[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
----------
Serial No. 110-61
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-638 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 10, 2007............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 311
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional materials submitted:
Byard, Eliza, Ph.D., interim executive director, Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight Education Network............ 311
Crew, Rudolph F., Ed.D., superintendent, Miami-Dade
County, Florida Public Schools..................... 314
Poeck, Mary K., MLIS, library media specialist,
Vallejo City Unified School District............... 318
Statement of Witnesses:
Bradburn, Frances Bryant, director of instructional
technology, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 248
Prepared statement of.................................... 249
Bray, Janet B., CAE, executive director, Association for
Career and Technical Education............................. 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Brewer, David L. III, superintendent, Los Angeles Unified
School District............................................ 273
Prepared statement of.................................... 275
Brown, Germaine, fifth grade teacher and mentor teacher...... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Cannaday, Dr. Billy, Jr., superintendent of public
instruction, Virginia Department of Education.............. 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Carey, Kevin, policy manager, Education Sector............... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Casserly, Michael, executive director, Council of the Great
City Schools............................................... 291
Prepared statement of.................................... 293
Castellani, John J., president, Business Roundtable, on
behalf of the Business Coalition for Student Achievement
(BCSA)..................................................... 206
Prepared statement of.................................... 207
Cohen, Michael, president, Achieve. Inc...................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Cortese, Antonia, executive vice president, the American
Federation of Teachers..................................... 245
Prepared statement of.................................... 246
Darling-Hammond, Linda, Charles E. Ducommun professor of
education, Stanford University............................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Gong, Brian, executive director, the National Center for the
Improvement of Educational Assessment...................... 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Gray, Dr. La Ruth H., deputy director, Metropolitan Center
for Urban Education........................................ 300
Prepared statement of.................................... 302
Harris, Charles T. III, cofounder and executive partner,
Seachange Capital Partners................................. 190
Prepared statement of.................................... 192
Haycock, Kati, president, the Education Trust................ 239
Prepared statement of.................................... 240
Houston, Dr. Paul, executive director, American Association
of School Administrators................................... 296
Prepared statement of.................................... 298
Hughes, MaryKate, master teacher, D.C. Preparatory Academy... 226
Prepared statement of.................................... 228
Jennings, Jack, president, Center on Education Policy........ 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Additional submission:
Recommendations from the Center on Education Policy.. 22
Jones, Stephanie J., executive director, National Urban
League Policy Institute.................................... 112
Prepared statement of.................................... 114
Additional submission:
National Urban League recommendations for the
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)..... 117
Kohlmoos, James, president and CEO, Knowledge Alliance....... 209
Prepared statement of.................................... 211
Losen, Daniel J., senior education law and policy associate,
on behalf of the Civil Rights Project of UCLA.............. 150
Prepared statement of.................................... 151
Mandlawitz, Myrna R., policy director, Learning Disabilities
Association of America..................................... 177
Prepared statement of.................................... 178
McPartland, James M., Ph.D., research professor and co-
director, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns
Hopkins University......................................... 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Messina, Andrea, commissioner, Aspen Institute Commission on
No Child Left Behind....................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Letters submitted to Messrs. Miller and McKeon........... 50
Neas, Katy Beh, co-chair, Consortium for Citizens With
Disabilities Task Force.................................... 172
Prepared statement of.................................... 174
Petrilli, Mike, vice president for national programs &
policy, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation................... 213
Prepared statement of.................................... 215
Piche, Dianne M., executive director, Citizens' Commission on
Civil Rights............................................... 159
Prepared statement of.................................... 161
Podesta, John, president and chief executive officer, Center
for American Progress...................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Pompa, Delia, vice president, National Council of La Raza.... 165
Prepared statement of.................................... 167
Additional submission:
Internet address to National Council of La Raza Issue
Brief No. 16, Mar. 22, 2006........................ 171
Resnick, Michael A., associate executive director, National
School Boards Association.................................. 305
Prepared statement of.................................... 307
Rodriguez, Sonia Hernandez, executive director, National Farm
Workers Service Center..................................... 202
Prepared statement of.................................... 203
Rooker, Kathleen, principal, Neil Armstrong Elementary School 231
Prepared statement of.................................... 233
Schnur, Jon, chief executive officer and cofounder, New
Leaders for New Schools.................................... 183
Prepared statement of.................................... 186
Smith, Nelson, president, National Alliance for Public
Charter Schools............................................ 193
Prepared statement of.................................... 195
Sommers, Mary Kay, Ph.D., president, National Association of
Elementary School Principals (NAESP)....................... 254
Prepared statement of.................................... 255
Stark, Barry, president, National Association of Secondary
School Principals.......................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Steinberg, Adria, associate vice president, Jobs for the
Future..................................................... 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Van Hook, Kristan, senior vice president, Public Policy and
Development, National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. 259
Prepared statement of.................................... 262
Additional submission:
Internet address to appendices to statement.......... 267
Weaver, Reg, president, National Education Association....... 234
Prepared statement of.................................... 235
Wise, Hon. Bob, president, Alliance for Excellent Education.. 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Wodiska, Joan E., director, Education, Early Childhood and
Workforce Committee, National Governors Association........ 278
Prepared statement of.................................... 280
Wyner, Joshua, executive vice president, Jack Kent Cooke
Foundation................................................. 198
Prepared statement of.................................... 200
Additional submission:
Internet address to ``Achievementrap,'' How America
Is Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students From
Lower-Income Families, a report by the Jack Kent
Cooke Foundation................................... 202
Zamora, Peter, Washington, DC, Regional Counsel, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)....... 107
Prepared statement of.................................... 108
Zirkin, Nancy, vice president and director of public policy,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)............... 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 102
Additional submission:
Statement of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights............................................. 103
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
----------
Monday, September 10, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews,
Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis of
California, Grijalva, Bishop of New York, Sanchez, Sarbanes,
Loebsack, Hirono, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Courtney, Shea-Porter,
McKeon, Petri, Castle, Biggert, Wilson, Kline, McMorris
Rodgers, and Price.
Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Johnson Cain, Senior Education
Policy Advisor (K-12); Alejandra Ceja, Senior Budget/
Appropriations Analyst; Fran-Victoria Cox, Documents Clerk;
Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Sarah Dyson,
Administrative Assistant, Oversight; Adam Ezring, Junior
Legislative Associate; Denise Forte, Director of Education
Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor (Early
Childhood); Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Lloyd
Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff
Assistant, Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director;
Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative Assistant to Director of
Education Policy; Danielle Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Sara
Lonardo, Staff Assistant; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy
Advisor; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness;
Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff
Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Deputy
Communications Director; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; James
Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative Assistant;
Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director;
Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Taylor
Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Victor Klatt, Minority
Staff Director; Chad Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan
Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
Counsel; Sally Stroup, Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Brad
Thomas, Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Miller. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. I
would like to begin with an opening statement by the Chair.
That would be me. In Washington, we talk like an out-of-body
experience.
Good morning and welcome to everyone in attendance. Today I
certainly want to thank, in the beginning, all of those who
have agreed to testify. There were many more people who sought
to testify that we were not able to accommodate, but we have
asked them to give us written submissions so that the members
and the staff could review their comments and their concerns
along with those who are testifying in the hearing. I want to
thank the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle
for their attendance.
Today is a bit of an unusual day. We have a number of
members who also serve on the Armed Services Committee, where a
very important hearing will begin later this morning. And we
have a very extensive witness list. I would encourage that this
would be a listening session. But I also want to make it clear
for members who have a specific concern or if there is
ambiguity or a point of clarification that you seek to have
made I would encourage you to go ahead and pursue that effort.
But we would like to make sure that we are able to get through
all of the witnesses in a timely fashion. So it is a little bit
different, but in no way seek to diminish the rights that the
members have under the 5-minute rule to question any members of
the panel that is before us.
Let me begin by just saying that all parents, no matter
where they live, how much they earn or what color their skin,
want their children to go to a good school, to do well
academically, and to go and have the opportunity to go on to
college or to a good and rewarding job. And as a Nation
concerned with our leadership in the world, the strength of our
economy, the vitality of our democracy, we must ensure that
every child receives the best possible education. We have known
for decades that too many children, particularly poor and
minority children, are being deprived of the opportunity of a
decent education that could help them lead more successful and
gratifying lives. Six years ago, we finally came together on a
bipartisan basis to do something about that. We asked the
States to set higher standards for the schools and students. We
did this because we believed that every child could succeed if
given access to a highly qualified teacher, a sound curriculum
and a decent school. We also made performance at our schools
transparent and began to hold schools accountable for their
performance. These were historic and positive changes.
However, we didn't get it all right when we enacted No
Child Left Behind. I know it is rare to hear such an admission
in Washington, but it is the truth. We simply didn't get it all
right the first time around. In increasing numbers and with
increasing urgency, the American people are telling us that No
Child Left Behind is not fair, not flexible and not adequately
funded. We will not waver when it comes to accountability to
setting high goals and standards of the current law. That is
not negotiable. But we would be negligent, whether because of
hubris or some short-sighted reasons, to refuse to make
significant improvements to the law that are necessary for it
to succeed as we intended in 2001 and 2002. America's education
law must insist on accountability with high expectations, high
standards and high quality assessments. It must be a law that
closes the achievement gap and helps all children learn. That
same law must treat children in school fairly, to provide
educators with flexibility and resources they need to succeed.
Fortunately, we are not faced with a choice between more
accountability or less accountability. Rather we face the
obligation and the opportunity to finish what we started, to
ensure that our system of educational accountability is smarter
and more effective.
In late August and early September, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Kildee,Mr. Castle and myself released a bipartisan discussion
draft for the reauthorization legislation. It has inspired a
vigorous and welcome discussion about how we can improve the
law. There have been over 60,000 downloads of that discussion
draft to date. We took the unprecedented step of releasing a
bipartisan discussion draft to ensure that the public would
have ample opportunity to consider the comments on any
direction that my colleagues and I believe we must take before
we formally introduce a bill. This reauthorization process has
been one of the most open, transparent and bipartisan processes
that I have had the privilege to participate in. The bipartisan
discussion draft reflects years worth of discussion with
parents, teachers and administrators. It reflects the input of
Members of Congress from both parties across all ideological
minds. It reflects testimony delivered in nearly two dozen
congressional hearings that were originally started under the
chairmanship of Mr. McKeon when we started the bipartisan
process last year before the elections. And it reflects the
recommendation of more than 100 education, civil rights and
business organizations.
A good process, however, is the result of more than just
logistics. More than anything, the changes we are recommending
are motivated by the aspirations and the expectations of
parents for their children. We must do better, and we can do
better. And here is how we can do it. For starters, we must
have a clear, richer and more informed understanding of what is
happening inside of our schools. That is why our discussion
draft creates a smarter system of accountability that judges
schools on more than just a single test on a single day.
Emphasis will continue on reading and math. In fact, at the
elementary level under the discussion draft, 85 percent of the
accountability will come from reading and math scores as they
do today. But we would also allow the use of additional valid
and reliable measures to assess student learning and school
performance more fairly, comprehensively and accurately. We
want to make sure that schools get credit for the progress that
they make with students over time. That is why we create a
smarter system of accountability that includes a growth model
for crediting schools for gains in student achievement. Even
better, growth models will give us information that will be
timely and helpful to teachers and principals in implementing
reform. To be successful, our system of accountability must
encourage States to set high standards. Lowering the bar so
more children can reach it is a sham.
Across the country employers are telling us that too many
high school graduates are not ready for the workplace while
colleges are telling us that too many high school graduates are
not ready for the college classroom. Our bipartisan discussion
draft asks business and higher education leaders to come
together and work with educators to develop more rigorous State
standards so that high school graduates will be ready for the
next stage of their lives, whether they choose the workplace, a
career or college. We must have a smarter system of
accountability that distinguishes among different schools and
the challenges facing them, as well as their needs for
addressing those challenges. Schools with specific problems in
specific areas should be allowed to use instruction
interventions most appropriate to their needs. Schools facing
greater challenges must receive more intensive support. Only in
this way can we truly target our resources appropriately.
We will never achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind
unless we change the way we treat teachers and principals. As a
Nation, we are not offering teachers the respect and the
support they deserve. As a result, we are facing a teacher
shortage crisis. It is long past time that we treated teachers
like valued partners in the education system. The bipartisan
discussion draft provides incentives that will bring top talent
into the classrooms that need it the most. These include
teacher career ladders, improved working conditions, mentoring
for new teachers, performance pay for principals and teachers
based upon fair and proven models developed in collaboration
with principals and teachers.
As we seek to make improvements to the law, we also need to
ensure that States have adequate resources to make the law a
success. We need greater and sustained investment in American
education. In the new Congress, the Democratic leadership has
begun this new era of investment. I would hope that, rather
than fight against it, the President will join us in securing
the new appropriated levels for Title I and for elementary and
secondary education and No Child Left Behind. A great American
education system for our children and our country cannot be
built on the cheap. We will continue to insist upon high
standards and high expectations for all children, poor
children, minority children, children with disabilities and
English language learners. There is no question about that.
But it is equally clear that in order to accomplish our
shared and critical goal of meeting the expectations and
aspirations of America's parents and students, we must make
improvements to the current law. I am excited to hear from our
panels today as we continue this open process we began last
year. We will hear from 44 experts, from education, civil
rights, business, philanthropic and research communities. I
expect we will have a lively and informative discussion. And I
want to thank all the witnesses again for their time and for
their expertise. And at this point, I would like to recognize
Mr. McKeon, the senior Republican on the Education and Labor
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good morning and welcome.
All parents--no matter where they live, how much they earn, or what
color their skin--want their children to go to a good school, to do
well academically, and to go on to college or to a good, rewarding job.
And as a nation concerned with our leadership in the world, the
strength of our economy, and the vitality of our democracy, we must
ensure that every child receives the best possible education.
We have known for decades that too many children--particularly poor
and minority children--were being deprived of the opportunity of a
decent education that could help them to lead more successful and
gratifying lives.
Six years ago we finally came together on a bipartisan basis to do
something about that.
We asked states to set higher standards for their schools and
students. We did this because we believed that every child could
succeed--if given access to a highly qualified teacher and a sound
curriculum in a good school.
We made performance at our schools transparent and began to hold
schools accountable for their performance.
These were historic and positive changes.
However, we didn't get it all right when we enacted No Child Left
Behind. In increasing numbers and with increasing urgency, the American
people are telling us that the No Child Left Behind Act is not fair,
not flexible, and not adequately funded.
We will not waver when it comes to the accountability goals and
standards of the current law. That's not negotiable.
But we would be negligent, whether because of hubris or for other
shortsighted reasons, to refuse to make significant improvements to the
law--improvements that are necessary for it to succeed as we intended
in 2001 and 2002.
America's education law must insist on accountability with high
expectations, high standards, and high-quality assessments. It must be
a law that closes the achievement gap and helps all children learn.
That same law must treat children and schools fairly--and provide
educators with the flexibility and resources they need to succeed.
Fortunately, we are not faced with a choice between more
accountability and less accountability. Rather, we face the obligation
and opportunity to finish what we started--to ensure that our system of
educational accountability is smart and effective.
In late August and early September, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Castle and I released a bipartisan discussion draft of the
reauthorization legislation. It has inspired a vigorous and welcome
discussion about how we can improve the law.
We took the unprecedented step of releasing the bipartisan
discussion draft to ensure that the public would have ample opportunity
to consider and comment on the direction my colleagues and I believe we
must take--before we formally introduce a bill.
This reauthorization process has been one of the most open,
transparent, and bipartisan processes that I have had the privilege to
participate in.
The bipartisan discussion draft reflects years' worth of
discussions with parents, teachers, and administrators.
It reflects the input of members of Congress from both parties and
across the ideological spectrum. It reflects testimony delivered in
nearly two dozen Congressional hearings. And it reflects the
recommendations of more than 100 education, civil rights, and business
organizations.
A good process, however, is the result of more than just logistics.
More than anything, the changes we are recommending are motivated by
the aspirations and expectations of parents for their children. We must
do better, and we can do better.
Here's how we can do it.
For starters, we must have a clearer, richer, and more informed
understanding of what's happening inside our schools. That's why our
discussion draft creates a smarter system of accountability that judges
schools on more than just a single test given on a single day.
Emphasis will continue to be on reading and math achievement, but
we will also allow the use of additional valid and reliable measures to
assess student learning and school performance more fairly,
comprehensively, and accurately.
We want to make sure that schools get credit for the progress they
make with students over time. That's why we create a smarter system of
accountability that includes growth models for crediting schools for
gains in student achievement.
Even better, these growth models will give us information that will
be timely and helpful to teachers and principals in implementing
reforms.
To be successful, our system of accountability must encourage
states to set high standards. Lowering the bar so that more children
reach it is a sham. Across the country, employers say that high school
graduates are not ready for the workplace, while colleges say that high
school graduates are not ready for the college classroom.
Our bipartisan discussion draft asks business and higher education
leaders to come together and work with educators to develop more
rigorous state standards so that high school graduates will be ready
for the next stage of their lives.
We must have a smarter system of accountability that distinguishes
among different schools and the challenges facing them, as well as
their needs for addressing those challenges.
Schools with specific problems in specific areas should be allowed
to use the instructional interventions most appropriate to their needs.
Schools facing greater challenges must receive more intensive support.
Only in this way will we truly target our resources appropriately.
We will never achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind unless we
change the way we treat teachers and principals. As a nation we are not
offering teachers the respect and support they deserve, and as a result
we are facing a teacher shortage crisis. It's long past time that we
treated teachers like valued partners in the education system.
The bipartisan discussion draft provides incentives that will bring
top talent into the classrooms that need it most. These include teacher
career ladders, improved working conditions, mentoring for new
teachers, and performance pay for principals and teachers based on fair
and proven models developed in collaboration with principals and
teachers.
As we seek to make improvements to the law, we also need to ensure
that states have adequate resources to make the law a success. We need
greater and sustained investments in American education.
In the new Congress, the Democratic Leadership has begun this new
era of investment. Rather than fight against it, President Bush should
join it. A great American education system for our children and our
country cannot be built on the cheap.
We will continue to insist upon high standards and high
expectations for all children: poor children, minority children,
children with disabilities, and English language learners. There is no
question about that.
But it is equally clear that in order to accomplish our shared and
critical goal of meeting the expectations and aspirations of America's
parents, we must make improvements to current law.
I am excited to hear from our panels today as we continue the open
process we began last year.
We will hear from 44 experts from the education, civil rights,
business, philanthropic, and research communities. I expect we will
have a lively and informative discussion. I want to thank all of
witnesses for their time and expertise.
______
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's
hearing. We have an impressive list of witnesses here today to
offer a broad range of viewpoints on this critical topic.
Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind is one of the
greatest opportunities this committee has. It also is one of
the greatest challenges. During my time as chairman, we began a
series of hearings and meetings with stakeholders to thoroughly
and thoughtfully examine the issues that must be confronted
during reauthorization. Chairman Miller has continued that
effort. Together we have held nearly two dozen hearings and met
with countless educators and experts. I have been clear from
the outset of this process that my goal is to lend my support
to a bipartisan bill that strengthens the law and maintains its
core principles of accountability, flexibility and parental
choice. The staff on both sides of the aisle have been working
tirelessly to produce a discussion draft that reflects what we
have heard during our extensive hearing and meeting process.
That draft, which we are here today to discuss, represents a
starting point upon which to build. Chairman Miller and I along
with Mr. Kildee and Mr. Castle, the chairman, senior Republican
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, have
been receiving written comments on the draft since it was
released. Today we have the opportunity to hear directly from
those who share our commitment to ensuring that every child is
learning. I have said this before, and it bears repeating:
There are those who believe this draft goes too far in
modifying the original law. And there are those who believe it
does not go far enough. If there is one consistent message in
the comments we have received, it is that this draft is far
from perfect. Rest assured, this bill is far from complete and
this process is far from over. We made great progress, but much
work remains. But by adhering to the pillars of the law,
accountability, flexibility and parental choice, I believe we
can craft a bill that builds on NCLB's strengths, improves its
shortcomings and produces even more results for students. Once
again, I would like to thank Chairman Miller for convening this
hearing and working in a bipartisan fashion to improve this
landmark law, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Republican
Member, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing. We have an
impressive list of witnesses here today to offer a broad range of
viewpoints on this critical topic, and so I will keep my remarks brief.
Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act is one of the
greatest opportunities this committee has. It is also one of the
greatest challenges.
During my time as Chairman, we began a series of hearings and
meetings with stakeholders to thoroughly and thoughtfully examine the
issues that must be confronted during reauthorization. Chairman Miller
has continued that effort, and together we have held nearly two dozen
hearings and met with countless educators and experts.
I have been clear from the outset of this process that my goal is
to lend my support to a bipartisan bill that strengthens the law and
maintains its core principles of accountability, flexibility, and
parental choice.
The staff on both sides of the aisle have been working tirelessly
to produce a discussion draft that reflects what we have heard during
our extensive hearing and meeting process. That draft, which we are
here today to discuss, represents a starting point upon which to build.
Chairman Miller and I, along with Mr. Kildee and Mr. Castle, the
Chairman and Senior Republican on the Elementary and Secondary
Education Subcommittee, have been receiving written comments on the
draft since it was released. Today, we have the opportunity to hear
directly from those who share our commitment to ensuring that every
child is learning.
I have said this before, and it bears repeating: there are those
who believe this draft goes too far in modifying the original law, and
there are those who believe it does not go far enough. If there is one
consistent message in the comments we have received, it is that this
draft is far from perfect.
Rest assured, this bill is far from complete and this process is
far from over. We have made great progress, but much work remains. But
by adhering to the pillars of the law--accountability, flexibility, and
parental choice--I believe we can craft a bill that builds on NCLB's
strengths, improves its shortcomings, and produces even more results
for students.
Once again I'd like to thank Chairman Miller for convening this
hearing and working in a bipartisan fashion to improve this landmark
law. I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Chairman Miller. I thank the gentleman. At this point, I
would like to recognize The Chair of the subcommittee, and then
I will recognize the senior Republican on the subcommittee, Mr.
Castle.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this important hearing on this bipartisan discussion draft. At
the beginning of this process, you and I and our colleagues,
Mr. McKeon and Governor Castle, all spoke on the importance of
this process being an open process. And this certainly has
been. We have had hearings here in Washington. We have had
hearings around the country. My subcommittee went to Michigan,
California, Arizona and Pennsylvania with many subcommittee
hearings here in Washington and many full committee hearings.
And we received recommendations from hundreds of education
people, civil rights, business and other organizations, and
hundreds of our colleagues here in the Congress, including many
of our freshman, who are very, very aware of what this bill was
when they arrived here in Congress. In recent weeks, we have
received hundreds of e-mails on the draft from parents,
teachers and other educators. And today we will hear from about
40 witnesses who thoroughly have studied this bill. And as we
continue to work together to improve and reauthorize the law, I
look forward to the continuing openness on this.
I have always, and you have heard this many times--Jack
Jennings has heard this for 31 years--I have always believed
that education is a local function, a State responsibility and
a very, very important Federal concern. It is a Federal concern
for two reasons. We live in a very mobile society. A person
educated in Michigan may wind up in Mississippi or vice versa.
And we are competing in a global economy now. And what will
give us the cutting edge in that global economy is an educated
and trained workforce.
During those hearings, I have heard strong support from
educators for the No Child Left Behind goals, including
accountability, but equally strong convictions in more
flexibility and more resources. Had we adopted the President's
budget this year, we would be about $70 billion short of the
authorization level. I for years have used the analogy that an
authorization, and this is a very important thing,
authorization, is like a Get Well card. It expresses our
sentiment and how we value the person to whom we send the Get
Well card. What our person, our friend really needs is the Blue
Cross card, and the Blue Cross card is the appropriations bill.
And this year, we did add about 9 percent; 7 percent adjusted
for inflation, for No Child Left Behind. That is a significant
step. But we really need to make sure this bill and this
reauthorization really reflects the needs and the experience
that we have had in the last few years. And we have called in
around the country and called here again today people who can
assist us in that. This process is very open. I look forward to
the testimony. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Castle.
Mr. Castle. Good morning. And thank you, Chairman Miller,
for holding today's hearing. And I thank all of you for joining
us. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who are with
us today. I think we can agree that one of the greatest
challenges this Nation faces is ensuring every child receives
the academic tools he or she needs to succeed in the future.
Five years ago, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act
to help meet this challenge and to address the achievement gap
that exists between disadvantaged students and their more
affluent peers. The results are clear: No Child Left Behind is
working. And this year, Congress has the unique opportunity to
work in a bipartisan way to create a bill which strengthens the
law while at the same time maintains its core principles of
accountability, flexibility and parental choice. For everyone
here No Child Left Behind is a priority, as I expect it is
across the Nation. In my opinion, being able to have an
effective dialogue is imperative to the underlying
reauthorization process. Over the last several years, the
committee has held many hearings here in Washington and around
the country to examine a number of issues for the
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Today we have the
privilege to hear directly from those who share Congress'
commitment to what No Child Left Behind stands for. Since the
draft's release, I, along with Chairman Miller and Kildee and
senior Republican McKeon have received very useful feedback. As
Mr. McKeon stated, this bill is far from complete and the
reauthorization process is far from over.
However, this discussion draft represents a good starting
place for the reauthorization of this important piece of
legislation, and this hearing allows us to discuss the feedback
we have heard. I believe that by hearing from you today, and
throughout the rest of the process we can produce a bill that
builds on No Child Left Behind's strengths, improves some of
its limitations and continues to produce more results for our
students, parents and teachers. Once again Mr. Miller, thank
you for holding this hearing and for facilitating a bipartisan
process to improve No Child Left Behind, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. I want to introduce
the first panel. Most of the first panel is very well known to
the members of the committee, and their bios are available for
the members of the committee.
However, Ms. Brown and Mr. Stark are not that well known to
us. And let me just, if I might, say that Germaine Brown is a
fifth grade teacher at Stewart Street Elementary School in
Gadsden County, Florida. In addition to her own classroom, she
serves as a mentor teacher providing professional support in
coaching for teachers in grades three, four and five. Barry
Stark is a principal of Norris Middle School in Firth, NE, and
President of the National Association of Secondary School
Principals. Jack Jennings is very well known to this committee
and to all of us involved in education. He is the president of
the Center on Educational Policy. Linda Darling-Hammond is a
Professor of Education at Stanford University and has a long,
long involvement in the improvement of teaching in this
country. John Podesta is the President/Chief Executive Officer
of the Center of American Progress, which has undertaken a
specific program in an effort on No Child Left Behind. Andrea
Messina is a commissioner of the Aspen Institute Commission on
No Child Left Behind, which does extensive work on the
improvements and changes in the act. And Kevin Carey is a
researcher and policy manager for the Education Sector, which
again has been very much involved with this committee.
Ms. Brown, we are going to begin with you. I hope you can
see them, there are three sets of lights. They will begin with
the green light. And then after about 4 minutes, it will go to
a yellow light, which means you have about 1 minute, and then a
red light when we would like you to finish. However, we want
you to complete your thoughts. Don't get nervous about the
lights, but we have a long day, and it gives us some
opportunity to keep order. Something you struggle with all the
time. So welcome to the committee and thank you so much for
taking your time.
STATEMENT OF GERMAINE BROWN, TEACHER, STEWART STREET ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Ms. Brown. Good morning. And thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the teacher quality issues in the No Child
Left Behind reauthorization bill. My name is Germaine Brown,
and I am a fifth grade teacher and a mentor teacher at Stewart
Street Elementary in Gadsden County Florida.
I understand that the draft being considered by the
committee includes new funding for teachers for pay performance
and career ladder programs for teachers. I am part of such a
program. This program, the Teacher Advancement Program, has
helped to develop highly skilled teachers in high-need schools.
The TAP program has supported our school from moving to new
achievement levels. It has resulted in us moving from an F to a
B within 2 years.
My district is a very high need district. I teach at an
elementary school, Stewart Street, that has a 90 percent rate
of students who receive free and reduced lunch. Even with two
major universities close to our district, Florida State
University and Florida A & M University, it is extremely
difficult to get these teachers, new teachers, to come to our
schools to teach our high-need students. They choose to teach
elsewhere.
Another obstacle is recruiting highly qualified teachers
who seek competitive pay and teacher salaries. In 2005, I was
approached by my administration at Stewart Street about a new
innovative program to be implemented. That same year, Stewart
Street had become a double F, a double F by the Department of
Education, having received two Fs within 5 years. To
dramatically improve or increase student achievement, the
superintendent of schools, Mr. Reginald James, decided to pilot
a program called the Teacher Advancement Program. It was a
program that had already been making progress in other high-
need schools, and it had the elements that Stewart Street had
been lacking. For one, it included strong professional
development. It helped those new teachers become effective
teachers, and it helped those veteran teachers become
exceptional teachers.
It also used student data to drive daily instruction. It
has a standards-based evaluation system that is fair and helps
identify the areas of improvement for our teachers. There is
also a career ladder that provides opportunities for
advancement and additional compensation for teachers. Last but
not least, a performance-based system to award success that is
measured by a combination of student achievement gains of
individual teachers, gains by the school as a whole and the
overall performance of classroom teachers.
Personally, the TAP program has provided me with an
exciting career opportunity for me as a mentor teacher with the
responsibility of providing professional development and
support to career teachers. The position came with more
responsibility, new challenges and more compensation. An
important aspect of my selection as a mentor teacher was my own
student achievement scores consistently from previous years.
TAP has provided me with the intensive training and support in
developing my skills and leading career teachers; identifying
and field testing those effective instructional strategies; and
creating a strong learning environment community at my school.
School was out for the summer break of 2005 and 2006 when
our school scores were released. Stewart Street was no longer
an F. We were not even a D. We had moved two letter grades to a
C. And at the end of this past year, we earned a B, and we made
adequate yearly progress. The results show that Gadsden County
school students are just as bright as those in any high
performance school. It doesn't matter what home environment our
students come from. As teachers, as soon as they step into our
classrooms, it is our job to nurture and instill in them the
belief that they too can succeed.
My experience as a teacher with the Teacher Advancement
Program has taught me the power of excellent teaching and what
can happen when time and resources are focused on improving the
schools of teachers so that our students reap the benefits. It
has also taught me that teachers deserve to be compensated for
their successes for taking on the hardest jobs. I hope that
this committee will provide funding for programs, more programs
like the Teacher Advancement Program, to allow more schools in
more districts to reform their compensation systems for
teachers. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Germaine Brown, Fifth Grade Teacher and Mentor
Teacher
Summary
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on teacher quality
issues in the draft NCLB reauthorization bill. My name is Germaine
Brown, and I work as a math, reading and writing teacher at Stewart
Street Elementary School in Gadsden County Florida.
I understand that the draft bill being considered by the Committee
includes new funding for performance pay and career ladder programs for
teachers. I am a part of such a program in a high need elementary
school. In my experience, this program, the Teacher Advancement Program
or ``TAP'', helps to develop highly skilled teachers in high need
schools. In our case, this program supported us in moving students at
Stewart Street Elementary to new levels of achievement, and resulted in
the school moving from a rating of an ``F'' to a ``B'' on the state
rating system in two years.
I want to thank you for responding to the successes that
performance pay and career ladder programs have demonstrated in high
need schools by including funding for these important initiatives in
the NCLB bill.
Discussion
Our district is a very high need district. Stewart Street
Elementary has 90% percent of students receiving free and reduced
lunch. There are two major universities close to our district in
Tallahassee (Florida State University and Florida A & M University).
They have a college of teacher education, but it has traditionally been
extremely difficult for us to recruit new teachers from this program to
come teach in Gadsden County. Potential teachers look at the high needs
of our students and choose to teach elsewhere. In addition, it is
difficult to recruit new and highly qualified teachers who seek a
competitive teacher salary.
I taught at my alma mater, Stewart Street Elementary in Gadsden
County, Florida, for eight years from 1996 to 2004. I became burned out
by the environment and was ready for a new, stimulating experience. I
then sought employment at a higher performing school in the same
district. I had a successful year at this high performing school. In
the same year Stewart Street had just become a ``double F'' school by
the Florida Department of Education, having received two ``F's'' within
five years. It was a discouraging place to work. After one year, even
with the success I had at the new school, my heart was still at Stewart
Street.
I was approached by the administration at Stewart Street and was
given information on a new innovative program to be implemented at
Stewart Street. To dramatically improve student achievement, the
Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Reginald James decided in 2005 to pilot
the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), which had been making meaningful
progress in some high need Florida schools. TAP provided exactly the
elements that had been lacking at Stewart Street:
a strong professional development program to help new
teachers become effective teachers, and veteran teachers to become
exceptional teachers, including support in using student data to drive
instruction
a standards-based evaluation system that helped to
identify areas for teacher skill improvement
a career ladder that provided opportunity for advancement
and additional compensation, as well as providing the staff to provide
with school-based professional support
and a performance pay bonus system to reward success as
measured by: 1. value added student achievement gains of individual
teachers, 2. value added gains by the school as a whole, and 3.
classroom performance by teachers
TAP's comprehensive approach to education reform focused and
supported the faculty in their pursuit of student learning gains.
