out of our schools. We simply do not have--well, we
don't have enough resources. But also even with the resources
that we have, it is not making the difference that it should
make.
So a child's brain is 90 percent developed by the age of 5.
And so, all of that information up to entering school, it is
just imperative that they have the background knowledge, the
skills, and the education necessary. Otherwise, they are going
to continue to be left behind.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Ms. Cadez.
STATEMENT OF MARY CADEZ, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, SALEM-KEIZER
SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH BEND, OR
Ms. Cadez. Senator Merkley, it is an honor to be invited
here today to present our views to you and your team on the
reauthorization of ESEA. And thank you for the opportunity.
In considering the reauthorization of the ESEA, we would
offer the following from Salem-Keizer Public Schools. College-
and work-ready is our primary goal for our 40,000-plus students
in the Salem-Keizer district. We want our students prepared for
the rigor of the postsecondary college or university experience
or to have them possess the skills--academic, technology, and
relational--to enter the workforce in a living-wage job.
We know that quality teaching is at the epicenter of our
success and the means of achieving our goal with our students.
In Salem-Keizer, we do know what it takes to recruit, retain,
and support a high-quality and vibrant teaching team, and our
student results in the past 5 years demonstrate that our plan
is working.
Given that information, it is our hope that the
reauthorized ESEA will support our efforts and help us by
providing the resources for the following. Professional
development for our teams that is relevant and part of the day-
to-day school process so that the application of new strategies
and programs are embedded in the classroom where they are
needed, and there are supportive instructional coaches or peers
to help sustain those new programs and strategies.
Continuation of a mentor program to support teachers within
their first 2 years in the classroom, especially those in our
high-need schools, so that we can provide them with monthly
network seminars that help them problem solve and build a
professional cohort that they can call on when needed.
The expansion of this program to a third year would
strengthen what we are currently doing. In addition, re-
induction and intensive work with struggling teachers is also a
priority for Salem-Keizer.
Time for teachers to work in professional learning
communities so that they can problem solve and plan
interventions together for students who are not being
successful or showing the growth that they desire. We know this
works when our teachers can collaborate.
A renewed, meaningful, and relevant performance evaluation
system for teachers, administrators, and other members of our
educational team, one that is current, validated, and reliable
in providing information on performance and growth, aligned to
the goals and objectives of our district's strategic plan.
We are currently engaged in this work with the CLASS
Project with Chalkboard with funding from the Teacher
Innovation Fund grant. We are hoping to link this to a
performance-based, incentive pay system this coming year for
our teachers. One of our major concerns for us is the
sustainability of this type of work.
We also are hoping for provision of extended day programs
for our students such as our second language learners and
students from poverty who need more opportunity and time to be
successful. Saturday school and summer academy programs have
provided rich opportunities for our students who need extra
time for doing deeper training with our teachers. Last summer
alone, 400 teachers received additional training in literacy in
math and science in our summer academy programs.
Also providing increased resources for technology so that
we can stay current in our efforts to have our students become
comfortable with and successful users of technology. Common
professional standards and licensing requirements from State to
State so that teachers can be more mobile, and we can access
the staffing resources we need to be successful.
We would also encourage higher standards for supplemental
education service providers, if they are continued to be used
as part of the NCLB requirements.
As my colleague has already said, we need funding for all-
day kindergarten programs and pre-K programs so that all
children have the opportunity to be ready for school.
Currently, we have tuition-based, parent-funded all-day
kindergartens in two of our schools, and we have two other
schools, one with funding from a private donor and one with
funding from a grant. However, that often leaves out our
neediest students in the schools that do not have these options
available.
Focus on additional funding to level the playing field for
our lowest performing schools. Making these options available
through competitive grants often directs the focus of the team
to grant writing and management rather than the planning and
execution of the work.
We would like to encourage elimination of the school choice
provision. It is not used as much as it was anticipated to be
used. It is often not used for academic opportunity, but for
sports and extracurricular activity under the guise of
academics.
Elimination of or at least reduction of the high-stakes
multiple choice testing requirement. It does little to inform
instruction, consumes a lot of instructional time and a hefty
amount of our financial resources. We want to be accountable.
We would like to see this type of testing replaced with
performance-based and authentic assessment and use multiple
measures to get a more balanced picture of student growth.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cadez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Cadez
Senator Merkley, it is an honor to be invited here today to present
our views to you and your team on the reauthorization of the ESEA.
Thank you for the opportunity.
In considering the reauthorization of the ESEA we would offer the
following from Salem-Keizer Public Schools:
College and work-ready is our primary goal for our 40,000 +
students in Salem-Keizer District. We want our students prepared for
the rigor of postsecondary college or university experience or to have
them possess the skills (academic, technology, and relational) to enter
the workforce in a living wage job.
We know that quality teaching is the epicenter of our success with
our students and the means of achieving our goal with our students. In
Salem-Keizer we know what it takes to recruit, retain and support a
high quality and vibrant teaching team. Our student results in the past
5 years demonstrate that our plan is working.
It is our hope that the reauthorized ESEA will support our efforts
and help us by providing the resources for:
Professional development for our teams that is relevant
and a part of the day-to-day school process so that the application of
new strategies and programs are embedded in the classroom where they
are needed and there is the support of instructional coaches (peers) to
help sustain those new programs and strategies.
Continuation of a mentor program to support teachers
within their first 2 years in the classroom (especially those in our
high-need schools) and provide them with monthly network seminars that
help them problem solve and build a professional cohort that they can
call on when needed. The expansion of this program to a third year
would strengthen what we are currently doing. In addition re-induction
and intensive work with struggling teachers is also a priority.
Time for teachers to work in professional learning
communities so that they can problem solve and plan interventions
together for students who are not being successful or showing the
growth that we desire. We know this works when teachers can
collaborate.
A renewed meaningful and relevant performance evaluation
system for teachers, administrators and other members of our
educational team. One that is current, validated and reliable in
providing information on performance and growth aligned to the goals
and objectives of our district strategic plan. We are currently engaged
in this work with the CLASS Project with Chalkboard with funding from
the Teacher Innovation Fund Grant. We are hoping to link this to a
performance-based incentive pay system. One major concern is the
sustainability of this work.
Extended day programs for our students such as second
language learners and students from poverty who need more opportunity
and time to be successful. Saturday school and summer academy programs
provide rich opportunities for our students who need extra time and for
doing deeper training with our teachers. Last year alone 400 teachers
received additional training in our summer academy programs.
Increased resources for technology so that we can stay
current in our efforts to have our students become comfortable with and
successful users of technology.
Common professional standards and licensing requirements
from State to State so that teachers can be more mobile and we can
access the staffing resources we need to be successful.
Higher standards for Supplemental Education Service
Providers if they are to continue to be used.
Funding for all day kindergarten programs and pre-K
programs so that all children have the opportunity to be ready for
school. Currently we have tuition-based parent-funded opportunities
that often leave out our neediest students.
Focus on additional funding to level the playing field for
our lowest performing schools. Making these options available through
competitive grants often directs the focus of the team to grant writing
and management rather than the planning and execution of the ``work.''
Frequently the timeline requirements of the grants are too short and do
not allow us to produce quality products and validated long-term
results.
Elimination of the school choice provision. It is not used
as much as it was anticipated to be used and is often used not for
academic opportunity but for sports and extra curricular under the
guise of academics. It is in fact at times causing a ``resegregation''
of our schools.
Elimination of or at least reduction of the high stakes
multiple choice testing requirement. It does little to inform
instruction and consumes too much instructional time and a hefty amount
of financial resources. We want to be accountable. Replace this type of
testing with performance-based and authentic assessment along with
multiple measures that provide a more balanced picture of student
growth. The current assessment system focuses the school's energy on
math and reading often to the exclusion of other content areas that are
not tested in this format such as: writing, science, social studies,
art and foreign language, not to mention PE and Music.
Elimination of the requirement for the portion of the
title I funds that are based on levels of per pupil spending by the
State. This only reinforces the wealth-based inequalities that already
exist between districts.
A couple other measures built into the current Act do not
serve us well in communicating clear results to the public on our
schools and should be eliminated: the designation of persistently
dangerous schools (the rules are different-depending on the State and/
or the district) and thus any meaning that might be gained is lost; and
attendance is too big a factor in a school's performance report card
and there is no accountability for parents.
A closer return to the original purpose of the Act would be our
preference where the conditions of the Act respond to the neediest of
our students who need access to opportunity. Again thank you for this
opportunity to share our ideas.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And let me ask you a couple followup points there.
Ms. Cadez. Certainly.
Senator Merkley. First, you mentioned that you are putting
a lot of emphasis both into college preparation, but also into
workforce preparation. Have you been able to sustain in this
budget environment the shop classes, other classes that are
part of that workforce preparation for kids who are choosing a
different track than a college track?
Ms. Cadez. No. We have had to reduce the number of career
tech programs in the district fairly significantly. Although we
are still providing the same range of programs, it is also
causing students to have to use interdistrict transfer to move
to a different high school to access those programs.
Senator Merkley. Then I want to emphasize the point that
you made about grant writing, that the funds being shifted
from, if you will, formula grants into competitive grants means
that now the school district has to become expert grant
writers. And school districts don't have necessarily the
resources and times to be immersed in that world.
Do you think there is some amount of competitive grants
that make sense in terms of driving pilot programs and
experimentation?
Ms. Cadez. Absolutely. I think innovation and
experimentation are critical, and I think that some grant
writing is fine. But I get a little concerned when we are
moving and what I am hearing is there may be more moved to
competitive. And we get into a situation there where we are
spending an inordinate amount of time doing grant writing and
grant management.
Senator Merkley. And then you mentioned the school choice
issue, and this is part of the punitive structure of a school
being labeled unsuccessful, if you will. And do you have a
story on how that has affected a school in your school
district?
Ms. Cadez. I don't have a specific story, but I can tell
you that currently about 400 students exercise the school
choice option. And what is happening there is it is mostly for
sports or for some of the enrichment programs that they want to
access at another school. It is taking the best and brightest
students out of some of our lower performing schools.
McKay High School would be an example of that in Salem-
Keizer. And McKay High School is currently a SIG grant
recipient and undergoing a transformation, and they have had
some incredible results this year under that opportunity.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
Ms. Cadez. You are very welcome.
Senator Merkley. Next we have Rachael Harms.
STATEMENT OF RACHAEL HARMS, TEACHER, SALEM, OR
Ms. Harms. Senator Merkley, thank you for the opportunity
to share our experiences with you and your team. It is an honor
to be here today.
Each day in Salem-Keizer Public Schools' 40,000 bright
young people come through the doors, depending on us to prepare
them to enter the workforce or to be college-ready by the time
they graduate from high school. We have made tremendous growth
doing that.
We know that having an effective teacher is the most
important thing in each of our students' lives and the single
most important factor in increasing student achievement. In a
paper published by Eric Hanushek last month, he stated,
``The key element defining a school's impact on
student achievement is teacher quality. Replacing or
increasing the effectiveness of the bottom 5 to 8
percent of teachers in the United States could move the
United States near the top of international math and
science rankings. Professional development matters.''
Although 98.9 percent of our teaching staff is highly
qualified, we are striving for 100 percent. We look closely at
teacher performance and offer support to those teachers who
require additional opportunities for growth and development in
order to provide the high-quality teaching that our students
deserve.
Our Office of Staff Quality works alongside teachers who
need this additional support. Although the costs associated
with this intensive intervention for teachers can be high, the
cost of allowing marginal teaching is even higher.
We place highly qualified teachers in our high-need
schools, but every student needs and deserves the very best
teacher we can provide. We must be sure our teachers are
getting the professional development they need in order to meet
our students' needs.
We endeavor to provide high-quality, job-embedded
professional development that includes coaching and followup.
This deepens the content knowledge of each teacher, providing
them with the research-based instructional strategies to assist
students in meeting rigorous academic standards and prepares
teachers to use various types of formative assessments
appropriately.
With coaching, we know that what they are learning and
practicing is more likely to be consistently applied in the
classroom. Coaches also facilitate learning labs, professional
learning communities, and data study teams as they study and
reflect on the progress of each student.
In the past year, our district has endured over $58 million
in cuts from our general budget. We have maintained our core
value of increased student achievement as our highest priority
and have, therefore, preserved our instructional coaching
program, knowing that this is one of the best things we can do
to support teachers. We have made huge gains in the last
several years, and we don't want to jeopardize the momentum
that we have.
Without title I and title II-A funding, this valuable
program would be lost. In the words of our superintendent, Dr.
Sandy Husk, ``When times get tough, we don't take away the very
thing that helps us do our jobs better.'' Again, professional
development matters.
During the 2010-11 school year in Salem-Keizer schools,
1,413 paraprofessionals and 1,835 licensed teachers took part
in at least one professional development opportunity. But many
of these 3,248 educational professionals were involved in
multiple and ongoing training in addition to working with their
instructional coach. This powerful approach to professional
development is showing results, as evidenced by our increased
student achievement and supported by our teacher surveys and
professional development evaluation feedback forms.
We make every effort to ensure that our teachers have
equitable technology available in their classrooms and they
know how to tap the potential of each tool. Technology should
enhance student learning and make teaching easier and more
enjoyable. It is an amplifier. It makes good teachers better.
With the proper professional development, teachers can
realize the potential of the technology available to them and
maximize its effectiveness. Without the professional
development, technology is either underutilized, or fear of
failure keeps teachers from using it at all.
Educational technology--tools such as document cameras,
SMART Boards, MP3 players, Web-based instructional software--in
conjunction with sustained, ongoing job-embedded development
has proven very successful in our district. In the last 2
years, we have been the recipient of two title II-D competitive
grants and will begin a final title II-D competitive grant in
the fall. We have seen increased student achievement, better
attendance, lower discipline incidents, increased homework
completion, and a host of other indicators that show that when
these tools are placed in the hands of excellent teachers, both
teachers and students benefit more from education in the
classrooms than without these tools.
Our teacher retention rate for teachers in their first 2
years in the profession has moved from 59 percent to 89
percent. And this year, we had no losses of first- or second-
year teachers, except for those lost due to our reduction of
force.
This growth and retention of new teachers is due largely to
our mentor program, which consists of teacher induction,
ongoing supportive mentors with a minimum of 90 hours per new
teacher, observation and feedback, learning labs, a targeted
focus on professional teaching standards and professional
growth, and intentional and intensive analysis of teacher
practice and moving that practice forward. Without this
intensive support to our new teachers, we would continue to
lose half of our new hires and the investments we have made in
each of them.
Additionally, we are taking another look at how we approach
our teacher performance evaluation system and are engaged in
meaningful collaboration with the CLASS Project and our Teacher
Innovation Fund schools to link multiple measures of student
growth to a performance-based incentive pay system.
All these initiatives are proven to be effective, but
require adequate funding, which we can't support through
general dollars alone. It is my hope that as you consider the
reauthorization of ESEA, you will provide adequate and stable
funding for this important work to continue.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
You used, in your opening comments, both the term ``highly
qualified,'' which is in the current No Child Left Behind
legislation, and the notion that an effective teacher is the
biggest factor. A lot of the conversation in reauthorization is
that maybe the emphasis on qualified is not as important as an
emphasis on effective.
Many of the things you have been talking about sound to me
like they are about effectiveness, not just qualified in terms
of program completed and so forth. But do you want to elaborate
very briefly on that conversation?
Ms. Harms. Sure. I think it is very possible and has
happened where we can have a teacher who is deemed highly
qualified, but isn't necessarily effective. And by using
professional teaching standards, such as the InTASC standards,
where we can show growth along a continuum, much like we expect
of our students, through coaching, we are able to produce very
effective teachers who can say here is the target that I am
aiming toward, and here is the growth that I am making as a
teaching professional.
Senator Merkley. But it sounded to me that much of what has
gone on is trying to break down the silo in which teachers
often find themselves. Especially in those early years, you are
alone in the classroom. But now you are really emphasizing
mentoring programs and other strategies that make a teacher
less of an isolated entity? Is that the correct sense of it?
Ms. Harms. Yes. We are focusing very heavy on intentional
collaboration, not just random groups getting together. But
very focused work together as a professional learning community
to increase effectiveness as teachers.
Senator Merkley. In your elementary schools, do the
teachers talk about each student each week with each other?
Ms. Harms. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Yes, they do?
Ms. Harms. We have data study teams, and they do. They take
the responsibility of every student, not just the ones in their
classroom.
Senator Merkley. OK. Let us turn to Vanessa Otterlee, a
parent. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF VANESSA OTTERLEE, PARENT, SALEM, OR
Ms. Otterlee. Thank you for having me.
As a parent, I feel too much time and effort and financial
resources are put into multiple choice testing for NCLB. Some
of the resources used for testing should be used to provide
support to teachers and time for them to plan together.
Extended day programs at our schools benefit the neediest
students and provide them with opportunities that they might
not otherwise experience. Full-day kindergarten programs are
available through parent tuition-based programs at some of our
schools. However, the full-day kindergarten experience should
be available to all students in the district.
School choice options under NCLB don't appear to do much
for students or for schools, as some of the best and brightest
students are leaving their neighborhood school for reasons that
are not related to the academic offerings at the school and
improvement, such as sports and music programs.
The SIG grant, the School Improvement Grant, and their
turnaround efforts at our McKay High School have produced some
super student achievement results this year. However, I don't
feel it is reasonable to think that a school can be fully
transformed within 3 years. More time is needed.
I have witnessed firsthand the benefits of providing
training to the instructional assistants in the district and
having those serving in the title I schools be highly
qualified, and I believe that this has had considerable benefit
for our students. I have strong feelings that we should require
that level of training for instructional assistants in all of
our schools.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Otterlee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vanessa Otterlee
As a parent, I feel too much time and effort and financial
resources are put into multiple choice testing. Some of the resources
used for testing should be used to provide support to teachers and time
for them to plan together.
Extended day programs at our schools benefit the neediest students
and provide them with opportunities that they might not otherwise
experience. Full-day kindergarten programs are available through parent
tuition-based programs at some of our schools, however the full-day
kindergarten experience should be available to all students in the
district.
School choice options don't appear to do much for students or for
schools as some of the best and brightest students are leaving their
neighborhood school for reasons that are not related to the academic
offerings at the school such as sports and music programs.
The SIG grant and the turnaround efforts at our McKay High School
have produced some super student achievement results this year.
However, I don't feel it is reasonable to think that a school can be
fully transformed within 3 years. More time is needed.
I have witnessed firsthand the benefits of providing training to
the instructional assistants in the district and having those serving
in the title I schools be ``highly qualified'' and I believe that this
has had considerable benefit for our students.
The benefit of the funding for the district received through ESEA
is to provide opportunity for all students--even our most needy.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
When you talked about too much time on testing, have you
seen this through the lens as a parent through your children,
or as a parent involved in the school, holding conversations?
Is it the type of test, or is it the time on the tests? Do
you have anything you want to add on that?
Ms. Otterlee. I hear it mostly from my own students, but
also other parents that it seems that we are just testing them
to death. That they are taking the focus off of everything
else.
Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Otterlee. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
And next, we have Heidi Sipe, superintendent of Umatilla
School District.
Heidi, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HEIDI SIPE, Ed.S., SUPERINTENDENT, UMATILLA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, UMATILLA, OR
Ms. Sipe. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
experience with the No Child Left Behind Act.
Clara Brownell Middle School has emerged as a strong
example of the challenges of NCLB mandates. CBMS is a minority-
majority school with 91 percent of students qualifying for free
or reduced lunch. CBMS made AYP in 2007 and 2008. In 2008-9, it
was approximately four English language learners shy in the
target for language arts. Thus, the entire school did not make
AYP, despite exceeding the targets in all other subgroups for
both language arts and mathematics.
In 2009-10, CBMS made AYP and again exceeded the targets in
all subgroups. Despite this success, Clara Brownell continues
to be labeled a school in need of improvement because it has
not made AYP for two consecutive years. The failing label is
damaging to staff, students, and community morale.
Even more damaging than the label are the sanctions, such
as the requirement to offer supplemental education services, or
SES. As a district with schools in need of improvement, we must
set aside 20 percent of our title I allocation to offer SES. To
do so, we were forced to reduce two teachers from our school
system.
I believe reauthorization should eliminate SES due to the
following experiences. I will use examples based on this school
year with two of the most commonly selected SES companies.
School districts are required by NCLB to provide
instruction via highly qualified, certified teachers. SES
companies have no minimum requirements. Neither company I will
discuss requires their tutors to be certified teachers, nor
possess a college degree of any type. Both companies use school
district facilities to provide their services. We do charge $25
per day for this.
Both offer incentives to students. This year, our students
were offered iPods, Wiis, and Xboxes. Districts are not allowed
to control the materials, assessments, nor instructional
strategies of SES providers. A sampling from one company in the
month of February provides the following information.
A tutor, who is not a certified teacher, worked with a
first, third, and fourth grader together for 1 hour. A report
of student progress for the day states, ``Went over program and
split into groups, discussed what they expect of tutoring.''
Our district was required to pay $165 for that hour of service.
This provider shares monthly progress reports. The
following comments, all from tutors with no formal education
training, were reported. S.R., third grade,
``She took the math test and scored a first grade
level, but I believe she works at a third grade level.
We worked on a few basic second grade worksheets, which
she aced. So we moved on to third grade basic addition
and subtraction.''
V.B., first grade, ``We also worked on some second and
third grade vocab, word searches, crossword puzzles, and word
scrambles.''
The district was charged $55 per hour by this company for a
first grade student to complete second and third grade word
searches and crossword puzzles, neither of which have academic
value.
The next company charges $65 per hour per student. On May
3, 2011, this company provided 1.5 hours of instruction to 15
students during a 2.5-hour period of time. Students ranged in
age from kindergarten through the seventh grade. Though the
reports only show one tutor's name, we were told there would be
a ratio of five students to one tutor. So I must trust that
there were three tutors present.
For this 2.5 hours of tutoring time, the school district
was forced to pay $1,462.50, for 2.5 hours. Bill charges for
the month of May totaled $14,602.15 for 15 students. The
average cost to the district for a 2.5-hour day for the month
of May was $1,040.
This company advertises tutor pay between $16 and $30 per
hour per tutor. Assuming $30 with an additional 30 percent for
payroll costs and three tutors per day, payroll for the tutors
for the month would be $4,3087. Building use fees for the month
would be $375. That leaves this company with $10,840 for the
month for curriculum, overhead, incentives, and profit.
Situations such as this are being replicated across the
Nation. Is this a good use of our Federal funds?
Our afterschool program can provide 168 hours of
instruction to students per year with a certified instructor,
same ratio, 10 to 1. To staff this service would cost us $3,663
for the year.
At $65 per student per hour for staffing, this program
would cost us $109,200 for 10 students, not $3,600. What is the
$105,000 difference? Profits. And I apologize.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sipe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Heidi A. Sipe, Ed.S.
I transitioned from teaching to educational administration in 2002
with the charge of implementing the mandates of No Child Left Behind
throughout our school district. The Umatilla School District is a rural
district on the banks of the Columbia River in the northeastern corner
of Oregon. Umatilla schools serve the poorest student population in
Oregon with 84.62 percent of the K-12 student body qualifying for free/
reduced lunch. The majority of students in Umatilla are Hispanic and
many are English Language Learners. When the first AYP reports were
released, schools within Umatilla district boundaries produced less
than satisfactory results. Since 2002, Umatilla educators have
implemented focused, data-driven, school improvement teams to improve
instruction for students. Improvement efforts have resulted in strong
student growth at all levels as reflected on AYP reports.
While all Umatilla schools have shown marked improvement, Clara
Brownell Middle School (CBMS) has emerged as a strong example of the
strengths and challenges, of the No Child Left Behind mandates. Clara
Brownell Middle school serves 316 high poverty (91.22 percent of
students qualify for free/reduced lunch) students in sixth, seventh and
eighth grades. As one can see in the following charts, Clara Brownell
Middle School was once a school with less than acceptable student
performance, however, due to focused improvement efforts, CBMS has
become a school with strong student performance in all student
subgroups.
Historical Performance of Clara Brownell Students as Reflected on AYP Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English/Language Arts:
All Students.................... 42.37 45.43 73.55 71.75 72.31 73.13
Economically Disadvantaged...... 36.97 37.79 68.35 66.86 68.34 69.24
Limited English Proficient...... 28.55 29.64 55.02 52.29 57.14 61.58
Students with Disabilities...... 31.23 28.95 38.87 64.15 67.52 61.57
Hispanic origin................. 31.76 34.10 63.60 62.95 66.12 67.93
White........................... 60.36 63.92 91.71 90.93 89.24 89.16
Math:
All Students.................... 56.94 67.22 73.42 75.98 79.94 82.19
Economically Disadvantaged...... 51.38 60.90 68.68 71.5 76.8 79.44
Limited English Proficient...... 39.59 50.27 56.17 62.07 64.73 70.36
Students with Disabilities...... n/a n/a 41.79 57.18 64.15 64.43
Hispanic origin................. 42.79 54.54 64.12 67.33 74.81 78.34
White........................... 78.95 87.68 90.81 94.74 95.13 96.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In 2004-5, 2005-6 and 2006-7, the AYP targets were 49 percent in mathematics and 50 percent in English/
language arts. In 2007-8, 2008-9 and 2009-10, the AYP targets were 59 percent in mathematics and 60 percent in
English/language arts. Text in boldface indicates a failure to make AYP in the specified subgroup, text in
lightface indicates making AYP in the specified subgroup.
In 2004, the school began a collaborative restructuring process.
Teacher leaders and school administration worked together to identify
student needs (based on assessment data) and develop strategies to meet
student needs. Focused staff development was provided to all staff
members and monitored by instructional coaches and peer feedback was
provided during walk-through visits. In addition to specialized
coursework during the day, after-school programs and summer school
options were developed for students. School culture issues were
addressed in coordination with associated student body leaders to
encourage the school to become focused on learning and celebrations of
academic success. When this work began, involved parties were told to
be patient and stay focused as it would take at least 2 years for the
results of the work to reflect on State assessment results. In the
2006-7 school year, the school reflected in the results of the
improvement efforts when English Language Arts student performance
jumped from 42.37 percent in 2004-5 to 73.55 percent in 2006-7.
Despite increasing AYP targets, in 2007-8 and 2009-10, CBMS made
AYP and in 2008-9, the school was approximately four Limited English
Proficient students shy of meeting AYP. Despite the success of Clara
Brownell students, CBMS is classified as a school in year 4 of School
Improvement under NCLB mandates and thus, must abide by various
sanctions such as Supplemental Education Services and restructuring.
Though the district offers a strong after-school program for
students, the Umatilla School District must set aside 20 percent of its
title IA allocation to offer Supplemental Education Services to
students of poverty of schools in improvement sanctions. The chart
below compares the after-school program offered to Clara Brownell
Middle School students by the district and Advantage Point Learning's
Supplemental Education Services. It is important to note that
Supplemental Education Service providers are not required to instruct
students toward State assessments and can instead set goals based on
their own assessments which are often not aligned to the goals/
standards of the school. In one recent example during the 2010-11
school year, a 6th grade student was working on place value (ones,
tens, hundreds) in his supplemental service time despite having
mastered this skill in the first grade according to multiple school
assessments. Many Supplemental Service providers recruit students with
promises of expensive prizes. In the 2010-11 school year, various SES
providers advertised Wiis, Playstations and iPods to students when
recruiting. The services provided by Supplemental Service providers are
expensive and divert funding from classrooms toward private companies
with varied results for students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umatilla School
District After- Advantage Point
School Tutoring SES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualifications of Tutors........ Oregon State No minimum
Certified certification
Teachers. requirements
(http://
www.advantagepoin
t.org/
Page.asp?NavID=26
)
Cost to District/Hour........... $21.62 $65.00/student/
(salary+payroll hour
benefits)/hour. Advertised wage
Wage per hour/ per tutor/hour:
teacher: $16.63. Between $19 and
$30/hour (http://
www.advantagepoin
t.org/Page
.asp?NavID=26)
Cost to District/Hour for 10 $21.62............ $650.00
Students.
Total Instructional Hours Approximately 168. Approximately 22
Offered Per Student Each Year.
Staffing Cost to District Per $3,632.16 (168 $14,300 (22 hours
Year for 10 Students. hours of of instruction/
instruction/ student for small
student for small group of 10
group of 10 students by
students by tutor)
certified
teacher).
Meals........................... Full supper is Not offered.
offered to all
participating
students.
Transportation.................. Busing is provided Not offered.
for all
participating
students
(District paid).
Incentives...................... Not offered....... iPod Shuffle, iPod
Nano, iPod Touch,
Visa Gift Cards
Program Availability............ First week of Dependent upon
October through student schedule.
first week of Services end when
May, 4 days per student has
week. Offered to reached $1,431.00
all Clara (approximately 22
Brownell Middle hours of
School students. instruction/
assessment).
Services offered
to low-SES (free/
reduced lunch
qualifying)
students only.
History of Effectiveness........ The last full
program audit
found students
who attended 30
or more
demonstrated the
following
success:
A+ Advantage Point
Notes........................... In addition to All program data
payroll costs, supplied here is
curriculum representative
materials and only to services
supplies for this provided to
program are Umatilla School
approx. $2,500/ District.
year. Services/
qualifications
may vary by
location.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elements of the No Child Left Behind Act have had a profoundly
positive impact on Clara Brownell Middle School. The emphasis on
student subgroups, in lieu of overall student performance, led the
school toward greater student success by forcing the school to closely
examine and improve its professional practices for individual students.
This change has greatly benefited students of poverty and English
Language Learners. School improvement funding and Federal dollars have
been essential in professional development support. Collaborative teams
and strong professional development practices (paid professional
development time, team time to review and utilize student data,
instructional coaching and peer feedback during walk-through visits)
have led to increased student achievement.
Elements of the No Child Left Behind Act have had a profoundly
negative impact on Clara Brownell Middle School. Labeling schools as
``failing'' based on moving targets is damaging to the morale of staff,
students and community members. Though CBMS was just four students away
from 3 years of AYP success, it is labeled as failing and identified as
a school ``in need of improvement.'' In fact, with historical test
scores in the top of schools with similar demographics, Clara Brownell
Middle School is far from failing. A label does emotional harm, yet the
sanctions that come with the label require significant resources and
dilute other services to students. Of largest concern to me as a school
leader is the lack of research behind the sanctions. Supplemental
Education Services are costly, yet have unproven effectiveness. The
models required as solutions in the School Improvement Grant (SIG)
process are based on model schools--many of which also fail to make
AYP. It is difficult to maintain staff motivation and morale when the
sanctions they must work to avoid are severe and unproven.
As Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
moves forward, I urge our leaders to rely upon proven strategies to
help our students succeed. Please maintain high expectations for
student learning, transition from monitoring subgroup achievement to
monitoring individual achievement, provide strong support for sustained
professional development, offer funds for strong afterschool programs
in lieu of unproven SES services, and avoid asking schools to change
course without first giving them the time necessary for reforms to
yield results. Education reform takes time and funding, sustaining the
reforms takes reliable funding and continued momentum. Please consider
an ESEA proposal that balances the need for action with the patience
required for change to occur and the funding to allow reforms to be
fully implemented and appropriately monitored. America cannot afford to
continue to chase unresearched educational reforms.
Senator Merkley. Thank you so much for your testimony.
When you first shared this story with me when I was in
Umatilla, it was just hard to believe. I want to emphasize some
of the points you were making, to make sure I understand them.
You have companies that do direct mailings, they get your
student list. They do direct mailings to families and say,
``Hey, if you ask for us, we will give you an iPod?''
Ms. Sipe. Correct.
Senator Merkley. Or let us see, what is it, an Xbox?
Ms. Sipe. Xbox or Wii.
Senator Merkley. And I can tell you what my son would
choose.
[Laughter.]
My daughter would take the iPod. My son would take the
Xbox. But the point is these are not in the structure of
education. They are inducements to get students signed up so
they can then charge you $55 per instructional hour.
And did I understand correctly, when one tutor did one hour
with several students, that that one hour for one tutor cost
$165--
Ms. Sipe. Correct.
Senator Merkley. Because they had multiple students?
Ms. Sipe. Correct.
Senator Merkley. One hundred sixty-five dollars.
Ms. Sipe. Correct.
Senator Merkley. And that tutor was not a qualified
teacher?
Ms. Sipe. Correct. I have copies of all the billing sheets
and goals in that----
Senator Merkley. I just so appreciate getting this on the
official record because I want folks back in Washington to make
sure they hear this story. I have not heard that testimony back
in Washington, DC, and your core point is that these dollars
could go through tutors you can hire who are qualified and in a
far more effective manner and, thereby, really improve the
extra support that kids might need. You can do far better in
terms of structure than what we have right now?
Ms. Sipe. Absolutely.
Senator Merkley. Thank you so much.
Next we have Beverly Hollensteiner, superintendent of North
Bend School District.
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY JUNE HOLLENSTEINER, SUPERINTENDENT, NORTH
BEND SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH BEND, OR
Ms. Hollensteiner. Thank you for inviting me today to talk
about No Child Left Behind.
This is my 40th year in education. And when I started in
1970, there was no 94-142, which is special education. There
was no Chapter I, title I, or now as it is known as No Child
Left Behind. And there was no title IX, and there was no
Eisenhower money for technology. Education was purely locally
controlled, and each of the above programs that I mentioned
added value to what we were able to offer our students within
our schools.
I was very pleased when these programs came in. They
brought staff development to our staff. They brought lots of
extra services to our students. So Federal programs are an
integral part of what we need and should have within our public
schools.
As the years have passed, however, these programs have
become more prescriptive about the materials to be used, the
curriculum to be taught, the qualifications of the staff, and
what academic success is. We seem to be losing the balance of
responsibility between what the Federal, the State, and the
local community has for the education of children. Each has a
role, but more and more dictates are following the money from
the Federal level and diminishing the role and responsibility
of the other important partners.
As more and more schools fail under the guidelines of No
Child Left Behind, more and more people will lose faith in
their local schools. Thus, there will be less support for
students in the community. Student success depends on the
collaborative efforts of all of us. No Child Left Behind, I
don't believe, supports this.
I have chosen four talking points about No Child Left
Behind. First, AYP. It is a design for failure. For example,
one of our schools has 88 percent of the students meeting the
standard for reading, but only 20 out of the 41 special
education students met the standard. Thus, the school would be
reported as not making adequate yearly progress.
A district to the east of us will always meet AYP because
they do not have enough students, the N number, to be
statistically significant. So when this is reported in the
local paper, North Bend doesn't make it. We fail. The district
to the east of us will never fail because they don't have
enough kids, and that is a real inequity when we look at the
numbers.
Second, we are a mid-sized district with just over 600
students within our high school. So to meet the requirements of
NCLB in all respects concerning ``highly qualified'' would mean
that we would have to lay people off for one or two periods and
hire another teacher for one or two periods who has the proper
endorsement to teach a particular class.
For example, what has happened this year. We do not have
enough students who have signed up for one particular content
area, and then in another content area, we have more students
than what we have a person qualified to teach. So we have mis-
assigned a teacher to teach two periods of a content with more
students signed up, and we believe that this person will do an
excellent job.
If we wanted to fully comply with No Child Left Behind, we
would lay off a teacher for two periods, hire another teacher
with the proper endorsement for those two periods for what
could be maybe one or two trimesters out of the whole year.
This is even more true for districts as they get smaller and
smaller.
It is difficult, if not impossible to find staff who are
willing to work under these conditions. And if we mis-assign,
we must write a report and get permission from two different
entities. Plus, we have to notify parents that we don't have
highly qualified staff. It appears the district is failing to
hire proper teachers for the children.
The supplant and supplement issue comes into play when we
move programs designed to help students who are not making
adequate progress into the upper grades. We use NCLB money at
the K-4 level for increased reading instruction. As we move
programs which help children who have difficulty learning into
the grades above four, we must use district money to pay for
these programs. When we do, we can't use Federal money for the
same thing that we use district money to pay for.
So our older students are starting to lose out on the extra
help because there is neither enough district money to fund all
the grades, nor is there enough Federal money to fund all the
grades. When students do not have the same level of help as
they move through the grades, parents ask why. Again, the
district is appearing to fail to provide what the students
need.
Reporting requirements. We are required to write plans for
everything and then followup with reports for everything.