In addition, TAP provided an exciting career opportunity for me, as
Stewart Street was recruiting me to return as a Mentor teacher, with
responsibility for providing professional development and coaching
support to career teachers in the school. This new position came with
more responsibility, new challenges, and more compensation. An
important aspect of my selection as Mentor teacher was my own student
achievement scores. But equally important was my ability and enthusiasm
in working with other adults at the school. TAP provided me with
intensive training and support in developing my skills in leading
career teachers, in identifying and field testing effective teaching
strategies, and creating a strong learning community at the school.
The key to effective teaching is more than just knowing best
practices. It's learning how to apply these practices in the classroom.
TAP helped me and the teachers that I coach because it provides a
structure not just outlining how to teach, but how to teach
effectively, and how to measure if your teaching is really having an
impact with students.
Let me give you a quick description of why this comprehensive
program has been a success at Stewart Street.
At the beginning of each school year, school leaders analyze state
test data and identify students' greatest areas of need. Each week at
Stewart Street, core-subject teachers and specialists collaborate in
``cluster group'' meetings targeting individual student needs with
proven instructional strategies. Teachers share effective best
practices with others, and mentor teachers model exemplary teaching
behaviors, for example by team teaching with a teacher in their
classroom. As a result, students benefit from the connectivity of these
strategies across the content areas.
For the (2006-2007) school year, Stewart Street's leadership team,
including mentor and lead teachers and the principal, identified math
as the students' greatest area of need, particularly solving word
problems. I devoted time in my weekly professional development meeting
with teachers to helping them learn new problem-solving strategies, and
how to teach them to their students. For example, some of our
strategies were focused on helping students identify what each problem
was asking them to do--something that many struggled with. Not only did
students apply these comprehension strategies to math, but they also
transferred them to reading.
School was out when our 2005-06 results were released, but that
didn't stop teachers from calling each other to celebrate the news:
Stewart Street was no longer an ``F'' school on the Florida state
rating system. We weren't even a ``D'' school. After just one year of
TAP, we had jumped two letter grades to a ``C.'' At the end of this
past school year, we earned a ``B'' grade and made Academic Yearly
Progress (AYP).
The results show that Gadsden County students are just as bright as
those in any high-performing school. It doesn't matter where our kids
come from; it may be from homes with no running water, families of
domestic violence, poorly structured households or households with no
structure at all. But when they get here, it's our job to nurture them
and instill in them the belief that they can succeed. The TAP program
has helped us to do that, and it has rewarded us for our success.
This experience has taught me the power of excellent teaching, and
what can happen when time and resources are focused on improving the
skills of teachers in a school. It has also taught me that teachers
deserve to be compensated for their success, and for taking on the
hardest jobs. I hope that this committee will provide funding for
programs to allow more schools and districts to reform their
compensation systems for teachers. These reforms should support
additional pay for taking on new roles and responsibilities such as
that of a Mentor teacher, as well as rewarding teachers for their own
skill development and the academic achievement gains of their students
and their school. I am happy to answer any questions you have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stark.
STATEMENT OF BARRY STARK, PRINCIPAL, NORRIS MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Mr. Stark. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and
members of the committee, thank you for allowing us the
opportunity to share our recommendations concerning the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is
Barry Stark. I am the principal of Norris Middle School in
Firth, Nebraska. And I serve as the President of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals. Our mission is to
promote excellence in middle level and high school leadership.
My comments today are based upon feedback from our NCLB task
force and our members, school leaders across the Nation.
While we still have concerns with some aspects of the
discussion draft, we would like to focus on a few areas we feel
deserve your support. NASSP is pleased that the committee is
considering additional flexibility through the use of growth
models, multiple measures of student performance and additional
time for students to graduate from high school if needed. NCLB
has placed principals at the center of all school reform
efforts. And today's school leaders are expected to be skilled
in instructional leadership, organizational development,
community relations and change management.
As the ones held ultimately responsible for student
achievement, principals and assistant principals require
continuous professional development personalized to meet their
individual needs. NASSP is extremely supportive of the major
overhaul made to Title II and the discussion draft, as it
includes much needed mandatory professional development for
school leaders. We have long advocated for induction and peer
mentoring programs for principals that emphasize school
leadership practices, and we are very pleased to see their
inclusion in the draft. NASSP would also like to see Congress
endorse a voluntary national advanced certification for
successful experienced principals similar to the National Board
For Professional Teaching Standard Certification currently in
place for teachers.
NASSP would like to thank the committee for authorizing and
expanding the striving readers program for students in grades 4
through 12. This vital program will help ensure that 6 to 8
million students reading below grade level receive the literacy
interventions they need to earn a high school diploma.
Congressman Yaruth and Congressman Platts have been true
leaders in adolescent literacy, and we thank them for their
hard work in this area. NASSP is a national leader in high
school reform and, in 2004, created a framework for improving
our Nation's high schools called, ``Breaking Ranks II:
Strategies For Leading High School Reform.''
Implementing the proven strategies for successful high
school reform, deep systemic intervention that improves both
individual student and school wide performance requires
significant resources. This is why NASSP is so pleased that the
discussion draft authorizes the Graduation Promises Fund to
assist low-performing high schools in implementing
comprehensive school wide improvement plans.
However, as a middle level principal, I would be remiss if
I didn't remark on the missing M in ESEA. Elementary and
secondary schools are mentioned throughout the discussion
draft, but there are exactly 15 references to middle schools in
the entire bill. NASSP is an original member of the Middle
Grades Coalition on NCLB, and I would like to speak to you on
their behalf. We are seriously concerned that the draft
proposal has not addressed the urgent need to turn around low-
performing middle schools. The future success of NCLB rests
largely on the shoulders of middle level leaders and teachers.
Students in grades 5 through 8 represent 57 percent of the
Nation's annual test takers, but middle level schools are not
receiving adequate Federal funding and support. Therefore, I
strongly urge the committee to support the Success in the
Middle Act which Congressman Grijalva plans to offer as an
amendment during the committee markup.
Under this bill, school districts would adopt proven
intervention strategies, including professional development and
coaching for school leaders and teachers, and student support,
such as personal academic plans, mentoring and intensive
reading and math interventions. Adopting this amendment hand in
hand with the Graduation Promise Fund would strengthen NCLB by
providing the support necessary to turn around our Nation's
lowest performing middle and high schools and give our
struggling students the help they need from preschool through
graduation.
NASSP believes the draft moves NCLB in a positive
direction, and school leaders are optimistic for its
reauthorization. But our optimism has too often been dampened
in the past when Federal budget proposals reflect education as
so low a priority. These new provisions would be impossible to
implement without full funding. We, therefore, strongly urge
you to commit to your Nation's schools in budget as much as in
law and ensure that the necessary level of funding is
appropriated.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony, but I
would be happy to answer any questions you or the other
committee members may have. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Stark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry Stark, President, National Association of
Secondary School Principals
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and members of the
committee, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to share our
recommendations concerning the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the latest version of which is known as the No
Child Left Behind Act. My name is Barry Stark, and I am the principal
of Norris Middle School in Firth, Nebraska, where I have served for 10
years. Today, I am appearing on behalf of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals, where I serve as president. In existence
since 1916, NASSP is the preeminent organization of and national voice
for middle level and high school principals, assistant principals, and
aspiring school leaders from across the United States and more than 45
countries around the world. Our mission is to promote excellence in
middle level and high school leadership.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
The era of reform ushered in by NCLB requires administrators to
excel as instructional leaders working collaboratively with a variety
of constituent groups. It is no longer sufficient to deplore the
achievement gap; school leaders must be able to make decisions to
improve teaching and learning for all students or face corrective
action if their schools fail to meet mandated accountability measures.
Closing the achievement gap and increasing student achievement are
certainly among the highest educational priorities of secondary school
principals, and our members accept accountability for results. We have
seen gains in student achievement that can be directly related to the
law and to the emerging conversations about improved student
achievement.
Yet, while embracing the intention of the law, NASSP members have
expressed concerns about the consistency, flexibility, and fairness
with which the law has been implemented as well as the law's provisions
to help schools build or enhance capacity among teachers and leaders to
meet student achievement mandates. In October 2004, NASSP formed a 12-
member task force made up of principals and post-secondary educators to
study the effects of NCLB on school leaders in the nation's diverse
education structure. The recommendations released by our task force in
June 2005 addressed the disconnect that exists between policy created
in Washington, DC, and the realities that affect teaching and learning
in the school building. NASSP strongly believes that these
recommendations reflect a real-world, commonsense perspective that will
help to bridge that gap and clear some of the obstacles that impede
principals and teachers as they work together to improve student
achievement and overall school quality and close the achievement gap.
Growth Models
NASSP is pleased to see many of these recommendations in the
discussion draft released by the House Education and Labor Committee
last week. Specifically, we agree that states should be allowed to
measure adequate yearly progress (AYP) for each student subgroup on the
basis of state-developed growth formulas that calculate growth in
individual student achievement from year to year.
Using a single score to measure whether a student is making
progress ignores many issues, primarily the academic growth of the
individual student. Yet the current law requires that schools focus on
grade-level growth as opposed to individual student growth by requiring
schools and districts to compare performance for different groups of
students each year. For example, under NCLB schools must measure growth
of this year's seventh-grade students against the scores of the past
year's seventh-grade students. Such systems do not take into account
differences in the groups of students and do not tell us whether our
instruction has resulted in individual student growth.
In addition, focusing on a cut score may encourage a school to
concentrate only on students who are close to meeting that goal and not
on the education of those students who may have the greatest need.
Individual student growth, reported over time from year to year, gives
teachers and administrators the best possible data about whether the
instructional needs of every student are being met. NASSP thanks the
committee for granting this additional flexibility.
Multiple Assessments
NASSP is pleased that the discussion draft allows states to use
multiple measures of student performance in determining AYP, including
state assessments in subjects beyond reading and language arts,
mathematics, and science; end-of-course exams in a rigorous high school
curriculum; and college enrollment rates. Student assessment on a
regular, consistent basis allows schools to analyze what students have
or have not learned. And teachers can then develop effective strategies
that address individual students' academic weaknesses and to build upon
student strengths diagnosed by the assessments.
To view standardized test results as a measurement of a school's
success or failure, as the law currently does, misses the broader
point. The purpose of assessment should be to inform instruction and
improve learning. Assessments that produce diagnostic data, and not
just a ``score,'' give educators a direction for increasing student
success--individually, student by student. Hold educators accountable,
but ensure that they have the resources, the preparation, the training,
a strong curriculum, and useful assessment data to get the job done. If
we can do that, then all our students will achieve, and our schools
will have truly passed the test.
Graduation Rates
The discussion draft requires high schools to be accountable for
improving their graduation rates, a goal which NASSP supports. We are
pleased that the committee is supporting a five-year provision for
graduation rates and allowing students with the most severe cognitive
disabilities to be counted as graduates if they have received an
alternate diploma as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Current law requires states to graduate students
within the ``regular'' time, which most often has been determined to
mean within four years, though the U.S. Department of Education has
allowed some states to extend beyond this traditional timeline.
NASSP wholeheartedly believes that designating a four-year
timeframe within which students must exit and graduate from high school
goes against what we know about student learning and timelines
designated by IDEA. In fact, we should be moving in the opposite
direction, allowing students additional time to graduate if they
require it without penalizing the school, or less time if they have
reached proficiency.
Student performance should be measured by mastery of subject
competency rather than by seat time. States that have implemented end-
of-course assessments are on the right track and should be encouraged
to continue these efforts. And NCLB should reward students who graduate
in fewer than four years--which could encourage excellence--rather than
simply acknowledge minimum proficiency, and the recognition of high-
performing students could help schools that are nearing the target of
100% proficiency.
Ultimately, individualized and personalized instruction for each
student must be our goal. NASSP has been a leader in advocating for
such positive reform strategies through its practitioner-focused
publications Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School
Reform(tm) and Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading
Middle Level Reform.
Title II
With an emphasis on school-level outcomes and student achievement,
NCLB places the school leader at the center of all school reform
efforts. Today's principals are expected to be visionary leaders,
instructional experts, building managers, assessment specialists,
disciplinarians, community builders, and more; they are also the ones
ultimately held responsible for student achievement. The Southeast
Center for Teaching Quality finds that high-quality leadership was the
single greatest predictor of whether or not a high school made AYP--
more than either school size or teacher retention. Yet, until recently,
Congress has ignored the vital role of the principal in influencing
student success.
If principals and assistant principals are to meet the growing,
ever-changing expectations of this demanding position, they require
continual professional development personalized to meet their
individual needs. This is true for all school leaders, regardless of
their initial preparation or their length of service. Today's
educational environment of standards-based education and high
accountability demand that principals are knowledgeable and skilled in
instructional leadership, organizational development, community
relations, and change management. Ongoing, job-embedded professional
development is the key to developing this capacity in all school
leaders
NASSP is extremely supportive of the major overhaul made to Title
II in the discussion draft, as it includes much-needed mandatory
professional development and other supports that would increase the
capacity of principals to effectively use data to improve teaching and
learning, to lead schools with high numbers of diverse learners such as
students with disabilities or English language learners, to implement
schoolwide literacy initiatives, and to better prepare all students to
meet challenging content standards. We have long advocated for
induction and peer mentoring programs for principals that emphasize
school leadership practices, and we are very pleased to see their
inclusion in the draft. A recent study by the Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute found that principals who participated in ongoing
leadership development programs during their careers are significantly
better prepared for virtually every aspect of principal practice; have
more positive attitudes about the principalship; and are more likely to
plan to stay in the job, spend more time on instructionally focused
work, participate in a broader range of learning opportunities, and
make developing and supporting their teachers a priority.
NASSP is an active participant is an effort to revise the
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards, which
are used to guide principal certification or performance appraisal
policies in more than 40 states. The important role of the ISLLC
standards in shaping state licensure and evaluation policies makes
their regular revision essential to ensure that they accurately reflect
the current demands of school leaders. Likewise, licensure requirements
across the states must be designed to attract high-quality candidates
to leadership positions. For the past 10 years, NASSP has worked with a
national accreditation agency to review university and college
preparation programs in education leadership promoting alignment of
programs to standards, development of rigorous assessments, and
problem-based learning activities in the field. NASSP commends the
committee for addressing this issue in the discussion draft. The
Partnership Grants for Principals and School Leaders would improve the
rigor of current state school leader standards and licensure processes
and ensure that they incorporate instructional leadership standards.
NASSP would like to see Congress endorse a voluntary national
advanced certification for successful experienced principals similar to
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification
currently in place for teachers. Under such certification, highly
effective principals would be recognized and rewarded for advancing
student learning and closing achievement gaps; using data effectively
in decision making; creating a safe and sound environment for student
and teacher learning; working productively with parents and community
members; growing teacher capacity and creating a healthy professional
community that capitalizes on the strengths of the strongest teachers
and nurtures novice teachers; allocating resources efficiently;
demonstrating knowledge about school management, curriculum, teaching
and assessment; and modeling continual professional growth by engaging
in planned development activities.
Striving Readers
NASSP would like to thank the committee for authorizing and
expanding the Striving Readers program for students in grades 4--12.
This vital program will help ensure that the 6--8 million students
reading below grade level receive the literacy interventions they need
to earn a high school diploma.
Nationwide, 29% of eighth-grade students read ``below basic'' on
the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These students, who
are in the bottom quarter of achievement, are 20 times more likely to
drop out than students at the top. That should come as no surprise. Low
literacy prevents students from succeeding in high school in all
subjects. And the National Center for Education Statistics found that
53% of undergraduates require a remedial reading or writing course. In
addition, the National Association of Manufacturers reported that
businesses spend more than $60 billion each year on remedial reading,
writing, and mathematics for new employees.
Striving Readers is a formula grant program for states based on
poverty levels according to the U.S. Census. States would develop
statewide literacy plans, and districts applying for the grants would
use funds to create schoolwide adolescent literacy plans that met the
needs of all students, including students with special needs and
English language learners; provide professional development for
teachers in core academic subjects; train school leaders to administer
adolescent literacy plans; and collect, analyze, and report literacy
data.
The goals of Striving Readers are very much in line with Creating a
Culture of Literacy: a Guide for Middle and High School Principals,
which NASSP released in 2005. This guide was written for principals to
use as they team with staff members to improve their students' literacy
skills by assessing student strengths and weaknesses, identifying
professional development needs, employing effective literacy strategies
across all content areas, and establishing intervention programs.
Congressman John Yarmuth (D-KY) and Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA)
have been true leaders in adolescent literacy, and NASSP would like to
thank them for their hard work in ensuring that the Striving Readers
program has a permanent place in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
Graduation Promise Fund
NASSP is a national leader in high school reform and in 2004,
created a framework upon which to improve our nation's high schools
called Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School Reform.
The handbook offers successful research-based practices, real-life
examples of high schools at various stages of reform, a step-by-step
approach to lead change, obstacles to avoid, and resources from which
to draw. NASSP offers Breaking Ranks for all high school principals,
regardless of school size, geographical location, or where they are in
the school improvement process.
High schools have historically been the forgotten stepchild of
school reform efforts and, for far too long, have not received an
adequate share of funding and other resources from the federal
government. But successful high school reform requires real strategies
and significant resources for implementing systemic improvement and
raising individual student and schoolwide performance levels. This is
why NASSP is so pleased that the discussion draft authorizes the
Graduation Promise Fund to assist low-performing high schools in
implementing the comprehensive schoolwide improvement plans required
under Sec. 1116. The school improvement and assistance measures
outlined in this section mirror many of the strategies NASSP promotes.
They include ongoing, high-quality professional development for school
leaders; schoolwide literacy and mathematics plans; programs to
increase academic rigor; extended learning time; and practices that
serve to personalize the school experience such as smaller learning
communities and professional collaboration among principals, teachers,
and other school staff.
As a middle level principal, I would be remiss if I didn't remark
on the missing ``M'' in ESEA. Elementary schools and secondary schools
are mentioned throughout the discussion draft, but there are exactly 15
references to middle schools or middle grades in the more than 1,000
pages of this bill. Although ``secondary schools,'' by definition,
includes middle level schools, the draft tends to use ``secondary
school'' interchangeably with ``high school,'' which is confusing for
middle level educators as well as states interpreting federal law.
NASSP respectfully requests that the committee clarify in all sections
of the bill whether the term ``secondary school'' includes grades 5--8.
NASSP is an original member of the Middle Grades Coalition on NCLB,
and I would like to speak to you on their behalf. In the formal
comments submitted by the coalition last week, we expressed our support
for the goals set forth in the Graduation Promise Fund as they pertain
to low-performing high schools. However, we are seriously concerned
that the draft proposal has not addressed the urgent need to turn
around low-performing middle schools.
The draft requires school districts to identify those students in
the middle grades who are at high risk of dropping out of high school
and to provide intensive supports for these students, but this really
doesn't go far enough to address the more than 2,000 middle level
schools that feed into the nation's ``dropout factories''--those high
schools graduating fewer than 60% of their students. High school reform
will never succeed in a vacuum, and many of these middle level schools
are in need of the same comprehensive whole-school reform that is
offered to high schools under the Graduation Promise Fund.
The future success of NCLB rests largely on the shoulders of middle
level leaders, teachers, and students. Students in grades 5 through 8
represent 57% (14 million) of the nation's annual NCLB test takers, but
middle level schools are not receiving adequate federal funding and
support to help these students succeed. We recognize that the majority
of districts choose to funnel their Title I funds into early childhood
and elementary programs, and while we fully support continuing the
drive to help students succeed in these grades, the needs of struggling
students in our lowest-performing middle schools must not be ignored.
If Title I funds were distributed on the basis of student populations,
middle level schools (representing 23% of the nation's student
population) would receive approximately $2.92 billion of the current
Title I allocation. Yet, of the $12.7 billion appropriated in FY 2005
for Title I, only 10% is allocated to middle schools.
Therefore, I strongly urge the committee to support the Success in
the Middle Act (H.R. 3406), which Congressman Ra#l Grijalva (D-AZ)
plans to offer as an amendment during the committee markup. Under the
bill, states are required to implement a middle school improvement plan
that that describes what students are required to know and do to
successfully complete the middle grades and make the transition to
succeed in an academically rigorous high school. School districts would
receive grants to help them invest in proven intervention strategies,
including professional development and coaching for school leaders,
teachers, and other school personnel; and student supports such as
personal academic plans, mentoring, intensive reading and math
interventions, and extended learning time.
NASSP and the Middle Grades Coalition on NCLB believe the
comprehensive middle level policy articulated in H.R. 3406 is necessary
to address the realities that only 11% of eighth-grade students are on
track to succeed in first-year college English, algebra, biology and
social science courses (ACT, 2007), fewer than one-third can read and
write proficiently, and only 30% perform at the proficient level in
math (NAEP, 2005). Adopting the Success in the Middle Act as an
amendment to the committee bill hand-in-hand with the Graduation
Promise Fund would strengthen NCLB by providing the support necessary
to turn around our nation's lowest-performing middle and high schools
and give our struggling students the help they need from preschool
through graduation.
NASSP believes the draft moves NCLB in a positive direction, and
school leaders are optimistic for its reauthorization. But our optimism
has too often been dampened in the past when federal budget proposals
reflect education as so low a priority. Experience teaches us these new
provisions will be impossible to implement without full funding. We
therefore strongly urge you to commit to your nation's schools in
budget as much as in law and ensure that the necessary level of funding
is appropriated.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony, but I would be
happy to answer any questions you or the other committee members may
have.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you Mr. Stark.
Mr. Jennings, Jack welcome back to the committee as always.
STATEMENT OF JACK JENNINGS, PRESIDENT, CENTER ON EDUCATION
POLICY
Mr. Jennings. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
Let me begin by commending the entire leadership of the
committee for having such an open process in this
reauthorization. Having been involved in a few in the past, I
can say that this is a very open process, and you are going to
have better legislation as a result. It is also very
commendable you are doing this in a bipartisan manner because,
over time, you will have a better bill if you have a bipartisan
bill, at least in education; maybe not in other areas, but at
least in education.
In June, I appeared before Mr. Castle's subcommittee
talking about student achievement. But today my testimony is
different. This is going to deal with the implementation of No
Child Left Behind. The Center on Education Policy has conducted
a 5-year study of No Child Left Behind, which involves surveys
of State officials, surveys of national samples of school
districts, case studies of school districts, case studies of
individual schools. And I would like to give you some
indication of what educators are saying about the
implementation of No Child Left Behind. I realize that this is
just one point of view, but it is a very important point of
view because these are the people you expect to carry out the
law.
In general, what your bill does is address many of the
concerns that have been raised by educators. And let me go
through a few, but give you some suggestions for additions.
Now, attached to the testimony are detailed suggestions, so I
won't get into all of those. But let me start with growth
models. Growth models are clearly something that educators very
much want. But if you retain the goal of everybody being
proficient by 2014, you are going to frustrate the use of
growth models. Because you are going to have about the same
number of schools identified as you would any other way. And so
we urge you to consider gearing the goal towards high-achieving
school districts within a State, which is an alternative goal,
but it is a realizable goal, and it would result in a fairer
system with use of growth modes. With English language learners
and children with disabilities, again you have identified the
problem; you have incorporated the number of things that are
good solutions to the problem, but we urge you to think a
little bit more broadly on that, too.
With children who are learning English, we urge you to
think about putting together the testing of English proficiency
with the testing of content knowledge and graduating the
results depending on the level of proficiency.
With children with disabilities, we urge you to think about
more deference to the Individual Educational Plan. This is the
key in the education of the disabled children, and it should be
considered when you are judging what kind of testing should be
entailed with children with disabilities.
With school improvement, you have again identified the
problem. You move towards a graduated system of dealing with
schools and school improvement. But I urge you to think about
several additions to that system. One would be that you should
only identify a school as a need of improvement if the same
group of students for 2 years in a row in the same subject
matter does not do well. That way, you will have a much more
focused system of school improvement geared towards schools
that show more consistent problems. I also urge you to think
about continuing aid to schools that graduate from program
improvement. Right now, what happens is schools get all sorts
of aid to get off the list. Then, as soon as they get to their
right level of achievement, they lose that aid. And the fear,
and I think we are going to document this in a report pretty
soon, is that many of those schools fall back again on the list
because they haven't been able to institutionalize the changes.
So I hope you consider that.
So, in general, your bill addresses many of the problems
identified by educators. And of course, people can differ on
the solutions to these problems. But your bill should certainly
move through the legislative process and be refined in the
legislative process. If you don't move, what is going to happen
is that many of the problems we have identified and others have
identified won't be addressed for a year to 3 years because of
the Presidential election and the way that Congress does
business. And so it is very important that you continue on
track and that you move your bill as soon as you can to address
these problems.
Let me conclude with a general concern expressed by many
educators in all our surveys and interviews and case studies.
And this is a concern that No Child Left Behind is fostering a
narrow view of education. Basically, it is a test-driven
accountability system to raise the bottom. And educators think,
if this is the vision of education that the country has, it is
a very narrow vision. Tests can do many things, but tests have
limitations. And just raising the bottom frequently means what
happens is that educators just raise the bubble children, the
children just below the test level and get them over the test
level and don't address the needs of all children. So I hope
that there is some way--I know you have moved to a degree in
this draft, but I hope in some way you can encourage a much
broader look at education, a much more thorough and deeper look
at education so that we can truly have a national vision of
education for the country that helps all children to improve to
some world cast level. I hope you find some way in the bill to
encourage that for the next reauthorization, but also to help
guide State legislatures and local school districts as they go
about improving education. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Jennings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Jennings, President, Center on Education
Policy
Since 2002, the Center on Education Policy has been conducting a
comprehensive study of the implementation and effects of the No Child
Left Behind Act. Our recommendations for proposed amendments to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act are based on that research and
are appended to this testimony, and I respectfully ask you to review
them. Today, I will limit my remarks to the process used by the
committee and to the key features of the draft legislation.
Chairmen Miller and Kildee and Ranking Members McKeon and Castle,
you are to be commended for having such an open process for considering
these amendments. Through your earlier hearings, discussions of
proposed amendments, Web-based distribution of draft legislative
language, effort to be bipartisan, and now these hearings, you have
shown a commendable openness to criticisms and willingness to hear a
variety of proposed solutions.
Your draft legislation represents a good start in addressing the
major problems in the current law, and refinements in the legislative
process could bring about further improvement. For my remaining time, I
will comment briefly on the key features of your proposal, and mention
some of the changes we would recommend.
Multiple Indicators
In our state and school district surveys, case study interviews,
and other research, state leaders and local educators have often
criticized the narrowness of the accountability measures now required
in NCLB, which rely so much on just reading and math test results. The
proposed amendment to broaden these measures to include other objective
measures of academic performance acknowledges that concern. CEP
recommends also including measures other than those listed if they meet
criteria established by the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Education.
Growth Models
For years, educators have been calling for the use of growth
models, and this feature is to be applauded. However, if your
legislation keeps the goal of proficiency for all by 2014, using growth
models will probably not make much difference in terms of identifying
schools for improvement. CEP instead recommends linking the degree of
growth expected of all districts and schools each year to the average
rate of gain over two or three years in the districts or schools within
a state that rank at the 75th percentile. For instance, if the top
quarter of schools and districts that made gains on state tests had
rates of improvement in the percentage of students achieving at the
proficient or above levels that averaged 3% per year, then adequate
yearly progress might be defined as a 3% increase for all schools and
districts. That is a high goal, but within reach with sufficient
effort.
English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities
Testing policies for English language learners and students with
disabilities have been a matter of major controversy for years, with
educators asking for more flexibility for both subgroups. The set of
amendments for ELL students addresses many of the concerns raised in
our surveys and interviews. As explained in our recommendations,
however, we suggest that you consider giving greater weight to the
results of English language proficiency tests and less to the results
of academic content tests for students who have very limited
proficiency in English, then adjusting these relative weights as these
students gain English language proficiency.
For students with disabilities, the basic requirement should be to
assess these students using the same tests as those given non-disabled
students; however, the individualized education program (IEP) could
modify this presumption by presenting clear evidence that a particular
student should be permitted test accommodations, an alternate
assessment based on modified achievement standards, or an alternate
assessment based on alternative achievement standards. There should be
no percentage limitations on how many students can be assessed in these
different ways.
School Improvement
Our research has repeatedly identified problems with requiring the
same treatment for schools in which one subgroup falls short of
adequate yearly progress as for schools in which many subgroups fall
short. The draft addresses that concern by creating a graduated system
of aid for schools depending on the degree of problems. An assurance
that significant action must be taken even in a school with only one
subgroup not achieving adequately would ensure that the noble goal of
NCLB of requiring that all lagging students be helped would not be
lost. A further recommendation is that schools be identified for
improvement only when the same subgroup of students does not meet the
state AYP target in the same subject for two or more consecutive years.
Another recommendation from CEP related to school improvement
involves supplemental educational service providers. In our surveys,
school district officials expressed concern that the tutoring services
provided through NCLB are not always effective in raising student
achievement. Outside providers of supplemental services should be held
accountable just as school districts are--namely by requiring them to
show improvement in test scores in two years or be barred from
providing services.
A further recommendation concerns schools that improve achievement
enough to exit school improvement status. When schools improve
sufficiently, they lose the extra financial assistance and other aid
that helped them to do better. We urge you to continue this assistance
in these schools for three years after they improve, so they can
institutionalize the practices that helped them.
Conclusion
The draft bill addresses many of the major concerns raised by
educators and state officials in our five years of research. Of course,
people who care about schools and children will disagree about
particular solutions to those problems. But the committee has made a
good start, and the bill should move through the legislative process.
If there is no legislation, then the current law would apply for one or
two more years, and the problems identified by our research and that of
others will not be addressed.
Let me finish by raising a general concern expressed repeatedly by
educators in our surveys and interviews. The No Child Left Behind Act
seeks to raise achievement for low-performing students through a test-
driven accountability system. Certainly, it is important to use
standardized measures of achievement, but tests are imperfect
instruments with limitations in what they can measure well. Educators
express frustration that this test-based system is leading to a narrow
vision of education and hope that our nation could pursue a more
comprehensive vision of how to make American education the best in the
world.
Could we establish a national commission or use some another means
to think deeply about schooling and the best means to help all American
students become well educated? I know that today's session is
concentrated on particular legislative language, but can't we find a
way to think more broadly and creatively so that future federal laws,
state policies, and local actions can lead the way to a better educated
citizenry?
Thank you for this invitation and opportunity to share what we have
learned.
______
Recommendations From the Center on Education Policy
Since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law in
2002, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) has been monitoring the
effects of this important national policy. For five years, we have
surveyed the primary agents charged with carrying out the law in the
states--chief state school officers or other officials of state
education agencies. To examine the effects of NCLB at the local level,
we have surveyed administrators in a national sample of school
districts and conducted case studies of dozens of districts and schools
over the last four years. We have also conducted additional research on
particular aspects of NCLB, and most notably have analyzed test data
from all 50 states to determine if scores on state tests have gone up
since 2002.
This paper presents CEP's recommendations for changes to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by
NCLB. These recommendations grow out of the main findings of our
research on the effects of NCLB.
Achievement
Since 2002, in most states with three or more years of comparable
test data, student achievement in reading and math has gone up, and
there is more evidence of achievement gaps between groups of students
narrowing than of gaps widening. In addition, in 9 of 13 states with
sufficient data to determine pre- and post-NCLB trends, average yearly
gains in test scores were greater after NCLB took effect than before.
However, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the
extent to which these trends in test results have occurred as a result
of NCLB; this is because states, districts, and schools have
simultaneously implemented many different but interconnected policies
to raise achievement in the time period since NCLB was enacted.
Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Raising the
academic achievement of all students and eliminating the achievement
gap for various groups of students must remain as national priorities.
The ESEA should be reauthorized in a renewed effort to address these
national goals.
Support efforts to identify effective strategies for narrowing the
achievement gap. Although there is positive news about increases in the
test scores of underachieving students, the magnitude of the gap is
still substantial. The reauthorized ESEA should include a research and
evaluation component to determine the most effective ways of narrowing
the achievement gap. Successful efforts should be replicated in schools
and districts with persistently low-performing students.
Require states to provide easy public access to a deep array of
assessment data. Currently, the public does not always have access to
adequate data on state tests. In order to foster a more transparent
accountability system, states should be required to post test data in
an easy-to-find place on state Web sites; provide clear information and
cautions about breaks in the comparability of test data caused by new
tests or changes in testing systems; and report other important
information to aid researchers in analyzing achievement trends, such as
standard deviations and mean scale scores.