Sometimes the plans change mid-year. We are required to report
on plans written for a year before the year is up. Thus, we end
up explaining what is not working, what is working, before we
fully implement it and then explain in the report how we are
going to fix what has not been fully implemented.
It takes more than a year to determine if a plan is working
and whether students are making sustained progress. We end up
with plan after plan, report after report, and looking at
short-time fixes that may or may not be fixes for students who
are having difficulty.
I estimate for our district, of the 2,000 students we have,
that we have at least three time FTE completing reports of some
kind for No Child Left Behind. Are we failing our plans?
The goals of No Child Left Behind are the same ones we have
for our students. We all want children to succeed by reading at
high levels, by being able to use math at high levels, and by
being people who can write at high levels. More of our students
are meeting benchmark, yet we are reported as needing
improvement, as if no progress has been made.
We have great teachers, yet not all are highly qualified
under No Child Left Behind. We implement plans, but must report
on the plans before they are finished and figure out then how
we can manage to serve all of the kids equally without
supplanting or supplementing incorrectly.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hollensteiner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beverly Jeanne Hollensteiner
ayp accountability
The system is set for the majority of districts/schools
(i.e. those with enough students for a statistical cell size) to
eventually fail.
100 percent of all students meeting proficiency benchmarks
is unrealistic for various reasons--high mobility rates; effects of
economy on family stability; special needs that can't be overcome by
better instruction.
Proficiency level is a moving target--even if a district,
school, or even student makes progress, it will never be enough because
the expectation keeps increasing.
Even with the implementation of growth targets, students
with the most significant gaps have to make the largest gains to meet
the targets. For students with a true cognitive disability this is
unreasonable.
Schools can raise achievement levels for all students, and
be rated poorly because of a single subgroup.
One of the district schools had 88 percent (188/213)
of all students meet grade level benchmarks in reading, but
will be reported to the public as not meeting AYP because only
49 percent (20/41) of the students with disabilities subgroup
met the reading benchmark. The building has implemented
intensive interventions for struggling students to help ensure
that only those students truly needing special education are
identified.
Schools with smaller student populations, and
consequently a smaller subgroup size can have fewer students
meet and still meet AYP.
paperwork accountability
NCLB requires an excessive number of compliance reports,
collections of evidence, and plans many of which are duplicated
information, but frequently with their own template which generally
changes from year to year and sometimes mid-year. Some examples are:
District improvement plans, school improvement plans, district
professional development plans, notebooks of evidence collection for
each of the Federal grant programs, plans and end of year reports for
Federal grant programs. Even in small districts coordinating this
process can be a full-time job.
In addition to the standard reports, there are improvement
reports that have to be submitted yearly when a district or school is
out of compliance with any of the requirements (highly qualified
teachers, AYP, AMAOs, etc.)
Improvement plans are required yearly and districts
are required to explain what is wrong and what they are going
to do to fix it. Sustainability can't be built on yearly plans
and program changes take longer than a year to implement and
evaluate.
financial restrictions
Supplement/Supplant
There is no flexibility for districts to provide
comparable (or even at a minimal level) staffing, professional
development opportunities, programs, and technological support to non-
title schools as schools having title I-A funds for that purpose.
There isn't enough Federal money coming into the district
to fund all schools so it becomes necessary to choose which grade
levels should have additional services and to identify the services
with the most impact. For most districts this means funding needs to
target elementary schools. By the same token there aren't enough
district/State funds to provide all the supports necessary at all
levels. Because of the supplement/supplant restriction, students
leaving the lower grades who may not be candidates for special
education, but would continue to benefit from extra support may not get
what they need to continue growing.
Initiatives that benefit all students such as RTI and its
screening, intervention strategies, and progress monitoring components
are difficult to sustain at the upper grades without being able to
support them with district funds. These types of programs are integral
to the title schools. If Federal funds can't continue to be used in
title buildings when these programs are moved to non-title buildings,
they could become watered down or disappear altogether.
Spending Timelines/Permission
It is assumed if money isn't expended by a certain date,
it isn't needed. Districts who try to look at long range planning and
create sustainable programs may have difficulty allocating money for a
specific purpose when there is a possibility that there won't be enough
to continue the program for the following year. It is assumed that if
the money isn't spent by end of a certain date the district doesn't
need it. As a consequence, districts are forced into short term, year-
to-year planning.
Districts are being required to be very specific about how
money will be spent. A few years ago, a budget narrative could request
a certain amount of money for professional development that addressed
an area of need based on individual school improvement plans. This
year, not only did the area of PD have to be defined, but the school
was expected to know exactly what that would be. Schools don't
necessarily know in September what will be available later in the
school year.
All spending has to be justified and approved. Districts
are not allowed to determine their individual needs if the needs fall
outside of Federal and/or State approved programs.
Budget narratives are written based on district/school
needs identified in plans. If anything changes in the prospective plan,
it is necessary to get permission to change the narrative. This can be
frustrating and time consuming when busy people don't get emails
answered and phone calls returned in a timely manner.
highly qualified
This has been difficult to implement, especially in
smaller schools and school districts. For example, if a teacher is
``misassigned'' to teach one class for which they are not formally
endorsed/certified but the district believes the teacher does have the
background to teach the class successfully, it must be reported to the
State licensing bureau (TSPC) and to Oregon Department of Education. If
the district and/or a building is in ``In Improvement'' status, meaning
they did not meet the achievement levels required by NCLB, the district
must write a professional development plan for the district and reduce
the title I funds going to K-4 grades to increase reading skills and
use that money to provide district-wide staff development in the area
of deficiency (math in our case) as identified by the State testing.
In small high schools, especially those under 700
students, we find ourselves with one or two periods of a particular
subject area for which we do not have a ``highly qualified'' teacher.
To address this issue, we have these choices: we can misassign someone
within our staff who we believe has the skills to teach the class, try
to hire a teacher to come in and teach one to two periods a day and
``layoff '' current staff for one or two periods, or drop the classes.
We choose to misassign as we want students to be able to take the
classes.
Another issue is that Oregon's licensure categories do not
match those found in NCLB, as I am sure is the case in other States.
For example, Oregon has a ``multiple subject area endorsement'' which
allows teachers to teach an array of subjects at certain grade levels,
if social studies, for example, is not listed, then the teacher with
``multiple subject areas,'' cannot teach social studies unless they
take a test.
The paperwork load in the personnel office continues to
escalate as we must check the rules for NCLB and the State licensing,
try to satisfy the requirements of both while also trying to work out
school schedules that work for students and staff, and do the paperwork
necessary to be in compliance.
instructional assistants
The ``sight and sound'' (Oregon wording) and ``under
direct supervision'' (Federal wording) for the use of instructional
assistants has also become an issue. Instructional assistants are
critical to assist children who have reading difficulties in learning
to read through practice of reading and/or review of skills taught by
the teacher. As it is now, IA's must be within the ``sight and sound''
of a teacher who is also working with a small group of students, thus
two groups or sometimes even three groups of students end up being in
close proximity to each other which makes for a very noisy learning
environment. The lessons prepared by the teachers for the instructional
assistants to use as additional practice for students could be better
implemented if they could use space further away from the teacher.
curriculum and materials
Curriculum is another area of concern. Right now,
identifying the ``standards'', the ``essential learning skills'' and
the myriad of other identifiers for what students need to know and
understand are being revised by individual States, by organizations
that represent content (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
for example) and by Federal Government. As high stakes testing becomes
more and more of a reality, we need to have a well-defined curriculum
with materials that support the curriculum so students can be assured
they are learning what is necessary to do well on the tests. Since our
populations of students is becoming more and more mobile it is
essential that as students move they are assured they are being taught
a ``core'' curriculum.
As money has declined for school districts so too has the
ability to buy new materials and textbooks so many of us are using
materials adopted more than 7 years ago and staff is having to spend
time searching out materials that support what they are to teach and
students are to learn.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am going to have you pause on
that note.
How many categories under AYP do you analyze?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Categories?
Senator Merkley. One is whether you meet it in special
education. Then you have various categories of ethnic groups,
etc. How many different ways is the data sliced?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Oh, I can't go through all of those, but
we look at all of those different areas. And looking at all of
those areas, you can fail in any one of them. I can't tell you
what they all are right now.
Senator Merkley. The number is 9 or 10 or something like
that, right?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Yes, it is a high number.
Senator Merkley. And is North Bend meeting AYP in
everything, but the special education category?
Ms. Hollensteiner. In the particular school I am talking
about, yes, except for the special education. We don't have a
very high number of students with different language learning
issues and those kinds of things. We have a very low number.
Senator Merkley. And 88 percent is a pretty good overall
rate for that particular school.
Ms. Hollensteiner. Yes, 88 percent.
Senator Merkley. But nonetheless, the whole entire school
is labeled as a failure, if you will?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Right.
Senator Merkley. And this is a story we have certainly
heard throughout the State. And it is a big deal.
Do you find that if the punitive structure of No Child Left
Behind was taken away, does the data itself and slicing it in
many different directions prove helpful to understanding the
progress of the school and the service to different subgroups?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Yes, I think it does. And I think that
is one of the things that I liked about some of the Federal
programs coming in because it did look at equalizing education
for all students.
So, yes, I don't mind the slicing of it. It is just that
one small category can bring down the whole school. It appears
to the community as if we are failing again.
Senator Merkley. OK. Do you have the same observations as
Superintendent Sipe, who noted the kind of dollars misspent, or
not in the most effective strategy, for the tutoring process.
Do you have similar sorts of experience?
Ms. Hollensteiner. We haven't reached that point yet.
Senator Merkley. OK.
Ms. Hollensteiner. And I say yet.
Senator Merkley. All right. Because you have to hit that
third year, and then you are in that?
Ms. Hollensteiner. Right.
Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you for your feedback on the
reporting requirements.
We are now going to turn to Eduardo Angulo, who is with the
Coalition for Equality. Great to have you.
STATEMENT OF EDUARDO ANGULO, CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SALEM/KEIZER COALITION FOR EQUITY, SALEM, OR
Mr. Angulo. Thank you, Senator.
For 12 years, we have been working, helping parents gain
the confidence and power they need to take control of their
children's education by becoming active partners with their
local schools. I work with mostly Latino farm workers, parents
in Oregon.
Very few of these parents are fully proficient in English.
Even fewer believe that their children are not capable of
learning English and excelling academically. They have high
expectations for their children. Unfortunately, this has not
yet resulted in high achievement. I am here to represent, as
best as I can, the point of view of these parents.
I am going to give you some background. In the 1997-98
school year, about 1 in 12, or 8.1 students in Oregon was
Latino or Hispanic. Today, more than 1 in 5 students, or 20.5
percent are Latinos. In 2009, the number of students that
needed English as second language instruction was 65,398, up
from 13,425 in 1997-98.
The data makes it clear that the present and future of
Oregon in schools will include a large portion of Latinos and
English language learner students. Unfortunately, the State's
public schools have room to improve in educating its Latino and
English language learners population.
Currently, over half--yes, over half--52 percent and 51
percent, respectively, of Latinos and ELL students graduate in
4 years. The policy choices we make today will affect thousands
of students and shape the opportunities available for them as
adults and the economic forecast for Oregon.
Our recommendations for the reauthorization include high
academic standards for all students, appropriate assessments to
measure a student's achievement and progress, accountability
for results. We support a fair system of accountability for all
school districts and schools, accountability for all subgroups.
It is important to keep the current law focused on all the
students. This means keeping the law's requirement holding the
schools accountable for students based on income, race,
ethnicity, disability, and English proficiency status. And of
course, what is important to us is strong parental involvement.
Everyone understands that parents are the consumers and the
main stakeholders of our Pre-K-12 public education system in
America. They are the ones who monitor the academic progress of
their children and make important decisions about their
children's education.
Unfortunately, when we look at parents from low-income and
minority communities, they have not had the power to shape
public education reform the way more affluent parents can.
Title V includes the local family information centers. It was
just defunded. This is a program that has helped build the
capacity in parental, meaningful parental, involvement
throughout Oregon and throughout the Nation.
Few can argue that the current version of No Child Left
Behind or the ESEA has worked perfectly. However, the Salem/
Keizer Coalition for Equality is prepared to make the case that
it has made a positive difference for the parents we serve in
the Willamette Valley and throughout Oregon.
No Child Left Behind has provided parents with tools to
help transform the local schools. These tools are sunshine,
transparency, and accountability for results.
Sunshine, lighting on low achievement scores, finally
showing everyone that our kids are not being well served by the
public schools. Transparency, letting us know who is teaching
our children and whether or not they are doing a good job. And
accountability, so that schools that are not doing well have to
improve.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Angulo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eduardo Angulo
Good morning. My name is Eduardo Angulo. I am the Chairman of the
Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality. The Coalition is an affiliate
organization of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and it engages
in several activities on behalf of the residents of the Willamette
Valley in Oregon. We have identified education as one of our major
priorities, and have been in the business of helping parents gain the
confidence and power they need to take control of their children's
education by becoming active partners with their local schools.
I work with mostly farmworking parents in Oregon. Very few of these
parents are fully proficient in English. Even fewer--I would say none--
believe that their children are not capable of learning English and
excelling academically. They have high expectations for their children.
Unfortunately, this has not yet resulted in high achievement.
I am here to represent--as best as I can--the point of view of
these parents. In my testimony today, I will discuss how strengthening
accountability and parental involvement in the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will help these parents
and their children.
background
I would like to first provide some background on Hispanic and
English Language Learners (ELL) students in Oregon and why getting
policies right for these children is important for the Oregon public
school system and its economic future overall. In the 1997-98 school
year, about 1 in 12 (8.1 percent) students in Oregon was Hispanic.
Today, more than one in five students (20.5 percent) is Hispanic. In
the 1997-98 school year, the estimated number of students for whom
English was not the primary language and who needed English Language
Development (ELD) services was 13,425. In 2009-10, that number was
65,398. The number of students identified as needing ELD services has
increased 32 percent per year. The data make it clear that the present
and future of Oregon schools will include a large proportion of Latino
and ELL students.
Unfortunately, the State's public schools have room to improve in
educating its Hispanic and ELL populations. Currently, just over half
(52.6 percent and 51.4 percent, respectively) of Latino and ELL
students graduate in 4 years. The policy choices we make today will
affect thousands of students, and shape the opportunities available to
them as adults.
recommendations for reauthorizing esea
The right mix of policies can make a difference for these students.
From the perspective of the Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality, the
reauthorization of ESEA must contain a focus on standards-based reform,
which includes:
High academic standards for all students. We believe that
every child can learn and achieve at a high level. However, we must
challenge all students to meet high standards and provide them and the
schools they attend with the resources to do so. We would oppose having
separate, lower standards for Hispanic or ELL students. Instead, we
would support targeting resources to schools that need them most to
help students meet standards.
Appropriate assessments to measure student achievement and
progress. Policymakers, educators, parents, and students should know if
students are meeting standards or making progress toward high
standards. This means that tests must be aligned to the standards and
should provide information to stakeholders about student performance.
For ELLs, it also means tests must be accessible, and in some cases,
should be in the language of instructions provided to students.
Accountability for results. ESEA reauthorization must
include a fair way to hold schools accountable for helping students
meet standards and make progress. At the Salem/Keizer Coalition for
Equality, we fear that without such a system, ESEA will return to the
days in which States and districts will only have to report how they
used funds, not whether or not taxpayer dollars actually produced
results for students. We support a fair system of accountability for
all districts and schools.
Accountability for all subgroups. We also believe it is
important to keep the current ESEA law's focus on all students. This
means keeping the law's requirement holding schools accountable for
students based on income, race/ethnicity, disability, and English
proficiency status.
Strong parental involvement. Everyone understands that
parents are the consumers and main stakeholders of our Pre-K-12 public
education system in America. They are the ones who monitor the academic
progress of their children and make important decisions about their
children's education. The parents I work with share this responsibility
with parents from more affluent communities throughout this country.
Unfortunately, when we look at parents from low-income and minority
communities, they have not had the power to shape public education
reform the way more affluent parents can. Title V of ESEA includes the
Local Family Information Centers (LFICs) program, which would provide
resources to community groups to prepare parents for their
responsibilities under ESEA to hold schools accountable at the local
level. However, the LFICs program was never funded. LFICs must be
maintained in reauthorization and adequately funded.
conclusion
Few can argue that the current version of ESEA has worked
perfectly. However, the Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality is prepared
to make the case that it has made a positive difference for the parents
we serve in the Willamette Valley. No Child Left Behind has provided
parents with tools to help transform their local schools. These tools
are sunshine, transparency, and accountability for results. Sunshine
lighting on low achievement scores, finally showing everyone that our
kids are not being well-served by the public schools; transparency
letting us know who is teaching our children and whether or not they
are doing a good job; and accountability so that schools that are not
doing well have to improve.
From the parents' perspective, things are finally changing for our
children. NCLB has allowed parents to hold our public schools
accountable and it has allowed us to be in the room to be part of the
solution to closing the achievement gap. Now, our parents can
confidently walk to their local public schools, knock on the door, and
be invited to be part of the decisionmaking process. This has always
happened in more affluent communities. Now it is starting to happen in
a small farmworking community in the middle of the Willamette Valley in
Oregon. ESEA reauthorization must build on this momentum for public
education reform.
Senator Merkley. So tell me this, as you talk about the
accountability, and No Child Left Behind has a series of
measures after 3 years of nonperformance that start kicking in,
do you think generally those strategies are on target, or are
they counterproductive? In other words, when one component of
what you are talking about is the visibility of results, the
transparency, but another is what you do with those results,
and how do you feel about the current set of measures written
into NCLB?
Mr. Angulo. We have over 8 million English language
learners throughout our Nation. Fifty-two percent graduation
rate for these kids throughout the Nation. I mean, the answer
is we are just basically starting to figure out how to help
these kids.
I was part of the Race to the Top design team in Oregon,
and the brightest minds were around the table. For months, we
worked on this grant development, and we came out almost last
because the reality is that our public education leadership is
just barely getting to understand clearly how to better help
these kids and put their resources in helping these kids.
For us, we are involving parents because we believe that
building the capacity in the parents, they can develop the
collaborations that are needed with the teachers and with the
superintendents and with the principals in order to better
help. I mean, the English language learners in Oregon are our
Latino students. We are disheartened by what is happening with
our public education system, where we are to how they are
serving our English language learners.