Testing and its Impact on Curriculum and Instruction
The NCLB requirement for states to test the reading and math skills
of all students in grades 3 though 8 and once in high school is having
a major influence on how education is being provided in schools across
the country. Our district survey found that 62% of all school districts
have increased instructional time in reading and math in elementary
schools. In 44% of districts, this increase has meant that time for
other subjects, such as social studies, science, art, and music, is
reduced. Because the tests required for NCLB are the drivers of
standards-based education reform, they must be of the highest quality
and properly used in the education process.
Require states to arrange for an independent review, at least once
every three years, of their standards and assessments to ensure that
they are of high quality and rigor. Our research suggests that school
districts are changing their curriculum to put more emphasis on the
content and skills covered on the tests used for accountability.
Therefore, states should be sure these tests are ``good'' tests by
commissioning reviews of their standards and assessments by independent
organizations and agencies. These reviews should also determine the
extent to which the assessments are aligned with the state standards.
Stagger testing requirements to include tests in other academic
subjects. Because what is tested is what is taught, students should be
tested in math and English language arts in grades 3, 5, and 7 and once
in high school, and in social studies and science in grades 4, 6, and 8
and once in high school. These tests should be used for accountability
purposes.
Encourage states to give adequate emphasis to art and music. States
should review their curriculum guidelines to ensure that they encourage
adequate attention to and time for art and music, in addition to the
subjects recommended for testing listed above. States should consider
including measures of knowledge and skills in art and music among the
multiple measures used for NCLB accountability.
Provide federal funds for research to determine the best ways to
incorporate the teaching of reading and math skills into social studies
and science. By integrating reading and math instruction into other
core academic subjects, students will be more ensured of a rich, well-
rounded curriculum. Funds provided under Title I and Title II of ESEA
should be used to train teachers in using these techniques.
Accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act is identified in educators' minds as a
means of enforcing accountability in public education. States, school
districts, parents, and others would be more likely to accept this
accountability if serious defects in the law were addressed in the ESEA
reauthorization.
Allow states the option of using growth models to determine
students' academic progress. The current method of measuring aggregate
progress toward an annual state proficiency target is too crude a
measure. A shift to a growth model system, which recognizes annual
improvement in test scores of individual students, would be fairer to
students and teachers. The degree of growth expected of all districts
and schools each year could be linked to the average rate of gain in
the districts or schools within a state that rank at the 75th
percentile over two or three years, instead of a goal of 100%
proficiency for all students by 2014.
Allow states to use multiple measures of student achievement in
determining adequate yearly progress. These measures should be weighted
and should be limited to objective measures of academic achievement,
including student performance on state tests in subjects other than
math and English language arts. The National Academy of Sciences and
National Academy of Education chould be charged with developing options
for the criteria to be used in federal regulations to determine these
objective measures.
Allow the individual education program (IEP) of a student with a
disability to determine how he or she should be tested, and convene a
national task force to develop criteria to help guide IEP teams in
making these decisions. The reauthorized ESEA should continue the
requirement that students with disabilities be assessed using the same
tests as those taken by non-disabled students, but the Act should be
amended to allow the IEP for each student to modify this presumption by
presenting clear evidence that a student should be afforded
accommodations, an alternate assessment based on modified achievement
standards, or an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards. The reauthorized ESEA should establish a national task force
to develop criteria to assist IEP teams in making appropriate and
consistent decisions about assessments for students with disabilities.
There should be no percentage limitations on how many students can be
assessed in these different ways. The results from the IEP-recommended
assessment would be used to determine student progress for purposes of
determining AYP.
Weigh the English language proficiency and academic content
assessment results for students learning English.
NCLB requires states to test the language proficiency skills and
academic content knowledge of students who are learning English. For
accountability purposes, these two assessments should be twinned. More
weight would be given to the language proficiency assessment when an
English language learner enters the state's school system and is less
proficient in English. As the student progresses through the education
system and becomes more proficient in English, more weight would be
given to the academic content assessment.
Designate schools ``in need of improvement'' only when the same
subgroup of students does not meet the state AYP target in the same
subject for two or more consecutive years. Currently, a school can be
identified for improvement if one subgroup of students fails to make
AYP in reading one year, and then a different subgroup of students
fails to make AYP in math the following year. This change would
identify only those schools where there is a consistent problem and
would allow states and school districts to better target scarce
resources and assistance on schools that really need help.
Allow public school choice as a school district option for
improving student achievement in schools that have been identified for
improvement. Our research indicates that the public school choice
requirement has been used by only a small percentage of those who are
eligible. In addition, we know of no major research study that has
provided evidence that school choice raises student achievement.
Districts should not be required to offer choice to students attending
schools that have been identified for improvement, but can opt to do
so.
Establish accountability requirements for the providers of
supplemental educational services. In our surveys, school district
officials expressed concern that the tutoring services provided through
NCLB are not always effective in raising student achievement. To
address this concern, providers of supplemental educational services
should be held to the same type of accountability as public schools. If
students served by a provider do not show improvement in state test
scores after two years of services, then that provider should be
allowed to provide services only for one more year. If there is still
no increase in scores, then that provider should be barred from
providing services through Title I.
Schools in Need of Improvement
Although nationally approximately 18% of all districts report
having at least one school identified for improvement, greater
proportions of urban districts (47%) report having such schools. This
is due in large part to urban districts' concentrations of students of
color and low-income children. A basic problem with NCLB is that it
classifies schools equally as ``in need of improvement'' regardless of
whether one grade or one subgroup of students is not making adequate
yearly progress or many grades and many subgroups of students are
missing AYP targets.
Evaluate school improvement strategies that show the greatest
success in urban schools, and then provide assistance to urban schools
to implement these strategies. States and the federal government should
engage in a comprehensive evaluation of school improvement efforts to
determine what works in urban settings and then foster the replication
of these successful efforts.
Encourage a graduated approach of assistance to schools in
improvement with an emphasis on schools with the greatest needs. Scarce
federal and state resources should be targeted on schools that need
assistance the most.
Allow schools that graduate from school improvement to continue to
receive financial support and assistance for three years. Our research
has pointed to the need for continued support for schools that improve
achievement enough to leave NCLB's school improvement status. Often,
these schools face challenges in maintaining achievement gains and
other improvements when they lose the extra technical assistance and
funding that came with being identified for improvement.
Encourage schools in NCLB's restructuring phase to engage in a
variety of reform efforts. Our studies of NCLB school restructuring
indicate that multiple strategies tailored to a school's needs are more
effective in improving schools in restructuring than single strategies.
The current federal list of options for schools in restructuring,
therefore, should not be restricted. More specifically the option that
allows ``any other major restructuring of the school's governance that
produces fundamental reform'' should not be eliminated. Instead, states
should assist districts in making good decisions about using multiple
strategies to improve schools in restructuring.
State Departments of Education
The state agencies primarily charged with carrying out federal
education policy are stymied by the lack of sufficient staffing and
funding to carry out their duties, especially responsibilities related
to assisting schools identified for improvement.
Establish a grant program for states to rethink the mission and
organization of state education agencies to make them more effective
leaders of school improvement. Each state's leadership--the governor,
chief state school officer, and state board of education--should be
eligible to receive an unrestricted grant allowing them to assess and
rethink the role of state education agencies in improving elementary
and secondary education.
Provide additional federal funding to state education agencies to
enable them to effectively carry out NCLB.
Increased federal funds could be used to support such activities as
improving low-performing schools, developing better assessments for
students with disabilities and English language learners, and improving
data systems.
Require the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to review and enhance
its efforts to assist states in implementing federal programs. ED
should review and refashion its application and reporting procedures,
guidance, and regulations, and create a more assistive federal/state
partnership.
Amend ESEA to help states assist schools more effectively by
allowing differentiated levels of technical assistance based on the
needs of an individual school. Resources and personnel could be better
used if states can address the unique needs of a school instead of
having to carry out a blanket set of actions for all schools in
improvement.
Provide assistance to states to develop high-quality assessments
for students with disabilities and English language learners. Although
some states have made progress in developing alternative or native-
language assessments to better measure the achievement of some students
with disabilities and English language learners, states need funding
and technical support to continue to refine assessments for these two
subgroups.
Funding
For school years 2003-04 and 2004-05, we found that approximately
80% of districts have assumed costs to carry out NCLB for which they
are not being reimbursed by the federal government. In 2006, over two-
thirds of the states reported receiving inadequate federal funds to
carry out their NCLB duties. In a federal system, whenever costs to
carry out a national policy are imposed on another level of government,
dissatisfaction arises.
Substantially increase funding for the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, especially Title I, Part A. Federal funding should grow
to match the expansion of duties required of states and school
districts since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002.
Provide money for school improvement activities from a separately
authorized source of funding. Currently, funds for school improvement
are primarily funded through a set-aside of funds from each state's
total Title I, Part A allocation. Due to a ``hold harmless'' provision
in the law, however, states are sometimes unable to set aside the full
4%. Funding school improvement through a separate authority would help
to ensure that all states, even those with little or no increase in
Title I, Part A funds, have funds for school improvement activities.
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau should
thoroughly review the accuracy of the poverty estimates used to
distribute Title I and other federal funds. Consideration should be
given to other options, such as using the average of the two most
recent Census estimates, to calculate LEA grants. The amounts of Title
I-A general funding that some states and school districts receive have
fluctuated from year to year due to annual updating of Census estimates
of the number of children in poverty. Formulas used to distribute Title
I-A funds are based on each state's relative share of low-income
children. This year, because states' relative shares of the total
number of low-income children have shifted, some states will receive
double-digit increases in Title I funding for school year 2007-08,
while other states will lose substantial funds. These shifts in turn
affect the amounts that school districts within a state receive.
Increase funding for the Reading First program. Despite the
Inspector General's findings of misconduct among Reading First
officials in the U.S. Department of Education and among those
contracted by the Department to assist states in implementing the
program, Reading First has value. For the past two years on our state
and district surveys, most officials reported that Reading First was an
important cause of increases in student achievement in reading.
Teacher Quality
Most school districts report that they are in compliance with the
requirement for all of their teachers to be ``highly qualified,''
although some districts are having problems meeting the requirement for
certain types of teachers. Despite this general compliance, educators
express skepticism that the highly qualified teacher requirements will
make much difference in raising student achievement.
Encourage states to develop methods to measure teacher
effectiveness. Grants and incentives should be provided to states to
develop their own systems to measure and report on the demonstrated
effectiveness of teachers. These measures could be incorporated into
states' teacher certification and licensure systems for veteran
teachers.
Refine the current federal definition of a highly qualified teacher
to address the special circumstances of certain kinds of teachers. Our
surveys show that districts are having difficulty ensuring that 100% of
certain types of teachers, such as special education teachers,
secondary school teachers of science and mathematics, and teachers in
rural areas who teach multiple subjects are highly qualified. More
flexibility should be built into ESEA regarding qualifications of these
teachers.
Adopt a comprehensive approach to recruiting and retaining teachers
in high-need schools. NCLB requires states to ensure that experienced,
well-qualified teachers are distributed equitably among high-need and
lower-need schools. This requirement should be supported through ESEA
by a comprehensive approach, rather than a piecemeal assortment of
small, narrowly focused programs. This approach could include financial
incentives to recruit and retain highly qualified, experienced teachers
who will make a long-term commitment to teach in high need schools;
high-quality ``residency'' programs, similar to those used in medical
training, developed specifically for new teachers and their mentors in
high-need schools and for school leadership staff; and improved working
conditions for teachers, such as lighter course loads for new teachers,
increased planning and collaboration time, shared decision making, and
up-to-date textbooks, technology, and facilities.
Provide federal assistance to states to develop and implement
comprehensive data systems. To fully comply with the highly qualified
teacher requirements, states need to strengthen their data systems.
With more comprehensive data about teacher qualifications, student-
teacher ratios, teacher time spent on preparation versus teaching, and
mobility rates of teachers and administrators, states and school
districts could better understand which conditions contribute to
teacher and student success and what supports are needed to help
teachers succeed.
More detailed information on our research findings and
recommendations can be found in the individual reports we have issued
on the implementation of NCLB and our study of student achievement
since NCLB was enacted. All of these reports are posted on our Web site
(www.cep-dc.org) and can be downloaded free of charge.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much for your remarks.
Next we will hear from Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond.
Welcome to the committee. Thank you for all your help in
the past.
STATEMENT OF LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND, CHARLES E. DUCOMMUN
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Ms. Darling-Hammond. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure
to be here. Thanks to the committee for sharing this public
draft. Many of us appreciate that openness and that opportunity
to comment. There is much to talk about, but I am going to
focus on only two things. The first is the provisions to
encourage multiple measures of assessment and school progress,
which I believe are essential to raise standards in the ways
that Jack was just talking about and to make them
internationally competitive. And the second is the provisions
to improve the quality and distribution of the teaching force,
which is also essential for our ability to reach the high goals
that we have set. I also want to note that I think we do need a
new means for charting school progress from year to year, one
that better evaluates continuing progress, measures students
all along the continuum in the ways that Mr. Jennings just
talked about and that can be more understandable to the public.
And in Appendix B of my testimony, I have proposed some ideas
for such a system.
But I am going to shift now because I think it is important
to just look at the big picture of developing an American
education system that will maintain the U.S. as a first world
power in the 21st Century, a status which we are at serious
risk of losing. On page 2 of my testimony, you will see the
most recent international rankings on assessments. The U.S. on
international achievement tests ranks 19th out of 40 countries
in reading; 20th in science and 28th in math, right on a par
with Latvia. Furthermore, most of these countries now graduate
virtually all of their students. And we have been stuck at a 75
percent graduation rate for about 30 years. And our graduation
rates are going down. We have also slipped from first in the
world in higher education to 13th.
We ought to ask ourselves, what are these other countries
doing as they are galloping ahead to prepare for a knowledge-
based economy? There are two major things that are happening in
these other countries that are addressed in part by some of the
provisions of this bill. One is that they have very thoughtful
curriculum and assessment systems. Their assessments are open
ended, written examinations, oral examinations at the
centralized level. And at the local level, there is a component
which usually comprises about 50 percent of the examination
score which are local assessments that engage students in
science investigations, research projects, computer
programming, written extended responses and presentations. You
can see an example of this in Appendix A of my testimony which
looks at some of the assessments in Victoria, Australia, and
Hong Kong, both very high-achieving countries, which assemble
the assessments in most of the high-achieving countries in the
world. We need to be moving towards the kind of curriculum that
is looking ahead to 21st Century skills and not be constrained
only by multiple choice tests which measure a fairly low level
of performance in reading and math. And our studies show,
including the ones that Jack already mentioned, that students
in the United States are doing less writing, less science, less
history, reading fewer books and even using computers less in
some States as a function of the pressures that have come about
by the types of tests that have been selected.
Component is very important both for this reason and to
raise graduation rates, because it can keep into account
keeping kids in schools as well as raising the standards. These
points have been brought to the Congress in two letters; one
from 23 civil rights organizations, and another from 120
national experts, including the leading testing experts in the
country as critical for moving our Nation forward.
In addition, these other countries also have very well
prepared and well supported teaching forces. They bring people
into high quality teacher education free of charge to all
candidates with a stipend. They then bring them into the career
at a competitive salary, usually benchmarked to engineers. In
Singapore, beginning teachers make more than beginning doctors.
They then give them mentoring throughout their careers. And
they give them professional development opportunities that are
very deep and rich and, in many countries, a career ladder that
allows them to progress and take leadership roles and
contribute to mentoring other teachers.
The teaching components of this bill, particularly those
that come from the TEACH Act that had been previously
introduced, are essential as beginning points for us to get to
that kind of a teaching force in this country. The recruitment
incentives that are there to attract both well prepared novices
and expert teachers to high-need schools are very, very
important. Where we have students not meeting the standards,
quite often it is also because they are being taught by
inexperienced and inexpert teachers. We have got to bring
teachers to those communities. The new teacher residency
programs in the bill, the high quality mentoring for beginning
teachers that is there is a very essential point. We lose 30
percent of our beginning teachers within 5 years. It is like
filling a leaky bucket and having people fall out the bottom.
We could save $600 million annually by ensuring mentoring for
all of our beginning teachers.
The New Teacher and Principal Professional Development
Academies in the bill would move us beyond the sort of hit-and-
run or drive-by workshops that are so common and so ineffective
in schools. And the development of career ladders for teachers
that can recognize and reward effective teachers who contribute
to student learning and who show high levels of performance
like those who are nationally board certified and then can
share their knowledge with other teachers as mentor teachers
and master teachers can actually create an engine for school
improvement. Ultimately, we can't expect to achieve these high
standards unless we have great teachers in every classroom and
a curriculum that is squarely focused on 21st Century skills. I
think this bill makes a good start in that direction.
[The statement of Ms. Darling-Hammond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun
Professor of Education, Stanford University
Congressman Miller, Congressman McKeon and members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the draft bill
to re-authorize No Child Left Behind. I am Linda Darling-Hammond,
Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University and
co-director of the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute and the
School Redesign Network. I was also the founding Executive Director of
the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, and have
spent many years studying policies and practices in the U.S. and around
the world that support stronger curriculum, assessment, teaching and
learning.
I want also to thank the Committee for its openness and commitment
to the democratic process in having shared a public draft of the re-
authorization bill prior to finalizing the bill. This move shows a
respect and consideration for the public that is appreciated by those
who care deeply about our nation's education system.
While the very complex NCLB legislation has many elements that
deserve attention and ongoing revision, I am sure you will hear about
those from many others. I want to focus my testimony this morning on
three key elements of the law:
1. The provisions to encourage multiple measures of assessment and
multiple indicators of school progress, which I believe are essential
to raise standards and strengthen educational quality in ways that are
internationally competitive;
2. The provisions to improve the quality and distribution of the
teaching force, which are also essential to our ability to reach the
high goals this Congress would like to establish for our nation's
schools, and
3. The means for measuring school progress from year to year, which
I believe need to become more publicly comprehensible and more closely
focused on evaluating continuing progress for students and schools.
My comments are based on studies of U.S. education and of the
education systems of other countries that are outperforming the U.S. by
larger and larger margins every year. For example, in the most recent
PISA assessments, the U.S. ranked 19th out of 40 countries in reading,
20th in science, and 28th in math (on a par with Latvia), outscored by
nations like Finland, Sweden, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea, the
Netherlands, Japan, and Singapore (which did not participate in PISA
but scored at the top of the TIMSS rankings) that are investing
intensively in the kinds of curriculum and assessments and the kinds of
teaching force improvements that we desperately need and that this re-
authorization bill is seeking to introduce.
2003 PISA RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading Scientific Literacy Math
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finland Finland Hong Kong
South Korea Japan Finland
Canada Hong Kong South Korea
Australia South Korea Netherlands
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
New Zealand Australia Japan
Ireland Macao Canada
Sweden Netherlands Belgium
Netherlands Czech Republic Macao (China)
U.S. ranks # 19 / 40 U.S. ranks #20 / 40 U.S. ranks #28 / 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that PISA assessments focus explicitly on 21st
century skills, going beyond the question posed by most U.S.
standardized tests, ``Did students learn what we taught them?'' to ask,
``What can students do with what they have learned?'' PISA defines
literacy in mathematics, science, and reading as students' abilities to
apply what they know to new problems and situations. This is the kind
of higher-order learning that is increasingly emphasized in other
nations' assessment systems, but often discouraged by the multiple-
choice tests most states have adopted under the first authorization of
No Child Left Behind. Underneath the United States' poor standing is an
outcome of both enormous inequality in school inputs and outcomes and a
lack of sufficient focus for all students on higher-order thinking and
problem-solving, the areas where all groups in the U.S. do least well
on international tests.
In addition to declines in performance on international
assessments, the U.S. has slipped in relation to other countries in
terms of graduation rates and college-going. Most European and Asian
countries that once educated fewer of their citizens now routinely
graduate virtually all of their students. Meanwhile, the U.S. has not
improved graduation rates for a quarter century, and graduation rates
are now going down as requirements for an educated workforce are going
steeply up. According to an ETS study, only about 69% of high school
students graduated with a standard diploma in 2000, down from 77% in
1969 (Barton, 2005). Of the 60% of graduates who go onto college, only
about half graduate from college with a degree. In the end, less than
30% of an age cohort in the U.S. gains a college degree (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2005). For students of color, the pipeline leaks more profusely
at every juncture. Only about 17% of African American young people
between the ages of 25 and 29--and only 11% of Hispanic youth--had
earned a college degree in 2005, as compared to 34 % of white youth in
the same age bracket (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
And whereas the U.S. was an unchallenged 1st in the world in higher
education participation for many decades, it has slipped to 13th and
college participation for our young people is declining (Douglass,
2006). Just over one-third of U.S. young adults are participating in
higher education, most in community colleges. Meanwhile, the countries
belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), which are mostly European, now average nearly 50% participation
in higher education, and most of these students are in programs leading
to a bachelors degree. Similarly in Southeast Asia, enormous
investments in both K-12 and higher education have steeply raised
graduation rates from high school and college-going rates.
The implications of these trends are important for national
economies. A recent OECD report found that for every year that the
average schooling level of the population is raised, there is a
corresponding increase of 3.7% in long-term economic growth (OECD,
2005), a statistic worth particular note while the U.S. is going
backwards in educating its citizens, and most of the rest of the world
is moving forward.
What are High-Achieving Nations Doing?
Funding. Most high-achieving countries not only provide high-
quality universal preschool and health care for children, they also
fund their schools centrally and equally, with additional funds to the
neediest schools. By contrast, in the U.S., the wealthiest school
districts spend nearly ten times more than the poorest, and spending
ratios of 3 to 1 are common within states (ETS, 1991; Kozol, 2005).
These disparities reinforce the wide inequalities in income among
families, with the most resources being spent on children from the
wealthiest communities and the fewest on the children of the poor,
especially in high-minority communities.
Teaching. Furthermore, high-achieving nations intensively support a
better-prepared teaching force--funding competitive salaries and high-
quality teacher education, mentoring, and ongoing professional
development for all teachers, at government expense. Countries which
rarely experience teacher shortages (such as Finland, Sweden, Norway,
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore)
have made substantial investments in teacher training and equitable
teacher distribution in the last two decades. These include:
High-quality pre-service teacher education, completely
free of charge to all candidates, including a year of practice teaching
in a clinical school connected to the university,
Mentoring for all beginners in their first year of
teaching from expert teachers, coupled with other supports like a
reduced teaching load and shared planning,
Salaries which are competitive with other professions,
such as engineering and are equitable across schools (often with
additional stipends for hard-to-staff locations),
Ongoing professional learning embedded in 10 or more hours
a week of planning and professional development time (Darling-Hammond,
2005).
Leaders in Finland attribute the country's dramatic climb from the
bottom of the international rankings to the very top to intensive
investments in teacher education. Over ten years the country overhauled
preparation to focus more on teaching for higher-order skills and
teaching diverse learners--including a strong emphasis on those with
special needs--and created a funding stream to provide a 3-year
graduate level preparation program to all teacher candidates free of
charge and with a living stipend, a full year of training in a
professional development school site--rather like the residency
promoted in this draft bill, intensive mentoring once in the classroom,
and more than ten hours a week of professional learning time in school,
where teachers collaborate on lesson planning and on the development
and scoring of local performance assessments that are the backbone of
the country's assessment system.
In high-achieving Singapore, which I recently visited as part of a
review team for the Institute of Education, students from the top \1/3\
of the high school class are recruited into a 4-year teacher education
program (or, if they enter later, a one-year graduate program) and
immediately put on the Ministry's payroll as employees. They are paid a
stipend while they are in training (which is free for them) and are
paid at a rate that is higher than beginning doctors when they enter
the profession. There they receive systematic mentoring from expert
teachers once they begin teaching. Like all other teachers in
Singapore, the government pays for 100 hours of professional
development annually in addition to the 20 hours a week they have to
work with other teachers and visit each others' classrooms to study
teaching. As they progress through the career, there are 3 separate
career ladders they can pursue, with support from the government for
further training: developing the skills and taking on the
responsibilities of curriculum specialists, teaching / mentoring
specialists, or prospective principals.
Curriculum and Assessment. Finally, these high-achieving nations
focus their curriculum on critical thinking and problem solving, using
examinations that require students to conduct research and scientific
investigations, solve complex real-world problems in mathematics, and
defend their ideas orally and in writing. In most cases, their
assessment systems combine centralized (state or national) assessments
that use mostly open-ended and essay questions and local assessments
given by teachers, which are factored into the final examination
scores. These local assessments--which include research papers, applied
science experiments, presentations of various kinds, and projects and
products that students construct--are mapped to the syllabus and the
standards for the subject and are selected because they represent
critical skills, topics, and concepts. They are often suggested and
outlined in the curriculum, but they are generally designed,
administered, and scored locally.
An example of such assessments can be found in Appendix A, which
shows science assessments from high-achieving Victoria, Australia and
Hong Kong--which use very similar assessment systems--in comparison to
traditional multiple choice or short answer items from the United
States. Whereas students in most parts of the U.S. are typically asked
simply to memorize facts which they need to recognize in a list
answers, or give short answers which are also just one-sentence
accounts of memorized facts, students in Australia and Hong Kong (as
well as other high-achieving nations) are asked to apply their
knowledge in the ways that scientists do.
The item from the Victoria, Australia biology test, for example,
describes a particular virus to students, asks them to design a drug to
kill the virus and explain how the drug operates (complete with
diagrams), and then to design an experiment to test the drug. This
state test in Victoria comprises no more than 50% of the total
examination score. The remaining components of the examination score
come from required assignments and assessments students undertake
throughout the year--lab experiments and investigations as well as
research papers and presentations--which are designed in response to
the syllabus. These ensure that they are getting the kind of learning
opportunities which prepare them for the assessments they will later
take, that they are getting feedback they need to improve, and that
they will be prepared to succeed not only on these very challenging
tests but in college and in life, where they will have to apply
knowledge in these ways.
Locally managed performance assessments that get students to apply
their knowledge to real-world problems are critically to important to
the teaching and learning process. They allow the testing of more
complex skills that cannot be measured in a two-hour test on a single
day. They shape the curriculum in ways that ensure stronger learning
opportunities. They give teachers timely, formative information they
need to help students improve--something that standardized examinations
with long lapses between administration and results cannot do. And they
help teachers become more knowledgeable about the standards and how to
teach to them, as well as about their own students and how they learn.
The process of using these assessments improves their teaching and
their students' learning. The processes of collective scoring and
moderation that many nations or states use to ensure reliability in
scoring also prove educative for teachers, who learn to calibrate their
sense of the standards to common benchmarks.
The power of such assessments for teaching and learning is
suggested by the fact that ambitious nations are consciously increasing
the use of school-based performance assessments in their systems. Hong
Kong, Singapore, and several Australian states have intensive efforts
underway to expand these assessments. England, Canada, Sweden, and the
Netherlands have already done so. Locally managed performance
assessments comprise the entire assessment system in top-ranked Finland
and in Queensland and ACT, Australia--the highest-achieving states in
that high-achieving nation.
These assessments are not used to rank or punish schools, or to
deny promotion or diplomas to students. (In fact, several countries
have explicit proscriptions against such practices). They are used to
evaluate curriculum and guide investments in professional learning--in
short, to help schools improve. By asking students to show what they
know through real-world applications of knowledge, these other nations'
assessment systems encourage serious intellectual activities that are
currently being discouraged in U.S. schools by the tests many states
have adopted under NCLB.
How NCLB can Help the United States Become Educationally Competitive
Multiple Measures and Performance Assessments. The proposals in the
re-authorization draft to permit states to use a broader set of
assessments and to encourage the development and use of performance
assessments are critical to creating a globally competitive curriculum
in U.S. schools. We need to encourage our states to evaluate the
higher-order thinking and performance skills that leading nations
emphasize in their systems, and we need to create incentives that value
keeping students in school through graduation as much as producing
apparently high average scores at the school level.
Many states developed systems that include state and locally-
administered performance assessments as part of their efforts to
develop standards under Goals 2000 in the 1990s. (These states included
Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming, among others.) Not coincidentally, these include most of
the highest-achieving states in the U.S. on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Indeed, the National Science Foundation provided
millions of dollars for states to develop such hands-on science and
math assessments as part of its Systemic Science Initiative in the
1990s, and prototypes exist all over the country. One such measure--a
science investigation requiring students to design, conduct, analyze,
and write up results for an experiment--currently used as a state
science assessment in Connecticut (a top-ranked state in both science
and writing) is included with the assessment examples in Appendix A.
Researchers learned that such assessments can be managed
productively and reliably scored with appropriate training and
professional development for teachers, along with moderation and
auditing systems, and that teaching and student achievement improve
when such assessments are used. (For a review, see Darling-Hammond &
Rustique-Forrester, 2006).
However, the initial years of NCLB have discouraged the use and
further development of these assessments, and have narrowed the
curriculum both in terms of the subjects and kinds of skills taught.
NCLB's rapidly implemented requirement for every-child every-year
testing created large costs and administrative challenges that have
caused some states to abandon their performance assessments for
machine-scored, multiple choice tests that are less expensive to score
and more easily satisfy the law. In addition, the Department of
Education has discouraged states from using such assessments. When
Connecticut sued the federal government for the funds needed to
maintain its sophisticated performance assessments on an every-child
every-year basis, the Department suggested the state drop these tasks--
which resemble those used in high-scoring nations around the world--for
multiple choice tests. Thus the administration of the law is driving
the U.S. curriculum in the opposite direction from what a 21st century
economy requires.
A number of studies have found that an exclusive emphasis on
(primarily multiple-choice) standardized test scores has narrowed the
curriculum. The most recent reports of the Center for Education Policy
(CEP) and the National Center for Education Statistics (May 2007 Stats
in Brief) confirm sizeable drops in time dedicated to areas other than
reading and math, including science, history, art, and physical
education. The CEP also found that districts are more tightly aligning
their instruction to this limited format as well as content of state
tests. While these tests are one useful indicator of achievement,
studies document that they often overemphasize low-level learning. As
reporter Thomas Toch recently stated, ``The problem is that these
dumbed-down tests encourage teachers to make the same low-level skills
the priority in their classrooms, at the expense of the higher
standards that the federal law has sought to promote.'' To succeed in
college, employment and life in general, students need critical
thinking and problem solving skills that the tests fail to measure, and
they need a complete curriculum.
Teachers in many states report that the curriculum is distorted by
tests and that they feel pressured to use test formats in their
instruction and to teach in ways that contradict their ideas of sound
instructional practice. An Education Week survey of more than 1,000
public school teachers reported that two-thirds felt their states had
become too focused on state tests; 85% reported that their school gives
less attention to subjects that are not on the state test. One Texas
teacher noted, ``At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are
told not to teach social studies and science until March.'' Teachers
often feel that their responses to tests are not educationally
appropriate. These comments from teachers--reflecting the view of a
majority in recent surveys--give a sense of the problem:
Before [our current state test] I was a better teacher. I was
exposing my children to a wide range of science and social studies
experiences. I taught using themes that really immersed the children
into learning about a topic using their reading, writing, math, and
technology skills. Now I'm basically afraid to NOT teach to the test. I
know that the way I was teaching was building a better foundation for
my kids as well as a love of learning. Now each year I can't wait until
March is over so I can spend the last two and a half months of school
teaching the way I want to teach, the way I know students will be
excited about.
A Florida Teacher
I have seen more students who can pass the [state test] but cannot
apply those skills to anything if it's not in the test format. I have
students who can do the test but can't look up words in a dictionary
and understand the different meanings. * * * As for higher quality
teaching, I'm not sure I would call it that. Because of the pressure
for passing scores, more and more time is spent practicing the test and
putting everything in test format.
A Texas Teacher
Studies find that, as a result of test score pressures, students
are doing less extended writing, science inquiry, research in social
sciences and other fields, and intensive projects that require
planning, finding, analyzing, integrating, and presenting information--
the skills increasingly needed in a 21st century workforce. The use of
computers for writing and other purposes has even declined in states
that do not allow computer use on their standardized tests (for a
summary, see Darling-Hammond & Rustique-Forrester, 2005). This
narrowing is thought to be one reason for the poor performance of the
U.S. on international assessments like PISA, which evaluate how
students can apply knowledge to complex problems in new situations.
Indeed, as state test scores have gone up under NCLB, scores on
other tests measuring broader skills have not. For example, for some
states, Reading gains are positive on the state test but negative on
the more intellectually challenging NAEP test. Overall, data from the
trend NAEP assessment show that math gains from the 1990s have leveled
off since 2002 and reading has declined.