We need to have them to be at the center, along with the
African-American kids, along with all the kids--the Asian
kids--that are doing really badly as English language learners.
They have to be at the center of education reform in Oregon and
throughout our Nation.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Tony Hopson, executive director of Self-Enhancement, Inc.
STATEMENT OF TONY HOPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SELF-ENHANCEMENT,
INC., PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Hopson. Senator, thanks for the opportunity. It is good
to see you again, and I look forward to seeing you soon in
Washington, DC.
Senator, the facts are compelling. Every 26 seconds,
another student drops out of school. We know that a third of
our students drop out each year, a third graduate unprepared
for college, and another third graduate prepared for college.
We also recognize that the poor children and children of
color disproportionately represent the third that is dropping
out, which contributes to the disparities in the criminal
justice system, economic development, healthcare, and
ultimately mortality.
The Nation seems to be paralyzed on what to do. So we spend
billions of dollars annually to study, research, and theorize
about what works. We talk about having great teachers and
leaders in every school. We shout about equity and opportunity
for all students. We insist that raising the bar and rewarding
excellence will make the difference, and then we look for
innovation and continuous improvement as the solution.
My frontline experience suggests to me that all of these
are necessary, depending on what outcome you want and how soon
you expect to achieve it. But nothing has occurred in the last
few decades that lead us to believe that moving the needle on
any of the above strategies comes soon enough. During my talk
thus far, we lost another five students.
So what should we change within the ESEA? We should change
the relationship between the school and the community. We need
a paradigm shift in public education that recognizes the
urgency and need for the public-private partnership that
educates the whole child and supports the whole family. We must
recognize that in order for public education systems to be
successful, they must include family, community, and school
life.
In addition, how often can we actually point to someone who
takes full responsibility for the success or failure of a
student? Is it the parent, the teacher, the principal, the
coach? Who is it?
Most often, you will find many of these individuals
pointing fingers at each other. So ESEA must put a provision
into law with accompanying resources that strongly encourages
low-performing schools to partner with proven community-based
organizations in a full partnership that provides a safety net
that all kids need, but many fail to get.
Believe me when I tell you that those of us on the front
line see and feel the pain. And Senator, you would not like the
feel of the pain.
The answer does not need to be studied anymore. This, in
simple terms, is about the safety net options and opportunities
that kids either have or don't have. All kids stumble and all
kids fall. The question is what support system are there to
help that kid get up?
Either you have a support system in place or you don't. I
contend that most low-achieving school students don't have this
in place and, therefore, never get up. The key is to put that
in place for every kid and then be accountable for the success
or failure of that kid.
Let me give you an example. It was highlighted in the movie
``Waiting for Superman,'' and in a conversation I had with
Secretary Arne Duncan, he used this point as well, that 50
percent of the dropouts in America are coming from basically
2,000 low-
performing high schools across the Nation. I believe that we
should focus on not only those who dropped out of those
schools, but also those who did not.
We should identify the reason why 50 percent of these kids
actually made it in a low-performing school. I guarantee you it
was because of a safety net--a strong parent, grandparent,
teacher, coach, or a community that would not let that kid
fail.
In my opinion, the best way to achieve this is through what
we call an MSO, or multiservice organizations. The most notable
of these today would be the Harlem Children's Zone. It is not a
silver bullet, but it is a successful model, working with
children and families that also partners with schools to get
the desired outcome.
The innovation in Portland Public Schools is called Self-
Enhancement, Inc. Like Harlem Children's Zone, Self-
Enhancement, Inc., is a multiservice organization able to serve
kids and families and bring an authenticity to the school-
community partnership for lasting results.
Self-Enhancement, Inc., as a community-based program,
partners with the local school district, individual schools,
teachers, and the teachers union to provide the complete safety
net for every kid that enrolls in the program. It is a program
that works 24-7, 365 days a year, a program that takes full
responsibility for the success or failure of each kid.
It is a 30-year-old program that touches over 3,000 kids
per year, graduates 98 percent of the students enrolled in the
program, and sends 85 percent to college. It is a program that
produces positive, contributing citizens. Meaning that every
kid in the program that graduates from high school will
complete a minimum of 2 years of college, vocational training,
or work in a family-wage job.
We have proven that if we can provide each child with
discipline, direction, support, and unconditional love--and
combine this with what most schools provide every day--this
will equal a positive, contributing citizen.
So, in conclusion, I first believe we must mandate that
low-achieving schools partner with proven community-based
organizations that represent the school's community in order to
provide a complete safety net of family, community, and school
life.
Second, we must look at identifying and scaling up
authentic community-based organizations and multiservice
organizations, like Self-Enhancement, Inc., that have proven
track records in school communities in need, but that they also
have the ability to partner with districts, schools, teachers,
and unions to better provide the discipline, direction,
support, and unconditional love necessary for maximum success.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hopson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Hopson
I would like to focus my comments today on two areas: First, based
on my experience, what would be the single most important change that
Congress could make as a part of the reauthorization, and second, what
innovative programs or strategies developed locally that could scale up
and be integrated into ESEA and benefit students across the country.
The facts are compelling. Every 26 seconds, another student drops out
of school. We know that a third of our students drop out each year, a
third graduate unprepared for college, and another third graduate
prepared for college. We also recognize that poor children and children
of color disproportionately represent the third that's dropping out,
which contributes to the disparities in the criminal justice system,
economic development, health care, and ultimately mortality.
The Nation seems to be paralyzed on what to do. So we spend
billions of dollars annually to study, research, and theorize about
what works. We talk about having great teachers and leaders in every
school. We shout about equity and opportunity for all students. We
insist that ``raising the bar'' and ``rewarding excellence'' will make
a difference, and then we look for innovation and continuous
improvement as the solution.
My frontline experience suggests to me that all of these are
necessary depending on what outcome you want, and how soon you expect
to achieve it. But nothing has occurred in the last few decades that
lead us to believe that moving the needle on any of the above
strategies comes soon enough. During my talk thus far, we lost another
five students. So what should we change within ESEA? We should change
the relationship between the school and the community. We need a
paradigm shift in public education that recognizes the urgency and need
for the public/private partnership that educates the whole child and
supports the whole family. We must recognize that in order for public
education systems to be successful, they must include family,
community, and school life. In addition, how often can we actually
point to someone who takes full responsibility for the success or
failure of a student? Is it the parent, the teacher, the principal, the
coach? Who is it? Most often, you'll find all of these individuals
pointing fingers at each other. So ESEA must put a provision into the
law, with accompanying resources, that strongly encourage low
performing schools to partner with proven community-based organizations
in a full partnership that provides the safety net that all kids need,
but many fail to get. Believe me when I tell you that those of us on
the front lines see, feel, smell, and taste the pain. And Senators, you
would not like the way it taste.
The answer does not need to be studied anymore. This, in simple
terms, is about the safety net, options, and opportunities that kids
either have or don't have. All kids stumble, and all kids fall. The
question is, what support systems are there to help that kid get up?
Either you have a support system in place, or you don't. I contend that
most low achieving school students don't have this in place, and
therefore, never get up. The key is to put that in place for every kid,
and then be accountable for the success or failure of that kid. Let me
give you an example: It was highlighted in the movie ``Waiting for
Superman'', and Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan uses the point as
well that 50 percent of the drop outs in America are coming from
basically 2,000 low-performing high schools. I believe that we should
focus on not only those who dropped out of those schools, but also
those who did not. We should identify the reason why 50 percent of
these kids actually made it in a low-performing school. I guarantee you
it was because a safety net--a strong parent, grandparent, teacher,
coach or a community that would not let that kid fail. In my opinion,
the best way to achieve this is through a MSO, or multi-service
organization. The most notable of these today would be Harlem
Children's Zone. It's not a silver bullet, but it's a successful model
working with children and families that also partners with schools to
get the desired outcome.
The innovation in Portland Public Schools is called Self
Enhancement, Inc. Like Harlem Children's Zone, Self Enhancement, Inc.
is a multi-service organization able to serve kids and families and
bring an authenticity to a school/community partnership for lasting
results. Self Enhancement, Inc. as a community-based program partners
with the local school district, individual schools, teachers, and the
teacher's union to provide the complete safety net for every kid that
enrolls in the program. It's a program that works 24/7, 365 days a
year; a program that takes full responsibility for the success or
failure of each kid. It's a 30 year-old program that touches over 3,000
kids per year, graduates 98 percent of the students enrolled in the
program, and sends 85 percent to college. It's a program that produces
``Positive Contributing Citizens''--meaning that every kid in the
program who graduates from high school will complete a minimum of 2
years of college, vocational training, or work at a family wage job. We
have proven that if we can provide each child with discipline,
direction, support, and unconditional love, and combine this with what
most schools provide every day; this will equal a Positive Contributing
Citizen.
So, in concluding, I first believe we must mandate that low
achieving schools partner with proven community-based organizations
that represent the school's community in order to provide the complete
safety net of family, community, and school life. Secondly, we must
look at identifying and scaling up authentic community-based
organizations and multi-service organizations like Self Enhancement,
Inc. that have a track record in the school communities in need, but
also have the ability to partner with districts, schools, teachers, and
union to better provide the discipline, direction, support and
unconditional love necessary for maximum success.
You all have an awesome job to do. Somehow, I believe that your
answers lie deeply rooted in individuals who claim the streets and
communities which these kids come from. We need a mechanism that allows
them to speak, participate, and support those they serve daily.
Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Tony.
And I must say, Self-Enhancement, Inc., is an incredible
institution, and under your leadership has done amazing things.
The model that you talk about in terms of partnership, I
can imagine, if I am a parent with children in a nearby school,
I can take comfort in that partnership. But there isn't a Self-
Enhancement, Inc., in every community or every district. And
that is where you talked at the end about scaling up.
But let us say in the absence of where there is that type
of organization, are there other things we can do to keep
children from getting lost in the system? I am calling it
``getting lost.'' You referred to it as ``support system, 365-
day support system.''
Mr. Hopson. Yes, Senator. There are a number of programs
throughout this State and across the Nation who attempt to do
this.
The question is, how serious are you about it? A lot of
folks pretend to do this work. In our world, we put our last
name on every kid. A lot of folks pretend to provide support
services for kids, but they are not following that kid home and
are not prepared to deal with any of the issues that are going
on at that home site.
Unless you are prepared to go that far, we cannot rectify
this issue. We have got educators in this room that are doing
great work every single day. But they can't go home and deal
with this dysfunctional family situation and the fact that
Johnny showed up hungry and got younger brothers and sisters
that are hungry, too. But yet we are trying to educate them and
teach them math.
Those issues are not going to be dealt with in the school
setting. We need programs like ours who do that business and do
it well, and every school needs to identify an entity that can
help them do that.
I think it is unfair that we charge our schools with the
totality of educating the kid as if they are supposed to be
teachers and social service workers at the same time. So I
believe that in many circumstances this service that I am
talking about is not available, and that is why you see the
dropout rate as high as we see it today.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank the entire panel for your insights and
for your work in so many dimensions of the challenge of
bringing education to our communities and to our children.
We are going to shift gears now in our second hour to the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics side of the
equation.
And Dr. Koch is going to kick us off.
STATEMENT OF ROY KOCH, Ph.D., PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY, PORTLAND, OR
Dr. Koch. Thank you, Senator.
It is a pleasure to provide comments on behalf of Portland
State and President Wim Wiewel, especially related to some
approaches that we believe are effective in addressing the
challenges of improving student success in K-12, and in
particular STEM education. So maybe I can serve as a sort of
transition between those things.
We all recognize the important role that education plays in
the success of both individuals and society. My remarks today
will focus on how universities, working with school districts
and many other business, civic, and social service
organizations, can contribute to greater student success in K-
12 and better preparation for and, therefore, greater success
in higher education. And I will focus, in particular, on some
comments on the STEM education.
As universities, we can and many do, including Portland
State, contribute to improvement of student success in the Pre-
K-12 system in several important ways. Obviously, we are
responsible for the preparation of teachers, a very important
component.
But we also lead and participate in research that addresses
improved educational practices in student success, and in most
cases, we do this working collaboratively with the community as
well. And we have various programs that work directly with the
school systems.
Rather than address specific programs, today I would like
to focus on two key approaches that we believe will lead to
increased student success and illustrate them by highlighting
some of the work that we have been involved in lately. And you
heard this theme from several of our previous speakers.
We believe that effective programs to addressing student
success in the entire educational continuum have two important
characteristics. One is that they are collaborative, and the
second is that they have an ongoing evaluation and assessment
process.
For this work to be effective and to address the most
important problems, it is essential that the university work
with school districts for sure. But it also requires us to have
a more holistic approach, engaging the entire community in
identifying the important issues that need to be addressed and
in promoting student success.
This approach recognizes the success of the student--it
recognizes that the success of the student depends on what
happens in the classroom, as well as the environment that
exists in the home and in the community. It also recognizes
that there are many organizations that can make contributions
to improving student success and that a coordinated effort is
much more effective.
The ESEA should promote this collaborative approach to
identifying and solving problems related to improving student
success.
With regard to evaluation and assessment, it is not
sufficient to undertake programs aimed at improving student
success. It is necessary to continuously and rigorously
evaluate those programs in light of the educational and related
outcomes that we expect.
Here are a couple of examples where we at Portland State
and our community partners are approaching this issue of Pre-K-
20 student success in this way. The first relates to our
Cradle-to-Career Project. And when I say ``our,'' I mean the
entire community's Cradle-to-Career Project.
In Portland and Multnomah County, we are implementing the
STRIVE model as one of the several demonstration sites around
the country. This is a real example of collective commitment to
the idea that academic success depends on attention throughout
the development of the student and occurs both inside the
classroom and within the community.
It is a real collaboration between government, school
districts, nonprofits, and our university. And the Cradle-to-
Career organization has taken on the role of coordinating
efforts, convening various community partners and school
districts around the issue, and reporting on progress through
the report card, a project that has now begun and will be
issued on an annual basis.
A second project relates specifically to STEM education. A
major challenge over the last decade that has been attracting
the best and brightest students into STEM fields, both as
practicing engineers and scientists, but also as teachers in
the STEM disciplines. A particular aspect of this issue is that
our current STEM majors do not reflect the diversity that
exists in our society, and with our changing demographic, this
presents an even greater challenge to meeting the needs for a
trained professional workforce in the future.
At Portland State, we have a number of programs to promote
and support participation in STEM disciplines. However, these
programs only work if there is an adequate number of properly
prepared and motivated students coming out of the K-12 system,
and that is not currently the case.
So our most ambitious project to date is to develop what
are called STEM education centers. These are a broad-based
collaborative effort involving most of the Portland
metropolitan region school districts, Portland State
University, the Oregon Health and Science University, other
higher education institutions, and a number of our corporate
partners, including Intel, who have been very supportive of
this work.
In undertaking this approach, we are asserting again that
the most effective way to improve student achievement in STEM,
as well as in other areas, is to engage a broad-based set of
stakeholders in a collective impact partnership to transform
the teaching and learning in the whole school.
We believe that these approaches that we are taking in both
cases will lead to systemic and lasting change and improvements
in student success and that the ESEA really must support this
kind of activity through supporting continuing improvement in
the teacher education and the role of the universities and
working with school districts and other community partners on
these important issues.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Koch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy Koch, Ph.D.
Senator Merkley, and members of the HELP Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to submit this testimony. For the record, my name is
Roy Koch, provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at Portland
State University. It is my pleasure to provide some comments and
suggestions on behalf of Portland State University and President Wim
Wiewel regarding some significant challenges we see related to student
success in the Pre-K-20 educational continuum, with a particular focus
on K-12 and STEM education, and some of our activities, as an
institution of higher education, in working with our community partners
to address those challenges.
We all recognize the important role that education plays in the
success of both individuals and the society in which we live. Our
continuing progress as a democracy and our economic prosperity depend
on a well-educated citizenry. Unfortunately, the United State has
fallen behind many other countries in our educational attainment and we
must increase both our efforts and our success in this area if we are
to remain in a position of global leadership. Universities like
Portland State can and do play a key role in this effort. My remarks
today will focus on how Universities, working with community partners
including school districts and many other business, civic and social
service organizations, can contribute to greater student success in the
K-12 system and better preparation for and therefore greater success in
higher education.
As Universities, we can (and many, including Portland State, do)
contribute to the improvement of student success in the Pre-K-12 system
in several important ways including:
The preparation and continuing support of teachers.
Leading and participating in research to improve
educational practices and student success both in the classroom and the
community--in most cases working collaboratively with community
partners, and
Various service programs that directly impact K-12
students either through programs we support as a part of our
educational mission through such programs as our senior capstone.
Portland State is deeply involved in all of these activities and we
have integrated them into an institutional initiative we call SUCCESS--
Schools, University and Community Committed to Educational Success for
all Students.
Today, I would like to focus on two key approaches that we believe
will lead to increased student success and illustrate them by
highlighting our work at Portland State. Some of these activities are
well underway and others are still in the developmental stage.
We believe that effective approaches to addressing student success
in the entire educational continuum have two important characteristics:
They are collaborative. For this work to be effective and
to address the most important problems, it is essential that the
University work with the schools districts. But it also requires a more
holistic approach--engaging the entire community in identifying the
important issues that need to be addressed in promoting student
success. This approach recognizes that the success of the student
depends both on what happens in the classroom as well as the
environment that exists in the home and the community. It also
recognizes that there are many organizations that can make
contributions to improving student success and that a coordinated
effort will be much more effective. The ESEA should promote this
collaborative approach to identifying and solving problems related to
improving student success.
There is an ongoing evaluation and assessment process. It
is not sufficient to undertake programs aimed at improving student
success, it is necessary to continuously and rigorously evaluate those
programs in light of the educational and related outcomes that
represent student success.
I can provide just two examples where we are approaching the issue
of Pre-K-20 student success using these two criteria.
Cradle to Career. In Portland and Multnomah County, we are
implementing the STRIVE model as one of several demonstration sites
around the country. STRIVE was created at the University of Cincinnati
and is a partnership connecting the education, business, nonprofit,
civic, and philanthropic and community sectors in an effort to help
every child achieve educational success from cradle to career. This is
a real example of the commitment to the idea that academic success
depends on attention throughout the development of the student and
occurs both inside the classroom and in the community. This effort is a
real collaboration of government (the city of Portland and Multnomah
County), the school districts, non-profits and Portland State. This
organization has taken on the role of coordination of efforts,
convening various community partners and school districts around
important issues, and reporting on progress through the ``Report Card''
that tracks progress on many important indicators of Student success.