Perhaps the most troubling unintended consequence of NCLB has been
that the law creates incentives for schools to boost scores by pushing
low-scoring students out of school. The very important goal of
graduating more of our students has simply not been implemented, and
the accountability provisions actually reward schools with high dropout
rates. Push-out incentives and the narrowed curriculum are especially
severe for students with disabilities, English language learners,
students of color and economically disadvantaged students. Recent
reports of the Public Education Network confirm that parents, students
and other community members are concerned about the over-reliance on
test scores for evaluating students and schools. A number of recent
studies have confirmed that this over-reliance has been associated with
grade retention and other school actions that exacerbate dropout rates
and student exclusion from school, especially for low-income students
of color.\i\ This creates the perverse outcome that efforts to raise
standards are resulting in fewer students receiving an education.
If education is to improve in the United States, schools must be
assessed in ways that produce high-quality learning and that create
incentives to keep students in school. A central part of a solution to
these problems is to employ multiple forms of assessment and multiple
indicators, while retaining the powerful tools of publicly available
assessment information and the critically important focus on equity.
The provisions of the draft bill that allow states to develop and use
such measures, and the requirements that these include graduation
rates, are essential to creating the incentives for a world-class
curriculum within a world-class education system that actually reduces
the achievement gap while ensuring more and more students are well-
educated. A multiple measures approach can help schools and districts
improve student outcomes more effectively because:
1. The use of multiple measures ensures that attention will be
given to a comprehensive academic program and a more complete array of
important learning outcomes;
2. A multiple measures approach can incorporate assessments that
evaluate the full range of standards, including those addressing
higher-order thinking and performance skills;
3. Multiple measures provide accountability checks and balances so
that emphasizing one measure does not come at the expense of others
(e.g. boosting test scores by excluding students from school), but they
can give greater emphasis to priority areas; and
4. A multiple measures index can provide schools and districts with
incentives to attend to the progress of students at every point on the
achievement spectrum, including those who initially score far below or
above the test score cut point labeled ``proficient.'' It can encourage
schools to focus on the needs of low-scoring students, students with
disabilities, and ELL students, using assessments that measure gains
from wherever students begin and helping them achieve growth.
One of the central concepts of NCLB's approach is that schools and
systems will organize their efforts around the measures for which they
are held accountable. Because focusing exclusively on a single
indicator is both partial and problematic, the concept of multiple
measures is routinely used by policymakers to make critical decisions
about such matters as employment and economic forecasting (e.g., the
Dow Jones Index or the GNP), as well as admissions to college.
Successful businesses use a ``dashboard'' set of indicators to evaluate
their health and progress, aware that no single measure is sufficient
to understand or guide their operations. Business leaders understand
that efforts to maximize short-term profits alone could lead to
behaviors that undermine the long-term health of the enterprise.
Similarly, use of a single measure to guide education can create
unintended negative consequences or fail to focus schools on doing
those things that can improve their long-term health and the education
of their students. Indeed, the measurement community's Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing mandates the use of multiple
sources of evidence for major decisions. NCLB calls for multiple
measures of student performance, and some states have developed systems
that incorporate such measures. Up to now, implementation of the law
has not promoted their use for evaluating school progress. In the new
NCLB these and other states will be supported to develop systems that
resemble those in the highest-achieving nations around the globe.
Multiple indicators can counter the problems caused by over-
reliance on single measures. Multiple forms of assessment can include
traditional statewide tests as well as other assessments, developed at
the state or local levels, that include writing samples, research
projects, and science investigations, as well as collections of student
work over time. These can be scored reliably according to common
standards and can inform instruction in order to improve teaching and
learning. Such assessments would only be used for accountability
purposes when they meet the appropriate technical criteria, reflect
state-approved standards, and apply equitably to all students, as is
already the case in Connecticut, Nebraska, Oregon, Vermont, and other
states successfully using multiple forms of assessment.
To counter the narrowing of the curriculum and exclusion of
important subjects that has been extensively documented as a
consequence of NCLB, the new law should, as this draft proposes, allow
states to include other subjects, using multiple forms of assessment,
in an index of school indicators measuring school progress toward a
``proficiency benchmark'' that incorporates both good measures of
learning and measures of graduation and progress through school. To
ensure strong attention is given to reading and math, these subjects
can be weighted more heavily. Graduation rates and grade promotion
rates should be given substantial weight in any accountability system.
Other relevant indicators of school progress, such as attendance or
participation in rigorous coursework, could be included. (For specifics
on how such an index might operate, see Appendix B.) An index that
tracks and sets targets for continual school progress--including the
progress of student groups within the school--at all points along the
achievement continuum would accomplish several goals:
It would actually measure how much students are learning,
taking into account the progress of all students not just a select few,
including students who score well above or below the ``proficiency''
level;
It would allow for more appropriate attention to and
assessment of special education students and English language learners;
It would provide incentives for schools to offer a full
curriculum and to incorporate multiple measures of learning that
include more ambitious performance assessments;
It would provide a better warning system, distinguishing
between schools that are making steady progress and those that are
truly failing and thus unable to make progress on the index, so that
states can focus on those needing the most help
It would enable teachers and schools to chart students'
progress and increase ambitions for all, to proficiency and beyond
It would create incentives for schools to invest in all
students' education, to keep students in school, and to and address all
aspects of performance.
Because evidence is clear that multiple assessments are beneficial
to student learning and accountability decisions, it is promising that
the bill includes a provision to provide significant funds to assist
states and districts to implement systems that include multiple forms
of evidence about student learning, including state and local
performance assessments. of state assessment and accountability
systems.
These points in support of a multiple measures approach to
accountability were made in two recent letters to the Congress--one
from a group of 23 leading civil rights organizations, including
Aspira, LULAC, the NAACP, the National Council for Educating Black
Children, and others, and the other from more than 120 leading
educational experts, including the nation's most prominent testing
experts and more than a dozen former presidents of organizations
including the American Educational Research Association, the National
Academy of Education, and the National Council for Measurement in
Education. These letters can be found http://www.edaccountability.org.
Investments in Teaching. Once we develop a strong curriculum that
focuses on 21st century skills, which teaches and assesses the skills
we need in the ways that students will use them in the real world, we
must also ensure that we have well-prepared and well-supported teachers
who know and can teach challenging content extremely well to the very
diverse group of students in our schools. Few of the conditions that
support teaching in high-achieving nations are routinely in place in
school systems across the U.S. and they are especially lacking in the
school districts and schools which serve most low-income students and
students of color.
Unfortunately, unlike other industrialized nations that are high-
achieving, the United States lacks a systematic approach to recruiting,
preparing, and retaining teachers, or for using the skills of
accomplished teachers to help improve schools. With unequal resources
across districts, and few governmental supports for preparation or
mentoring, teachers in the U.S. enter:
with dramatically different levels of training--with those
least prepared typically teaching the most educationally vulnerable
children,
at sharply disparate salaries--with those teaching the
neediest students typically earning the least,
working under radically different teaching conditions--
with those in the most affluent communities benefiting from class sizes
under 20 and a cornucopia of materials, equipment, specialists, and
supports, while those in the poorest communities teach classes of 40 or
more without adequate books and supplies,
with little or no on-the-job mentoring or coaching in most
communities to help teachers improve their skills
Most also have few ways to engage in developing and using their
skills to maximum advantage, spending most of their careers teaching
solo in egg-crate classrooms, rather than working with colleagues to
improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
This re-authorization proposal promises to make substantial headway
on these problems. Particularly important are several elements of the
TEACH Act that have been integrated into the bill. These include:
Recruitment incentives to attract both well-prepared
novices and accomplished veteran teachers into high-need schools,
through innovative training and compensation approaches;
Improvements in teachers' preparation through new teacher
residency programs in high need communities, as well as improvements in
all teachers' preparation to teach content standards, to teach diverse
students well, and to use technology;
A focus on improving teacher education and teacher
effectiveness through the development of a nationally available teacher
performance assessment
High-quality mentoring for all beginning teachers;
Strong professional development through new Teacher and
Principal Professional Development Academies; and
The development of career ladders for teachers that can
recognize and reward highly-accomplished and effective teachers who
show high levels of performance and the ability to contribute to
student learning--and that can take advantage of these teachers'
expertise by creating mentor and master teacher positions that allow
them to support other teachers and the school as a whole in improving
curriculum and instruction.
This comprehensive approach can begin to transform our conceptions
of the teaching career in much the way that other countries have
already done system-wide. Many elements of the bill are based on a
thoughtful diagnosis of our teacher supply and quality problems and a
set of initial steps that, if eventually integrated system-wide, could
actually begin to solve these problems. Below I touch briefly on the
reasons for the importance and likely success of these elements of the
bill.
Recruitment Incentives to Attract Expert Teachers to High-Need
Schools--Much research has shown that teachers are the most unequally
distributed school resource and that low-income schools have a
disproportionate number of inexperienced and under-prepared teachers.
Recruitment incentives for high-need schools are needed to attract and
keep expert, experienced teachers in the schools where they are most
needed, both to teach and to mentor other teachers. The bill offers a
combination of salary incentives and improvements in working
conditions, including time for teachers to work and plan together,
which have been shown to influence teachers' career decisions.
As part of a broader career ladder initiative, federal matching
grants to states and districts can provide incentives for the design of
innovative approaches to attract and keep accomplished teachers in
priority low-income schools, through compensation for accomplishment
and for additional responsibilities, such as mentoring and coaching.
The bill allows for districts to recognize teacher expertise through
such mechanisms as National Board Certification, state or local
standards-based evaluations, and carefully assembled evidence of
contributions to student learning.
Improvements in Teacher Preparation and Professional Development.
While NCLB's highly qualified teacher provision has strengthened
preparation in the content areas, there is much work to be done to
improve teacher effectiveness. Major needs are stronger preparation for
teachers to learn how to teach effectively within their content areas,
how to design and use assessments that reveal how students are learning
and guide teaching, how to teach reading and literacy skills at all
grade levels, and how to teach special education students and English
language learners. These students are the disproportionately ones who
are failing to meet standards under NCLB and their teachers need very
sophisticated skills to help them.
The TEACH Act proposes grants to strengthen teacher preparation and
professional development in these areas which represent best practices
in the field--involving teachers in curriculum and assessment planning,
modeling and demonstration of teaching strategies, and follow up
coaching in classrooms in both pre- and in-service development
programs. These approaches should replace the ``hit-and-run''
professional development that is currently common. Professional
Development Academies can provide a steady supply of high-quality
professional development of the kind that has been shown to improve
student achievement--intensive institutes and study opportunities for
networks of teachers who can both work on these practices together and
receive on the job coaching to hone their skills.
New models of teacher preparation are especially needed in our
high-need districts. The most critical need for improving teacher
preparation is to ensure that programs provide one of the most
important elements of preparation--the opportunity to learn under the
direct supervision of expert teachers working in schools that serve
high-need students well. Teaching cannot be learned from books or even
from being mentored periodically. Teachers must see expert practices
modeled and must practice them with help. However, student teaching is
too often reduced or omitted, or it is in classrooms that do not model
expert practice, or it is in classrooms that do not serve high-need
students--and what is learned does not generalize to other schools.
This fundamental problem has to be tackled and solved if we are to
prepare an adequate supply of teachers who will enter urban or poor
rural classrooms competent to work effectively with the neediest
students and confident enough to stay in teaching in these areas.
The Bill provides for teacher residency programs in high-need
communities. This alternative has proven successful in the Urban
Teacher Residency designed in Chicago that has created new schools or
completely re-staffed existing schools with highly expert mentor
teachers (like professional development schools) and then placed mid-
career recruits in the classrooms of these mentor teachers for a year
while they complete coursework in curriculum, teaching, and learning at
partner universities. Rather than trying to teach without seeing good
teaching in a sink or swim model, these recruits watch experts in
action and are tutored into accomplished practice. They receive a
$30,000 salary during this year and a master's degree and credential at
the end of the year. They continue to receive mentoring in the next two
years. They are selected because they want to commit to a career in
urban public school teaching and they pledge to spend at least four
years in city schools. This model has already shown high retention
rates in teaching and strong performance by graduates, who now staff
other turnaround schools in the city. Similar models have been launched
in Boston and other cities. Such programs can solve several problems
simultaneously--creating a pipeline of committed teachers who are well-
prepared to engage in best practice for children in for high-need
schools, while creating demonstration sites that serve as models for
urban teaching and teacher education.
Competitive grants to schools of education and districts for
developing these kinds of learning opportunities should also require
evidence of teacher learning and advances in practice so that knowledge
builds about how to support teachers in acquiring these much more
complex teaching skills. To focus more productively on teacher
performance and effectiveness, rather than merely seat time, both
preparation and mentoring can be strengthened if they are guided by a
high-quality, nationally-available teacher performance assessment,
which measures actual teaching skill in the content areas. Current
examinations used for licensing and for federal accountability
typically measure basic skills and subject matter knowledge in paper-
and-pencil tests that demonstrate little about teachers' abilities
actually to teach effectively. Several states, including Connecticut
and California, have incorporated such performance assessments in the
licensing process. These assessments--which can also be used as data
for the accreditation process--have been found to be strong levers for
improving preparation and mentoring, as well as determining teachers'
effectiveness in promoting student achievement gains. Federal support
for the development of a nationally available, performance assessment
for licensing will not only provide a useful tool for accountability
and improvement, but it would also facilitate teacher mobility across
states, which will help solve teacher shortages.
High Quality Mentoring for Beginning Teachers--Retention is at
least as important to solving teacher supply as recruitment. With 30%
of new teachers leaving within 5 years (and more in urban areas), the
revolving door cannot be slowed until the needs for beginning teacher
support are addressed. Other high-achieving countries invest heavily in
structured induction for beginning teachers: they fund schools to
provide released time for expert mentors and they fund other learning
opportunities for beginners, such as seminars, visits to other
teachers' classrooms, and joint planning time. Such strategies have
been also been found effective in reducing beginning teacher attrition
in the U.S., with rates of leaving reduced from more than 30% of
beginning teachers to as low as 5% in some districts that have
introduced high-quality induction programs. A critical component is
strong mentoring, which includes on-the-job observations and coaching
in the classroom as well as support for teacher planning by expert
veterans.\ii\
Although requirements for beginning teacher induction have
proliferated, with more than 30 states now requiring some kind of
induction program, many are not funded and do not provide the kind of
mentoring and coaching that are needed.\iii\ Two recent analyses of a
large-scale national teacher survey revealed that, in addition to
salaries and working conditions, the most important predictors of
teacher's ongoing commitment to the profession are extent of
preparation they have received and the quality of the mentoring and
support they receive.\iv\ Federal incentives could leverage state
efforts to create strong mentoring in every community. This bill
provides the conditions for mentoring for beginning teachers that can
reduce attrition and increase competence. If even half of the early
career teachers who leave teaching were to be retained, the nation
would save at least $600 million a year in replacement costs.
Career Ladders for Teaching. The additional benefit of these and
other mentoring programs is that they can be part of a career ladder
for teachers, providing a new lease on life for many veteran teachers
as well. Expert veterans need ongoing challenges to remain stimulated
and excited about staying in the profession. Many say that mentoring
and coaching other teachers creates an incentive for them to remain in
teaching as they gain from both learning from and sharing with other
colleagues.
The bill's incentives for developing career ladders in willing
districts may create models that can help transform the way we organize
the teaching career and keep great teachers in the profession while
better using their skills. Existing compensation systems in teaching
create a career pathway that places classroom teaching at the bottom,
provides teachers with little influence in making key education
decisions, and requires teachers to leave the classroom if they want
greater responsibility or substantially higher pay. The message is
clear: those who work with children have the lowest status; those who
do not, the highest.
We need a different career continuum, one that places teaching at
the top and creates a career progression that supports teachers as they
become increasingly expert. Like the path from assistant professor to
associate and full professor on campuses--or junior associate to
partner in law firms--new pathways should recognize skill and
accomplishment, anticipate that professionals will take on roles that
allow them to share their knowledge, and promote increased skill
development and expertise.
Although tying teacher advancement to performance is a desirable
goal, efforts to institute versions of merit pay in education have
faltered many times before--in the 1920s, the 1950s, and most recently
in the 1980s, when 47 states introduced versions of merit pay or career
ladders, all of which had failed by the early 1990s. The reasons for
failure have included faulty evaluation systems, concerns about bias
and discrimination, strategies that rewarded individual teachers while
undermining collaborative efforts, dysfunctional incentives that caused
unintended negative side-effects, and lack of public will to continue
increased compensation.
The bill allows districts to move past these former problems by
working with local teachers to develop new models that include multiple
measures of performance which are carefully developed and tested.
Without abandoning many of the important objectives of the current
salary schedule--equitable treatment, incentives for further education,
and objective means for determining pay--compensation systems could
provide salary incentives for demonstrated knowledge, skill, and
expertise that move the mission of the school forward and reward
excellent teachers for continuing to teach. Rewarding teachers for deep
knowledge of subjects, additional knowledge in meeting special kinds of
student and school needs, and high levels of performance measured
against professional teaching standards could encourage teachers to
continue to learn needed skills and could enhance the expertise
available within schools.\v\
These initiatives generally have several features in common. All
require teacher participation and buy-in to be implemented. Typically,
evaluations occur at several junctures as teachers move from their
initial license, through a period as a novice or resident teacher under
the supervision of a mentor, to designation as professional teacher
after successfully passing an assessment of teaching skills. Tenure is
a major step tied to a serious decision made after rigorous evaluation
of performance in the first several years of teaching, incorporating
administrator and peer review by expert colleagues. Lead teacher
status--which triggers additional compensation and access to
differentiated roles--may be determined by advanced certification from
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and/or other
evidence of performance through standards-based evaluation systems
which may incorporate evidence of contributions to student learning.
As we work to develop these new approaches to measuring teacher
effectiveness for purposes of recognizing and rewarding teachers, it
will be important to consider both the availability and accuracy of
particular measures and the potential incentive effects of their use.
For any high stakes purpose associated with personnel decision making
or compensation, multiple measures should be used, as they are in all
the systems noted earlier, since all measures give a partial picture of
teacher performance and are subject to error. In addition, the system
should be designed to operate so that teachers are not penalized for
teaching the students who have the greatest educational needs.
Incentives should operate to recognize and reward teachers who work
with challenging students. This requires sensitivity to student and
classroom characteristics in the evaluation system and ways to examine
gains in learning appropriately.
Conclusion
While there are many complex elements of NCLB that will require
continual attention and refinement, two important elements of the new
re-authorization should be especially encouraged if we are to develop a
world-class system of education. Multiple measures approaches to
assessing learning--which include performance assessments of what
students know and can do--and multiple indicators of school
performance, including graduation rates are critically important to
keep the U.S. focused on developing 21st century skills for all
students.
And serious investments in the teaching force--ultimately at a
scale even more intensive than this bill envisions--will be the basis
on which those ambitious standards can be taught and achieved. This re-
authorization bill is an important start on these important agendas.
endnotes
\i\ For recent studies examining the increases in dropout rates
associated with high-stakes testing systems, see Advocates for Children
(2002). Pushing out at-risk students: An analysis of high school
discharge figures--a joint report by AFC and the Public Advocate.
http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/pushout-11-20-02.html; W.
Haney (2002). Lake Wobegone guaranteed: Misuse of test scores in
Massachusetts, Part 1. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(24).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n24/; J. Heubert & R. Hauser (eds.) (1999).
High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. A report
of the National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press; B.A. Jacob (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school
graduation exams. Education and Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (2):
99-122; D. Lilliard, & P. DeCicca (2001). Higher standards, more
dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education
Review, 20(5): 459-73;G. Orfield, D. Losen, J. Wald, & C.B. Swanson
(2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by
the graduation rate crisis. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from: http://
www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410936; M. Roderick, A.S. Bryk, B.A. Jacob,
J.Q. Easton, & E. Allensworth (1999). Ending social promotion: Results
from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School
Research; R. Rumberger & K. Larson (1998). Student mobility and the
increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education,
107: 1-35; E. Rustique-Forrester (in press). Accountability and the
pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale from England. Education Policy
Analysis Archives; A. Wheelock (2003). School awards programs and
accountability in Massachusetts.
\ii\ A number of studies have found that well designed mentoring
programs improve retention rates for new teachers along with their
attitudes, feelings of efficacy, and their range of instructional
strategies (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1992; Karge
and Freiberg, 1992; Kolbert and Wolff, 1992; Darling-Hammond & Sykes,
op. cit.; Luczak, op. cit.)
\iii\ National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, No
Dream Denied. Washington, DC: Author, 2003.
\iv\ Ingersoll, 1997b; Luczak, 2005.
\v\ There are a few initiatives that have been developed which
share some common features upon which these new career ladders may be
built. These include the Procomp system in Denver, CO, a locally-
designed system of teacher compensation based on knowledge, skills, and
performance, which incorporates compensation for additional knowledge
and skills, evidence of performance, and new roles and
responsibilities. (For more detail, see http://denverprocomp.org.) and
innovative career ladders in Cincinnati, OH and Rochester, NY, which
have been in place since the 1990s. These incorporate mentoring for
beginners by lead teachers who have reached the top level of the career
ladder, as well as other responsibilities for lead teachers. More
recent efforts have been initiated in Helena, Montana and Portland,
Maine and, in the only current state system, Minnesota (for more
information, see http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE--ID-
15003). In addition the Teacher Advancement Project provides a career
ladder that rewards evidence of knowledge and skill, as well as
performance, and incorporates extensive professional development that
occurs during shared teacher time in schools that are redesigned to
provide regular learning opportunities.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Podesta.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PODESTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Podesta. Thank you Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon and
members of the committee. It is good to be back. I was here and
testified in May on the importance of teachers and teacher
excellence, and I am glad to see that many of the provisions we
talked about that day are incorporated into this discussion
draft. At the outset, let me note that it is easy to get sucked
into the jargon of that reform and start talking quickly about
AYPs and growth models and AMOs and SES, et cetera. But we
should always remember that the primary intent of this
important legislation is to ensure that disadvantaged low-
income and minority students have the same opportunities as
other children to attend a decent public school and to turn
their ambitions and aspirations into a meaningful life. That
goal is as important today as it was when President Johnson
first signed ESEA into law more than 40 years ago, perhaps more
important because of the increased diversity in changing
demographics of our population and because of the important
economic challenges that Dr. Darling-Hammond mentioned. I for
one believe that you have had a tremendously difficult task,
and I commend you for pulling together numerous and I think
sometimes contradictory recommendations in a sensible manner.
In my judgment, the discussion draft has successfully balanced
multiple points of view while maintaining a focus on the
important goal of helping all students meet proficiency by
2014.
A draft can always be improved upon, but you start from a
very strong bipartisan base. I may be the only person of the 44
witnesses here to say that today. My written testimony outlines
in detail the center's assessment of the draft reauthorization.
I would like to make very brief comments in four specific areas
this morning. First, with regard to accountability, we believe
the discussion draft strikes a balance between strong
accountability and high expectations and the rightful call for
increased flexibility. There are many important new provisions
in this draft statute. Jack identified them. I won't repeat.
But the center does have some concerns about the new local
assessment pilot program. The draft says that local assessments
are to be an addition to State assessments, but does not
clarify how the AYP process would work and whether the State
assessment results would still be publicly reported at the
various performance levels for each subgroup. These provisions
may be hard to implement and could lead to unfortunate results
for different localities within a State.
We therefore urge the committee to proceed cautiously with
that pilot project and offer the following recommendations to
do so, perhaps reduce the number of pilot States to 10 or less,
consider geographic and urban world diversity and most
importantly require pilot States to continue to report student
performance levels on State assessments in addition to local
ones.
Second, we applaud the addition in Title II for a new Part
A discretionary program to strengthen teacher effectiveness
through extra pay for success, career letters and support the
performance assessments. In order to attract and retain highly
effective teachers and principals, there is a great need for
targeted investments like this to bring about change. Nothing
matters more to improving the educational opportunities of our
students than finding and retaining high qualified teachers and
principals. Ms. Brown is a life example of that. The draft bill
takes important steps to ensure the effective distribution of
effective teachers to high poverty and high minority schools,
including closing the Title I comparability loophole and
redesigning the formula grant in Title II, and we commend you
for that.
Third, we are also very pleased with the new attention to
high school completion in Title I. We commend you for the
addition of a Graduation Promise Fund. For decades now, the
U.S. on-time graduation rate has failed the top 70 percent.
This is below national graduation rates recorded in the middle
of the 20th Century and well below current graduation rates in
other countries. Graduation rates for African Americans and
Hispanic students are even more distressing, blaming from 50 to
55 percent. The Graduation Promise Fund will provide critical
Federal resources to aid States in their efforts to keep a
diverse range of students in school and on path to academic
success. We urge you to distribute the fund dollars through a
poverty formula that directs funds solely on the basis of the
poverty level of the high school rather than its drop-out rate
to ensure there is no incentive for keeping drop-out rates high
in order to continue to receive funds.
Other provisions from the Graduation Promise Act are
included in the discussion drafts as well, and we thank you for
that and want to commend particularly Mr. Hinojosa for his
leadership on this important issue. Finally, I encourage your
support for the expanded learning time and redesign
demonstration program. Included in the discussion draft of
Title I is Part J. The center developed this proposal with our
partner organization, Math 2020. And we thank Congressman
Payne, Mr. Miller and Mr. McKeon for their support of this
issue. Based on successful efforts in several leading charter
schools and a growing number of traditional public schools we
know that a comprehensive approach to school reform that adds
time to school days and weeks to the school year can result in
significant learning gains for disadvantaged youth. The
demonstration program requires such a comprehensive approach
and also contains a strong evaluation component. So, in
closing, I urge the committee to move carefully but, as Jack
said, to move by the end of the year to build on the momentum;
and as the Chairman and Mr. Kildee noted, at the outset to fund
the important efforts at the level they deserve. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Podesta follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Podesta, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Center for American Progress
Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am John Podesta,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for American
Progress. I am also a Visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown
University Law Center.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to comment on the
Discussion Draft of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. I commend you for your willingness to seek broad input
on provisions to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 and to move forward in a transparent and bipartisan fashion to
enact a renewal of this major program to assist the nation's neediest
students.
You are engaged in a tremendously difficult job. You have entered
into numerous consultations and have had to contend with many
contradictory recommendations from a wide variety of stakeholders. Yet
you have put it all together in a sensible way. You no doubt will hear
many complaints and hopefully a few constructive suggestions. This
morning we will offer a few of own. You can decide in which category
they fall. But in our judgment, the discussion draft has overall
successfully balanced multiple points of view while maintaining a focus
on the important goal of helping all students meet proficiency by 2013-
14.
The challenge has been to make needed adjustments to the No Child
Left Behind Act without sacrificing the contributions it has made to
strengthening accountability for improved academic performance for all
the nation's students and to significantly sharpening the focus on
those students who have been historically the least well-served. As a
nation we must ensure that all children--regardless of race, ethnicity,
income, native language, disability or geographic location--are
afforded access to high-quality schools that will enable them to
participate in the promised opportunity of the American dream.
The Center for American Progress' specific priorities with regard
to the reauthorization of ESEA include a combination of strong
accountability measures and more incentives for states and school
districts to break from their status quo and engage in deeper, more
effective change efforts, many of which research has shown can be
effective. My specific comments this morning are in four areas:
Accountability for student results
Improving the quality of teachers and principals
Greater attention to high schools, particularly through
the Graduation Promise Fund
The expanded learning time demonstration program for which
I first and foremost want to thank Congressman Payne for his leadership
and sponsorship
The Center for American Progress is pleased that appropriate
attention to several of our priority areas for improvement in our
education system are in the discussion draft. I want to particularly
note the following important items:
1. First, with regard to accountability, I have several comments.
The discussion draft strikes a balance between strong accountability
and the rightful call for increased flexibility. There are many
important new provisions:
The inclusion of a student growth measure as an option for
states in their accountability systems
The requirement that states build longitudinal data
systems that track individual student performance over time and tie the
results to individual teacher records
Continued accountability for and assessment of English
language learners and students with disabilities together with
increased investments in developing appropriate tests for both groups
The establishment of uniform and consistent requirements
for the reporting and accountability of subgroups when determining
annual yearly progress in student performance
The Center also supports the multiple measures of student
performance as they are incorporated in the discussion draft. They
appropriately focus on student academic experiences and outcomes.
However, it is imperative that these measures not be broadened or
loosened so that accountability for all students' achievement remains
strong.
We have some concerns about the new local assessment pilot program
that would allow up to 15 states to include ``as part of the assessment
system and in addition to state assessments * * * locally developed,
classroom-embedded assessments'' that ``may be different across''
districts and ``may be used'' to determine ``adequate yearly
progress.'' The draft says the local assessments are to be ``in
addition to state assessments'' but does not clarify how the AYP
process would work and whether the state assessment results would still
be publicly reported at the various performance levels for each
subgroup.
This local assessment provision is intended to encourage the
development and use of richer assessments including essays and
portfolios and it requires that the variety of assessments used be
comparable. But these provisions may be hard to implement and could
lead to unfortunate results of distinctly different assessments with
lesser quality tests or lower student expectations in districts with
significant concentrations of low-income and minority students and/or
inadequate resources to develop good tests. We urge the Committee to
proceed cautiously and offer the following recommendations to do so:
Reduce the number of pilot states to 10 or less
Add that the Secretary consider geographic diversity and
the mix of urban and rural states in selecting states to participate in
the pilot program
Require pilot states to continue to report student
performance levels on state assessments in addition to performance
levels on locally developed assessments
2. Second are matters relating to improving the quality of teachers
and principals.
Teachers are the backbone of high-quality public education. As I
said to this Committee in my testimony in May 2007, strengthening the
teacher workforce can lay the foundation for fruitful investments in
other areas of public education. Research demonstrates that the single
most important factor determining how much students learn is the
quality of their teachers. Indeed, a very good teacher as opposed to a
very bad one can make as much as one full year's difference in the
achievement growth of students. In this discussion draft, you have
taken important steps to improve the nation's teaching force.
You have added to Title II a very important new Part A
discretionary program for states to strengthen teacher effectiveness
through use of extra pay for success with student achievement gains,
introduction of career ladders, and support for performance
assessments. In order to attract and retain highly effective teachers
and principals, there is a great need for targeted investments like
this to incentivize change in our public education system. We all need
to acknowledge that job structure and financial rewards are important
motivators for employees no matter what their profession.
Currently, too little attention is paid to creating the financial
incentives necessary to recruit and retain a high-quality teacher
workforce. We need to change that by raising starting salaries and by
offering competitive and substantial compensation that recognizes and
rewards different roles, responsibilities, and results. Compensation
systems that recognize the value of our teacher workforce coupled with
career advancement systems that more effectively reward good
performance, draw effective educators to high-need schools and to teach
in shortage subject areas, and respond to poor performance, including
fairly and effectively removing ineffective educators, will make larger
investments in teacher and principal salaries more politically viable
and maximize the returns on such investments.
In Part B of Title II you have redesigned the formula
grants to direct funding to correct the inequitable distribution of
effective teachers to high-poverty and high-minority schools and
sharpened the focus on higher-quality professional development targeted
to the most needy schools. Today low-income and minority students are
about twice as likely to be assigned to inexperienced teachers who on
average make far smaller annual learning gains than more experienced
teachers. As a result, low-income, African American, and Latino
children consistently get less than their fair share of good teachers.
This must change, and your proposals provide a strong push to do that.
In Title I the closure of the comparability loophole is
also vitally important to ensure that high-poverty schools get their
fair share of resources to hire and retain effective teachers and to
undertake other important school improvement strategies. Under the
existing loophole, teaching salaries were excluded from determinations
of equity in expenditures in district schools from state and local
funds before directing additional Title I funds to them. This results
in the continuation of lesser resources going to schools with the
greatest needs.
3. We are also very pleased with the new attention to high school
completion in Title I.
We commend you for the addition of a Graduation Promise
Fund. It is well established that our students have fallen behind past
generations of Americans and young people in other nations in terms of
on-time high school completion rates. For decades now, the U.S. on-time
graduation rate has failed to top 70 percent. This is below national
graduation rates recorded in the middle of the 20th century and well
below current graduation rates in other countries. The United States
ranked first in the world in terms of secondary school graduation rates
40 years ago. Today it ranks 17th. For racial and ethnic minorities,
the statistics are even grimmer. Graduation rates for African American
and Hispanic students today range between 50 percent and 55 percent.
Every year we lose more and more of these students in schools that are
essentially ``dropout factories.'' The Graduation Promise Fund will
provide critical federal resources to aid states in their efforts to
develop, implement, and expand proven methods for keeping a diverse
range of students in school and on the path to economic success. We
urge you to distribute the Fund dollars through a poverty formula that
directs funds solely on the basis of the poverty level of a high school
rather than its dropout rate to ensure that there is no incentive for
keeping dropout rates high in order to continue to receive funds.
The Graduation Promise Fund is the major title of a proposal we and
other groups made for a Graduation Promise Act. It had two additional
titles and we are pleased to see them included in the discussion draft
as well. The discretionary state grant program to provide incentives
for states to raise their graduation rates is in a redesigned Part H.