Portland State's role in this is related to the research--that is, the
collection and synthesis of data that goes into the report. We also
played a key role in bringing the model to the community, convening
discussions helping bring together the coalition that lead to the
formation of the Cradle to Career initiative. With this coalition in
place and with an effective tool to measure progress, it is now
incumbent on the entire community to work toward identifying where our
greatest efforts are required.
STEM Education. A major challenge over the last decade or more has
been the challenge of attracting the best and brightest students into
the STEM fields--both as practicing engineers and scientists and also
as teachers in the STEM disciplines. A particular aspect of this issue
that has received considerable attention is that our current STEM
majors do not reflect the diversity of our society and, with our
changing demographic, this presents an even greater challenge in
meeting the need for trained professionals in the future. At Portland
State, we have a number of programs to promote and support
participation in the STEM disciplines, some with a particular emphasis
on expanding participation from underrepresented groups. For example,
we participate in the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
(APLU) Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative (SMTI) aimed at
expanding the number of science students who move on to K-12 teaching
careers and the Lewis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, and
NSF supported project that helps create resources aimed at increasing
the participation and success of STEM students from underrepresented
groups. However, these programs only work if there are an adequate
number of properly prepared and motivated students coming to us from
the K-12 system--and that is not the case.
Our most ambitious project to address the issue of both improving
STEM education in the K-12 and increasing the numbers of student who
are college-ready and motivated to pursue STEM majors and eventually
careers as scientists, mathematicians and engineers is the development
of a network of STEM education centers. This, again, is a broad-based,
collaborative effort involving most of the Portland metropolitan
regional school districts, Portland State, OHSU and other higher
education institutions and a number of corporations who are supportive
of this work, will benefit from the outcomes and are willing to provide
leadership and assist in identifying support.
Briefly, in undertaking this approach we assert that the most
effective way to improve student achievement STEM is to engage a broad-
based set of stakeholders in a collective impact partnership to
transform the teaching and learning cultures in whole schools. The goal
of the partnership is to build pathways for students to matriculate
through K-12 schools on a college and career readiness trajectory. The
collective impact partnership should include long-term and sustainable
participation by the school district's administrative leadership,
higher education STEM and school of education faculty, local
businesses, community groups and informal STEM education providers.
Patterned after similar work in other States, the regionally
located STEM Education Centers would support this transformation
initiative. The STEM Centers would serve as research and development
hubs having the capacity to provide centralized teacher professional
development and partnership development programming. The STEM Center
would be the location for compiling improvement research data and
generating and disseminating reports and publications from the work of
the networked improvement communities. The Center would also provide
regional student, teacher and administrator programming for targeted
investments in STEM education (science fair competitions, summer and
afterschool enrichment programming, K-12 teacher development workshops,
principal and administrator workshops).
The regionally based STEM Education Centers would in turn be
networked through the governor's office to establish a statewide STEM
education initiative. A governor appointed STEM Education Investment
Board would oversee the function and productivity of the statewide STEM
education initiative.
These are two examples of how Portland State is working in
collaboration with a number of community partners to address the
important issues of education from Cradle to Career. We believe that
the approach we are taking in both cases will lead to systemic and
lasting change and improvement in student success and that the ESEA
should support this kind of activity--through supporting continuing
improvement in teacher education and the role of Universities in
working with school districts and other community partners on these
important issues.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
And if I caught your comments correctly, you are making
particular note of the fact that we don't have enough folks and
enough ethnic groups involved in the STEM world. And you are
particularly focused on trying to expand that.
Can you expand just a little bit--you mentioned the STEM
education centers, how does that work?
Dr. Koch. The STEM education center would be a center that
is directly connected to a series of schools and would support
what we like to call the transformation of STEM education
within an entire school building. So working systemically with
all the grades in that building and paying particular attention
to the fact that all students are able to move forward and be
motivated and capable in the STEM fields.
Senator Merkley. OK. So that center isn't part of how we
develop more STEM teachers. It is part of putting those
teachers into the field. And where are those right now?
Dr. Koch. The one that we are beginning to develop, the
earliest one, will be in Washington County. Although it works
with all of the school districts in the Portland metropolitan
region, it will focus on Beaverton and Hillsboro as a test
site.
Senator Merkley. OK, thank you.
I have a feeling there are some other school districts here
that are ready to sign up.
Dr. Koch. We do have a lot of local school districts
partnering on this project.
Senator Merkley. Ms. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF MORGAN ANDERSON, NORTHWEST REGION HIGHER EDUCATION
AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER, INTEL, HILLSBORO, OR
Ms. Anderson. Thank you, Senator.
We have a saying at Intel. ``Innovation starts with
education.'' Oregon is home to Intel's R&D center, as you know,
and we are currently constructing a new fab that will become
our most advanced microprocessor manufacturing facility, called
D1X.
Oregon is Intel's largest and most complex site. We employ
16,000 people in Oregon, making us the largest private employer
in the State. And 2,000 of these employees hold a Ph.D. Yet we
struggle to find these engineers not only in Oregon, but in the
United States. We are not alone.
Change the Equation, a nonprofit organization made up of
110 CEOs, is equally concerned about STEM education in the
United States. This organization is chaired by retired Intel
CEO and chairman of the board Craig Barrett. And the Change the
Equation has recently issued STEM vital signs for each State.
The data that they issued is dire.
In Oregon, only 37 percent of Oregon fourth graders were
proficient at the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
or NAEP. Science scores were even lower for Oregon's fourth
graders, with only 34 percent being rated as proficient. Their
eighth grade counterparts scored very similar scores, and
Oregon's numbers, unfortunately, were reflective of the U.S.
average.
Fortunately, Oregon has joined with 41 other States in the
Common Core movement, and we are raising expectations for
student proficiency this school year. But there are other
recommendations that Change the Equation made. They urged that
Oregon focus on student achievement gaps and increasing
teachers' content knowledge. And one point was that fewer than
half of Oregon's eighth graders have a teacher with either a
major or a minor in mathematics. So we are really struggling
with finding those qualified teachers.
Intel's involvement in education is longstanding. We
believe that students deserve the skills needed to become the
next generation of innovators. We have invested over $1 billion
in the last decade to improve education, and we are actively
involved in programs and advocacy to improve education and
advance innovation.
We have two science competitions that we are quite proud
of--the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, which
brings together 1,500 students from across the globe, and then
we also support and sponsor the Intel Science Talent Search,
which is America's oldest pre-college science competition. And
the alumni of this program have made extraordinary
contributions to science, including seven Nobel Prizes and
three National Medals of Science. So very impressive alumni.
We also sponsor many local Oregon STEM programs, including
the State science fair, housed at Portland State and managed by
Portland State, the State-wide Lego robotics tournament, and
also the STEM center that Dr. Roy Koch mentioned in his
testimony. And I think these programs reflect just the nature
of how important both inside and outside education programs are
and that we need to have flexibility in ESEA in order to have
full, strong education and STEM programs inside school and
outside school.
Many of today's educational goals and requirements can be
most effectively achieved by modernizing our educational
practices and systems through technology. We embrace this
vision and urge Congress and the Administration to make it a
reality by including it within the ESEA reauthorization
legislation as a separate direct-funded program, focused on
improving education through technology.
ATTAIN, or Achievement Through Technology and Integration,
would do this, and it would drive innovation and systemic
reform that leverages 21st century technologies, target low-
performing schools, and assure students attain technological
literacy by the eighth grade.
Second, we support meaningful and measurable infusion of
technology and related professional development throughout all
major ESEA programs, based on the recognition that technology
will be the platform of choice for school reform and
improvement efforts in the 21st century.
The future of Oregon and the U.S. depends on its ability to
boost student performance in STEM so that our students are
college- and career-ready and prepared to compete in the very
competitive 21st century workforce. We ask that the
reauthorization of ESEA includes additional support for STEM
education and encourages technology to be based as a catalyst
to improve education.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morgan Anderson
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. My name is Morgan Anderson
and I am the Northwest Region Higher Education and Government Affairs
Manager for Intel. I've worked on education programs and policies for
the last 12 years to improve education and student achievement,
particularly in the area of STEM. We have a saying at Intel, Innovation
Starts with Education. Oregon is home to Intel's R&D Center as
President Obama discovered during his visit to our campus in February.
In addition to housing two fabs and currently constructing a new fab
that will become our most advanced microprocessor manufacturing
facility, Oregon is Intel's largest and most complex site. We employ
16,000 people in Oregon, with 2,000 of these employees holding a Ph.D.
Yet we struggle to find these engineers, not only in Oregon, but in the
United States.
We're not alone. Change the Equation is a non-profit organization
that is made up of 110 CEOS that are equally concerned about STEM
education in the United States chaired by retired Intel CEO and
chairman of the board, Craig Barrett, Change the Equation has recently
issued STEM Vital Signs for each State. The data is dire. In Oregon,
only 37 percent of Oregon fourth graders were proficient on the
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), which sets a
consistent bar for student performance across the States and tracks
international assessments. That is far less than the 77 percent of the
State's fourth graders who scored proficient on the Oregon State test.
Science scores were even lower for Oregon's fourth graders, with only
34 percent being rated as proficient. Their eighth grade counterparts
scored very similar scores, with 37 percent rated as proficient in math
and 35 percent in science. These numbers are very similar to the U.S.
average. Even the top 3 States, while better, only see a range of 42-56
percent of their students' proficient in these subjects. Fortunately,
Oregon has joined 41 other States in the Common Core movement and has
raised expectations for student proficiency for this school year.
Change the Equation also urges Oregon to focus on student achievement
gaps and increasing teachers' content knowledge. Fewer than half of
Oregon's eighth graders have a teacher with a major or minor in math.
Intel's involvement in education is long-standing, and we believe
that students deserve the skills needed to become the next generation
of innovators. Intel has invested over $1 billion to education over the
last decade and we are actively involved in programs and advocacy to
improve education and advance innovation. To help inspire the next
generation of scientists and engineers, Intel sponsors two major
science competitions. The Intel International Science and Engineering
Fair (Intel ISEF) is the world's largest pre-college science
competition and brings together over 1,500 young scientists from more
than 50 countries. The Intel Science Talent Search is America's oldest
and most prestigious pre-college science competition. Alumni of Intel
STS have made extraordinary contributions to science including seven
Nobel Prizes and three National Medals of Science. We also sponsor many
Oregon STEM programs, including the State science fair and the
statewide Lego Robotics Tournament. These enrichment programs work. One
program we sponsor, Oregon MESA, boasts a graduation rate of over 95
percent with the vast majority of their students pursuing college.
Because this program primarily works with under-
represented minorities, these statistics show that targeted programs
can help close the achievement gap.
Intel fully supports the goals of creating a STEM Master Teacher
Corps, including increasing student engagement in STEM, recruiting,
training and supporting highly qualified and highly effective teachers
and closing student achievement gaps. All of these endeavors will help
prepare more students to be on track for college success and career
readiness. The specific areas that this legislation would fund are
aligned with policies and practices that have been proven to be highly
effective, including providing funding for mentoring new teachers in
STEM content areas, and providing professional development on effective
STEM teaching methods. At Intel we understand the importance of
investing in teachers and we have trained over 10 million on our Intel
Teach Program, with 500,000 teachers trained in the United States to
help build 21st century skills such as digital literacy, critical
thinking and problem solving. With the success Intel has witnessed with
science competitions, we are pleased that funding can support STEM-
related competitions and hope that science competitions as well as
robotics will be highlighted as examples.
Many of today's educational goals and requirements can be most
effectively achieved by modernizing our educational practices and
systems through technology. In a statement accompanying the release of
his fiscal year 2011 Budget proposal, President Obama asserted that he
``. . . strongly believes that technology, when used creatively and
effectively, can transform education and training in the same way that
it has transformed the private sector.''
We embrace this vision and urge Congress and the Administration to
make it a reality by including it within the ESEA reauthorization
legislation as a separate, directed funding program focused on
improving education through technology. ATTAIN, or Achievement Through
Technology and Innovation, would ensure that teachers receive
appropriate professional development on technology integration,
educational agencies would have leadership capacity around technology
and there would be equity in the distribution of resources. In
addition, ATTAIN would drive innovation and systemic reform that
leverages 21st century technologies, target low-performing schools and
ensure students attain technological literacy by the eighth grade.
Secondly, we support meaningful and measurable infusion of
technology and related professional development throughout all major
ESEA programs, based on the recognition that technology will become the
platform and infrastructure of choice for school reform and improvement
efforts in the 21st century. Technology infusion should make technology
a priority throughout the new ESEA with language reflecting mandatory
technology spending. Enterprises in other sectors of our economy
dedicate an average of 5 percent of their budgets for technology and
related staff training and support, and ESEA should help lead our
educational agencies toward this best practice.
The future of not only Oregon, but the United States depends on its
ability to boost student performance in STEM so that our students will
be college- and career-ready, and prepared to succeed in the
competitive 21st century workforce. We ask the reauthorization of ESEA
includes additional support for STEM and encourages technology to be
used as a catalyst to improve education. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
One of the things you mentioned was the shortage of math
teachers.
Ms. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Merkley. The President, in his State of the Union,
talked about training 100,000 new teachers for science and
mathematics. Meanwhile, however, let us say someone is coming
out with a degree in mathematics right now. Could they get a
job as a math teacher in Oregon, or has the drop in funding
meant that they couldn't find a job as a teacher even if they
had those skills right now?
Ms. Anderson. Yes. It is a struggle. And we know that all
of our school districts have enormous budget cuts. I have
served on the Graduate School of Education Board at Portland
State, and they have a special program for math and science
teachers. And they do struggle right now to place those
teachers.
And the hope is, that when the economy turns around, those
jobs will be waiting. We know we have a huge need for those
teachers, and it is just matching the need with the money that
is available, unfortunately.
Senator Merkley. So not only are they not being hired
because of the budget, but there is also competition among
employers. If you are capable in math, there is a pretty
substantial demand in the economy, and how much of a challenge
is that? Intel is going to hire away a lot of folks who might
otherwise be math teachers.
Ms. Anderson. I am proud to say that we have a program at
Intel that pays for our engineers to go back to school to
become math and science teachers. So we are trying to get more
educated and qualified folks in the classroom, helping to
educate our next generation of kids.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
And now we will turn to a mathematics teacher, Melinda
Knapp. It is great to have you with us. And again, Melinda
Knapp is the recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence
in Mathematics and Science Teaching and has come over the
mountains from Bend.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA KNAPP, MATHEMATICS TEACHER, BEND, OR
Ms. Knapp. Thank you for having me.
I am actually a second-career math teacher. I studied
engineering in my first life. So I am one of those people.
I am a math teacher at Sky View Middle School in Bend, OR.
And Bend-LaPine Schools is the seventh largest district in the
State of Oregon. It has nearly 16,000 students who attend
there, and the Central Oregon District spans more than 1,600
square miles. That is a 40-by-40 square. So we are pretty big.
And many of the parts of our district are very rural.
I have been lucky enough to teach math for 7 years at Sky
View Middle School and had the pleasure of teaching many hard-
working students over the years. I am also fortunate to work
with many dedicated professionals who share my love of teaching
and learning.
This past May, I had the opportunity to spend a week in
Washington, DC, with the 85 winners of the presidential award.
These were all highly competent, highly effective teachers who
work tirelessly to improve themselves to ensure they are the
best math and science teachers they can be.
As awardees, we are tasked to serve as models for our
colleagues, inspire our students and communities, and be
leaders in the improvement of math and science education, and I
take this task very seriously. I have the utmost respect for
these teachers, who collectively have a wealth of experience
and face many challenges.
As I spoke with the teachers from the different States,
some common themes emerged. I had many discussions related to
what high-quality teaching should look and sound like. We spoke
about the need for intensive, ongoing professional development
and the need for more support from school and district
leadership.
Another common idea was the frustration over the
overemphasis on high-stakes testing and how it was narrowing
the curriculum. All week long, we visited scientists and
leaders from many agencies, including NASA, NSF, EPA, and each
person stressed the importance of STEM education for our
students' future. They each described how a teacher had
inspired them and cultivated their love of science and math as
they were growing up.
This message echoed much of what I was hearing from the 85
teachers that week. It reminded me of the importance of a
highly effective, inspired teaching workforce, particularly in
the fields of math and science, and not just at secondary
level, but also elementary level.
Because I am a classroom teacher, my perspective is
grounded in my day-to-day interactions with my middle school
students and colleagues I work with. We see the impact of
decisions that are made at national, State, and district level.
When I say ``we,'' I mean teachers and students. We are
impacted directly when funding is cut, days are cut, and we are
constantly overwhelmed by initiative after initiative.
My work over the past 5 years has focused on mathematics,
professional development, and my leadership development
necessary to move quality teaching and learning forward. My
concentration on this work resulted from my own transformation
about teaching and learning that allowed me to better
understand the types of learning experiences we need for our
students.
Because of my own experiences, I began to change my
teaching practices. I now have the opportunity to collaborate
and coach other teachers to facilitate improvement of their
teaching practices. Here are some things that you might see and
hear in an effective inquiry-based mathematics classroom.
Highly engaged students working in collaborative groups.
Students asking why. Students talking in groups or during whole
class discussions about their understanding or struggles with a
particular concept or task or connection.
Students providing justifications about why their ideas
work mathematically. Students generalizing their math ideas to
other areas. Students applying mathematical concepts in real-
life applications and problem-solving. Students of all levels
of success contributing to the learning of all. Students making
sense of math as mathematicians might. With sense-making comes
deep understanding.
I have seen firsthand the difference a highly effective
teacher with broad understanding of their content in an
inquiry-based classroom can make for students. Students in
these classrooms are more excited and engaged in their own
learning. They understand more deeply and can apply their new
knowledge in novel situations. They are true problem-solvers.
This is what our students need. This is what we need to do
as leaders to help shape the problem-solvers of the future.
This type of learning takes highly trained teachers.
So I would recommend a few things, just in closing. We
should provide quality, sustained professional development
experiences for all K through 12 science and mathematics
teachers that will increase and deepen content knowledge,
provide a variety of pedagogical approaches, and develop
questioning strategies, which will advance higher order
thinking of our students.
We should encourage leadership that supports teachers,
improving their effectiveness as teachers in STEM fields. We
should encourage higher education leaders to strengthen their K
through 8 teacher education program to provide a deeper
understanding of the content knowledge necessary to teach in
STEM fields and apply this learning in real-world applications.
And last, we should invest in research on teaching and
learning that will better inform development of science and
math curricula and highly effective teaching approaches.
Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
I wanted to get some sense. I loved math, and it could have
been taught in any form, and I would have loved it. But the
form was very different than what you were describing.
Ms. Knapp. Very different.
Senator Merkley. I recall the teacher saying now here is
the formula for cosine, and it is this angle to these sides.
And, OK, here are 20 problems for your homework.
Now what you are describing sounds very different. And so,
how do you make it work? Do you start out with a real-life
problem on a wind turbine?
Ms. Knapp. That is often how it starts, but that hooks or
engages the kids. Because when it is real, they are interested.
And the types of learning that I am talking about require all
kids to be engaged in their own learning.
There is no sitting back. It is not passive. It is active.
And in that, they develop deeper understandings of math. They
can see the connections to other content areas, and they are
just more interested. And it is doing math versus watching
someone do math and then regurgitating that. It is really
making their own understandings for themselves.
Senator Merkley. So what is it that kind of catches your
students' imagination in the sense that it is relevant and not
just some dry thing that they will ``never use?''
Ms. Knapp. I think what hooks kids a lot--I teach middle
schoolers. They are very social, and this type of learning is
very social. They learn from each other, through each other. I
learn from them. They learn from me.
And I think just that social nature of the mathematics and
that we are actually solving a real problem. It is very
engaging for students and the fact that we are all doing this
together. I find that that really hooks kids in a subject that
is not often their favorite.
Senator Merkley. How did you make the choice to--you were a
trained engineer, and you chose to go into teaching. What
inspired you to make that transition?
Ms. Knapp. That is kind of a long story. But in a sense, I
felt like I needed to be in a more helping profession, and I
felt like I could take my skills that I had studied in college
and apply it in a different way that was more meaningful for
me.
Senator Merkley. You have clearly done so in a very
effective manner, and thank you.
Ms. Knapp. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Next we turn to Nathan Fuller, who is a
student. He will be a senior at Cleveland High School and has
been very involved in the FIRST Robotics program. I had a
chance to see some of the work that the Cleveland students were
doing on the Pigmice team, and we have some of the work behind
us here.
Are these robots going to run here now and perform for us?
Mr. Fuller. I think all their drivers are back there.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF NATHAN FULLER, STUDENT, SENIOR, CLEVELAND HIGH
SCHOOL, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Fuller. First, Senator, I would like to thank you for
giving me the opportunity to speak to this committee today.
And in my 12 years of schooling, I have been to 7 different
schools. I consider myself to have a pretty good understanding
of the way our school system works. But sometimes I feel like
our school system doesn't understand me.
I wanted to come here today for a number of reasons, but
primarily because school is hard. School is hard not because
you have a bunch of students who don't want to try. It is not
hard because you have a bunch of students who aren't very
intelligent. School is hard because students want to be
inspired. They want to understand why they are learning what
they are learning, and they want to be involved in the process.
My generation is that of the joystick generation. We are
the Facebook generation. We are a generation that was born with
technology in our minds, body, and soul. But our current form
of education feels that the best way to involve technology is a
document camera to replace a projector.
As Ms. Harms said, we need teachers to be taught how to use
our technology, not just receiving technology grants and then
discarding it. My sophomore year math teacher taught with a
SMART Board behind a projector screen because he didn't have
the technology and experience to actually use the technology he
was given.
But there was something that keeps me involved, and that
something has been FIRST Robotics. FIRST Robotics, or For
Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, is a
program that was founded by the inventor, Dean Kamen. He
invented the Segway.
We now offer four programs for kids from the ages of
kindergarten to essentially the year they graduate from high
school, the opportunity to work with industry professionals and
engage in real application of STEM principles. After I joined
FIRST Robotics, suddenly everything in school could be applied.
I had an opportunity to look at physics and math classes like
they were real. All of a sudden, learning projectile motion
matter because I needed to learn how to kick a soccer ball into
a goal that was 30 feet away.
I kept my grades up because I knew that I wanted to be an
engineer or industrial designer when I grew up. And another
thing is that students have something to stay in school for. We
are a team. We are a family.
I believe that Mr. Hopson talked about a safety net. A
FIRST Robotics team can be that safety net for a team and for
an individual. I have multiple students who have helped other
students with English papers, with math problems. We are all
there together to provide an opportunity to compete, and if
your grades aren't up, you can't compete. So we all work
together to pull everyone else through their high school
experience.
I think this is something that is really powerful and
something that you can only really see on a FIRST Robotics
team.
I also would like to talk about what FIRST represents. We
already talked about how it is an application, not just a
teaching of STEM principles. But it is also a chance for
students to meet well-educated adults who know exactly what
they are talking about.
One thing that I think we don't see enough of in schools is
industry involvement. There are a lot of industries out there,
for example, I know Intel has already made a huge contribution.
I, in fact, competed at multiple Intel FIRST Lego League
regionals.
But another thing that we need to think about is I am an
example of industry involvement. I am currently an intern at
Autodesk, which is an industry leader in three-dimensional CAD
software, or computer-aided design. I am there managing a
number of other FIRST Robotics interns. And they are another
example of how industry wants to get involved in creating
professionals who are ready to work for them.
A great thing is that whenever you hear FIRST Robotics
students talking about their experiences, they all want to work
for their mentors. My favorite story of this is about a girl on
my team who I have known for 4 years now. Her name is Emily
Klockner. She is a beautiful, smart individual who worked for 3
years with a Boeing machinist.
She is currently enrolled in their tech prep program and
plans to be a machinist for the Boeing Company. She found this
goal through her involvement with the FIRST Robotics team.
FIRST is the kind of program that can give kids a direction
and direct them into these STEM careers in a way that not many
other things can. I want to emphasize that our teachers are
doing an amazing job in teaching us content. But it is
afterschool programs and other things that are going to give us
the opportunity to truly apply those things in a competitive or
just celebrated setting.
We need to celebrate students for their knowledge, not
label them as geeks or nerds. This is what FIRST is all about.
We create an atmosphere where kids are rock stars for knowing
what a friction coefficient is. We need to create this kind of
environment in our schools and especially in our afterschool
programs.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fuller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan Fuller
Senator Jeff Merkley,
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1400,
Portland, OR 97204.
Dear Senator Merkley: Thank you for the opportunity to voice my
appreciation for all that you are doing, as you, your colleagues, and
staff, work to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). As a High School Student, who participates in the FIRST (For
Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics
Competition, I know just how much STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) principles and education can help you to
succeed. I also know that it has become increasingly difficult for
students to get experience in these fields as funding becomes ever more
scarce.
Personally, I have gained and learned much through my experience in
the FIRST program, and have come to care about not just my team but the
organization as a whole as if it were my family. When revising the
ESEA, it is important to remember that not only are students a
priority, but teachers need training and stipends for working after
hours with students. To truly excel in STEM pathways students need to
be led by experienced individuals who have the knowledge and skills
required to not only teach but impress them. Working as an intern at
Autodesk, Inc. this summer, I have witnessed the premium that industry
is placing on students with STEM experience, and our schools need to
reflect that.
The modern day class is taught to a test and a white board and
PowerPoint dominate the stage. Only those of us who have had the
opportunity and the time to participate in afterschool activities that
give us an application for the subject matter are able get excited when
traction coefficients are discussed. Only a FIRST robotics student can
take the electrical lessons of a Physics One class and make them
relevant to his afterschool activities. This is why I participate in
FIRST, because if I did not I am unsure whether I could make it to
graduation.
But not everyone dreams of being an engineer, we live in a world
where you either go to college or are told that you have failed. The
average age of the American Machinist is approaching 60 years of age,
if we want to succeed in maintaining ourselves as the idea center of
the world, we will need people to make those ideas. We need to stop
failing students who dream of working on the parts of a 747, or welding
bike frames. College is not for everyone, in fact for some it can be
the ending of a brilliant future. We do not need to bring back the old
shop classes of book shelves and table, but what we need is the modern
shop class of welders, robots, and electric vehicles. This is our
future, and this is why STEM matters.
Sincerely,
Nathan Fuller,
Age 17-Team Captain,
FRC Team#2733 ``The Pigmice''.
______
Senator Merkley. Nathan, thank you. And superb
presentation.
How many schools in the Portland area actually have a FIRST
Robotics team?
Mr. Fuller. I believe we are around 12. In Portland or in
the Oregon area?
Senator Merkley. In the Portland area.
Mr. Fuller. In the Portland area, I think we are around----
Female Speaker. [Off-mike.]
Mr. Fuller. Yes, we have helped 40 robotics teams, but the
high school teams, again, it is a huge financial strain. And
currently, my team operates--we fundraised $25,000 last year.
We had no Federal or district money. It was all from industry
grants and donations.
So, right now, we are running completely without the
support of the school system, but I think that through a
partnership you could see an incredible transformation of the
robotics team giving back.
One of my favorite examples is I have a student on my team
who is actually hosting a Lego robotics camp for the Somali
refugees that attend Cleveland High School in the lower-income
housing across the street from the school.
Senator Merkley. That is fantastic.
And I believe that David Douglas is about to get a FIRST
Robotics team? And is Boeing the main partner in that? So that
is great. That will be this coming school year?
Mr. Grotting. We are in development right now. So we are
going to try to get it up and going.
Senator Merkley. I think you have made the case that what
happens outside of the classroom is as much a part of the
education process as inside the classroom. And there is a
challenge of resources. As you noted, your team is doing
extraordinary work to raise $25,000 a year, did you say? That
is a lot.
Mr. Fuller. It is a lot of money.
Senator Merkley. It is a lot of money. Plus, in addition,
all kinds of industry connections and contributions as well. So
funding cash is part of the puzzle, but there is a lot more to
it as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Fuller. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Speaking of being outside the classroom,
Nancy Stueber, president of Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry, we would love to hear your thoughts.
STATEMENT OF NANCY STUEBER, PRESIDENT, OREGON MUSEUM OF SCIENCE
AND INDUSTRY, PORTLAND, OR
Ms. Stueber. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Thank you for
holding this field hearing and inviting me to testify.
I am here both as the president of OMSI, Oregon Museum of
Science and Industry and a science center located here in
Portland, but with a region-wide reach, and also as the
president of the Association of Science Technology Centers, and
that represents 440 science centers and museums worldwide, 7
here in Oregon, who are committed to excellence in science
learning and innovation.
I wanted today to focus my brief remarks on one aspect that
is often overlooked of what science centers and museums can
provide. Many people think of field trips and lots of other
opportunities for joyful learning experiences, but we also
provide teacher professional development opportunities, and I
focus on that today because of its relevance to your work now
and because teachers are the most powerful ingredient in
contributing to student success.
We all know that educating must encompass a wide range of
support services, and teachers already look to out-of-school
partners and science centers and museums. I can say that among
our association members, we have 73,000 schools that we work
with directly nationwide. That is 62 percent of the total
schools in the country, and it represents 36 million students
and 2 million teachers, about half of those schools serving a
high percentage of underserved students.
So we are powerful allies in this work, and we believe that
we have a lot to offer, both for helping gifted teachers excel
and for helping to remove barriers for others with limited
experience in teaching science. So our colleagues in Chicago
report, like many of the school districts in the Nation, that
70 percent of the teachers teaching science in the middle
school grades don't have a science degree or an endorsement in
science.
So they have responded with an Institute for Quality
Science Teaching that offers everything from professional
development credit to a master of science education degree, and
they have become an integral part of a broad school and
district-wide educational improvements plans there in Chicago.
In Boston, our colleagues at the Museum of Science in
Boston have developed K-12 engineering curricula that includes
a network of teacher professional development programs that is
available to be adapted nationwide. And that is especially
noteworthy since Oregon has recently incorporated engineering
into our K-12 science standards, and engineering will have a
significant presence in the next-generation science standards.
I am proud to say that OMSI has the largest outreach
program of any of these colleagues nationwide. We travel to
seven States, and we also provide both the accreditation side,
but really grounded, hands-on experience and practical
resources for teachers. An example is a popular workshop called
``No Hassle Messy Science with a Wow'' that brings teachers in,
gives them experience and confidence in lots of hands-on,
inquiry-based activities that are aligned with standards. And
they leave with a 460-page manual of activities that have all
the setup instructions, all the age-appropriate explanations,
and student handouts in English and Spanish ready to go.
We do that not only in urban districts, but in rural
districts. We believe that rural districts, by definition, are
underserved, and we work with partners like Libraries of
Eastern Oregon and in collaboration with many partners
providing afterschool programs, whether it is the MESA program
at Portland State or the SMILE program at Oregon State or
programs offered by Self-Enhancement, Inc., or FIRST Robotics.
So while we have many examples that we can point to, we
cannot, as nonprofits, directly apply for funding through the
current ESEA legislation, and that would be for funding for
teacher professional development. We urge you to do all you can
to expand the eligibility language in section 2131 of the
existing statute to allow nonprofit organizations that have a
proven track record of improving effectiveness of STEM teachers
to apply directly for funding in partnership with a local
education agency.
Again, we really appreciate your advocacy for STEM
education, and all of us at OMSI, our colleagues nationwide,
and all of our nonprofit community partners stand ready to
assist you in this very important work of incorporating STEM.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stueber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Stueber
introduction
Good morning, Senator Merkley. My name is Nancy Stueber, and I am
president of the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI), a
scientific, educational, and cultural resource center located here in
Portland that is dedicated to improving the public's understanding of
science and technology. OMSI makes science exciting and relevant
through exhibits, programs, and experiences that are presented in an
entertaining and participatory fashion. I am also here on behalf of the
Washington, DC-based Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC),
a nonprofit organization of science centers and museums dedicated to
furthering public engagement with science among increasingly diverse
audiences. ASTC represents more than 440 science center and museum
members--including 7 here in Oregon--in 42 countries, and encourages
excellence and innovation in informal science learning by serving and
linking its members worldwide and advancing their common goals. I serve
as the president of the Association of Science-Technology Centers, and
am honored to represent not only my institution, but the science center
and museum field, before you today.
Before I continue, allow me to express my sincere appreciation to
you for scheduling this morning's field hearing here in Portland, and
for the opportunity to testify before you and the committee. Even more
importantly, I want to thank you and your staff for all of your efforts
regarding the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and for the leadership you have shown in
addressing the monumentally important science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education issues facing our young people--and
our country--today.
science centers, omsi, and teacher professional development
I would like to begin by focusing on an often overlooked aspect of
what science centers and museums contribute to America's educational
infrastructure: teacher professional development opportunities. While
school visits are often at the forefront of one's mind when they
envision science centers--and I will address the multitude of options
science centers provide to visitors of all ages a bit later in my
testimony--the programs and services we provide for educators may not
be. In fact, 82 percent of science centers offer workshops or
institutes for teachers, aligning with research-based best practices
and the recommendations found in Title IX, Section 9101(34) of ESEA.
ASTC members reach 73,000 schools--62 percent of the total schools in
the country--impacting 9,000 school districts, 36 million students, and
2 million teachers. Almost half (44 percent) of the schools served have
a proportionally large population of underserved students. In addition,
75 percent of ASTC members report that they offer curriculum materials.
Clearly, effective classroom teaching is critical to helping
children develop the essential thinking skills they require to weigh
evidence, solve problems, balance risks and rewards, and make sense of
their environment. And the need for additional support for teachers is
strong: many teachers are assigned science as a subject to teach,
without having a lot of science background themselves. The engaging,
hands-on, inquiry methods that science centers have proven to be
effective can be applied to the classroom; these methods are largely
not taught in pre-service academic training, yet are an invaluable tool
for teachers' effectiveness and student success.
Like science centers across the country, OMSI is doing our part to
help teachers gain confidence, experience, and expertise when it comes
to STEM teaching. I take great pride in the fact that OMSI has the
largest science outreach education program in the United States. We
offer teacher education programs and in-service workshops serving seven
Western States; educational field trips and hands-on lab sessions in
our eight interactive laboratories; camps and classes throughout Oregon
and the Pacific Northwest for youth as well as families and adults; and
community events exploring a wide range of relevant topics combining
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the arts. At OMSI,
we provide a variety of professional development tools for educators,
from workshops and school partnerships to classroom activities and
resources. These include:
No Hassle Messy Science with a WOW!, where participants experience
a workshop chock-full of affordable, inquiry-based, and standards-
aligned activities. Educators take home the 460-page manual No Hassle
Messy Science with a WOW: Chemistry in the K-8 Classroom, which
includes complete activity set-up instructions, scientific explanation
for various age levels (grades K-8), extensions to broaden
understanding, and student handouts in English and Spanish.
Science Inquiry, where participants learn how to move beyond
conducting science activities in their classrooms to actually engaging
their students in scientific inquiry. In this workshop, OMSI guides
educators through the inquiry process, provides tools to modify
existing activities and increase their inquiry potential, and offers
templates and outlines to help students create work samples. Activities
are aligned to Oregon science standards for grades 2-8.
Engineering Design, where teachers can try out some of OMSI's
favorite design challenges and experiment with different materials as
they explore ways to integrate the engineering design process into the
classroom (grades 4-8). This workshop includes an introduction to LEGO
NXT robotics and will address the new Oregon standards for engineering.
Expedition Northwest, a curriculum designed by OMSI educators that
provides exciting standards-based science activities for grades 4-8.
The program focuses on how water connects landscapes, people, and
ecosystems across the region--from glaciers to rivers to oceans; from
ancient floods to power generation. The program includes digital labs,
online sharing of data, and teacher message boards.
No Hassle Messy Science with a Wow: Chemistry for the K-8 Classroom
serves as an aid for teachers bringing chemistry to their elementary
and middle school students. Together with the aforementioned workshop
of the same name, it has brought science education to diverse
audiences. Teachers, both nationally and internationally, have used
this curriculum to inspire wonder in their students.