Funds to support the development of comprehensive models for dropout
prevention and recovery are included in the Graduation Promise Fund as
a setaside.
We also applaud the requirement for consistent definitions
of high school graduation rates and meaningful inclusion of these rates
as part of Annual Yearly Progress measures. Without such a strong
definition, too many high schools have been judged to make AYP in
student performance while simultaneously having very high proportions
of dropouts.
4. Finally, I want to address and encourage your support for the
Expanded Learning Time and Redesign demonstration program that has been
included in the discussion draft of Title I as Part J. The Center
developed this proposal with our partner organization Massachusetts
2020 and thank Congressmen Donald Payne, George Miller, and Howard
McKeon for their support of this issue.
The demonstration program will provide federal incentives to
districts and states to expand learning time in low-performing, high-
poverty schools to boost student performance, close achievement gaps,
and expand enrichment opportunities. Based on successful efforts in
several leading charter schools and a growing number of traditional
schools, we know that a comprehensive approach to school reform that
adds time to school days, weeks, and/or years can result in significant
learning gains for disadvantaged youngsters. The demonstration program
requires such a comprehensive approach that focuses on both core
academics and enrichment, facilitates innovation, maintains rigor and
accountability, builds partnerships with other local organizations, and
provides teachers with additional professional development and planning
opportunities. The demonstration program also contains a strong
evaluation component that will measure its impact on student
achievement and, if successful, make the case for expansion of such
efforts with state and local investments.
In closing, upon refining this discussion draft I urge the
Committee to move carefully but quickly into formal consideration of
the reauthorization of ESEA. It is imperative that the law be
reauthorized and signed into law before the end of 2007 to build on the
momentum of this important bipartisan effort to improve educational
opportunities for all students.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Ms. Messina.
STATEMENT OF ANDREA MESSINA, COMMISSIONER, ASPEN INSTITUTE
COMMISSION ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Ms. Messina. Thank you Chairman Miller, Representative
McKeon, members of the committee, on behalf of the Commission
on No Child Left Behind, I want to thank you sincerely for your
efforts here today in gaining input. We recognize your
leadership to improve the achievement of all students across
this Nation, and it is greatly appreciated. The Commission on
No Child Left Behind is a bipartisan organization. It was co-
chaired by former Health and Human Services Secretary, former
Governor of Wisconsin Tommy Thompson, and the former Governor
of Georgia, Roy Barnes. Our other members were made up of
members from all areas of education governance from K-12 to
higher education. We also had civil rights leaders and business
leaders. We represented a broad spectrum of opinions, positions
and ideas, and we took our job very, very seriously. We spent
over a year traveling the country. We had over 12 public
hearings and round tables where we invited State officials and
superintendents, teachers, parents, advocates, research experts
and policymakers at all levels. We visited schools, and we
talked to those people who are living this law every day. We
talked to students. Back in February, we released 75 specific
actionable items and were heartened to see that many of our
recommendations appear in your draft, especially in the areas
of strengthened accountability, improved data capabilities,
collection of teacher effectiveness data, improved State
standards and improvements in the high school graduation rate
accountability.
NCLB has been described as a blunt instrument that needs
refining. We support provisions to improve AYP measures through
the use of growth models, just as your draft proposes. But
while some flexibility to innovate new models is important, we
also believe it is important that your draft requires students
to be on a trajectory for proficiency within 3 years to count
for AYP. Any approach that credits simple movement forward can
weaken the accountability structure. And students could make
forward progress every year and never reach proficiency. We
want to see a deadline for proficiency there. We believe that
reading and math assessments are essential to determining
proficiency in core subject areas and that all assessments need
to be valid and reliable. All students across the State taking
the same tests results in a concrete measure of progress. We
can't back away from holding the same high expectations for all
students paired with meaningful accountability for results.
Our concern is that multiple indicators should not be used
in any way that would diminish the importance of achievement in
reading and math. We appreciate the committee's recognition to
do more for high school achievement and improved graduation
rates. We hope that you will bring the same urgency to closing
the graduation rate gaps as we currently see in closing the
achievement gaps. We would like to see those gaps close by the
year 2014. Also we are greatly encouraged that the committee is
going to require and provide assistance to States in ensuring
that they built sophisticated data systems that would more
precisely measure student achievement gains. We recommend that
the Federal investment be $400 million over 4 years partnering
with States to ensure that the systems are sufficient to the
tasks at hand.
Once you get that data, that information is going to give
you the world. The most important factor in improving student
achievement we all know is the teacher in the classroom. We see
it in research after research. We see it in district after
district. NCLB attempted to ensure there is a high quality
teacher in every classroom, but qualifications alone don't tell
us what we need to know. The teacher's ability to improve
achievement, that is the information you need to know. We have
got to change from the input of qualification to an output of
effectiveness. Now, the same longitudinal data systems that you
are going to have regarding student growth measurements is
going to yield your data on teacher effectiveness. The
information is going to be there, and we commend you for
including a teacher identifier to make the data more powerful.
This is done in other places. In fact, we do this in Florida to
some degree. We use data to drive instruction and to drive
teacher training. I taught high school for 8 years. I would
like to think I was an effective teacher. But the truth is I
don't know. There was no valid measurement that could tell me.
There were some students who were successful. There were some
students who weren't. The data was not available at the time.
The thought that I could have some valid data to tell me how
that I can better improve my skills and delivery to the
students in the classroom, I can't begin to tell you how
helpful that would have been for me as an educator and how much
time would have been wasted me trying different things.
Teachers usually used to rely on a bag of tricks. If a
student had difficulty learning, they would pull out something
from their bag of tricks and throw it at the student. If it
stuck, great. If it didn't, we would go back to our bag of
tricks and try something else until something finally stuck.
With the new data-driven instruction delivery methods and with
scientific data, we now can test the students with all sorts of
assessments, identify exactly what that student needs and
deliver targeted instruction.
I am simply asking that you take the same premise and apply
it to the teachers in the classroom. Use the teacher
effectiveness data, identify which teachers need help and in
what areas and give those teachers the help that they need
through targeted professional development. It just makes sense,
and only the students can benefit. Experience has shown us that
NCLB has been successful in identifying struggling schools but
not so successful in turning those schools around. Education is
the foundation of this Nation's economy, but your Federal and
State education budgets simply don't devote enough money of
their budget to research and development. They don't even
compare when you look at private and other public
organizations. The commission recommends boosting the research
and development on school improvement. We want you to double
the research on elementary schools and secondary schools at the
USDOE. Aim these funds towards research to assist the schools
in turning around and in meeting the goals of No Child Left
Behind. Committee members, you have a great charge ahead of
you. The future of America's young people. Our most vulnerable
young people is depending on you. I wish you much good luck and
success.
[The statement of Ms. Messina follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrea Messina, Commissioner, Aspen Institute
Commission on No Child Left Behind
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the
Commission on No Child Left Behind, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you this morning. We appreciate your
leadership in working to improve the educational achievement of all
students. We also appreciate the Committee's efforts in producing a
discussion draft for public comment and your willingness to have an
open process to generate a quality product for the reauthorization of
No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Our Commission was charged with conducting an analysis of the law
and its implementation and developing recommendations for improvements
that would accelerate achievement for all children and close persistent
achievement gaps. The Commission is a bipartisan organization Co-
Chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and Former Georgia Governor Roy
Barnes. Our members include representatives from all levels of K--12
education governance, higher education as well as civil rights and
business leaders.
We took our charge seriously. We researched. We listened. And we
learned. Commissioners spent more than a year traveling the country to
talk with people who live with this law every day. The Commission
convened 12 public hearings and roundtables and heard testimony from 86
witnesses including state officials, superintendents, teachers, parents
and their advocates, researchers and other experts and policymakers at
the national, state and local levels. We also visited schools and
talked with principals, teachers and students about their experiences
with NCLB. For more information on Commission activities or to access
our full report, please visit www.nclbcommission.org.
We are heartened to see that a number of our recommendations for
strengthened accountability, improved data capabilities, collection of
teacher classroom effectiveness data, improved state standards and some
improvements in high school graduation accountability are included in
the initial draft. We hope to work with the Committee and our
colleagues to build on this foundation to strengthen the law and to
address our concerns about parts of your working draft.
Improved Accountability
NCLB has brought a stronger focus on accountability for results and
a deeper commitment to assuring that all children--regardless of race
or economic status--achieve at high levels. In our hearings,
roundtables and meetings with administrators, principals, teachers,
advocates and parents, the Commission heard strong support for holding
schools accountable for the performance of all of their students.
However, many of those we heard from characterized NCLB's current
adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirement as a ``blunt instrument''
that needed to be refined. Current law is a pass / fail standard that
often does not properly credit schools that are making significant
progress with kids who have further to go in reaching proficiency. We
support the provisions in the Committee's draft to improve AYP measures
by incorporating growth models capable of tracking individual student
progress from year to year. While we agree that it is important to
allow states the flexibility to innovate as new models are developed,
we think it is very important that the draft requires that students
must be on a trajectory to reach proficiency within three years to be
counted as achieving AYP and that all subgroups must be on track to
proficiency by 2014. This distinction is important because an approach
that credits any forward movement as sufficient growth or consigns
large numbers of students to perpetual second tier performance status
would significantly weaken NCLB accountability.
NCLB currently requires states to begin testing in science during
this school year. However, the law does not require that the results of
those tests be used for accountability purposes. The Commission
believes this is a mistake. Strong performance in science is critical
for a student's future success as well as for maintaining our country's
competitiveness in the global economy. The Commission recommends that
states count results from science assessments for AYP accountability
purposes.
The Commission supports the provision in the draft that requires
states to limit subgroup sizes to no more than 30 students. We believe
this is critical to assuring that millions of kids do not continue to
be invisible in state accountability systems. The Commission also
supports the provision limiting confidence intervals to 95% while also
prohibiting their use in measuring student growth.
The Commission agrees with the provision of draft that would allow
states to test up to 1 percent of students with disabilities (those
with severe cognitive disabilities) to be assessed against alternate
achievement standards using alternate assessments. However, there is
not a sufficient research basis for allowing an additional 2 percent of
students with disabilities to be assessed against ``modified academic
achievement standards'' as contained in the Committee draft. The
Commission recommends that no more than an additional 1 percent of
students with disabilities be allowed to be assessed against modified
standards.
States currently receive an annual appropriation of nearly $400
million for the creation of standards and tests--now complete. The
Commission commends provisions in the draft requiring the development
of appropriate assessments for English language learners and students
with disabilities. We recommend continuing and re-tasking this
appropriation for states to develop those assessments as well as to
improve the quality and alignment of assessments for all students and
upgrade the technology for improving the delivery and scoring of tests
to more efficiently get information to administrators, principals and
teachers who must make accountability and instructional decisions and
to parents students who may be eligible for additional help such as
free tutoring.
Multiple Indicators
NCLB currently allows states to use indicators in addition to
reading and math assessments to inform educational decision making. The
Committee draft, however, proposes to allow states to incorporate the
use of multiple indicators that allow states to use other measures to,
in effect, excuse a lack of progress in improving achievement in
reading and math as measured on state test scores. The Commission does
not believe that any additional indicator should be used in a way that
diminishes these measures of progress in core subjects.
The Committee draft also proposes a 15 state pilot project that
would allow the use of locally developed assessments for Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations. The Commission believes that this
approach is an invitation for mischief and would be very likely to
undercut NCLB's purpose of ensuring that all students and schools are
being held to the same high expectations.
NCLB was created to ensure that all children become proficient in
core subjects based on academic standards set by states. Valid and
reliable assessments, taken by all students across the state, represent
concrete measures of how well students are progressing toward the
expectations contained in those standards.
We have a responsibility as a nation to take bold steps to
accelerate progress in closing achievement gaps that still plague our
schools and to ensure that all children are prepared for successful and
productive lives after high school. While significant improvements must
be made to NCLB to achieve that goal, we cannot afford to back away
from our insistence on holding the same high expectations for all
children paired with meaningful accountability for results based on
objective measures of progress.
High School Accountability
The Commission appreciates the Committee's recognition that we must
do more to ensure continuous achievement and improve graduation rates
of high school students.
Under current law, high schools can be credited with making
sufficient progress on graduation rates even though racial and ethnic
minorities graduate at significantly lower rates than white students.
This masks a serious problem from public view. We must bring the same
urgency that we have brought to closing achievement gaps to closing
graduation rate gaps. The Commission appreciates that the draft
addresses the need to hold schools accountable for all students by
requiring that graduation rates be reported by subgroups. However, the
Commission would also recommend that schools be held accountable for
closing those gaps by 2014. The Commission has also endorsed the
National Governors Association Compact--which was approved by the
governors of all 50 states--to bring order and uniformity to graduation
rate reporting and allow comparisons across states.
While NCLB requires annual assessments in grades 3 through 8, it
requires assessments to be administered only once in high school. Thus
we have no way to know whether schools continue to hold high
expectations for students after 10th or 11th grade and whether students
continue to actually achieve to expected levels. We recommend that the
Committee take an additional step by requiring states to create and
implement a 12th grade assessment. The new 12th grade assessment, along
with current 10th grade tests, would create a useful measure of a
school's effectiveness in preparing students for college and work. This
assessment would also make possible the inclusion of growth
calculations in AYP for high schools and for determining teacher
effectiveness. These assessments however, should be used for school
accountability only and not as the sole determinant of whether a
student receives a diploma.
Building Adequate Data Systems
We are also encouraged that the Committee is going to require and
provide assistance to states in assuring that they build data systems
that more precisely measure student achievement gains. The Commission
recommends a federal investment of $400 million over four years in
partnership with the states to assure that systems are sufficient to
the task of supporting an improved NCLB.
Teacher Effectiveness
There is widespread agreement that teaching is the most important
in-school factor in improving student achievement. The difference
effective teachers make, especially for disadvantaged children, is well
documented in numerous studies and we see it in district after district
across the country. Unfortunately, too many students, particularly low
income students and students of color, remain in classrooms in which
ineffective teaching fails to produce sufficient learning gains.
Though, there are many committed and able teachers working in high
poverty schools, low income students and students of color continue to
be significantly more likely than their peers to be taught by the least
effective teachers.
NCLB attempted to ensure that all students were taught by highly
qualified teachers. But research has demonstrated that qualifications
alone tell very little about a teacher's ability to improve student
achievement in the classroom. Attaining the goals of the law--providing
all students with access to capable teachers who can produce
substantial learning gains--requires a new approach focused on
effectiveness in improving student achievement rather than on
qualifications for entering the profession.
We commend the Committee's recognition of the opportunity created
by implementing more sophisticated systems for tracking student
performance that include an individual teacher identifier. The same
longitudinal data systems necessary for the measurement of student
growth from year to year also yield data on teacher effectiveness in
the classroom. This creates an unprecedented opportunity to measure the
effectiveness of individual teachers in improving student achievement
in a way that is fair to teachers, because progress measures are based
on student growth over the course of a school year rather than on
reaching an absolute proficiency standard. The Commission has attached
letters that we sent to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon
urging the Congress to seize this opportunity. The Commission joined
colleagues from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Citizen's
Commission on Civil Rights, National Council of La Raza, The Education
Trust and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund in signing the
letters.
The Commission believes that a reauthorized NCLB must require
states, districts and schools using growth models in measuring AYP to
also measure teacher effectiveness based on improvements in student
achievement and to use that information to better support teachers in
improving academic performance. This data should be used to better
identify professional development needs in schools and for tailoring
professional development opportunities to meet teacher's needs.
Far too many teachers are subjected to ineffective and unfocused
professional development that wastes their time and does not help them
improve their classroom practices. Collecting and using this data over
time will also make it possible to evaluate the effectiveness of
various approaches to professional development--a federal investment of
over $3 billion annually--in helping teachers improve student
performance.
Teacher classroom effectiveness data should also be used as the
basis to assure that poor and disadvantaged students have the same
access as their more advantaged peers to effective teachers who have
proven their ability to improve student achievement--not just equally
high paid teachers.
This data can also be used as a fair and objective basis for other
innovative reforms being pursued in the states and under consideration
by the Committee, such as performance pay. The Commission has
recommended that districts--particularly those that struggle with high
rates of teacher turnover--explore options such as bonus pay to attract
the most effective teachers and those teaching in hard to staff subject
areas, mentoring new teachers, recruiting individuals from non-
traditional routes into the profession and conducting independent
audits of working conditions and developing plans for how they will
improve them.
Standards
It would be a cruel hoax if students, teachers and principals did
everything that NCLB asked of them and students still found themselves
ill prepared for success after high school. Based on our analysis of
state test results in comparison to student performance on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the disheartening
performance of American students in international comparisons, and
ample testimony at our hearings, it is clear that we simply are not
setting expectations for our children at a level that ensures they are
ready for college and the work force.
We appreciate that the Committee has recognized this problem and
has taken some initial steps toward addressing it in the draft. The
Commission agrees that states should review their standards in
collaboration with their business and higher education communities.
Colleges and businesses are acutely aware of what is necessary to
succeed and should play a significant role in making sure that schools
expect no less. While some states, such as those working in partnership
with Achieve, (an organization dedicated to improving the rigor and
clarity of state standards and assessments), have begun this process,
we need all of our states to refocus their expectations on what
children need to know in order be successful after high school. We also
agree with the Committee's call for the creation of a common scale for
making comparisons across states.
However, we do not believe that these steps alone are enough. We
also recommend the creation of model national standards and assessments
using the widely respected existing NAEP frameworks as a starting
point.
Once model national standards and assessments are developed, we
recommend giving states three options:
1) Adopt the model national standards and assessments as their own
for NCLB accountability purposes
2) Build their own assessment instrument based on the model
national standards
3) Maintain their existing standards and assessments
The U.S. Secretary of Education would issue an annual report to the
public comparing the relative rigor and quality of the standards and
assessments in states that choose options 2 and 3 to the national model
using a common scale. This report and the use of the common scale would
be intended to allow accurate comparisons among the states, so we can
clearly see differences in the level of expectations among states and
in comparison to the national model.
Student Options and School Improvement
In addition to holding schools accountable for results, NCLB
presently contains a series of interventions for consistently
struggling schools. These include providing options for students in
schools that miss their state's AYP goals for two or more consecutive
years, as well as an escalating series of interventions and eventual
sanctions for turning around chronically struggling schools.
Unfortunately, too few students have been able to benefit from
options such as public school choice and free tutoring. Nationally,
less than 1 percent of eligible children have been able to exercise
their public school choice option and less than 17 percent of eligible
children have been able to access the free tutoring option. Public
school choice and free tutoring are important components of a
comprehensive plan to address the needs of all students. By denying
children access to these options, we deny them avenues to success such
as a better school environment or additional help in reading or math.
The Commission has made a number of recommendations for assuring
that all eligible students are able to access free tutoring services.
We do not support the approach taken in the draft that would reduce the
amount of funds available for these options and allow schools
identified for improvement the option of whether to make public school
choice and free tutoring available. We must continue to ensure that
there is an academic bottom line on behalf of children that provides
immediate help to students as we work to improve school performance.
With regard to public school choice, the Commission recommends that
districts be required to conduct an annual audit of available space for
choice transfers. This will be important to ensuring that we are
maximizing the use of available spaces and for determining whether the
current system can keep NCLB's promise to provide immediate options and
help for students stuck in chronically struggling schools.
So far, experience with the implementation of NCLB has shown that
we have been much more successful at identifying struggling schools
than we have been at actually turning them around. The Commission
agrees with the principle in the Committee draft of directing more
intensive attention to schools with the most significant struggles. We
have recommended that districts be allowed to focus their restructuring
efforts on the lowest performing 10 percent of their schools as long as
those schools undertake one or more of the most aggressive
restructuring options, such as converting to a charter or operation by
a private provider, replacing school staff relevant to the failure and
state takeover. Like the Committee draft, the Commission would
recommend that this be a rolling 10 percent with new schools moving
into the process as others cycle out. However, the Commission believes
that it is critically important that other schools at various stages of
the improvement process continue to provide choice and tutoring options
to students as well as pursuing a comprehensive set of interventions
designed to have a systemic impact on instruction and learning in the
school.
Although education is a foundational element of our nation's
economy and competitiveness, federal and state education budgets devote
a far lower proportion of dollars to research and development (R&D)
than private companies or other public agencies. The Commission
recommends boosting research and development on school improvement by
doubling the research budget for elementary and secondary education at
the U.S. DOE. We believe that this is an important first step and that
increased funds should be aimed at research that assists schools in
meeting the goals of NCLB. We must arm our teachers and principals with
better tools, knowledge and targeted, relevant professional development
to increase student achievement, especially in struggling schools.
Conclusion
We commend the Committee for taking some steps in the right
direction to strengthen the law such as requiring longitudinal data
systems that produce more precise measures of student progress as well
as producing data on teacher effectiveness in the classroom. We urge
you to seize the opportunity this creates to use that data to better
target professional development and other support to teachers and as a
basis to assure that disadvantaged students have the same access as
their more advantaged peers to teachers who have proven their ability
to improve achievement. We also urge you to go further to ensure that
our children are sufficiently challenged in all subjects--all the way
through high school--that are important to their future success by
creating a strong mechanism for improving the rigor of state standards
and assessments. Finally, we must make sure that high-quality options
such as public school choice and free tutoring are available and easily
accessible for all eligible children as we work to become as effective
in improving performance in struggling schools as we are at identifying
them.
Thank you.
______
August 29, 2007.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: There is widespread agreement that teaching
is the most important in-school factor in student success. All of our
nation's students deserve instruction that helps them advance their
learning. Unfortunately, too many children languish in classrooms in
which the teaching fails to result in strong learning gains.
Additionally, too many teachers are subjected to ineffective and
unfocused professional development that wastes their time and does not
help them improve their classroom practices.
Low income students and students of color--the very students who
most need strong teachers--are still significantly more likely than
their peers to be taught by the weakest teachers. To be clear, there
are many very committed and effective teachers working in high poverty
and high minority schools. However, we all know the schools with the
stiffest teaching and learning challenges get less than their fair
share of the most able teachers.
Congress has the opportunity to turn the tide. In the coming
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), we urge Congress to
seize the opportunity to dramatically upgrade the quality and
effectiveness of teaching in our most challenged schools by: 1) better
identifying the professional development needs in these schools and
tailoring professional development opportunities to more accurately
meet teacher needs and 2) providing strong incentives to get the best
and the brightest teachers to the schools and students that most need
them.
We believe that the reauthorized NCLB must include provisions to
require states, districts and schools using a growth model to measure
Adequate Yearly Progress to measure teacher effectiveness based on
improvements in student achievement and to use that information to
better support teachers in improving academic performance.
Measuring teacher effectiveness is not only critical to ensuring
that all students achieve, it is also cost-effective and workable. The
same data systems necessary to support growth models in determining
adequate yearly progress (AYP) in student achievement can be used to
measure teacher effectiveness. This information can also be used to
target limited professional development funds more productively and
provide a meaningful basis for assuring that disadvantaged children
have the same opportunity to receive effective classroom instruction as
their more advantaged peers.
We urge Congress to require that every state that implements a
growth model to measure student progress also be required to calculate
growth by classroom, report that information and use it--in combination
with principal and or peer observation--to prioritize professional
development and to ensure that poor and disadvantaged students have the
same access to effective teachers as their more advantaged peers.
Sincerely,
Gary Huggins, Director,
Commission on No Child Left Behind.
Amy Wilkins, Vice President,
The Education Trust.
William L. Taylor, Chairman,
Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights.
Delia Pompa, Vice President,
National Council of La Raza.
Peter Zamora, Washington, DC Regional Counsel,
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.
Cynthia G. Brown, Director of Education Policy,
Center for American Progress Action Fund.
______
August 29, 2007.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McKeon: There is widespread agreement that
teaching is the most important in-school factor in student success. All
of our nation's students deserve instruction that helps them advance
their learning. Unfortunately, too many children languish in classrooms
in which the teaching fails to result in strong learning gains.
Additionally, too many teachers are subjected to ineffective and
unfocused professional development that wastes their time and does not
help them improve their classroom practices.
Low income students and students of color--the very students who
most need strong teachers--are still significantly more likely than
their peers to be taught by the weakest teachers. To be clear, there
are many very committed and effective teachers working in high poverty
and high minority schools. However, we all know the schools with the
stiffest teaching and learning challenges get less than their fair
share of the most able teachers.
Congress has the opportunity to turn the tide. In the coming
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), we urge Congress to
seize the opportunity to dramatically upgrade the quality and
effectiveness of teaching in our most challenged schools by: 1) better
identifying the professional development needs in these schools and
tailoring professional development opportunities to more accurately
meet teacher needs and 2) providing strong incentives to get the best
and the brightest teachers to the schools and students that most need
them.
We believe that the reauthorized NCLB must include provisions to
require states, districts and schools using a growth model to measure
Adequate Yearly Progress to measure teacher effectiveness based on
improvements in student achievement and to use that information to
better support teachers in improving academic performance.
Measuring teacher effectiveness is not only critical to ensuring
that all students achieve, it is also cost-effective and workable. The
same data systems necessary to support growth models in determining
adequate yearly progress (AYP) in student achievement can be used to
measure teacher effectiveness. This information can also be used to
target limited professional development funds more productively and
provide a meaningful basis for assuring that disadvantaged children
have the same opportunity to receive effective classroom instruction as
their more advantaged peers.
We urge Congress to require that every state that implements a
growth model to measure student progress also be required to calculate
growth by classroom, report that information and use it--in combination
with principal and or peer observation--to prioritize professional
development and to ensure that poor and disadvantaged students have the
same access to effective teachers as their more advantaged peers.
Sincerely,
Gary Huggins, Director,
Commission on No Child Left Behind.
Amy Wilkins, Vice President,
The Education Trust.
William L. Taylor, Chairman,
Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights.
Delia Pompa, Vice President,
National Council of La Raza.
Peter Zamora, Washington, DC Regional Counsel,
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.
Cynthia G. Brown, Director of Education Policy,
Center for American Progress Action Fund.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. We have a lot of good wishes
for good luck around this town.
Ms. Messina. You are going to need it.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Carey.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN CAREY, RESEARCH AND POLICY MANAGER,
EDUCATION SECTOR
Mr. Carey. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
McKeon, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify
today. The single most important thing that the discussion
draft that you put forth does is recognize the central value of
teachers to education. And there was actually a time when we
didn't realize how important teachers were. We thought that it
was students' home lives or their IQ or the design of their
school that made all the difference when it came to how much
they learned in the classroom. But what we know now from
research is that that is not true. In fact, there are really
three things that I think drive a lot of the policy that you
have put forward in this draft.
First, we know that the quality of an individual teacher in
the classroom makes a huge difference in how much students
learn, even after you take into account where they come from
and all the things that happen outside of school. Second, we
know that all teachers aren't the same. Some are much more
effective than others in helping students learn. And third, we
know that disadvantaged students who are the very students that
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was written to help
and protect over 40 years ago consistently get the least
experience, least qualified and least effective teachers. The
draft that you put forth does many things to right this
terrible inequity, and for that you are to be commended. Just
to name a few of them, you have improved the comparability
provisions that guarantee that schools that receive Title I
funds first have to receive an equal share of State and local
funds. You have required that student information be linked to
teacher information in your data system so we know who is
teaching whom. You have required States receiving Title II
teacher quality funds to live up to their obligation, which is
actually in the current version of No Child Left Behind, to
determine whether poor minority students are being
disproportionately taught by teachers who are inexperienced
throughout a field to have a plan. And if they are--and in most
States, we know I think most of them are--to have a plan to
improve it and to implement that plan. That that is the
requirement, if you are going to receive funds from the Federal
Government focus on teacher quality. You closed loopholes in
the highly qualified teacher provisions, and you have invested
new resources to help States that have innovative plans to
recruit the best and the brightest into the classroom and then
reward them if they are willing to do the hardest job and if
they are successful. Some of these provisions will be
controversial, we know, but they are the right thing to do, and
you are to be commended for putting them forth today. It is
also very clear that in looking at the accountability
provisions of No Child Left Behind, that this committee has
listened to the voices of educators, researchers and advocates
who have suggested ways to improve the law. And no one should
be surprised that the law needs improvement. Legislation is an
iterative process by definition, and years of experience give
us new ways to do even better. For example, and some of the
panelists have mentioned this already, by allowing States to
measure the year-to-year growth of individual students for
accountability purposes. But also by requiring that students be
on a trajectory to get towards proficiency within 3 years, I
believe you have struck the right balance between listening to
valid critiques of No Child Left Behind, but also maintaining
its core commitment to making sure that all students have
access to high standards regardless of race, income, language
or disability. But there is a danger here that I would warn you
of that in trying to address every criticism of No Child Left
Behind that you will undermine its core principles. And I think
there are really two dangers.
There is an essential trade-off I think between the
complexity of the bill that you put forth and its transparency
and its integrity in the long run. And from a transparency
standpoint the whole premise of accountability and standards is
that we identify a problem, and then we try to fix it. But that
requires that not only bureaucrats in the State Department of
Education understand the problem, but that the teachers in the
schools, the school principals understand it also. If we make
the law so complicated that people can't understand why a given
school is labeled as a failure or a success, it is going to be
very hard for them to figure out how to fix it. And so as we
start to look at new senses of nuance and complications and new
way to measures and new systems there is a danger that we are
going to lose that transparency. So I would encourage you to be
as clear and precise and limited as possible in adding new
measures to the accountability system.
The other danger is the integrity of the system will be
undermined. I commend the committee in its draft for putting
forth--closing loopholes regarding subgroup sizes and
confidence intervals, some of the statistical games that have
been played.
It is worth noting that the Congress didn't put those
things into No Child Left Behind; they were invented by State
departments of education. There has been, unfortunately, a
pattern over the last 5 years where some States, not all, have
pushed the letter of the law to undermine its spirit, by
looking for nuances and complexities in the legislation to find
ways to undermine its intent, which is to put fair but
meaningful pressure on schools to improve. So I would encourage
you, again, to be careful in the local assessment project that
has been mentioned, keep the law clear, make it more nuanced,
but also make it work in the long run.
So, again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to
testify today and congratulate you on your draft.
[The statement of Mr. Carey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Carey, Policy Manager, Education Sector
Chairman Miller, ranking member McKeon, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Kevin Carey;
I am the research and policy manager of Education Sector, a national,
independent nonpartisan education think tank. Because Education Sector
does not take institutional positions on issues or proposed
legislation, the views I express today are my own.
For the past two decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have
pursued a goal that transcends party affiliation: ensuring that all
students--regardless of race, economic background, disability or
language--have equal access to a high-quality education that will
prepare them for work and life. The discussion draft amendments to the
No Child Left Behind Act recently put forth by this committee clearly
seek to further that goal, and for this the committee should be
commended.
The draft also seeks to address many of the criticisms that rightly
have been leveled against No Child Left Behind since its enactment over
five years ago. Policymaking is by nature an iterative process and no
one should be surprised that the experience of implementing No Child
Left Behind has revealed new opportunities to make the law more
effective and fair. The committee should again be commended for
carefully listening to the voices of parents, educators, researchers,
and advocates who have recommended ways to improve the law.
Some proposed changes are particularly worthy of mention.
By improving the ``comparability'' provisions guaranteeing that
schools receiving Title I funds must first receive an equal share of
state and local funds, the draft takes a very important step toward
ensuring that low-income students receive their fair share of school
resources. Research from the Center on Reinventing Public Education has
shown that in some school districts, high-poverty schools receive
nearly a million dollars less per year than low-poverty schools of
similar size. This provision alone will go a long way toward ensuring
that low-income students are not forced to attend schools that serve as
a revolving door for inexperienced, under-paid teachers.
Similarly, by making Title II funding contingent on states taking
steps to ensure that poor and minority students get their fair share of
experienced, qualified, effective teachers, the committee is taking a
bold but necessary step to ensure real educational equity for
disadvantaged children. Research has shown that the quality of
classroom teaching has a huge impact on student learning, particularly
for at-risk children. But studies also show those same students are
much less likely than others to be taught by the best instructors. It
is a long-accepted principle that all children deserve equal access to
education funding. These proposed amendments simply extend that
resource-equity principle to the single most valuable resource schools
have: their teachers.
And by eliminating the so-called High Objective Uniform State
Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) exception to the guarantee that all
students be taught by a highly-qualified teacher, the draft closes a
loophole that many states have used to avoid addressing the fact that
many students--disproportionately low-income and minority students--are
taught by teachers without sufficient training or content knowledge in
their field.
The Title II amendments also reflect the need to improve the
overall quality of the nation's education workforce. We have a major
human capital problem in education; without high-quality personnel who
are properly supported, even the best-laid plans and accountability
systems will fall short. Some of the committee's recommendations,
particularly relating to teacher pay, are bound to be controversial.
But they are also important and long overdue. We cannot recruit the
best and brightest into the classroom and expect them to excel and
persist once they get there without taking every opportunity to
recognize and reward excellence in education. By investing new
resources in innovative programs designed to increase teaching
excellence, the federal government can help leverage change throughout
public education.
In no small part because of the law's emphasis on data and the
important work of states and organizations like the Data Quality
Campaign, states are now in a much better position to collect and use
data than when NCLB was first enacted. By supporting the development of
longitudinal education data systems--including, crucially, the ability
to link student data to teacher data--the committee will help further
that progress and build the capacity of states to develop new
information tools for schools and educators. The better we understand
our schools, the better we are able to improve them.
One of the most promising applications of these new data systems is
the ability to measure the academic growth of individual students. By
allowing states to use year-to-year student growth for accountability
purposes, but also requiring that students be on a three-year
trajectory toward proficiency, the committee has struck the right
balance between addressing valid criticisms of NCLB's accountability
requirements while maintaining the law's core commitment to common
performance standards for all students regardless of race or income.
Similarly, the use of a ``performance index'' can give states an
incentive to focus on students across the achievement spectrum--as long
as success at the high end doesn't unduly divert resources from
students who struggle the most.
By giving states incentives to adopt more rigorous, nationally and
internationally benchmarked achievement standards, and by calling for
new investments in the quality of state tests, the committee will
strengthen the standards and assessment foundation on which the entire
accountability enterprise rests. By creating a ``Graduation Promise
Fund'' and requiring more stringent accountability requirements for
high school completion, the committee will push schools to improve the
appallingly low graduation rates that plague our secondary schools.
By allowing schools to consider college-going rates in judging high
school success, the committee will help bridge the great divide between
the nation's systems of P-12 and higher education. This provision could
be expanded further still. As a recent Education Sector report titled
Reality Check: Tracking Graduates Beyond High School shows, states like
Oklahoma and Florida have used longitudinal data systems to create new
measures of high school success, such as the average college grade
point average of a high school's graduates, the percent of graduates
forced to take remedial courses in college, and the percent who obtain
a good-paying job. If, as we all agree, the goal of high school is to
prepare students to succeed in the workplace and further education,
it's fair to take into account whether students actually do succeed in
those areas when judging high school success. By allowing these
measures to be incorporated into NCLB, leading states would be rewarded
for innovation, while others would have an incentive to invest in their
information infrastructure.
The draft also limits the ability of states to use various
statistical loopholes to reduce pressure on local schools and districts
to improve. By disallowing the exclusion of sub-groups of students
larger than 30, and by limiting statistical ``confidence intervals'' to
the 95-percent level, the draft improves the law's focus on closing
achievement gaps for disadvantaged students, and helps ensure that when
targets are set for school improvement, schools actually have to meet
them.
There are also areas where I believe this draft can be
significantly improved to ensure that the law is clear, transparent,
and focused on helping the students who need help the most.
By adding options like growth models, the committee recognizes that
accountability systems need to account for the nuance and complexity
inherent in an enterprise like public schooling. But complexity comes
at a potentially high cost to both the integrity and transparency of
the accountability system. Indeed, striking a balance between
complexity, integrity, and transparency is probably the single most
difficult task the committee faces. There is a danger that in seeking
to address every criticism of NCLB, the committee will make the law's
accountability provisions so complex that many new opportunities will
emerge to exploit the law's intricacies to undermine its core
principles. There is also a risk that the law will become so
inscrutable that it will cease to function as an effective engine of
change.
As you know, the subgroup size and confidence interval loopholes
closed by the discussion draft weren't originally part of NCLB. They
were invented by state departments of education. A clear pattern has
emerged during NCLB's implementation: some states--not all, but some--
have exploited their flexibility under the law to undermine the law's
fundamental principles. I was a state education official before moving
to Washington, D.C., and I believe many of these actions are born of
good intentions--ensuring that hard-working educators aren't unfairly
tarred as low-performing.
But by opening a series of statistical safety valves in the AYP
system, and by looking for every opportunity to push back the day when
underperforming schools are required to do what must be done on behalf
of disadvantaged students, these states have greatly undermined the
law's effectiveness. As of today, some states have still identified
less than one percent of their school districts as ``in need of
improvement,'' an amount that defies both the intent of Congress and
plain common sense. As a recent Education Sector report called Hot Air:
How States Inflate Their Progress Under NCLB shows, this unfortunate
trend of stretching the letter of the law to subvert its spirit extends
to many other NCLB provisions, including those governing teacher
qualifications, graduation rates, and school safety.
States truly are, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis, ``laboratories of democracy''--but too often that creativity
and energy has been used to develop new ways to ease pressure on
schools to improve, rather than to find new ways to help them improve.
And the U.S. Department of Education's oversight in this area has been
inconsistent at best. There is no reason to believe these patterns
won't continue with the next version of No Child Left Behind.
Therefore, the committee should make new accountability options as
clear, precise, and limited as possible.
Too much complexity can also undermine the process of school
improvement itself. The idea behind standards and accountability is
simple: Identify a problem, then focus resources and attention on
fixing the problem. But when we pile system upon system and measure
upon measure, it becomes difficult--if not impossible--for parents and
educators to know why a given school is labeled a success or a failure.
This will breed mistrust of the entire system. And if educators don't
know why they're falling short, it will be very difficult for them to
determine how to improve.
For these reasons, the committee should limit multiple measures to
a small number of reliable, high-quality assessments that are
accessible to all students statewide, and ensure that performance goals
in these areas are high. It should also limit the extent to which
success on these indicators can mitigate failure in the foundational
subjects of reading and math. The percent of a school's annual
measurable objective attributable to measures other than reading and
math achievement should not be increased from the levels established in
the discussion draft. This will balance the laudable goal of avoiding
``curriculum narrowing'' with the need to ensure that all students are
proficient in the core subjects on which success in all other areas
depends.
The proposed local assessment pilot project deserves particular
attention. I commend the committee for working to forge a greater
connection between the local educators who work directly with children
and the process by which those educators are judged. Unless teachers
believe assessment is reliable, accurate, and fair, accountability will
never work as intended.
But purely local accountability is ultimately indistinguishable
from no accountability at all. Everyone works better when they know
someone else is paying attention to how well they work. It's
unreasonable to expect schools to judge themselves objectively when the
consequences of that judgment can be significant. Local assessments
thus have the potential to undermine NCLB's core promise of equal
education standards for all, perhaps the most important civil rights
goal of our time.
For these reasons, I recommend that the committee reduce the number
of states eligible for the local assessment pilot project from 15 to
five, and that the committee ensure that data from state assessments
continue to constitute the majority of information used in determining
adequate yearly progress.
In creating a new distinction between ``High Priority'' and
``Priority'' schools, the draft sensibly focuses scarce resources and
attention on the schools in greatest need of help. But because the
distinction between the two levels is primarily a function of the
number of student subgroups who miss academic goals, there is a danger
that significant, persistent achievement gaps for disadvantaged
students will be allowed to endure. I recommend that the committee
maintain the two levels of ``High Priority'' and ``Priority'' schools,
but also ensure that a school cannot be identified at the less-severe
``Priority'' level if large achievement gaps persist for a student
subgroup that constitutes a significant percentage of the school
population--even if only one subgroup is falling behind. I also
recommend eliminating the proposed ``alternative process'' for
identifying ``High Priority'' schools; such a process will create
needless complexity and opens up new avenues to circumvent the law's
goals.
For any accountability system to work for English language
learners, states and districts must be able to do three things:
accurately identify ELL students, provide quality instruction for
language proficiency and academic content, and administer appropriate
assessments that reliably measure the effects of this instruction.
States are struggling with all three. The proposal to provide
additional resources and attention to state capacity-building for the
development of quality instructional practices for ELLs and the
development of appropriate and valid assessments is important. And in
extending the timeframe for using native-language tests to assess ELLs,
the committee recognized that to accurately measure the academic
knowledge and achievement of these students, we must use tests those
students can read and comprehend.
However, requiring states to develop native-language tests for
every language that represents 10 percent or more of the state's ELL
population is onerous and, absent native instruction, will not ensure
more accurate measurement of learning for a significant portion of the
ELL population. The main priority should be investing new resources in
developing psychometrically reliable and valid ELL assessments. States
and districts do not currently have the expertise and capacity to do so
without additional support. And as an Education Sector report titled
Margins of Error: The Testing Industry in the No Child Left Behind Era
has shown, the testing industry is currently hard-pressed to meet this
and many other assessment challenges. The committee was also correct in
requiring the improvement of state data collection on ELLs. As it
stands, states and districts are simply not collecting reliable data on
this population, nor are they collecting data in the same way. Without
good information, we cannot expect any true measure of accountability
for these children.
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act almost six years
ago, it renewed the historic promise of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act to give disadvantaged students a fighting chance to
succeed in a society and world at large that increasingly values
education above all else. It also enacted a number of bold but
necessary reforms. These actions have been controversial, to say the
least. But they were the right thing to do.
The first priority of this committee should be to further
strengthen that commitment to educational equity while embracing a new
set of needed reforms for the years to come. This draft is a positive
step in that direction, and my colleagues at Education Sector and I
look forward to being of assistance in making it stronger still.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Thank you again to all of you for your testimony. As I
stated at the outset, this is intended to be more of a
listening session than the traditional back and forth of the
Congress, but I want to be sure that every member who has any
questions or things they want to clarify is free to ask
whatever questions you want. That doesn't mean we need all
questions from every member, but on the points or the concerns
that have been raised, on the top row, anyone?
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I want to ask Mr. Podesta, on the
dropout rate, we have a provision in there, if you have a high
dropout rate, you don't make AYP. Is that not enough of an
incentive? And, Mr. Chairman, let me just pose the question
because we are getting answers, and we will never give members
the opportunity----
Chairman Miller. Mr. Podesta is very concise.
Mr. Scott. Whether or not that is enough of an incentive;
if not, we need to discuss that.
Ms. Messina, if we have the data on the teacher level and
require the principals to use that, whether or not that would
solve the problem that you have addressed on making sure each
teacher can do his or her particular job?
Chairman Miller. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Just quickly, Ms. Brown, being a former teacher,
I wonder whether as you saw and noticed the improvement in the
students' achievement, although they may have been moving on to
other grades, did you find any difference in the attitude of
the parents? Did they seem to catch on and feel that this is a
kind of a winning thing or someone cares or that kind of thing?
As we know, in low-income areas, people are beaten down,
they are tired, things are going wrong, they are not making it;
and so you don't have the spirit that you have in places where
people are not so beaten down. I am wondering if you noticed
any change in the esprit de corps of the people.
Ms. Brown. Yes, parents, along with staff, are very
encouraging. They send students to school knowing that they are
sending the students to highly qualified, highly skilled
teachers; and although they may not able to do what is
necessary at the home, they are assured that we are doing
everything possible at school to assure that their children--
the learning gap is being bridged.
It doesn't matter. They don't have to take the kids to
another district; everything they need is right here. I think
they are satisfied and very pleased with what we have been
doing so far.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. I am sorry, let me go to the other side,
are there any questions?
Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment
each one of the panelists, because you make some very good
points, and I am going to limit my remarks to the first lady,
Germaine Brown, in that I was impressed that 90 percent of your
students are on the free lunch program and I think that you
have killed that myth that children from low-income families
cannot learn and that you all have made so much improvement in
2 or 3 years.
So that leads me to a point that Mr. Podesta made in his
remarks, and that was that we should look very closely at
Graduation Promise Act if we are going to address the poor
graduation rate that we have of 75 percent for about 30 years,
and Hispanic and African American children only graduating at
about 50 percent.
But you said something that is being used in a few schools
in my district, similar to yours, Ms. Brown; and they are 80
percent Hispanic, very many from migrant families, seasonal
farm workers. This is a magnet school for allied health and
another magnet school for math and science and they went to a
slightly longer day of 1\1/2\ hours per day. Number 2, they
just couldn't get the permission from Texas Education Agency to
add 3 or 4, maybe 6, 7 more days of school to the calendar.
I think that should certainly be discussed because we are
getting exceptional results in these schools in South Texas
ISD. Two of them are in the top 100 best schools in the
country, and they have a very rigorous academic program and the
other factors that I pointed out.
So I just would like for you to consider that, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Anyone else on the top row?
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. This is tough trying to keep it to one, I will
tell you that. I will try to sneak in two.
Jack, I will ask you, on the assessments, do you think that
this draft bill does enough to resolve the disparity in State
standards by simply having a pilot program in a National
Academy of Science study, or ought we do more at this point in
time about people having to tie those tests to some national
standard or at least to a regional standard?
The second question, are we being fair to young students at
the third grade testing level to give them a high-stakes test
on lessons until schools giving that test have done more for
preschool education with respect to making sure that those
students being tested have actually had a fair shot and a fair
beginning?
Mr. Jennings. Congressman, it is a lengthy bill, but as I
read your bill, you do not move in the direction of national
standards or encouraging increases in State standards except
through the first provision that talks about development of
world class standards and some incentive programs. You are in a
real dilemma that--you have an endless number of dilemmas. You
are trying to thread a needle here where you are tying to bring
some flexibility while maintaining accountability.
If I had my druthers, I would go more towards trying to
raise State standards, if possible, through cash incentive
programs and so on, because you have such disparity among the
States. But every time you go in that direction you will be
accused of nationalizing education and trying to bring about
more uniformity than is necessary among the States. But I think
it is time to take some steps in the direction of encouraging
States to have higher standards.
There are some States now that have very high passage rates
on their State tests, and by any other indication, they
shouldn't have those passage rates because they have set their
cutoff scores so low and they have tests that aren't very
demanding. So a little encouragement to raise standards would
be useful.
The question about third graders, as you know, the area of
early testing is very controversial, and one thing that--
education research isn't very clear on many things. One thing
it is clear on is the value of early preschool education, if it
is of high quality, and especially for poor children. If there
is one place to give an extra emphasis, I think it would be to
try to increase early childhood education, especially for poor
children.
Mr. Tierney. Is it making sense for us to take the money
spent on testing those third graders and realign it to have
better early childhood education?
Mr. Jennings. That is a dilemma. I don't think you would
find that much money actually spent on testing because the
development of tests in dollar administration of tests really
isn't enormously costly. But you should find much more money
for preschool education; and this is very expensive, but
something that ought to be done.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Anyone in the second row?
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One comment. I think Mr. Podesta's point about poverty as a
criteria for distribution is an excellent point.
Mr. Stark, explicit in the goals of No Child Left Behind is
closing the achievement gap and doing something about improving
the graduation rate, particularly among students of color and
poor kids. Toward that end, how important is it for us in this
legislation--beyond the message or symbolism, but in concrete
terms--to talk about or do something about turning around our
lowest performing middle schools at the same time and meeting
those goals of closing the achievement gap and increasing
graduation?
Mr. Stark. Congressman, I think it is critical, and if you
hold the high schools as the end, you have eliminated the
opportunity to work with students at the elementary and middle
level. So I think I totally agree with Mr. Jennings. Preschool
education, the earlier we can intervene and provide assistance
for students, all students, the logic would be that you would
see less need for interventions at the higher level.
So closing the achievement gap at any level is absolutely
critical, but in my judgment, the earlier you can start those
interventions, the higher the graduation rates, the more
success you will see as students progress.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, panel.
Ms. Messina, you mentioned the deadline for proficiency in
3 years. Then what?
Ms. Messina. It would be identified, whether the school
made AYP. We are asking that you include the figures, but have
a deadline so that we know there is a drop-dead date;
otherwise, students could always make progress, but never be
proficient. I don't think we want to graduate students saying
that they are not proficient, and we have tried for 12 years.
So we would then----
Mrs. Davis of California. Would you change the
``punishments'' for the schools? Do you have a different sense
of what do you do after that? If they don't make it, then what?
What is the best way that one can drive that so you move
towards a different----
Ms. Messina. Targeted restructuring of the schools.
Mrs. Davis of California. Similar to No Child Left Behind?
Ms. Messina. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis of California. Did No Child Left Behind drive
the Teacher Advancement Program or was there something else
going on that created the incentive for that program?
Ms. Brown. No. When we were considered a status of double
F, that was the driving force to find out what we needed to do
to improve our student achievement. Other than the status of F
being assigned to our school, that was our driving force, not
being singled out as a failing school.
We knew our students were not failing. We needed to prove
that.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Next row.
Mr. Hare or Mr. Yarmuth? Ms. Shea-Porter?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to
Dr. Darling-Hammond.
I was very interested in what you were saying about how
other countries are doing in comparison to the United States
and you wanted multiple measurements. Are we teaching the wrong
stuff? In other words, we can administer these tests which--I
have a lot of problems with constant testing, but is the
material wrong? Could you address that, please?
Ms. Darling-Hammond. To some extent, yes. If you look at
the standards in other countries that are high achieving, there
are very few topics taught and tested at each grade level, and
they are very carefully sequenced.
If you look at the standards in most of our States,
everything is being taught every year, there are 35 standards
or topics being taught. There might be 3 or 4 math topics
taught in Japan in a given year; we are doing 30, we do it
superficially rather than deeply.
That is reinforced by the testing in many cases, which
tests too many things, forces a superficial mile-wide, inch-
deep curriculum. Our testing system is primarily focused on
multiple choice tests, which are recognizing one answer out of
five on a piece of paper.
I don't go to the office in the morning, answer my multiple
choice questions and go home. The skills I need are skills of
thinking, gathering information, analyzing, synthesizing,
producing work. Those skills are actually assessed in other
countries, both in the centralized assessments and local
assessments that teachers use to drive the curriculum. Kids are
writing much more extensively in other countries. They are
studying science in an investigatory way. They are doing hands-
on work with computer programming. And our kids are bumbling in
multiple choice questions.
We have to be concerned while we are driving our
improvement process with standards that we get the right
standards, that we do them in the right way, that we assess
them in ways that produce skills used in college and in the
workplace.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I do believe we are denying teachers the
opportunity to teach what they know, all their wealth, all
their experience and all their knowledge, because of these
tests.
Ms. Darling-Hammond. When they are involved in the
assessments, they learn more about how to teach and what their
kids know and how to meet the standard. That is an important
piece.
Chairman Miller. Let me thank the panel very much not just
for your testimony today, but as I have been saying over the
last several weeks--Mr. McKeon and I have both been saying--so
many organizations spent a lot of resources, applied a lot of
talent and expertise to looking at this law over the last 5
years, and intensely over the last year, and it has really been
helpful to the members of the committee as we consider its
reauthorization.
I want to thank each of you for your involvement--Ms.
Brown, for your experience-based research that is helpful to
us. And, Mr. Stark, with so many of your members and their
experiences that you brought to bear on this process. Thank you
very much. We look forward to continuing this conversation as
we move toward the reauthorization.
Our next panel will be made up of Mr. Billy Cannaday, Jr.,
who was appointed recently to a 4-year term as Superintendent
of Public Instruction by Virginia Commonwealth Governor Tim
Kaine. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Cannaday served as
Superintendent in two of the Commonwealth's largest school
divisions.
Former Governor Bob Wise is joining us, who became
President of the Alliance For Excellent Education in February
of 2001; and under his leadership, the Alliance has continued
to build a reputation as a respected authority for high school
policy and an advocate for reform in that secondary system. It
goes without saying as a colleague in the Congress of the
United States, and former governor of West Virginia.
Adria Steinberg leads Jobs for the Future's work on
expanding and improving educational options and outcomes for
large groups of young people who are struggling in the State to
get back on the road of productive adulthood.
James McPartland is the Director of the Center for Social
Organization of Schools at the Johns Hopkins University.
Brian Gong is the Executive Director of the Center of
Assessments. He has previously served as Associate Commissioner
of Curriculum Assessment and Accountability in the Kentucky
Department of Education.
Michael Cohen, a nationally recognized leader in education
policy and standards-based reform, has been the president of
Achieve since 2003.
And Janet Bray is the Executive Director of the Association
for Career and Technical Education.
Thank you so much for joining us and thank you for the help
and assistance you have provided the committee in the past.
Again, we will accept your testimony in the regular 5-minute
order here.
There will be a green light, Mr. Cannaday, when you begin,
a yellow light when you have about a minute left, and a red
light when we would like you to finish. But we want to make
sure that you are able to complete your thoughts and convey
your suggestions to the committee. Welcome.
If we can ask people at the door, in or out, one or the
other. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Cannaday, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF BILLY CANNADAY, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Cannaday. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
McKeon and other members of the committee. Thank you for
providing me with an opportunity today to speak to you really
from several perspectives--one, that of being the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction; the other, as being a
practicing superintendent for about 12 years, also a CCSSO
member, but I think more importantly, what Virginia has learned
over the last 12 years of its reform effort that deals with
accountability.
I would like to thank you for the attention you are giving
to the whole notion of a sense of urgency to address this law,
to make certain that we are accountable to all children. And
more importantly, we can learn from the lessons over the last 5
years how to make improvements.
I would like to guide my comments in two areas, one being
innovation and the other accountability. Particularly dealing
with the college and workforce readiness issue, I am glad you
have given attention to strengthening high schools, as we have
done in Virginia. As a matter of fact, we are working with the
America Diploma Project College Board, as well as ACT, to
establish college and workplace readiness standards.
More specifically, the governor and general assembly this
past session passed bills that will actually guide, direct the
department of education and State board to develop two new
diplomas, a technical and an advanced technical diploma, both
of which are designed to be more rigorous than a standard
diploma, to deal with the whole issue of college and workplace
readiness.
I would like to give attention to the issue of innovation
with dealing with differentiated consequences. I am very
pleased, as both the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
and a CCSSO member, that you are giving attention particularly
to how do you treat school divisions that demonstrate a
commitment to all children making exceptional progress and
treating them differently than schools that have a recurring
history of low performance. We do believe one-size-fits-all is
not the remedy and are pleased in the direction you are moving.
The other area deals with--under the notion of innovation
is increased flexibility. We all understand that in order to
innovate it must be timely response to an identified need. We
are clear, a 5-year cycle certainly does not encourage
innovation, but we are glad that you have seen to develop a
different kind of partnership between States and the Federal
Government about how to innovate to be responsive and more
timely.
In the area of accountability, it is very clear that you
are seeking to redefine what the relationship should be between
the State and Federal Government. In the 10 years, 12 years, of
Virginia's reform effort, we started with high expectations in
the mid-1990s, well before No Child Left Behind, we have
transcended four governors, two Republican, two Democrat. Still
the effort has sustained itself. As a matter of fact, over one-
third of the superintendents that started the process are no
longer there, and we replaced that number by a third.
The real issue is that we have learned something about not
only how to innovate, but how to be held accountable. We
believe that a partnership between State and Federal Government
should be one that speaks of being real tight on expectations
and on metrics to define progress in meeting those
expectations, but also giving some differentiated flexibility.
Where States and local schools have demonstrated ability to
respond to these high expectations, they need to have greater
flexibility about how to get there and to move ahead and to
innovate.
Again, I hope that our efforts today will assist you in
your deliberate process to assure that the law is more
responsive, that it does spur innovation, and certainly, it
does maintain the important features of the law that deal with
accountability for learning for all children at very high
levels.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Cannaday follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Billy Cannaday, Jr., Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Virginia Department of Education
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding
college and work readiness and the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. I am testifying on behalf of the Council
of Chief State School Officers and in my capacity as the Superintendent
of Public Instruction in Virginia.
First, thank you for using reauthorization as an opportunity to
place a greater emphasis on strengthening the nation's high schools,
including providing new incentives for states to align standards with
college and work readiness. States are leading the effort to align high
school with the knowledge and skills our young people will need to
succeed in the global economy, and we welcome your support in this
important area.
In Virginia, for example, we are working with the American Diploma
Project, the College Board, and ACT to align our standards with
college- and work-readiness expectations. Additionally, the State Board
is in the process of developing two new diplomas--a technical diploma
and an advanced technical diploma--to increase rigor and better prepare
young people--and the commonwealth--to compete for the technical jobs
of the 21st-century global economy.
Strong support for these diplomas from Virginia Governor Tim Kaine,
the Virginia General Assembly, and our business community reflects the
commonwealth's commitment to strengthening high schools, improving
post-graduation opportunities for students, and responding to the needs
of our communities.
This work is a clear example of state efforts to raise the bar, and
it is an example of the kind of innovation and judgment that the new
ESEA must permit and encourage in all areas.
As you know, the nation's education system has changed dramatically
since passage of No Child Left Behind. Every state has worked to lay
the foundations for standards-based reform, including systems of
accountability, data-reporting mechanisms, and standards for teacher
competence and quality. In Virginia and in many other states, this
effort began well before President Bush signed NCLB into law.
This transformation in our public education system has not come
easily, and we must continue to press steadily ahead. Much work remains
to be done before we can declare victory. Implementing the next
generation of standards-based reforms will require an equal or greater
commitment of resources, time, and human capital.
As state leaders, we want you to know that the scale of our success
will depend on our ability to work with you in partnership to
fundamentally reform federal education policy.
The revised ESEA must acknowledge the know-how, commitment, and
judgment of successful educators at the state and local levels,
especially those in states that have already significantly raised
student achievement.
Congress rightfully jump-started the education reform process five
years ago, but NCLB's framework is now outdated and in some cases is
hindering, instead of supporting, educational innovation both at the
secondary and primary levels.
The revised ESEA must not only provide new support for promoting
alignment, strengthening accountability, and enhancing dropout
prevention; it must also: (1) spur continuous state and local
innovation; (2) facilitate increased state capacity; and (3) provide
greater resources for ensuring that every child in America receives a
high-quality education.
Achieving these objectives for high schools, middle schools and
elementary schools will require a new state-federal partnership--one
that encourages innovative strategies for improving student achievement
and closing achievement gaps. Congress should set a floor, not a
ceiling, for state education policy, and then empower state and local
educational agencies to produce results on behalf of all children by
developing innovative solutions to challenging educational and social
issues, such as closing the achievement gap and boosting graduation
rates.
We agree that the law should be reauthorized, because there is no
time to waste and no margin for error in our quest to prepare all kids
to succeed when they leave our care. But before completing
reauthorization, we must ensure that we are getting the law right by
avoiding the notion that a single formula for success can be codified
in federal law for every local and state context.
Achieving our shared education goals will require that we make room
for sound education judgment and encourage continuous improvement
across the states. Providing flexibility for such innovation across the
law, tied to a re-invented peer review process, will help move us
toward reauthorization and build on the foundations of NCLB without
sacrificing meaningful accountability.
In this city there are interest groups and think tanks that believe
that latitude for state and local innovation is incompatible with real
accountability. I'm here today to say that that notion is dead wrong.
Creative, experienced educators do not fear accountability--they
welcome it. All that we ask is for the freedom to move forward with
innovative, peer reviewed strategies without being strangled for months
or years by a rigid one-size-fits-all structure dictated from
Washington.
Reauthorization offers an opportunity to return children to the
center of our efforts to reform and improve public education.
Discussions between state and federal officials over specific testing
policies and other details of reform should focus on the best interests
of the students in question and not become a test of wills.
States need flexibility as they tackle difficult issues, such as
how best to include non-English speaking children in state
accountability systems. States that have led the way in raising student
achievement through standards-based reform should at least get the
benefit of the doubt when questions arise about specific aspects of
implementation.
If we get reauthorization right, ESEA will spur innovation and
spread promising practices, and American education will have made a
major difference for millions of kids five years from now. If we get it
wrong, state and local decision makers may spend years trying to sort
out how to implement prescriptive federal requirements that may make
sense in some contexts and fail miserably in others.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify, and want to commend you
for seeking to remedy many key issues in your discussion draft. The
draft language addresses a number of critical areas for improvement,
such as differentiating consequences, implementing growth models, and
using multiple measures. These issues are vital to strengthening the
framework of the law, and helping state and local educators focus on
the students who need the most support.
I also want to thank you for incorporating several of the important
recommendations offered by CCSSO and other state education
organizations. We agree, however, that the language is a work in
progress, and believe some provisions of the draft are too
prescriptive. We look forward to continuing our collaborative dialogue
with you in order to address these and other challenges as the
reauthorization process continues.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WISE, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT
EDUCATION
Mr. Wise. This gives me a chance to do my mea culpa before
this committee. When I was governor several years ago, I was
one of the ones seriously considering filing suit to enjoin the
implementation of NCLB. And, quite frankly, I was wrong, and I
am glad I didn't go forward because I began to see over time
the importance of NCLB, particularly in putting a spotlight on
the startling achievement gaps that were there and also the
ability to provide all children, including poor and minority
children, with access to a high-quality education.
That is why I greatly also appreciate this committee draft,
because there have been real efforts made here to address some
of the concerns and also to improve the bill.
I am particularly appreciative of what the committee has
done in the area of high school reform to address the
shortcomings and to assist high schools, which are the jumping-
off spot for college or the workplace. The high schools aren't
effectively covered in the existing NCLB; graduation rates are
not an effective measurement of AYP; additionally, since Title
I is the carrot and the stick for NCLB, but only 8 percent of
high school students are covered by Title I. Effectively, high
school students are not covered by this bill.
This committee draft addresses many of those concerns. You
know the statistics, only 70 percent of students will graduate
on time with a regular diploma. We know that even fewer
graduate college ready for the modern workplace. We know that
70 percent of eighth graders are reading below grade level
according to NAEP. We know these numbers are far worse for
children that are poor and children that are of color.
We are pleased that this draft is built off the work of
best-practice research. And some of the bills are already
introduced by members of this committee. This draft takes a
huge step forward for high school reform at the Federal level.
In terms of improving high school, high school
accountability must be tied to support for high school
improvement. This draft recognizes that high school improvement
is not a one-size-fits-all process that can be addressed with
only a couple of mandated strategies. The draft builds off
Representative Hinojosa's Graduation Promise Act to provide a
more thoughtful approach to high school improvement and
authorizes a new Graduation Promise Fund to support those
efforts targeted to the lowest-performing high school.
In our submitted comments, we do provide detailed
recommendations on strengthening the school improvement process
to better reflect what is known about high school turnaround,
including strengthening the turnaround time line, improving the
high school reform language, using interim indicators,
tightening the redesign options and strengthening the State
role.
We also would urge creating a separate fund to turn around
low-performing middle schools, such as in Representative
Grijalva's bill. For college and work readiness, while NCLB set
the goal of all students being proficient by 2014, ultimately
the currently used State test for many of those tests often
measures only 10th grade proficiency.
What this draft does--and we applaud the committee for it--
is to make a clear statement that college and work readiness is
the goal to which everything else should be aligned.
However, we believe that a common set of standards and
assessments would provide significant benefits in terms of
equity, efficiency and educational outcomes. And we look
forward to working with you to strengthen the incentives for
States that choose to work together voluntarily to establish
and adopt common standards and high-quality assessments aligned
with the first 21st century's skills and knowledge.
Graduation rates are critical to this process. Under
current law, they are not defined consistently nor
disaggregated by subgroup or required to improve significantly
over time, like test scores. It is like we run our kids a mile
race, we access them rigorously at every tenth of a mile, they
get ready to cross the finish line and we toss the cards up in
the air; we are not keeping track anymore. The best example of
this is that in terms of the dropout factors that have been so
much talked about, almost 40 percent of those actually make
AYP.
We are very pleased that the draft builds off of
Representative Scott's Every Student Counts Act to clearly
define a common graduation rate and require meaningful
increases in the rates of accountability.
Data systems: We are very appreciative of what the
committee has done to focus on data to improve decision-making
through the draft, as well as the support for building and
using statewide longitudinal data systems.
For multiple measures, we are concerned that the use of
multiple measures--and we understand the committee is looking
at this very deeply and seriously--contemplated that the draft
might cloud AYP with indicators that are less uniform,
objective and measurable. We would encourage the committee to
look at the type of multiple measures and be also a little bit
wary of college enrollment information, dropout rates versus
graduation rates, two different things, and end-of-course
testing, which can be vulnerable to inaccuracies. We would
suggest creating a pilot program to explore learning further
about multiple measures from the efforts of States prepared to
design such a system.
We also want to thank the committee for including in its
draft the Striving Readers legislation, which I believe
Representatives Yarmuth and Platts have introduced, once again
recognizing that 70 percent of our eighth graders are not
reading at grade level when they enter high school.
We want to thank the committee very, very much for what it
has done in improving high schools and recognizing the
significant needs of high school students. This is a continuum
from pre-K all the way through grade 12 and into higher
education.
High schools are a vital part of it--they have not been
before--and what you will do is make sure that no child is left
behind, but you will work to make every child a graduate.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Wise follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Wise, President, Alliance for Excellent
Education
Thank you for inviting me to share our thoughts on this
Discussion Draft to reauthorize Title I of the No Child Left Behind
Act.
I admit that as Governor, I seriously considered suing to
enjoin the law. I didn't end up doing so, and over time, I have learned
that it would have been a mistake to resist a law that despite all its
flaws, was intended to put a spotlight on the startling achievement
gaps and provide all children, including poor and minority children,
with access to a high-quality education.