In the OMSI School Ambassadors program, which is designed to make
it easier for schools to use OMSI's resources, a school faculty member
becomes a museum ambassador, learning all about what OMSI offers and
how it might benefit their school. Ambassadors serve as their school's
representative to [3] OMSI, giving us feedback on how we can better
meet their needs. Our goal is to have an OMSI Ambassador in every
Oregon school.
I also want to note that in 2 weeks, OMSI will announce the
recipients of a unique professional development and field trip
scholarship opportunity. These scholarships--to be awarded to three
schools in Oregon and southwest Washington--include year-long
professional development support (minimum 30 hours per school) for
science teachers and field trips to OMSI during the 2011-12 school
year. The scholarship program is designed to positively impact
students' STEM learning by deepening the connection between classroom
instruction and museum visits, all while providing extensive access to
OMSI resources.
Many science centers have extensive programs or courses
specifically designed to support the competency of classroom science
teachers related to both content and pedagogy. These centers work
closely with their local teachers, school districts, and universities
to build supportive professional development programs that are designed
to enhance the quality of a student's science education experience
while promoting the professional development goals of the teachers and
the practical needs of the districts.
There are commonalities across these programs that account for
their impact and--upon change to ESEA law to allow non-profit,
community-based science centers to be eligible to compete for teacher
professional development opportunities--could be replicated by dozens
if not hundreds of other science centers across the Nation in
partnership with their local school districts to improve the quality of
science instruction in our K-12 schools. For example, in addition to
providing informal science and engineering educational experiences, the
Museum of Science, Boston has developed K-12 engineering curricula and
a network of teacher professional development programs to deliver
technology and engineering education across the country. This is
especially noteworthy, as Oregon recently incorporated engineering into
their K-12 science standards, and engineering will have a significant
presence in the Next Generation science standards.
Common programming elements among science centers include:
1. Adherence to evidenced-based practices that is confirmed through
extensive iterative evaluation.
2. Integration of national, State and local standards when
applicable to ensure classroom relevance and applicability.
3. Extensive support of teacher use of human and material resources
outside of the traditional classroom to broaden capacity to build
student motivation and inspiration.
4. Partnerships with institutions of higher education and/or State
teacher certificating authorities so that program participation
advances professional credentials, needs and goals of teacher
workforce.
5. Utilization of inquiry-based, hands-on activities for teacher
use in classrooms.
6. Reflection of national recommendations in STEM learning that can
impact student growth and achievement.
Educating must encompass a wide range of support services, and
science teachers do not hesitate to reach out to science centers for
instructional assistance. Likewise, science centers are well-positioned
to target schools most in need of resources. They can help gifted
educators excel, and, once again, remove barriers for others with
limited experience teaching science. For example, in Chicago--like many
school districts across the country--70 percent of teachers teaching
science in the middle grades do not have a science degree or an
endorsement in science. Responding to this need, the Chicago Museum of
Science and Industry (MSI) provides science teacher professional
development through its Institute for Quality Science Teaching.
Teachers are able to obtain a Master of Science Education degree, a
Middle School Science Endorsement, or professional development credit.
Furthermore, science centers like MSI Chicago have become integral
parts of broad school- and district-wide educational improvement plans
in STEM subjects, designing coursework in accordance with topics
identified in State standards.
recommendations for esea reauthorization
With valuable contributions like these in mind, I want to share
several key recommendations regarding the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act as you and your fellow members of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continue to work on its
reauthorization.
First, I urge you to do all you can to allow nonprofit informal
education institutions (such as science centers and museums) who have a
proven track record of providing quality teacher professional
development programs to directly compete for title II teacher quality
funds. Under the current ESEA, districts and States may use title II
teacher professional development for a variety of purposes, but all too
often, the funds don't reach non-profit education organizations--such
as science centers--that provide teacher professional development.
Section 2131 of the existing statute establishes outlines which
``eligible partnerships'' are allowed to compete. Such partnerships
must consist of an institution of higher education and a high-need
local education agency (school district). It is only after that
requirement is satisfied that eligible partnerships may also include
other institutions, such as non-profit education organizations. In
short, eligible science centers are considered as an afterthought in
the law when they are often at the forefront of providing the
congressionally intended activity of improving teacher quality.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget and the Blueprint for
Reform of ESEA proposed a refashioning of the current Mathematics and
Science Partnership program (Title II, Part B of ESEA). ASTC has been
supportive of congressional iterations of this revamped language that
would allow nonprofit organizations that improve the effectiveness of
STEM teachers to apply directly for funding in partnership with a local
education agency. Such eligibility language is included in both the
STEM Master Teacher Corps Act of 2011 (S. 758), introduced by Senator
Al Franken, and the Effective STEM Teaching and Learning Act of 2011
(S. 463), introduced by Senator Mark Begich, and is consistent with
that which has also been included in the Department of Education's
Investing in Innovation (i3) program.
We also urge you to include technology and/or engineering teachers
alongside math and science teachers as eligible participants in all
programs enacted to recruit, train, mentor, retain, and further educate
K-12 teachers. After all, we live in an engineered world. Engineering
design creates the technologies that support our health, convenience,
communication, transportation, living environments, and entertainment;
our entire day-to-day life. Yet, technology and engineering design are
not part of the mainstream curriculum. In most academic environments,
the term ``technology'' is used to describe electronic devices. Most
people do not understand that everything human-made, other than some
forms of art, is a type of technology. Although students spend years in
school learning about the scientific inquiry process, the process
scientists use to discover the natural world, they never learn the
engineering design process, which is responsible for most of the things
that support their day-to-day lives. Science centers are ideal places
to help educators fully integrate STEM concepts in their classrooms.
In addition, the science center field supports recommendations made
by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in
Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in STEM for America's Future.
Specifically, we ask the committee to: (1) acknowledge the importance
of educational innovation by endorsing initiatives like the Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED) and the aforementioned
Investing in Innovation program, designed to stimulate the next
generation of high quality educational experiences by new technology
and other means for both in- and out-of-school learning environments;
and (2) to ensure the recruitment, preparation, and induction support
of at least 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next decade.
We urge science center and museum eligibility in resulting teacher
professional development opportunities and/or programs, to include both
pre-service and in-service educators.
the importance of stem education
As you are well aware, there is a strong consensus that improving
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education is critical
to the Nation's economic strength and global competitiveness in the
21st century. Reports like the National Academies' Rising Above the
Gathering Storm (2005) and the recent offering from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), entitled Prepare
and Inspire, have emphasized the need to attract and educate the next
generation of American scientists and innovators, and have recommended
that we increase our talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and
mathematics education. Clearly, in order to improve STEM education, we
must draw on a full range of learning opportunities and experiences,
including those in non-school settings.
In its report entitled Learning Science in Informal Environments:
People Places, and Pursuits, the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academies, Pursuits, said ``beyond the schoolhouse door,
opportunities for science learning abound . . . '' The NRC found, among
other things, that there is ample evidence to suggest that science
learning takes place throughout the life span and across venues in non-
school settings. Furthermore, the report highlighted the role of
afterschool STEM education in promoting diversity and broadening
participation, finding that non-school environments can have a
significant impact on STEM learning outcomes in historically
underrepresented groups, and that these environments may be uniquely
positioned to make STEM education accessible to all. Out-of-school
programs, such as those provided by OMSI, the MESA program at Portland
State University, the SMILE program at Oregon State University, Self
Enhancement Inc., and 4-H, are key in reaching underserved populations
that might not otherwise have access to STEM resources in school.
The informal learning environment is especially important when you
consider that, by the age of 18, a child will have spent, at most, 9
percent of his or her lifetime in school. If a child spends about 6
hours a day in school, for each of the 180 days of the school year, he
or she will spend little over 1,000 hours in school in a year, not
including homework. Science centers and museums, along with nonprofits
providing after-school programs, can help make hands-on, experiential
learning an essential part of the many hours that remain.
science centers as an integral part of the nation's educational
infrastructure
Science centers are physical places where science and citizens can
meet. Many have scientists on staff, and some feature research
facilities on-site. Through exhibits and programming--such as lectures
and science cafes--science centers help bring current research findings
to the public while encouraging discussion and debate of current
science issues. More and more, science centers are also getting members
of the public involved in research projects themselves.
Science centers reach a wide audience, a significant portion of
which are school groups. Here in the United States, 90 percent offer
school field trips, and ASTC estimates that nearly 11 million children
attend science centers and museums as part of those groups each year.
Field trips, however, are just the beginning of what science centers
and museums contribute to the educational experience of students and
teachers alike. In the United States, 90 percent offer classes and
demonstrations, 89 percent offer school outreach programs, 71 percent
offer programs for home-schoolers, 41 percent offer programs that
target senior citizens, and 40 percent offer youth employment programs.
Furthermore, more than half offer afterschool programs--especially
noteworthy given that more than 15 million school-age children,
including more than 1 million in grades K-5, are on their own after
school. Research shows that kids who participate in such programs
improved significantly in three major areas: feelings and attitudes,
indicators of behavioral adjustment, and school performance. This
translates, of course, to self-confidence and self-
esteem, positive social behaviors, and accomplishment in school
settings. Again, these activities are in addition to those already
mentioned which focus on teachers.
about omsi
As you know, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry--like
science centers all across America and all across the world--seeks to
inspire wonder in people of all ages by creating engaging science
learning experiences, making those experiences available to a broad
audience, and providing compelling ways to explore the role of science
in our world today. Major museum components that help us achieve that
mission include: five exhibit halls; hundreds of interactive exhibits;
eight laboratories; and two new permanent exhibits: Science on a
Sphere, which projects dynamic real-time data from NOAA and NASA
satellites on a globe, and Innovation Station, which explores the human
side of technology and innovation. OMSI also features a 305-seat, five-
story OMNIMAX Dome Theater; the Harry C. Kendall Planetarium--which is
the largest planetarium dome in the Pacific Northwest with seating
capacity of 200; the USS Blueback, a 219-foot diesel electric submarine
and the most modern U.S. submarine on public display in the country;
and a 25,000 sq. ft. exhibit-building shop.
That shop helps feed the largest museum-based, traveling science
exhibits program in North America. To date, OMSI has developed 45
interactive science traveling exhibits--including world-popular
exhibits such as Animation featuring Cartoon Network, Moneyville, Eyes
on Earth, Brain Teasers, BUSYTOWN, and Mindbender Mansion--that have
been featured at museums throughout North America and Europe.
about astc and science centers
OMSI is a member of the aforementioned Association of Science-
Technology Centers, a nonprofit organization of science centers and
museums dedicated to providing quality educational experiences to
students and their families as well as furthering public engagement
with science among increasingly diverse audiences.
As you know, it is now more important than ever for us to do all we
can to spark the interests of our young people in all that the STEM
fields have to offer. For that reason, OMSI and literally hundreds of
other community-based science centers throughout the country are
providing unique educational programs that excite, energize, and enrich
our understanding of science and its many applications, often in
conjunction with--and support from--U.S. Federal agencies like the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS), and the Department of Education (ED), among others.
Collectively, science centers and museums garner nearly 90 million
visits annually worldwide. Here in the United States, visitors pass
through science center doors nearly 63 million times to participate in
intriguing educational science activities and explorations of
scientific phenomena. The most recent Science and Engineering
Indicators (2010) supports this data, finding that 59 percent of
Americans visited a science center, museum, or similar Science centers
come in all shapes and sizes, from large institutions in metropolitan
areas--like my own, the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore, the
Science Museum of Minnesota in Saint Paul, and the Museum of Science
and Industry in Chicago--to smaller centers in somewhat less populated
areas--ike the Science Zone in Casper, WY, the Museum of Life and
Science in Durham, NC, and Explora in Albuquerque, NM. ASTC member
institutions range in size from 3,000 square feet of exhibit space to
one that has more than 200 times that--nearly 650,000 square feet.
serving all youth--the astc youth inspired challenge
In closing, I want to draw the committee's attention to an effort
to further expand upon the strong educational programs offered by
science centers and museums. To better assist the Nation's youth in
becoming the innovative and creative thinkers needed for the 21st
century workforce, ASTC launched a major new initiative, the Youth
Inspired Challenge, last September. The Challenge--extended to more
than 300 science centers in all 50 States and across the world--sets a
3-year goal to engage thousands of youth, ages 10-19, in 2 million
hours of science enrichment. Building on the valuable science education
and youth employment programs ASTC members already offer, the goals of
the Youth Inspired Challenge include: (1) increasing the STEM literacy
of America's students; (2) expanding opportunities for STEM engagement
of underrepresented groups, including minorities and women; and (3)
moving America's students from the middle to the front of the pack in
STEM achievement over the next decade. As part of the Challenge, ASTC
and its member institutions will also collect, catalog, and share best
practices for improving STEM literacy for all youth, and will measure
and report success based on participation and reach of programs in
specific audiences.
That process has already begun. I am pleased to report that 102
science centers representing 7 countries and 37 States--including OMSI,
the Science Factory Children's Museum and Exploration Dome in Eugene,
and the Science Works Hands-On Museum in Ashland--have formally
accepted the Challenge to date. I look forward to keeping you and the
committee abreast of these numbers--and even more importantly, our
collective impact--as this initiative matures.
conclusion
Senator Merkley, thank you once again for the opportunity to
testify before you today. As you, your staff, and your fellow HELP
committee members continue your efforts to reauthorize the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, I urge you to do all you can to recognize,
highlight, and take advantage of the essential STEM-related
contributions science centers and museums provide for students and
teachers. The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Association of
Science-Technology Centers, and hundreds of science centers and museums
stand ready to assist you--and the country--in any way we can.
I would be happy to respond to any questions or provide additional
information as needed by you and the committee.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
When you have the teachers come in to learn these various
exciting activities, do they actually do them there? Do they
actually get their own hands dirty in the process of learning
how to create that environment, how to replicate that in the
classroom?
Ms. Stueber. Absolutely. We believe that learning by doing
is very powerful. And so, the teachers do that, and they do it
not only onsite, but we are connected through distance learning
technology. So we are helping teachers in Halfway, OR, for
instance, do the same activities that teachers in Portland
might be able to do.
Senator Merkley. When you were talking, I was thinking back
to a friend who described one of the ways that she first became
really interested in science, and it was when a teacher did a
demonstration. The teacher laid down on a bed of nails and then
had the kids split bricks on top of the teacher to understand
force.
I don't know if that is one of your----
Ms. Stueber. We do that, yes.
Senator Merkley. Do you do that? That sounds very engaging.
Thank you so much for your leadership of OMSI and for
OMSI's role in promoting and supporting education.
Thank you.
Ms. Stueber. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. And now we turn to Beth Unverzagt. I
apologize if I didn't get that right.
Ms. Unverzagt. You did pretty good.
Senator Merkley. Beth is the director of Oregon After
School for Kids in Salem.
STATEMENT OF BETH A. UNVERZAGT, DIRECTOR, OREGON AFTER SCHOOL
FOR KIDS, SALEM, OR
Ms. Unverzagt. Right. Actually, statewide.
Senator Merkley. Statewide.
Ms. Unverzagt. Statewide. So like all of the other
speakers, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here
and speak today, and I am thrilled that there are so many
people that are interested in the reauthorization and in STEM.
Our work as the network, we are part of a national
initiative. So there are 39 States that are developing
statewide networks. We are funded by the C.S. Mott Foundation
and by our Department of Education and our childcare division.
Our mission is solely to bring people together around
expanding and supporting and advocating for quality out-of-
school time. The network currently has 30 organizations, both
State agencies and associations working together to improve the
quality of afterschool for thousands of professionals that work
in the field, and over 800 programs that offer both academic
and enrichment opportunities for working families.
We provide training and technical assistance for our 21st
century grantees through the Department of Education, and in my
written statement, you will find the framework for science that
the Department of Education is working on and developing with
partners. And it really speaks to the partnership piece. So I
am not going to go over that today because it is quite lengthy.
But I think that taking some time to look at what our
Department of Education is working on will benefit you.
Research has shown over the last two decades and confirms
the impact of afterschool for children and families. We know
what works. The research is in. It is done.
During my 6 years as the State director, I have visited
hundreds of programs around the State. I have had numerous
conversations around the policy issues and the barriers to
quality programming. I have experienced the landscape of
afterschool.
I have been to the most rural parts of Oregon, to the
smallest schools, and they have inspired me because their
dedication to the children and their communities is beyond
belief. They are working for no money, and they are doing a
fantastic job in caring for children.
On the national and State and local level, there is an
increased attention around the demand for school systems and
afterschool and summer programs to genuinely collaborate. The
networks are an example of this.
We have, over the last couple of years, created Oregon
After School Standards, core competencies for people who work
in the field. We also had the opportunity to have a grant from
CCSSO and NGA and have done the first-time ever landscape of
afterschool.
I had the opportunity to speak directly with Superintendent
Sipe and Superintendent Grotting when we were going through
that process. So we know. We know quite a lot about where the
programs are and who is working in them.
Your request today was to talk about STEM, and we see
afterschool as the ideal setting. It provides smaller groups,
longer time slots, and less formal environment. In looking at
some of the research, 75 percent of the Nobel Prize winners
echo the statement stating that their passion for science was
first cultivated in nonschool environments.
Another study just published by the Curry School of
Education, the University of Virginia, speaks to something that
I heard this morning at the roundtable, which is that--it was
published in the Journal of Science Education, and it finds
that sparking students' interest in science at an early age is
more effective at steering them toward eventual careers in the
STEM field than pushing high school students.
I also wanted to mention that Oregon has just been chosen
as one of five States. A survey is going to be done of all of
the STEM within this State by Change the Equation. It is 110
CEOs that are working together to look at science. We are
excited that Oregon is going to be one of the five States.
What we believe is that we are ready. Oregon can scale up
the science programs. In my testimony, my written testimony, I
sent a graph of the kinds of science programs and that is just
a portion of what has been identified. And whether it is
robotics, rocketry, designing apps for mobile devices,
gardening, water conservation, it is there, and it exists.
It needs to be coordinated. It needs people to learn to
work together to accomplish these goals at school, afterschool,
community-based organizations, and parents. We want to put some
emphasis on the concept that expanded learning opportunities
connected to the school day is not more school. So we really
feel very strongly about hands-on learning and the process for
hands-on learning.
The challenge of the widespread adoption of STEM and
afterschool has, like with teachers, been the professional
development piece. Too often professional development
opportunities are limited to just teachers. We would like to
see it opened up and coordinated with afterschool programs
within the schools themselves.