Ironically, I've come to appreciate the values behind
NCLB, at the same time that I've learned that it doesn't do much to
address what is a significant crisis in this country--the millions of
students who are leaving our high schools, with or without a diploma,
unprepared for their future.
We know that only 70 percent of all students graduate on
time with a regular diploma four years later. We know that even fewer
graduate college-ready. And we know that these numbers are far worse
for poor and minority children.
We also know that the failure to graduate from high school
college- and work-ready has consequences for those students, their
communities, and our economy.
That is why, for the moral, civil rights, educational, and
economic reasons, my organization, is dedicated to the mission of
helping make every child a graduate prepared for success in the 21st
century.
NCLB was basically designed to address grades K-8. As a
result, it is often neglectful of or even at odds with what is known
about low-performing high schools.
We are pleased that this Draft has built off the work of
best practice, research, and some of the bills already introduced by
Members of this Committee, to take a huge step forward for high school
reform at the federal level.
It provides thoughtful approaches to aligning the goals of
high school graduation with college and work readiness, more accurately
identifying low-performing high schools and providing for both
accountability and support to turn them around.
Specifically:
High school improvement
NCLB: High school accountability must be tied to support
for high school improvement. Unfortunately, NCLB's improvement
strategies are only triggered by Title I funds and so few high schools
receive those funds. Also, the required actions under NCLB--school
choice and supplemental education services (SES)--do not work to
improve high schools for a variety of reasons.
DRAFT: We are pleased to see the Draft recognize that high
school improvement is not a one-size-fits all process that can be
addressed with those two mandated strategies. The Draft builds off of
Rep. Hinojosa's Graduation Promise Act to provide a more thoughtful
approach to high school improvement and authorizes a new Graduation
Promise Fund to support those efforts targeted to the lowest performing
high schools.
TO IMPROVE: Our submitted comments provide detailed
recommendations on how to strengthen the school improvement process to
better reflect what is known about high school turnaround, including:
Strengthening the turnaround timeline, improving the whole
school reform language, and tightening the redesign options.
Allowing districts to use Graduation Promise funding for
systemic high school strategies in addition to whole school reform.
Providing more ``checks and balances'' for high school
improvement at the state level by using state-developed interim
indicators in addition to AYP to inform the school improvement process;
and
Allowing use of high school SES funds for dropout
prevention and recovery activities.
Creating a separate fund to turn around low performing
middle schools by including Rep. Grijalva's bill.
College and work readiness
NCLB: NCLB set the goal of all students proficient by
2014, and requires annual improvement toward that goal. Unfortunately,
the currently-used state tests often measure 10th grade proficiency,
not college- and work-readiness. And the failure to include ``college-
and work-ready graduation'' as an accompanying goal created many
perverse incentives.
DRAFT: We applaud the committee for the clear statement in
this Draft that college and work readiness is the goal to which
everything else should be aligned.
IMPROVE: However we believe that a common set of standards
and assessments would provide significant benefits in terms of equity,
efficiency, and educational outcomes. We look forward to working with
you to strengthen the incentives for states that choose to work
together to establish and adopt common standards and high quality
assessments aligned to 21st century skills and knowledge.
Measuring graduation rates
NCLB: Under current law, graduation rates are not defined
consistently, disaggregated by subgroup, or required to improve
significantly over time in the same that test scores are. It's as if we
are clocking runners in a race every mile but then do not pay attention
to whether or not they cross the finish line. As a result, AYP is
undermined as a useful tool for holding high schools accountable for
improving student outcomes and identifying high schools that need
assistance. The best example of this is the high percentage of dropout
factories that actually make AYP.
DRAFT: We were very pleased that this Draft builds off of
Representative Scott's Every Student Counts Act, to clearly define a
common graduation rate and require meaningful increases in those rates
in the accountability system for high schools. These shifts are
critical to making AYP a more accurate measure of high school
performance and tool for identifying low-performing high schools.
TO IMPROVE: However, the Draft would allow states to
propose alternate ways for graduation rates to be used as part of AYP.
We are concerned that this would undermine the Draft's otherwise clear
and comparable approach that requires aggressive, attainable
improvement.
Other issues:
Data Systems: We applaud the committee for focusing on
using data to inform decisionmaking throughout the Draft, as well as
the support for building and using statewide longitudinal data systems.
Good data and data systems are critical to many of the other
requirements of the Draft. We've submitted comments to improve some
provisions in the Draft related to student privacy that restrict the
use of data beyond current policies, and move in the opposite direction
of where we want to go.
Multiple Measures: We are concerned that the use of
multiple measures of high school performance contemplated in the Draft
might cloud AYP with indicators that are less uniform, objective and
measurable.
First, some of the indicators permitted in the Draft as
part of AYP (including college enrollment information, dropout rates,
and end-of-course testing) are vulnerable to inaccuracies and gaming.
Given the lack of information and understanding about what a highly-
accurate multiple measures accountability system would look like, we
suggest creating a pilot program to allow us to learn from the efforts
of states that are prepared to design such a system, before expanding
the option to every state.
Second, the ``multiple measures'' option would provide
``extra'' points towards the proficiency category by showing graduation
rate gains. This might encourage schools to graduate unprepared
students. Instead, graduation rates and proficiency on a college- and
work ready assessment should be weighted equally to provide balanced
incentives for raising test scores and graduation rates.
Conclusion
Thank you again for creating such an open process and
providing this opportunity to comment on the Draft.
As a former member of Congress, I certainly appreciate the
process in front of you as you attempt to reauthorize NCLB. Like most
laws--the devil is in the details, there are adamant advocates on
opposing sides of many issues; you and your staff are doing an
incredible job of moving this forward.
This Draft is a promising first step toward a
reauthorization that has the opportunity to leverage powerful and
necessary change in our nation's high schools.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure
that this reauthorization helps to move us all from ``no child left
behind'' to ``every child a graduate.''
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Steinberg.
STATEMENT OF ADRIA STEINBERG, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT OF YOUTH
TRANSITION, JOBS FOR THE FUTURE
Ms. Steinberg. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today, and more importantly, thank you for providing us with a
bipartisan discussion draft that puts the secondary back in the
center of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There is
no more critical goal than increasing the percentage of young
people who graduate from high school while ensuring that these
graduates are ready for college and careers.
My name is Adria Steinberg, and I am part of the idealistic
generation that entered education as an extension of our work
on civil rights just after the first ESEA was passed. As
Associate Vice President of Jobs for the Future, my work
focuses on fixing leaks in the educational pipeline, especially
for low-income, African American and Hispanic students. Far too
many of these students attend high schools where graduation is
barely the norm and where academic offerings are spotty at
best. And far too few of them ever reach their dream of obtain
a postsecondary credential that will lead to satisfying and
family-supporting careers.
From our work at Jobs for the Future we see States,
districts and communities facing three key challenges. And
sealing leaks in the pipeline we call these ``the three I's''--
the invisibility challenge, the invention challenge and the
infrastructure challenge. The good news is the discussion draft
goes a long way towards addressing all three. I will speak
briefly to each challenge and offer a few suggestions as well.
We found that school districts and communities try to be
systemic in connecting or reconnecting young people to high-
quality pathways graduation and postsecondary advancement.
The first challenge that must be addressed is the
invisibility of the graduation crisis. The most common methods
of calculating graduation and dropout rates have long masked
the true magnitude of the problem. We now know that,
nationally, 30 percent are not graduating high school on time
or at all and how much worse it is in low-income communities.
Requiring, as the draft does, that all States use a common
measure based on an adjusted cohort graduation rate and giving
graduation rates more equal footing with academic measures in
high school accountability will help ensure that all students
are counted and accounted for. This will go a long way towards
focusing attention on the true extent of the dropout crisis and
on the large number of young people who are overage for grade
and not on track to graduate from high school. We applaud the
draft for that.
The second major challenge we help districts, communities
and States grapple with is what we call the invention
challenge, low-performing high schools that lose almost as many
students as they graduate. Educators are realizing that
traditional ways of doing business will not suffice. There is a
need for new models of secondary schooling that use evidence-
based approaches to help young people reengage with school,
build their skills, earn a diploma and advance to postsecondary
education and careers.
The discussion draft addresses this challenge up front by
setting up the Graduation Promise Fund to support the
turnaround and reinvention of low-performing high schools. And
by including in this provision a set-aside to build the
capacity of nonprofit entities, to develop, replicate and scale
up effective models for struggling students and returning
dropouts.
The policy makers and practitioners with whom we work would
like nothing better than to import or adapt excellent models
such as Talent Development, early college high school,
YouthBuild and many, many others, and to work with nonprofit
entities on the development of more such models.
We would like to make two recommendations as to how the
draft would be strengthened to have more of an impact on the
invention challenges in the field. First, we suggest that
supporting scale-up of existing models and creation of new
models is so important that the set-aside should be required
rather than at the Secretary's discretion, and that 5 percent
of the Promise Fund be set aside for this purpose.
Second, the invention challenges are such that it will take
State and local partnerships to address them. In the current
draft, the balance of authority for school improvement rests
with the district. We would hope for language that lays our
strategy where States and districts are expected to collaborate
and serve as checks and balances for each other in an effort to
turn around the high-priority high schools.
The third and final challenge is the infrastructure
challenge. Schools and districts need State policy to support
them and the hard work of turnaround, reinvention and model
design. Policy, in other words, needs to keep pace with
innovative programming and what is now known about what works.
The discussion draft breaks new ground by including
incentives for States to design and implement policies in a
strategic way to both build infrastructure and create operating
conditions to support turnaround of high-priority high schools
and allow new models to flourish. This strong support of State
innovation is a refreshing addition to Part H on Dropout
Prevention, and we hope it will be supported by appropriations
beyond what has gone into Part H in the past. State innovation
is critical to dropout prevention and to the ambitious goal of
significantly raising college-ready graduation rates even in
our most challenged school districts and schools.
Thank you again. I look forward to further discussion with
you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Steinberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adria Steinberg, Associate Vice President, Jobs
for the Future
I want to thank Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, and the other
distinguished members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify
today on the discussion draft of the Reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. More importantly, thank you for providing
us with a draft that puts the ``secondary'' back in the Elementary and
Secondary Act.
There is no more critical goal than increasing the number of young
people who graduate from high school and ensuring that these graduates
are ready for college and careers.
My name is Adria Steinberg and I have spent the last 40 years
working in and on high schools. As Associate Vice President of Jobs for
the Future, my work focuses on fixing leaks in the educational
pipeline, especially for low-income, African American and Hispanic
students. Far too many of these students attend high schools where
graduation is barely the norm and where academic offerings are spotty
at best. And far too few of them ever reach their dream of obtaining a
post-secondary credential that will lead to satisfying and family-
supporting careers.
Addressing the Invisibility, Invention, and Infrastructure Challenges
From our work at Jobs for the Future, we see districts and
communities facing three key challenges in sealing leaks in the
pipeline. We call these the invisibility challenge, the invention
challenge, and the infrastructure challenge. The great news is that the
discussion draft goes a long way toward addressing all three of these
major challenges. And, of course, we have a few suggestions.
We have found that as school districts and communities try to be
systemic and strategic in connecting or reconnecting young people to
high quality pathways to high school graduation and post-secondary
advancement, the first challenge that must be addressed is the
invisibility of the graduation rate crisis. The most common methods of
calculating graduation and dropout rates long masked the true magnitude
of the problem. We now know that nationally 30% of our young people are
not graduating from high school on time or at all. In low-income
communities the rate drops to 40-50%.
Requiring, as the draft does, that all states use a common measure
based on an adjusted cohort graduation rate and giving graduation rates
equal footing with academic measures in high school accountability will
ensure that all students are counted and accounted for. This will go a
long way towards focusing attention on the true extent of the dropout
crisis and on the large number of young people who are over-age for
grade and not on track to graduate from high school. We applaud the
draft for that.
The second major challenge we have helped districts, communities,
and states grapple with is what we call the invention challenge. In
tackling the problem of low-performing high schools, of ``dropout
factory'' high schools that lose almost as many students as they
graduate, educators are realizing that traditional ways of doing
business will not suffice. There is a need for new models of secondary
schooling that use evidence-based approaches to help young people to
reengage with school, build their skills, earn a diploma and advance to
post-secondary education and careers.
The discussion draft addresses this challenge up front--by setting
up the Graduation Promise Fund to support the turn-around and
reinvention of low-performing high schools, and by including in this
provision a set-aside to build the capacity of non-profit entities to
develop or replicate and scale up effective school models for
struggling students and returning dropouts.
Policymakers and practitioners with whom we work would like nothing
better than to import or adapt excellent models such as: Talent
Development, KIPP, early college high school, the transfer school and
Young Adult Borough Centers in NYC, YouthBuild, Performance Learning
Centers, or many others, and to work with nonprofit entities on the
development of more such models.
We would like to make two recommendations as to how the draft could
be strengthened to have even more of an impact on invention challenges
in the field.
First, we suggest that supporting the expansion and scale up of
existing models and the creation of new models is so important that the
set-aside should be required rather than entirely at the Secretary's
discretion and that at least 5% of the Graduation Promise Fund be set
aside for this purpose.
Second, the invention challenges are such that it will take state/
local partnerships to address them. In the current draft, the balance
of power rests with the district. We would hope for language in the
next draft that lays out a ``both-and'' strategy where states and
districts are expected to collaborate and serve as checks-and-balances
to each other in efforts to turn-around high priority high schools.
The third and final challenge is the infrastructure challenge.
Schools and districts need state policy to encourage and support them
in the hard work of turn-around, reinvention, and model design. Policy,
in other words, needs to keep pace with innovative programming and what
is now known about what works.
The discussion draft breaks new ground by including incentives for
states to design and implement policies in a comprehensive and
strategic way to build infrastructure and create the operating
conditions to support turnaround of high priority high schools and to
allow new models to flourish. This strong support of state innovation
is a refreshing addition to Part H on Dropout Prevention and we hope it
will be supported by appropriations beyond what has gone into Part H in
the past. State innovation is indeed critical to dropout prevention and
to the ambitious goal of significantly raising college-ready graduation
rates, even in our most challenged school districts and schools.
I am honored to have had this opportunity to share my views on this
groundbreaking draft and look forward to further discussion with the
committee. Thank you very much.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. McPartland.
STATEMENT OF JAMES MCPARTLAND, PH.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR AND
CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOLS, JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Mr. McPartland. It is a great honor to appear before this
committee and comment on draft legislation.
The focus on high schools is really a major advance in the
NCLB legislation. It is a great step forward not only because
it now focuses on youngsters, the older learners in high
schools and middle schools that have been ignored by our
legislation, but it is very well informed by current research
on what would work to improve high schools and how to make it
an effective, accountable way.
I want to comment on four key components to the legislation
where the research backing is really very strong. First is the
focus on a set of schools with high dropout rates. It turns out
that about 15 percent of our Nation's high schools are really
the place where most of the problems happen. Indeed, two-thirds
of the African American and Latino students who drop from
schools go to these 15 percent schools. If you could solve the
dropout problem in these 2,000 or 3,000 schools, you would
actually eliminate the graduation rate gap between our minority
population and our average high school student. So very cost-
effective research says to place this focus on the highest
need, high dropout condition schools.
Secondly, the bill really recognizes key components of the
reform. It is not just more money; it is money directed at
research-based, comprehensive reform. There are really three
big pieces needed to turn around high-problem schools. First
are organizational changes to personalize the learning
environment. We need smaller schools, schools within our
schools, schools with career academies where the kids and
teachers can really get to know one another and the young
people feel really welcome, when they are not there, they are
missed; the school is really a place for them to be.
The second is intensive curriculum and instructional
reform. We need to close these skill gaps. Often in our
troubled high schools, the ninth grader comes in 2 or 3 years
below in reading and other things. We know what to do; it is
extra time in the core curriculum with focused instruction,
teaching comprehension skills, improving their literacy and so
on. That is the second point, and the legislation is very clear
on more resources for classroom instruction.
The third part of comprehensive reform is support for
teachers. In the end, the teachers bring this home and make it
happen--and we know how teachers can respond to time for
training together, but mainly having expert peer coaches and
time to build a professional development learning community.
The legislation is very research reformed on how the money
should be spent to turn around the focused schools.
The third part is the resources, the Graduation Promise
Fund that actually says about a minimum of $700 per young
person, per student in these targeted schools, is what is
needed. That is also what studies and our experience show: It
is money for new curriculum and extra time, it is money for
teacher planning and working together in teams, it is money for
coaches and other support systems, so that the reforms we know
will work will actually happen.
The second part is that the research really informs both
the needs and the resources.
The fourth part is about the accountability measures, that
we can calculate in a clear way what the graduation rate should
be. This bill requires that graduation completion is added with
equal importance to test score performance, and that is
important as well.
I want to conclude with a couple of suggestions about how
this excellent legislation could actually be honed up and in
minor ways taken to the realities of a high school. The first
is about, rather than a 3-year planning and evaluation period,
the natural cycles of high school requires 4 years. It is not
only that the ninth grade is so important, we need 4 years to
have this play its way out, but also the 4 years is the natural
cycle of high school.
The second part that I think could be improved is allowing
some flexibility in the years to graduation. We want all kids
to be on time with graduation--as many as possible in 4 years,
but there are some set of young people that really need a fifth
year for a second chance. These are the kids that might flunk
the ninth grade before they get the message about how high
school can work for them. So a little flexibility in that
regard is valuable.
Finally, like other speakers, I urge getting on with it. If
this particular, the high school part, can move forward, there
are thousands of young people every year that can be saved.
This is important for them, not only their individual needs,
but really it is what matters for the future of the country,
too.
I urge the committee and compliment them for your draft
bill and urge ``to get on with it.''
Chairman Miller. We are right with you there. Getting on
with it is the toughest part.
[The statement of Mr. McPartland follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. McPartland, Ph.D., Research Professor
and Co-Director, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns
Hopkins University
I am James McPartland, research professor and co-director of the
Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University.
I have specialized in research and development at the high school level
for high-poverty student populations.
It is a great honor to appear before this committee to comment on
the new prominent focus on high school reform in the legislation to
reauthorize No Child Left Behind.
This focus is a major advance in federal assistance to public
schools serving high-poverty populations because (1) it offers major
support to a large group of needy students at the high school level,
who have not previously had access to significant federal resources
under NCLB, and (2) it follows the most recent powerful research on how
to best direct assistance with the most promising interventions and the
most effective accountability. My comments are directed to the research
support for the key elements for high school reform in the draft
legislation, and offer two suggestions for modification that would
further strengthen the legislation.
1. Focus on Neediest Students
The focus on specific high schools with high dropout rates is
backed by research that shows the most serious dropout problems are
concentrated in a small fraction of the nation's high schools. Recent
studies indicate that more than half of the students who drop out had
attended 15 percent of the nation's high schools, so targeting these
schools will attack the majority of the problems. These schools exist
in all regions and every state of the nation, and involve high numbers
of poor and minority students. Indeed, two-thirds of African American
and Hispanic students who drop out attended this 15 percent of the
nation's high schools. Solving the problem in these schools would
eliminate the gap in dropout rates between these minority groups and
white students.
Thus, the legislation's focus on the schools with highest dropout
rates is highly cost effective in targeting resources to solve this
problem.
2. Research-based Reform Initiatives
The draft legislation also wisely identifies the key components of
comprehensive high school reforms to receive federal support that
research has shown are needed to turn around unsuccessful high schools.
These components include (a) school organization for a personalized
learning environment, (b) instructional interventions to motivate
students and close skills gaps, and (c) teacher support systems to
ensure strong implementation of needed changes. All of these components
have been found to be needed in a comprehensive package where each
reinforces the others to impact student attendance, academic
achievement and graduation.
The draft legislation recognizes how school organization
interventions can create the conditions for positive student-teacher
relationships, strong staff morale and high expectations for student
behavior that lead to good student attendance and engagement with their
studies, and course success that starts in the ninth grade and
continues for the rest of the high schools years. These organizational
changes include separate ninth-grade academies with small teams of
teachers sharing the same students, upper-grade career academies that
integrate college prep academics with occupational applications, and
block schedules with extended class periods in core subjects and time
for teacher team planning. While such organizational improvements can
foster a positive learning environment of school safety, good student
attendance and increased course passing, other changes are also needed
to raise the intellectual demands and student success at high standards
and to support teachers during reforms.
The draft legislation also requires that instructional programs
must be strengthened to help poorly prepared students accelerate their
learning and appreciate the value of their studies for later goals.
This means a college-prep curriculum of high standards for all, with
extra help for needy students, opportunities for active student
learning that challenges mature thinking skills, and integration of
career choice and applications within a core academic program.
In addition, the draft legislation recognizes teachers as an
essential ingredient of effective high school reform, by requiring
advanced professional development and teachers support systems for all
staff. Not only are teachers to be a significant part of the reform
planning processes for their inputs and buy-in, but will also receive
specific supports to build skills and sustain commitments. These
supports include mentors for new teachers and expert coaches on new
instructional approaches, as well as time for teachers to work together
in learning communities to perfect new, effective classroom approaches.
While the legislation calls for each key component for a
comprehensive reform package, it allows for flexibility if a school is
already strong in some areas, but needs improvement in others. The
designations of high-priority schools and priority schools give leeway
in how resources are deployed to meet local realities of program
strengths and weaknesses.
Thus, the draft legislation carefully aims reform resources at the
specific change components that research shows can produce impressive
improvements in high school learning environments and student outcomes.
3. Adequate Resources for Strong Improvement
In the draft legislation, a Graduation Promise Fund will provide
adequate resources to bring targeted schools the full way toward
effective reform.
It establishes an estimate of $700 per student each year in
additional resources to plan and implement the required comprehensive
high school reforms in exchange for strong research-based interventions
and clear accountability. Our extensive experience with more than 100
high-poverty high schools has taught us that this amount is the minimum
needed to turn around the most troubled sites. Resources are needed for
planning time to redesign the school and train staff, as well as form
implementing new instructional approaches with new curriculum, smart
professional development using expert coaches and time for teachers to
work together through the year. It would make no sense to require
powerful changes but to shortchange the costs to put them in place and
make them work. This bill avoids the error with adequate resources for
school reform.
4. Strong Accountability Requirements
The bill also promotes high school reform by greatly strengthening
the accountability requirements with graduation completion rates
sharing importance with test score achievement as the end goals of
reforms. Research has shown that educators' primary concerns with test
scores can set up perverse incentives to attend less to the promotion
and graduation of all students. The bill makes sure that participating
high schools must both graduate their students and prepare them with
core academic skills to be successful. The bill also sends the right
message about calculating the true graduation/dropout rates by using
available data on the ratios of seniors to freshmen four years earlier.
Research has shown this to be a practical and valid indicator for
planning and accountability purposes.
5. Two Changes in Bill Language to Address High School Realities
Two modest modifications in the draft legislation are needed to
better fit the true conditions of high schools in terms of the time
line for implementing and evaluating comprehensive reforms and the time
flexibility for some students to complete their program.
A four-year reform implementation plan is needed for high schools,
while a three-year plan will work for elementary schools. Four years
fits high schools because reforms must set the foundation in the ninth
grade which will take four years to show full gains in graduation
rates. Shorter plans will unfairly concentrate evaluations on students
who have experienced only partial reforms without the key first year,
and will ignore the time that high school staffs truly need to plan,
implement and refine comprehensive reforms. Indeed, a year before
implementation is usually critical for an inclusive planning process
and summer training and ninth-grade student transition activities to
launch the major change interventions.
In the same vein, bill modifications to allow some students to use
an additional year to earn graduation will deal with high school
realities, but must be crafted to allow flexibility without giving
unnecessary loopholes. A rule that at least 75 percent from each race-
gender subgroup earns graduation in four years would retain high
expectations for all, but allow some ninth-grade repeaters and other
second-chance learners to earn graduation and count toward their
school's success.
6. Move the Legislation Forward with Focus on High School Reform
The draft legislation is an excellent reflection of what recent
research says that high-poverty high schools need and what will work to
transform those 2,000 high schools that are the worst ``dropout
factories'' into schools where all students will have a strong chance
to close their skill gaps and earn their high school diplomas. Moving
ahead now with this new important emphasis on high school reform will
literally save thousands of American students each year from dropping
out with all the means in success for the individuals and for American
society.
references
Balfanz, Robert and Legters, Nettie (2004). ``Locating the dropout
crisis: How many high schools have a severe dropout problem,
where are they located and who attends them? In Gary Orfield
(ed.) Dropouts in America. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Balfanz, Robert, McPartland, James and Shaw, Alta (2002).
``Reconceptualizing extra help for high school students in a
high standards era. Journal of Vocational Special Needs
Education. 25(1), 24-41.
McPartland, James and Jordan, Will. (2004). ``Essential components of
high school dropout prevention reforms'' In Gary Orfield (ed.)
Dropouts in America. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press.
McPartland, James, Balfanz, Robert and Legters, Nettie (2006).
``Supporting teachers for adolescent literacy interventions.''
Perspectives, The International Dyslexia Association, 32(3),
39-42.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Cohen, Michael, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COHEN, PRESIDENT, ACHIEVE, INC.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
High-quality standards and aligned assessments have been a
critical part of No Child Left Behind. It has been a critical
part over the last 15 years of standards-based reform both at
the State and Federal levels. Comments in the earlier panel
suggested that the existing set of standards and assessments
leave much to be desired. They are often not sufficiently
focused and often not sufficiently rigorous; and the
assessments don't really measure the things that are important.
This discussion draft takes a number of very important
steps to rectify that situation. I want to focus my comments on
a number of provisions that do that in this bill and suggest
some ways in which they can be strengthened.
First, the provision to provide incentives for States to
set standards for postsecondary work and workplace readiness is
extremely important. As someone mentioned earlier, the mission
of high school, or really the mission of the K-to-12 system,
ought to be to prepare young people for success after high
school.
Our own research at Achieve shows that for the most part,
up until very recently, no State--no State--had a set of
standards and assessments in place, as well as curriculum and
graduation requirements, that came close to measuring what
students need to know when they leave high school.
Through Achieve's American Diploma Project we are working
with a network of 30 States that are working to rectify that
situation--Virginia is one of them--and we start by working
with the State to revise its standards by bringing the
governor, the postsecondary leadership, the K-to-12 leadership
and the business community together to work on revising the
standards so they are anchored in the real world demands that
students will face.
About half of the States have completed that process
already. The preliminary data that we have suggests that as
States do that, that the standards they set are more rigorous,
number one; number two, reflect a broader range of skills,
particularly the ability to apply what is learned in the
classroom in real-world settings much more so than current
State standards do; and thirdly as important, the differences
between States and their expectations narrow considerably.
There is a lot greater degree of consistency in expectations
when States anchor them in the analysis of what the real world
actually demands of students when they leave high school.
So this provision is very important for creating a set of
standards that are really a guide to what happens in the K-to-
12 system in ways that will better prepare young people for
what they will face afterwards.
There are a couple of ways in which this provision can be
strengthened. One is to call for postsecondary to play a
greater role in this. It is hard to define college readiness
with higher education on the sidelines; having them in a more
central role would be particularly important.
Secondly, I think you should recognize that as States pick
up this opportunity, they will have standards that are much
higher, and they will immediately confront the fact, when they
change their tests to be in line with that, they are now
further from the 100 percent proficiency timetable than they
were before they started this process; and you ought to give
serious consideration to allowing those States that do step up
to the plate to extend the time line to getting to 100 percent
proficient, taking into account they are working toward much
higher standards.
The second provision in this bill I would like to comment
on is the State Performance Assessment Pilot. I will be brief.
Linda Darling-Hammond spoke eloquently about the need for a
richer set of performance assessments. You see that when you
look at other countries. This pilot program will provide 10
States, or consortia of States, resources to work together and
create those kinds of performance assessments that will better
measure written skills and oral skills and will give students
an opportunity to demonstrate that they can apply what they
learned to real-world problems, where the answers are not
fixed, multiple choice, but they have to find the problem first
and the figure out a way to solve it, or promote application of
scientific inquiry in real-world ways; and it will help promote
effective teaching towards those ends.
So I would encourage you to keep that provision. I think it
is well designed and can make a real difference. Now, you also
have a pilot program for local assessments, which I am sure you
know is highly controversial. I want to add to the controversy
a bit.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. I am troubled by it for a number of reasons. One
is, allowing districts to develop their own assessments I think
can lead to a watering down and differentiation of standards.
District to district, it steps back from the notion of the
common standards measured in a common way for all students;
that is one problem.
Secondly, technically, I think, it is going to be very
difficult for districts to actually develop those assessments
and for States to actually make sure that they are consistent
across the State, and if they are proficient in one district,
that means proficient in another. So you run the risk of
watering down proficiency and subjecting it to more questions.
Finally, I would say the States that we are working with
are driving towards common assessments, across States; and the
reason we are doing that is, they figured out if they worked
together and pooled their resources and had better tests and
higher quality that also provide comparability across States.
Local assessments will move in precisely the opposite
direction. They will only increase the likelihood of poor tests
at a higher price with less comparable information. I don't
think that is a good way to go.
On the issue of multiple indicators, you will hear a lot
about that. I simply want to say that multiple indicators of
academic performance, in general, are a good idea. The way they
are incorporated in this bill in a compensatory manner, where
high performance in one subject or one area can compensate for
low performance in another, no matter how narrowly that is
defined, I think, sends the wrong signal.
It would be much better to do that in an additive manner,
where you hold schools accountable for performance in more
areas, because they are all important. It would help limit the
effects of narrowing the curriculum that we see now, again like
with the college and work readiness standards, if you do it in
an additive manner, you put schools in a position of more
likely to fail to meet AYP than is currently the case.
I think the remedy for that is not a complex system that
trades off performance in one area against another; it is to
give them more time to meet more standards. I encourage you to
think about that.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Cohen, President, Achieve. Inc.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for giving me
the opportunity to comment on portions of the Discussion Draft proposal
for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
Since the early 1990's the concept of rigorous state standards and
well aligned assessments have provided the foundation for the nation's
sustained efforts to improve achievement for all students. Achieve is
an independent nonprofit organization that has worked with states over
the past decade to help increase the rigor of state standards and the
alignment and quality of state tests. In the past several years we have
formed the American Diploma Project Network, a partnership of thirty
states dedicated to aligning high school standards, curriculum,
assessments and accountability with the academic knowledge and skills
needed to succeed in postsecondary education and careers. I will draw
on Achieve's decade of research and experience in standards based
reform to comment on a handful of key provisions in the Discussion
Draft, with the objective of suggesting ways this reauthorization can
help improve the quality of state standards and assessments. Many of
the provisions I address already take important steps in that
direction. My focus here will be to suggest ways they can be
strengthened.
Postsecondary and Workplace Readiness
The draft recognizes the importance of encouraging states to align
high school standards with the knowledge and skills needed for success
in postsecondary education and work. This is essential work for every
state to undertake. Our research shows that, up until recently, state
standards, assessments and curriculum requirements nationwide fall well
short of preparing young people for what they will face when they
complete high school. In short, when states today tell students they
are ``proficient'', they have no basis for assuring them, postsecondary
institutions or employers that they are prepared for what they will do
after completing high school.
Through the American Diploma Project Network, more than 20 states
are working closely with Achieve to align end-of-high-school standards
with the academic skills needed for success in postsecondary education
and work. By the end of 2007 we expect that approximately 15 will have
completed revising end-of-high-school standards in math and/or English
Language Arts, and nearly half have already done so.
Based on what we have learned from working with these states, I
would recommend three changes to better ensure that states
appropriately define standards that reflect college and work readiness.
One is to require that the effort be a joint undertaking of the
governor, state education agency, state postsecondary agency and
system, and employers, rather than the sole responsibility of the state
education agency. The second is to require that the state postsecondary
system and employer validate that the resulting standards reflect
readiness, and that the postsecondary system in particular will use the
results of an 11th grade test aligned with these standards to make
decisions about placing students in credit-bearing vs. remedial
courses. Absent these requirements, our experience in working with
nearly 30 states suggests that postsecondary institutions and employers
will see little value in the resulting standards and assessments. These
two requirements may be difficult to accomplish within the ESEA
reauthorization, but I believe it will be important to do this in order
accomplish to objective we share.
Third, an independent review to determine whether the resulting
standards and assessments are well aligned is a good idea. However,
this is largely a technical task, and is not likely to be performed
well by a broadly representative panel. Groups such as parents and
educators must be involved in the process, and generally are through
the normal process states already have in place when developing,
revising and adopting state standards. It would be appropriate for the
bill to require their participation in this process, but not as
technical reviewers.
The provision provides an important incentive for states to
participate in this effort, by tying access to funds provided under the
Performance Assessment Demonstration Program to participation in this
initiative. Unfortunately, it also creates two powerful disincentives
to participation and may therefore not accomplish its intended purpose.