It is an important step to collaboration. Program funds
should not be tied just to innovation and research, but to
quality design and delivery by well-trained, well-qualified
staff.
Existing research tells us best practices for high-quality,
effective design and delivery of programs. Time and duration
matter. It needs to be part of the equation.
We also need coordination and communication between
education providers, schools, afterschool parents. So ways in
which to do that, we need to create opportunities that allow
flexibility, understanding that you might have a very high-
powered 4-H club in one community. You might have SEI in
another community. You might have a faith-based organization in
another community. All basically trying to do the same thing,
which is to provide those supports and opportunities for the
children and youth in their community.
We also believe that the most important thing for the
reauthorization of ESEA would be to ensure that afterschool and
summer learning opportunities remain the key funded program for
21st century. Already our State, every State has reapplied
through the process. Language and guidance has been rewritten
already. We believe that we need to continue the State
allocations, as opposed to going to competitive grants.
We also encourage and support funding for a new title for
science education that connects school and afterschool.
Yesterday, your colleagues in the wonderful Federal Government
submitted--Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Murkowski--it was
late yesterday--and Senator Murray from Washington introduced
the After School for America's Children Act. It clearly
outlines almost every single thing that we have talked about
today. I would ask that you look at it and support it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Unverzagt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth A. Unverzagt
Research over the last two decades confirms the positive impact of
afterschool programs on children, families and communities nationwide.
At the national, State and local levels there is increased attention to
and demand for schools and afterschool/summer programs to genuinely
collaborate. That process will require multiple institutions and people
to commit to being boundary crossers, to be open to creative solutions
as they discover and design a new day for learning that supports all of
America's children and youth.
In Oregon and across the Nation afterschool and summer learning
programs have been able to provide engaging STEM education
opportunities to young people by making science, mathematics,
technology and engineering subjects come alive through hands-on,
experiential learning. The Oregon afterschool network believes that the
innovative programs and strategies that have been developed locally can
and should be scaled up and integrated with ESEA to benefit students.
Whether robotics, rocketry, designing apps for mobile devices,
gardening, water conservation, cooking, crime scene investigation (CSI)
simulations, or other programs, out of school programs can complement
school day lessons while encouraging students to embrace the scientific
method, and have fun.
An expanded learning opportunity connected to the school day is NOT
more school after school (Einstein's definition of insanity, after all)
using project-, service- and place-based learning with culminating
events such as exhibitions, presentations, and competitions (e.g.,
FIRST LEGO robotics, www.usfirst.org nationally or www.ortop.org in
Oregon).
There are many challenges facing education from our perspective,
and they are:
The challenge to the widespread adoption of STEM
afterschool has been the professional development opportunities for
staff and consistent implementation funding. Too often professional
development opportunities are limited to teacher. Opening these
opportunities up to afterschool educators would be helpful.
Program funds not tied to ``innovation'' or ``research''
but to quality design & delivery by well-trained, well-equipped staff
for both afterschool and certain in-school programs. Existing research
does tell us the best practices for high quality, effective design &
delivery of programs.
Coordination and communication between education providers
(schools, afterschool), parents, teachers and community both for better
student access to programs, more effective delivery to students and for
some form of accountability, preferably longitudinal tracking of
student outcomes and the use of higher-order assessment than multiple-
guess tests.
Allow flexibility, so that if one community has a very
active 4-H program and another has a very active school-based science
club, each community gets to leverage its particular resources and does
not have to re-invent any wheels, only connect them to the vehicle.
This is particularly important for rural areas.
Instructional time during the school day for STEM,
emphasizing deeper rather than broader knowledge, using application of
knowledge to integrate and contextualize knowledge and skills (answer
``When will I ever use THIS in my life? Why should I care about THIS?''
with engaging projects using math, science, engineering, computer,
language & social skills).
The most important thing for the re-authorization of ESEA
would be to ensure afterschool and summer learning opportunities remain
as the key funded programs under the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers initiative in Title IV Part B of ESEA. We encourage and support
additional funding for science education that connects school and
afterschool/summer programs.
We are beginning to recognize that organized and intentionally
designed non-school hour programs not only help keep communities safe,
but they keep kids engaged in learning which supports collaboration,
problem solving, creative thinking, and helps develop life skills and
enrichment opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to
access.
oregon
Our Oregon Department of Education is currently drafting a
Statewide Framework for STEM Education. The initial input for the
framework was provided by representatives from business and education
including organizations that focus on STEM education outside of the
school day. We anticipate that the framework will be available for
broader review in September 2011. The framework will:
1. Define STEM education and goals related to preparation for
college, careers, and citizenship.
2. Identify critical components needed for improvement in STEM
education.
3. Describe a mechanism for linking educators and communities
interested in improving STEM education.
A brief summary of the existing work on each of these sections is
included here.
proposed definition for oregon stem education
``An approach to teaching and lifelong learning that emphasizes the
natural interconnectedness of the four separate STEM disciplines. The
connections are made explicit through collaboration between educators
resulting in real and appropriate context built into instruction,
curriculum, and assessment. The common element of problem solving is
emphasized across all STEM disciplines allowing students to discover,
explore, and apply critical thinking skills as they learn.''
goals for oregon stem education
Improve student performance in STEM related content;
Increase interest in and improve preparation for STEM
careers; and
Become proficient in STEM concepts necessary to make
personal and societal decisions.
components of oregon stem education
Improving STEM education in Oregon will require more than a new
curriculum, more professional development, or enhanced after-school
activities. The Components of Oregon STEM Education describe the
broader set of issues that need to be addressed so that the individual
actions of schools, districts, State agencies, educational program
providers, businesses, and communities provide maximum impact. Key
components of Oregon STEM Education include Community Engagement,
Effective Instruction, Effective Leadership, Evaluation and Research,
Effective Learning Environments, and Coherent Standards and Policies.
Community Engagement
STEM education is the responsibility of a community that extends
beyond schools. Business and industry has an interest in STEM education
in order to grow a literate and innovative workforce. Wide ranges of
organizations provide STEM learning opportunities through classes,
competitive events, and mentorships. Parents and volunteers provide
personal knowledge and experience that can engage and inspire students.
Engagement of the community in STEM education requires
communication and collaboration. Community members who are not part of
the school setting need to know how to interact with schools, teachers,
and students in a meaningful and sustainable fashion. Schools need to
understand what resources are available and how to best incorporate
those resources into the educational setting. Collaborations between
schools and communities can also provide positive support for policy.
Effective Instruction
Teachers are central to effective STEM instruction whether they are
teaching science or mathematics in a school, coaching a robotics team,
leading a 4-H club, or guiding a group through a museum. A STEM teacher
can be someone who has completed a professional education program,
attended training sessions, or accumulated life experience in STEM
disciplines. They can hold a variety of credentials and teach in a
variety of settings. STEM teachers create opportunities for students to
make connections between science, technology, engineering and
mathematics and use that knowledge and critical thinking skills as they
problem solve.
In order to improve teacher effectiveness in STEM instruction
teachers need professional development opportunities to improve their
knowledge and skills. Additionally, teachers need to be able to
collaborate with others on the development of STEM learning
opportunities for students, improve practice through lesson studies,
and have access to coaching support.
Effective Leadership
Effective Leadership is critical to ensuring equitable access to
high quality STEM teaching and lifelong learning. Leaders may come from
both inside and outside of the schools. An effective leader may be a
teacher leader, a school level administrator, a district level
curriculum specialist, a regional professional development provider,
ESD or school district superintendent, State level education
specialist, a community member, or an industry representative.
Effective Leadership requires the engaging of others about the
importance of STEM, sharing success stories based on data, and building
capacity by helping others succeed in providing STEM learning
opportunities for students. Effective Leadership includes focused
instructional leadership as well as developing and implementing
coherent policies, advocacy for equity, providing and supporting
effective learning environments, establishing and maintaining the
infrastructure and facilities necessary to support teachers in the
delivery of effective STEM instruction, building connections to
community, parents, and businesses, and ensuring accountability at
every level.
Evaluation and Research
Evaluation of the Oregon STEM Framework is essential for monitoring
the impact of this work and fine-tuning based on lessons learned. Our
ability to illustrate what STEM learning looks like and the impact on
student achievement is imperative for developing sustainable STEM
learning opportunities for our students. Research will help us as we
provide training for leadership and teachers by providing information
about successful strategies, efficiencies, and greater ability to
communicate the importance of STEM to our students, parents and
community members. Evaluation includes monitoring progress and lessons
learned in addition to identification of best practices in STEM.
Effective Learning Environments
Both the physical and social environments influence STEM learning.
With an emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking in STEM,
students need to be part of a social environment that encourages
dialogue with teachers and other students. Effective learning requires
an environment that includes appropriate pacing of instruction,
grouping of students and feedback. Careful consideration of physical
layout of classrooms or learning environments, including appropriate
tools and technologies, is required to support social aspects of
learning.
Coherent Standards and Policies
Coherent standards and policies help remove barriers to
implementation and provide support for development of interconnected
STEM education programs. Standards define what is both expected to be
taught and learned at each grade level. Coherent standards help support
educators in understanding how to meet these standard expectations
within a STEM learning environment.
Policies that influence STEM learning may be local, regional,
statewide, public, or private. These policies need to be reviewed to
make sure that they support rather than set up barriers to STEM
teaching and learning.
linking stem educators
Oregon is engaging in a networking model for promoting changes in
STEM education statewide that are effective and coordinated. Similar
models are at various stages of development in other States such as
Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. In these States,
regional networks of schools are being formed to support coherent
improvement in STEM education. This concept is identified by the
Carnegie Foundation as Networked Improvement Communities and is
described in some detail in a document that can be found at http://
www.carnegiefoundation
.org/sites/default/files/bryk-gomez_building-nics-education.pdf.
other stem education resources
Fall 2010 data reference links--http://opas.ous.edu/
Work2009-2011/State-of-Ed-OR-refs.pdf.
Exploring Engineering and Computer Science brochure,
locally tuned for Oregon--http://opas.ous.edu/Work2009-2011/Marketing/
E-Week-explore-2011.pdf.
K-12 STEM education opportunities in & around the Portland
Metro area--www.technosciencesupersite.org.
State Educational Technology Directors Association Class of 2020
Action Plan--STEM Whitepaper: http://www.setda.org/web/guest/2020/stem-
education.
National Academies Press Successful K-12 STEM Education:
Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=131581.
Reflect on your experiences (as an employer/ teacher/ administrator/
parent/ student) trying to get/working to offer encouragement for, and
greater opportunities to Oregon students in science, mathematics,
technology and engineering.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony.
We have 10 minutes left. And during those 10 minutes, I
just wanted to open this up. You have all heard each other and
perhaps that produced some thoughts or comments or insights. I
will ask you to keep it very brief so that we can bounce back
and forth and utilize this last 10 minutes.
Anybody want to jump in? Anything on your mind from having
heard this dialogue on either side?
Yes, Mr. Hopson.
Mr. Hopson. I think there is two distinct sides of this, as
we talk about STEM and being competitive internationally. I
mean, I do believe that America, we all know, has fallen way
behind. So STEM and the research and work around that is very,
very necessary.
But it certainly doesn't need to be an either/or because
many of us are dealing with the other end of the spectrum. We
are just trying to get a kid graduated, trying to keep them in
the school and become a positive contributing citizen.
So I think both are very, very important, and we do need to
have emphasis on both because, as a nation, we can't compete
unless we do a much better job on what the individuals across
from me are talking about. But at the same time, if we can't
keep more kids in school, we won't even have the sheer numbers
to be able to compete.
Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you.
Yes.
Ms. Sipe. I appreciate all of the feedback today,
especially regarding STEM and student supports. The one thing I
would like to emphasize is to remember the needs of rural and
remote students in these areas specifically.
As I watched the science demonstration, my 14-year-old son
is a scientist, but he will never have access to this type of
program because we do not have this program available, nor do
we have mentors in our area to provide those services to kids.
And so, if we are going to be requiring these types of
activities, we need to remember access as well, please.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
So it is important to recognize the challenges in a very
different, rural community. Intel is a long ways away from
Umatilla.
Thank you.
Go ahead and take the microphone so we can get you on
record.
Mr. Angulo. Thomas Friedman, the writer for the New York
Times, had an article yesterday called ``Start You Up.'' I
happened to see him on C-SPAN at this Aspen Institute Fair of
Ideas or a meeting of ideas, and he was talking about what is
happening in our new global economy, of how our American
students are just really falling further and further behind,
compared with the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Germans
and Russians.
You know, he talks about the skills of the future, and I
just want to thank you, Mr. Fuller, because you are certainly
putting us closer to that kind of thinking, that kind of
changing the paradigm of public education in the United States.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Eduardo.
Yes.
Mr. Fuller. I just wanted to respond to what Superintendent
Sipe said. There is actually--having done a lot of fundraising
work--there is a ton of money out there in industry looking to
get science programs in rural schools and a great opportunity
to reach out to I know that especially robotics teams, but also
a lot of other organizations are very willing to help expand
their programs.
If you would like to get in contact with one of us, I am
sure we can find a way to get a robotics team somewhere in your
school. I have found tons of money for rural schools. So it is
out there. You have to know where to look for it.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Nathan.
Ms. Anderson. I was just going to compliment Mr. Fuller on
your amazing presentation. I think you are an amazing example
of how important it is to hear from students. You are the
reason that we are all here talking about education, and
without your voice, we are missing a huge element.
Thank you so much. And again, you reminded us how important
outcomes are. And Intel is an advocate for good assessments,
but that is just a piece. We need to look at how we can make
sure students like Mr. Fuller and others are able to connect
and find the education pathway that they are going to take to
be successful.
So we can't forget that there is life after K-12. We need
to make the connections and make it a whole system.
Senator Merkley. President Stueber.
Ms. Stueber. I appreciate the dialogue that you created
this morning, and one of the most uplifting things for me about
coming today is hearing from so many colleagues from so many
different approaches, all with the same intent, which is
helping our students.
I guess my inspiration would lead me to encourage you in
this reauthorization language and in thinking about all the
ways that we advocate for STEM to make sure the tent is very
large. It will take all of us. The need is so great, and we all
need to be growing in the same direction to be effective.
Your leadership and guiding legislation that enables that
will be really valuable.
Senator Merkley. You know, one of the programs that is an
afterschool program is Chess for Success. And Chess for Success
is kind of at an opposite end of the spectrum, if you will,
from the FIRST Robotics in that it is often run without any
real cost resources--a classroom, a volunteer mentor, and some
chessboards.
There was a study done on Chess for Success here in Oregon
that showed it had a pretty positive impact. I just wanted to
ask if anyone here has had association with that approach, as
an additional enrichment program?
Yes, Beth.
Ms. Unverzagt. Yes, I have. There are many Chess for
Success programs that are part of other kinds of enrichment and
activity within a more comprehensive program. So they don't
really stand alone. They stand in with other activities within
schools, within the afterschool program.
There are hundreds of kids doing chess all over Oregon, and
we see the same thing with Lego FIRST Robotics infused into the
afterschool program itself. So they have both small first
through third grade teams, and then fourth through fifth grade
teams where Legos are a part of the 10-week curriculum.
And then we also see that there are providers like OMSI or
Mad Scientist or others that are coming into and being part of
more comprehensive programming.
Senator Merkley. While you have the microphone, are there
other things in the afterschool enrichment world that are
particularly transportable models into the rural areas that may
not have, say, industrial manufacturing partners and so forth
nearby?
Ms. Unverzagt. There definitely are. We see a lot of
creativity. For example, one of our partners is Fish and
Wildlife, and they offer all kinds of training and
opportunities within rural communities. We have fishing in
afterschool. We have safety classes.
There are lots of environmental things being done within
rural afterschool. Some areas that have arts associations or
arts organizations take really strong leadership in afterschool
around the arts. So it really is a wide spectrum.
We are piloting a program that NASA created, which is After
School Universe. So we are actually training with a particular
curriculum that is going to go through sixth through eighth
grade to 21st century and then also to SMILE and COSI, so the
partners within science.
Senator Merkley. Time for one last comment. Anyone else--
yes?
Mr. Hopson. Just to respond to your question about Chess
for Success, we have had some experience with that. But what I
would say, as it relates to whether it is Chess for Success or
Lego Robotics, there are pieces that we talk about--the who,
the how, and the what.
Chess for Success is a what. Lego Robotics is a what. They
are good what's, but they are only as good as the who that is
running the program and how they interact with kids.
The key to all of this is the interaction with young people
on a daily basis. What we do does have some relevance, but it
is not the major part of this, as far as I am concerned.
There are a lot of different afterschool efforts all around
the country that people talk about. But if you don't have the
right who involved with that and how they have learned to
interact with young people, it still would not be a success.
Senator Merkley. I think that that is right. Oh, do you
have a comment?
Ms. Unverzagt. I am going to agree with Mr. Hopson that, in
fact, the No. 1 thing that makes a program successful is the
who. And research bears it out, No. 1. They need to be trained.
They need supports so that they can continue to do that kind of
outreach and support.
In your team, you have someone who supports you in your
team.
Senator Merkley. On that final note echoed on both sides of
the room, I think that is a good point to conclude this
hearing.
Before I gavel the hearing closed, I really want to thank
everyone for coming and attending.
Jeanne, I want to check in with you for a moment. Did folks
have a chance to make a note on the way in if they want to
followup with specific comments?
OK. Great. So I realize that in a formal structure of a
Senate hearing, we don't have the open forum. So because that
is not part of the Senate, we are going to followup with
everyone who marked that they have comments and inputs on the
sign-up sheet.
And if you didn't mark that but want to now, please connect
with Jeanne Atkins on your way out, and we will make sure we
followup with you.
Education is an undertaking of our entire society,
certainly of those within our schools, those who are supporting
programs within our schools, those are strengthening our
families. It is the complete community effort and perhaps the
very most important thing we do for the success of the next
generation.
Thank you for being a part of this, both as participants in
the audience and for those of you who served on the panel. I
appreciate it very much and applaud the work you are doing and
look forward to the ongoing conversation. Because this is not
just one bill up before a legislature, rather this is an
ongoing conversation about the health and quality of our
society, success of our children, and the strength of our
economy.
And with that, I will gavel closed this hearing of the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]