The requirement that states have new, well aligned assessments in
grades 3-8 and high school in place within two years of completing the
standards revision process is unrealistic, though the intent of
promoting speedy test development is appropriate. Three years is a more
realistic though still tight timeline, and some states may need
additional flexibility depending upon when current contracts with test
vendors are set to end.
For states that do create systems of standards and assessments
aligned with the academic demands of postsecondary education and work,
the resulting standards and assessments will be more rigorous than what
is currently in place. This has almost uniformly been the case in the
ADP Network states. As a result, states and schools that are now barely
on track to meet the current AYP requirement of 100% proficient by 2014
will face a higher bar to meet, and a looming deadline to do so. To
ensure that states take on the important work of setting rigorous, real
world standards for all students, this legislation should recognize the
simple fact that reaching higher standards will take more time, and
allow for it.
The Education Trust has developed a proposal that would give states
that can demonstrate, and validate, that they have developed standards
for postsecondary and workplace readiness the ability to set a new 12-
year timeline and adjust proficiency targets such that 80% of high
school students would need to demonstrate proficiency at a level that
indicates preparation to enter and succeed in credit-bearing courses in
four-year colleges and universities, and 95% of students demonstrate
basic achievement pegged to entry into postsecondary education, service
in the military, and access to formal employment-related training.
Meeting these targets would require substantial improvement over
current performance levels. I believe that an incentive of this type is
both appropriate and necessary to spur needed action in all 50 states,
and strongly encourage the Committee to adopt it.
State Performance Assessment Pilot
The pilot program established in Title VI, providing funds for up
to ten states or consortia of states to develop statewide performance
assessments is an important step to improving the quality of state
assessment systems, and enabling states to better measure knowledge and
skills that are valued by both employers and postsecondary faculty.
This program can help state create assessment systems that are better
geared for the global economy students will face, and for well informed
civic participation. For example, good performance assessments can
measure such communication skills as writing, making oral presentations
and using technology, which are difficult if not impossible to measure
on large-scale on demands tests currently used to meet NCLB
requirements. Good performance assessments can also measure how well
students are able to apply the knowledge and skills they have learned
in the classroom in real world situations, and help promote instruction
aimed at the application as well as acquisition of academic skills.
Performance assessments are also particularly important to ensure that
students gain a deep understanding of scientific inquiry in addition to
the scientific content they are taught. Some states are gaining
experience in the use of performance assessments, but the support
provided through the proposed pilot program can help more states do so.
This pilot program is well designed. The requirements that states
develop assessments that are aligned to state standards and that the
same measures that can be used for all students are extremely
important. These provisions are necessary to ensure that all students
in the state are held to the same standard, and that the state
accountability system is based on the appropriate measures. The
clarification that state test used for AYP can be administered
throughout the year is also very important. It means that states will
not need to include all constructed response items and performance
tasks in the end-of-year testing window. Instead states can consider
moving the multiple choice portion of their tests closer to the end of
the year, and spread other tasks out over the course of the year.
States should take advantage of this opportunity to test the
feasibility of having richer assessments without delaying the reporting
of the results.
I strongly encourage the Committee to retain this provision without
change, and to work to ensure it is included in the final bill and
funded appropriately.
Pilot Program for Locally Developed Assessments
In contrast to the state pilot program addressed above, I don't
believe that this pilot program is a good idea. I am aware that some
other countries, including high performing countries, rely on local
assessments in ways that we do not. Most high performing countries--
with national, state or local assessments--operate education systems in
a far more coherent policy environment than we do in the U.S., and take
different approaches to accountability, professional development for
teachers and principals, and other key features of the education system
than we do. Consequently, I believe the weight of the evidence of what
is likely to happen in the U.S. if this provision is enacted is
decidedly more negative than positive, for several reasons.
Since Congress enacted the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act, a
fundamental principle of education reform nationally has been the idea
that all students and schools in each state should be held to the same
standards, as measured by the same test. This has helped make the
standards-based reform movement an important tool for improving
education equity, and for ensuring that expectations are not watered
down for students in high poverty districts. This proposal for local
assessments would signal a retreat from that principle, and once
enacted would be difficult to reverse.
It will be difficult if not impossible for states to assure that
different local assessments are each well aligned with state standards,
and permit the appropriate comparisons among schools and districts for
AYP purposes. To really meet this standard, it would not be enough for
different tests to be statistically ``equated'' in some manner. Nor
would it be sufficient to ensure that local development procedures
complied with state and federal requirements. It would be necessary to
determine, for each item and/or performance task, the content that was
being measured, the cognitive process that was being called form and
the level of challenge for each item, and to determine overall how well
the collection of local items in each test aligned with state
standards. This is not a procedure that states currently use. Achieve
has developed and utilized this approach for two recent studies, of
high school graduation tests and of widely used college admissions and
placement tests. The methodology is strong enough as a research tool to
enable us to draw some basic comparisons across different tests. It is
not strong enough to ensure the level of consistency in both the
content being measured and the cut scores being used to define
``proficient'' that is required for different tests used for
determining if schools make Adequate Yearly Progress.
Consequently, the use of different local assessments will
inherently paint a confusing picture of student and school performance
when test results and AYP determinations are made public. The current
provisions for defining AYP are already complicated enough for many.
The proposed step may well undermine the very notion of ``proficient'',
which is at the core of NCLB. One need only think of the confusion
generated when state test results are compared with NAEP results,
demonstrating wildly different pictures of the level of proficiency in
each state.
Finally, there is growing state interest in developing common
assessments across states, on a voluntary basis. Nine states have
recently joined together to develop a common end of course exam in
Algebra II, and additional states will soon participate as well. This
common test is enabling the states to have an exam that is more
rigorous, higher quality and less costly than if each did that on its
own. Given persistent concerns about the cost of testing, this local
assessment provision moves in precisely the opposite direction. It will
lead to tests that on average are less rigorous, more costly, and that
provide no meaningful comparative information.
My strong recommendation is to drop this provision from the bill.
If the Committee decides to keep it, I recommend that it be applied to
only a handful of states, and that the Secretary not be give the
authority to expand it beyond the pilot phase in this reauthorization.
System of Multiple Indicators
Multiple indicators of academic performance allows for a more
complete and revealing picture of each school's strengths and weakness.
Accountability assessments in additional subjects are a particularly
good idea, as they can combat the trend toward narrowing the curriculum
that rightly concerns many educators, parents and policymakers.
The Committee is to be commended for taking up this approach.
However, I believe the approach in this bill needs to be strengthened
considerably, in order to produce the desired results. Because the
provision enables schools to partially compensate for poor performance
on some subjects or for some subgroups with performance on other
subject matter tests or indicators. I believe it will paint a confusing
picture to educators and the public, and set up incentives for states
and schools alike to figure out ways to game the system in order to
reduce the number of schools that fail to make AYP.
Using performance on tests in subjects beyond math and reading in
an additive rather than a compensatory manner is a better idea. It
underscores the important of teaching all students a broad rigorous
curriculum, and doing this well. It provides a more transparent and
easily understood picture of how well a school is doing.
Of course, taking an additive approach with the current AYP
requirements will undoubtedly result in a larger number of schools
failing to make AYP, now or in the near future. But the state's
objective and each school's objective, should be to teach all students
what they need to know, not to figure out accounting gimmicks in order
to manage the number of schools identified.
To resolve this dilemma in a straightforward manner, states that
chose to add additional tests in additional subjects should be required
to do so in an additive manner, but for the law to recognize that
setting a more rigorous bar in more subjects will likely take many
schools longer to reach 100% proficient than if they continue to focus
so heavily on reading and math. Therefore, I recommend that states that
take this approach be given additional time to reach the proficiency
target, as I recommended above.
Disaggregation of Results
I would like to commend the Committee for retaining the
requirements for disaggregating required accountability indicators.
This has been one of the most significant features of NCLB, and should
be retained. The proposed provision that tightens up the use of
confidence intervals when disaggregating data is also important, and
should be retained as is.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most of the provisions I have addressed here will,
or have the potential to, strengthen state systems of standards and
assessments, and can better help schools focus on the skills students
need to be prepared for what they will face after high school.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer my views on these
issues. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Bray.
STATEMENT OF JANET B. BRAY, CAE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION FOR CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Ms. Bray. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon
and members of the committee. On behalf of the over 300,000
career and technical education professionals in this country, I
thank you for the invitation to testify.
I think we bring a unique perspective to the education of
our students in the P-through-16 system. We realize you have
put much time and thought into the proposed bill, and we look
forward to working with the committee as it moves forward with
this.
We view NCLB as a very important law relating to ensuring
the U.S. Future economic competitiveness, as well as a vehicle
that ensures students are able to meet their own personal
education and workforce goals.
CTE is a major enterprise within the secondary and
postsecondary education system. More than 95 percent of all
high school students take at least one CTE course, and over a
third take at least three sequences of courses in career and
technical education before they graduate. In addition, CTE is
offered within most of the Nation's 16,000 typical
comprehensive high schools, and there are approximately 1,000
CTE centers that offer more in-depth CTE programs that prepare
students for further education and, in some cases, direct entry
into the workforce.
Given the magnitude of the CTE enterprise, it is vital that
career and technical education educators and leaders be active
participants in discussions about how to improve schools for
the needs of the 21st century and, certainly, discussion
regarding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Since our time is limited today and the turnaround time for
comment was somewhat short, I am going to focus my comments on
a limited number of issues related to high school reform and
workforce readiness. However, ACTE has been thinking about
reauthorization for some time and has produced a set of
recommendations which we did attach to our written comments and
submitted to the committee, as well as our position paper on
high school reform in general, called Reinventing the American
High School. Those have been added to the written testimony.
First, I would like to talk about the Graduation Promise
Fund. ACT clearly advocates for focusing American high schools
on the goal of preparing every student for full participation
in the spectrum of college opportunities, meaningful work,
career advancement and active citizenship. We call upon leaders
in education to make needed changes in school culture,
instructional strategies and organizational priorities that
support this purpose.
As my colleague, Mr. Cohen, just said, and others have
said, high school is not an end, it is a beginning; and we need
to make sure we are preparing students for their next steps for
lifelong learning, whatever their next steps are. And every
student will be different.
We are very pleased that your bill includes the new
Graduation Promise Fund for high schools with the lowest
graduation rates to support school-wide improvement activities.
Far too long, secondary schools have been left behind, and we
believe this is one of the contributing reasons we see U.S.
student performance stagnate and fall as learners get closer to
graduation. As a nation, we have not focused the time and
attention necessary related to the issue of quality secondary
schools.
While we have included a set of nine recommendations that
we believe are critical to improving the system, these
recommendations recognize that teaching and learning in the
United States must change if we are to have a skilled workforce
required to meet the challenges of the 21st century. An
important facet of this change includes a focus on the
technical and soft skills that students need in addition to the
basic academic knowledge that is required in the workforce.
I want to emphasize this point. A recent report by ACTE
entitled, Ready for College and Ready for Work, provides
empirical evidence that the levels of readiness that high
school graduates need to be prepared for college and workforce
training programs are comparable. Furthermore, the report shows
that both academic and technical skills can be required through
rigorous high school courses regardless of the context within
which they are taught.
We are sometimes worried that we are focusing only on
academic rigor without giving equal consideration to the
context and delivery of this knowledge or the skills that
students will need in the 21st century. Career and technical
education is directly connected to the needs of this industry,
and many of these programs are leading the way on how to
incorporate academic and technical skills into secondary
programs, which leads me to the comments on postsecondary and
workforce readiness.
We commend the committee for including a new section in the
legislation focused on postsecondary and workforce readiness.
Its language provides funding incentives to States and
localities to ensure vertical alignment from grade to grade and
with what students need to know in order to be successful in
postsecondary education in the workplace. We believe the
addition of this language begins to address our call to require
States to develop content standards, assessments and teacher
quality standards that are aligned with postsecondary and
industry standards.
We believe this new section is affirmation that alignment
in secondary, postsecondary and workforce standards is critical
to ensure a competitive workforce. It only makes sense that
schools and industry improve communication so that education is
a continuum and a seamless pipeline for entering the workforce.
We are hopeful the States will take advantage of this proposed
new source of funding, and ACT is prepared to help States to
incorporate this. If schools are not providing students with
the skills needed to enter the workforce, then we as an
education system have failed.
We hope the committee will consider additional language
that encourages academic and technical skill integration.
Incentives should be provided in the bill for research and
dissemination of best practices related to this issue. Such
integration provides relevance of core academics for many
students who are at risk of dropping out because they have
become disengaged. Students at schools with highly rigorous
academic and CTE programs have significantly higher student
achievement in reading, mathematics and science than students
at schools with less integrated programs.
The 2004 National Assessment of Vocational Education report
found that occupational concentrators increase their 12th grade
test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Programs,
the NAEP program, by 8 scale points in reading and 11 points in
math, while students who took little or no career and technical
educational coursework increased their reading by only 4
percent.
Chairman Miller. I am going to ask you if you can wrap up,
please. Thank you.
Ms. Bray. We do want to very carefully and strongly say
that surveys have indicated that students need the important
employability skills--oral and written communication, work
ethic, critical thinking, problem solving. These skills are
very important to employers and need to be combined with the
academic skills.
Our recommendation calls for a definition of graduation
responding to the graduation rates by subject and skill
competency rather than by seat time. We recommend that
graduation on skills competency link to the workforce needs and
postsecondary standards on time frame a standard number of
years. We also encourage you to look at 5 years flexibility,
for 5 years versus just 4 years, as many students do take 5.
We believe the committee has moved in the right direction
with the development of the NCLB draft bill. I urge you and
other members of the committee to take the time necessary to
fully explore the effects of the new proposals in legislation
and put into place a new law that builds upon and improves the
2001 legislation.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Bray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet B. Bray, CAE, Executive Director,
Association for Career and Technical Education
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and Members of the
Committee: On behalf of career and technical education professionals in
the United States, thank you for the invitation to present testimony
today. CTE is a major enterprise within the United States' P-16
education system. More than 95 percent of high school students take at
least one CTE course during their high school career, and about one
third of high school students take a concentration of three or more
related CTE courses before they graduate.
In addition to CTE courses offered within most of the nation's more
than 16,000 typical high schools, there are approximately 1,000
regional CTE centers that offer more intensive CTE programs preparing
students for further education, and in some cases for direct entry into
the workforce. A large number of high school reform strategies and new
small schools employ interest-based programs, including CTE, as a way
to increase motivation and student engagement. Further about one third
of all students in postsecondary education are considered to be in
postsecondary career and technical education programs.
Given the magnitude of the CTE enterprise in secondary and
postsecondary education, it is vital that CTE educators and leaders be
active participants in discussions about how to improve schools for the
needs of the 21st century, and the discussion about No Child Left
Behind. We realize you have put much time and thought into the proposed
bill and look forward to working with the Committee as NCLB is
reauthorized. We view NCLB as a very important law related to ensuring
the United States' future economic competitiveness, as well as the
vehicle that ensures students are able to meet their own personal
education and workforce goals.
Since our time is limited today and the turnaround time for comment
has been short, I am focusing my comments on a limited number of issues
related to high school reform and workforce readiness. However, ACTE
has been thinking about the reauthorization for some time and has
produced several sets of recommendations that inform this discussion. I
am attaching the full set of our NCLB recommendations and the Executive
Summary of our high school reform position paper as addendums to my
testimony.
Graduation Promise Fund
ACTE advocates for clearly focusing American high schools on the
goal of preparing every student for full participation in a spectrum of
college opportunities, meaningful work, career advancement, and active
citizenship. We call upon leaders to make needed changes in school
culture, instructional strategies and organizational priorities that
will support this new purpose
We are very pleased that your bill includes a new Graduation
Promise Fund for high schools with the lowest graduation rates to
support school-wide improvement activities. For far too long NCLB has
provided support primarily to elementary schools. Secondary schools
have been ``left behind'' and I believe that is one of the contributing
reasons we see U.S. student performance stagnate and fall as these
learners get closer to graduation. As a nation, we have not focused the
time and attention necessary related to this issue of quality secondary
schools.
ACTE's high school reform position paper entitled ``Reinventing the
American High School for the 21st Century'' includes a set of nine
recommendations that we believe are critical to improving the system.
The recommendations recognize that teaching and learning in the United
States must change if we are to have the skilled workforce required to
meet the challenges of the 21st Century. An important facet of this
change includes a focus on the technical and ``soft'' skills that
students need in addition to the basic academic knowledge that is
required in the workforce.
I want to emphasize this point. A recent report issued by ACT
entitled ``Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different''
provides empirical evidence that the levels of readiness that high
school graduates need to be prepared for college and for workforce
training programs are comparable. Further, the report shows that both
academic and technical skills can be acquired through rigorous high
school courses, regardless of the context (academic or career focused)
within which they are taught.
Indeed Mr. Chairman, I sometimes worry that we are focusing only on
academic rigor without giving equal consideration to the context and
delivery of this knowledge or the workforce skills that students will
need in the 21st Century. Career and technical education is directly
connected to the needs of business and industry. And many of these
programs are leading the way on how to incorporate both academic and
technical skills into secondary programs.
Postsecondary and Workplace Readiness
In addition to the Graduation Promise Fund, ACTE commends you for
including a new section in the legislation (Section 1111A) focused on
Postsecondary and Workplace Readiness. This language provides funding
incentives to states and localities to ensure vertical alignment from
grade to grade and with what students should know in order to be
successful in postsecondary education and the workplace.
ACTE believes the addition of this language begins to address our
call to ``require states to develop content standards, assessments, and
teacher quality standards that are aligned with postsecondary and
industry standards,'' a recommendation included in another of our
position papers, ``Expanding Opportunities: Postsecondary Career and
Technical Education and Preparing Tomorrow's Workforce.'' We believe
this new section is affirmation that alignment of secondary,
postsecondary, and workforce standards is critical to ensure a
competitive workforce. It only makes sense that schools and industry
improve communication so that education is a continuum and a seamless
pipeline for entering the workforce. We are hopeful that states will
take advantage of this new source of funding and ACTE stands prepared
to help support states as they incorporate this important provision of
the law. If schools are not providing students with the skills needed
to enter the workforce, we have failed.
Academic and Skills Integration
While the Graduation Promise Fund and Postsecondary and Workplace
Readiness additions are a good start, I hope the Committee will
consider additional language that encourages academic and technical
skills integration. Incentives should be provided in the bill for
research and dissemination of best practices related to this issue.
Such integration provides relevance of core academics for many students
who are at risk of dropping out because they have become disengaged.
Students at schools with highly integrated rigorous academic and
CTE programs have significantly higher student achievement in reading,
mathematics and science than do students at schools with less
integrated programs, as reported by the Southern Regional Education
Board. The 2004 National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE)
Final Report found that occupational concentrators increased their 12th
grade test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Programs
(NAEP) by 8 scale points in reading and 11 point in math, while student
who took little or no career and technical education course work
increased their reading on NAEP by only 4 points and showed no
improvement in mat achievement.
Multiple Indicators
I commend the Committee for tackling the difficult issue of
multiple indicators. I realize there is a lot of concern about how to
incorporate multiple measures into the current NCLB accountability
provisions. ACTE believes that multiple assessments offer a better
picture of student achievement than a single assessment. Although this
is a difficult task, the new NCLB must identify ways to incorporate
these multiple measures of student progress.
ACTE strongly believes that multiple measures should allow the use
of CTE credentials and measurements. In addition, our recommendations
ask that NCLB give schools credit, and incorporate into accountability,
the learning that takes place in work-based and other contextual types
of education that is gained outside of the traditional classroom. NCLB
is setting the parameters for what is important for students to learn
and clearly, skills in addition to core academics are just as
important. Explicit language allowing states to use such credentials
and measurements is important and would improve the bill.
A survey performed in the spring of 2006 by the Conference Board,
Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century
Skills and the Society for Human Resource Management indicates that too
many of our students are not prepared for the workplace. The survey
indicates that over one-half of new workers are deficiently prepared in
the most important skills: Oral and Written Communications,
Professionalism/Work Ethic, and Critical Thinking/Problem Solving. In
fact, this report indicates that these skills are more important to
employers than basic levels of knowledge. I want to be clear to note
that the report is not saying that basic core academic skills are not
important, but that these ``soft skills'' are more important for
employers.
The report notes that this ill-preparedness comes at a particularly
inopportune time for Americans, a time when baby-boomers like you and
I, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, are retiring and leaving
the workforce. If we do not consider student performance with relation
to technical skills and the ``soft skills'' that students need in order
to perform in the workplace, we are falling short.
Graduation Rates
ACTE acknowledges the need for consistent definitions related to
graduation and completion. Although we would rather see state
development of a common definition of graduation we recognize the
difficulty of this endeavor. We also would ask that the new NCLB not
make it a disincentive for schools to reenter students who have dropped
out of school. CTE's focus on applied learning reengages many high
school dropouts who come back into the system--I call them ``drop in''
students. The law should support schools that do this important work.
Our recommendations call for a definition of graduation by subject
and skills competency rather than by ``seat time.'' ACTE recommends
basing graduation on skills competency that is linked to workforce
needs and postsecondary standards rather than on timeframe of
``standard number of years'' as currently defined in NCLB.
Many CTE programs are leading the way with regard to concurrent
enrollment and middle college programs but the rigidity of NCLB with
regard to the strict timeline by which students much graduate threatens
to hinder such innovative initiatives. For instance, some students do
not receive their high school diploma until after their fifth year of
study; however, these students are taking five years to graduate
because they also are earning an associate degree during that same
time. This is but one example of why we should measure competency
rather than ``seat time.''
While we appreciate the inclusion of the option for a 5 year
graduate rate in the draft legislation, we are concerned about the
complexity related to these provisions and hope that does not deter
schools from implementing the option.
Guidance and Career Development
Lastly but certainly not least, I strongly urge you to review what
the draft bill includes in terms of guidance and career development.
Links to career exploration help to provide relevancy and understanding
about why core academic knowledge is so important for students' future
postsecondary and workforce aspirations. A cursory review of the draft
legislation indicates more needs to be included in this area. I could
only find one reference in the bill to ``career counseling.''
The most recent iteration of the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act (Perkins) includes a strong link to career
development through the new requirement that states must includes at
least one ``program of study.'' These ``programs of study'' are very
similar to and build on, positive initiatives already underway in CTE
programs around the county such as Tech Prep, career pathways, career
academies, and career clusters. The Perkins language will be of great
benefit to CTE students, but similar language should be considered for
NCLB for the benefit of all students.
ACTE has strongly supported the development of individual
graduation plans for all students. These plans map a defined program of
student on how to reach academic and career goals and are an important
component of providing individualized instruction tailored to the
unique academic needs of each student.
In closing, I would like to again thank the Committee for including
the career and technical educator's voice as part of the NCLB
discussion. ACTE believes there are distinct purposes and reasons to
have both NCLB and Perkins as two separate and distinct laws, but there
is much more that can be done to align the two pieces of legislation to
ensure that both academic and technical skills attainment is provided
to all students.
The Committee has ``moved in the right direction'' with the
development of the NCLB draft bill. I urge you and the other members on
the Committee to take the time necessary to fully explore the effect
the new proposals in the legislation and to put into place a new law
that builds upon and improves the 2001 legislation.
I am happy to answer any questions.
The Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) is the
nation's largest education association dedicated to the advancement of
education that prepares youth and adults for successful careers. For
more information, contact: Steve DeWitt ([email protected]) or
Alisha Hyslop ([email protected]), ACTE, 1410 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 683-3111, (703) 683-7424 (Fax),
www.acteonline.org.
Addendum 1
Recommendations for the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind
Career and technical education (CTE) is a major and long-standing
enterprise within the United States' education system that has evolved
to meet 21st century needs. More than 95 percent of students take at
least one CTE course during high school, and the strengths and
resources of CTE play an important role in improving outcomes for all
students. Building on these strengths and resources, the Association
for Career and Technical Education presents the following
recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind
Act. We urge Congress to incorporate these principles into the
reauthorized legislation in order to support enhanced student
achievement. While not specifically addressed in the recommendations,
it is important to note the relationship between adequate funding and
the law's promise. Successful NCLB implementation will be jeopardized
by merely redirecting funds from existing quality programs or under-
funding new initiatives. A true commitment to both improved policy and
adequate resources must be adopted if NCLB is to be successful.
Recommendation 1: Integrate Academic and Technical Education to Better
Engage and Prepare Students for Their Futures
Align NCLB to the Perkins Act through the use of programs
of study, and encourage schools to use CTE courses to support students
working to meet academic proficiency.
Give schools credit, and incorporate into accountability,
the learning that takes place in work-based and other contextual types
of education that is gained outside of the traditional classroom.
Require states to develop content standards, assessments,
and teacher quality standards that are aligned with postsecondary and
industry standards.
Provide schools incentives to integrate academic
coursework such as math, science and language arts, with CTE
coursework.
Provide funding for state- and professional organization-
led initiatives for gathering, organizing, and disseminating integrated
lesson plans and curriculum frameworks.
Recommendation 2: Support Comprehensive Guidance and Career Development
Strategies to Assist Students in Determining Clear Pathways to
Postsecondary and Workforce Goals
Recognize the importance and need for leadership and
policy to implement comprehensive guidance programs throughout the P-16
system.
Ensure adequate resources for career development and
planning across the education continuum.
Encourage schools to develop individual graduation plans
for each student that map a defined program of study on how to reach
academic and career goals.
Recommendation 3: Increase the Focus on Secondary School Completion
through Comprehensive Dropout Prevention and Reentry Strategies
Provide incentives and eliminate disincentives for schools
to register ``drop in'' students--students that are returning to
continue their education.
Develop a consistent definition of secondary school
``dropout.''
Support research and development for flexible re-entry and
completion programs, including those that employ career development and
CTE strategies.
Ensure federal flexibility for reporting ``extended-time''
graduation rates.
Require schools to disaggregate and report dropout and
graduation data.
Put additional emphasis on secondary school completion
rates within calculations for Adequate Yearly Progress.
Recommendation 4: Ensure that Highly Effective Educators are Supported,
and Available Across the Curriculum in All Schools
Require that federal professional development funding
support integrated academics and contextual teaching strategies for
academic teachers and CTE teachers.
Ensure that federal professional development funding
specifically focus on supporting administrators in their role as
educational leaders and creating an environment where rigor and
relevance spans across all course offerings.
Invest in research on curriculum structure and teaching
methodology.
Maintain flexibility in defining highly qualified
teachers, such as through the use of provisions like HOUSSE, to ensure
that schools are able to recruit and retain professionals from a
variety of backgrounds and through alternative pathways.
Recommendation 5: Improve Adequate Yearly Progress and Accountability
Provisions to More Accurately Reflect Student Learning Progress
Give schools credit for growth in student achievement,
even if AYP is not fully met.
Allow the use of multiple assessments to measure student
progress, including the use of CTE credentials and measurements.
Define graduation by subject and skills competency rather
than by ``seat time.''
Focus accountability more on incentives rather than
sanctions.
Recommendation 6: Provide Support and Incentives for Innovation,
Replication and Improvement
Promote dual and concurrent enrollment programs for
secondary-postsecondary CTE programs, which enable students to
accelerate learning while gaining technical skills.
Ensure dissemination of best practices so that all
schools, districts and states have access to successful strategies and
programs that can be replicated.
Support the development of robust, dynamic and integrated
data systems that provide a clear picture of each student's educational
progress.
Create incentive grants for states and state consortia to
focus on multi-pronged high school redesign strategies, and promote
close linkages at the state and local levels with CTE strategies.
Encourage better links between secondary and postsecondary
education such as improved alignment between high school assessments/
exit exams and college entrance exams.
Addendum 2
Executive Summary: Reinventing the American High School for the 21st
Century
The Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE), on
behalf of career and technical Education (CTE) professionals in the
United States, advocates for clearly focusing American high schools on
the goal of preparing EVERY student for full participation in a
spectrum of college opportunities, meaningful work, career advancement,
and active citizenship. We call upon leaders to make needed changes in
school culture, instructional strategies and organizational priorities
that will support this new purpose. CTE is a major enterprise within
the United States' P-16 education system. More than 95 percent of high
school students take at least one CTE course during their high school
career, and about one third of high school students take a
concentration of three or more related CTE courses before they
graduate. In addition to CTE courses offered within most of the
nation's more than 16,000 typical high schools, there are approximately
1,000 regional career technology centers that offer more targeted and
technology-intensive CTE programs preparing students, both young people
and adults, for further education, and in some cases, for direct entry
into the workforce. Further, a large number of high school reform
strategies and new small schools employ interest-based programs,
including CTE, as a way to increase student motivation and engagement.
Given the magnitude of the CTE enterprise, it is vital that CTE
educators and leaders participate in the important discussion about how
to redesign American high schools for the needs of the 21st century and
bring CTE's resources and areas of expertise to that discussion. In our
discussions about high school redesign, we suggest a number of
strengths and resources CTE can bring to the table for overall high
school improvement. To provide clarity for the role of CTE, we suggest
a three-fold purpose of career and technical education at the secondary
school level. CTE should:
Support students in the acquisition of rigorous core
knowledge, skills, habits and attitudes needed for success in
postsecondary education and the high-skilled workplace;
Engage students in specific career-related learning
experiences that equip them to make well-informed decisions about
further education and training and employment opportunities; and,
Prepare students who may choose to enter the workforce
directly after high school with levels of skill and knowledge in a
particular career area that will be valued in the marketplace. In light
of the current and future challenges facing our youth, the members of
ACTE believe a new working model for high school is long overdue. We
make the following recommendations to help guide the reinvention of the
American high school:
Recommendation 1: Establish a Clear System Goal of Career and College
Readiness for All Students
All students need a strong arsenal of reading, comprehension,
reasoning, problem-solving and personal skills to be ready for the
world of meaningful postsecondary education and training as well as
entry into the high-skilled workplace. Standards should be aligned to
the demands of career and college readiness, and all students should be
challenged to enroll in a rigorous college and career readiness
curriculum. Extra help, including structured transition services,
should be provided to support this curriculum, and opportunities for
additional advancement across broad areas should be provided.
Traditional academic and CTE teachers must share the goal of preparing
students for both further education and careers.
Recommendation 2: Create a Positive School Culture that Stresses
Personalization in Planning and Decision-making
At a minimum, every student should be led through a process of
academic and career awareness, exploration, and planning. This should
include learning about the economy and career options, self-assessment
for areas of interest; deeper exploration of how personal interests
relate to career opportunities and gaining education and career
decision-making skills; and knowledge and understanding of local,
state, and national educational, occupational, and labor market
opportunities, needs, and trends. Policies must be in place to ensure
that career development and postsecondary planning are core activities
within the high school as part of a comprehensive guidance program.
Each student, and his or her parents/guardians, should develop an
individualized plan for graduation and beyond that will guide the high
school experience.
Recommendation 3: Create a Positive School Culture that Stresses
Personalization in Relationships
Schools remain one of the best opportunities for connecting youth
and adults in positive ways, giving students the sense that they are
valued and cared for, and reinforcing the message that whether they
succeed or fail actually matters to someone. A system goal must be to
help every youth become involved in structured activity that
strengthens positive relationships with peers and adults and encourages
the student's sense of confidence and belonging in school. These
activities could include advisory periods, smaller learning
communities, co-curricular interest-based activities--such as career
and technical student organizations (CTSOs)--or other activities that
provide a positive adult relationship.
Recommendation 4: Dramatically Improve How and Where Academic Content
is Taught
Teachers and researchers must work together to identify strategies
that show promise for helping all students attain proficiency in high-
level courses. As each state refines and clarifies its standards for
career and college readiness, it should recognize that ``academic''
skills can be acquired in a variety of settings, not just the
traditional academic classroom. The achievement problem is not just one
of low-level course-taking; it is also related to unfocused curriculum
and instructional methods that are not reaching all students.
Integration of academic competencies into CTE curricula and of real-
world content and applied methods and examples into traditional
academic classes can raise student achievement levels and increase
understanding of rigorous concepts. Flexibility must be in place for
delivering academic content across the curriculum.
Recommendation 5: Create Incentives for Students to Pursue the Core
Curriculum in an Interest-based Context
From across the school reform spectrum, there is ample evidence
that connecting rigorous academic expectations with the relevance of an
interest-based curriculum can help connect students to learning in
powerful ways. Interest-based areas can be organized around various
broad themes, such as the fine arts, or more specific themes like
biotechnology, pre-engineering, hospitality, and finance. There must be
resources and policies in place to support the development,
implementation, and review of these interest-based areas.
Recommendation 6: Support High Quality Teaching in all Content Areas
The No Child Left Behind Act creates mechanisms for assuring that
every teacher in the academic core subjects is highly qualified,
meaning the teacher holds a bachelor's degree or higher, grasps content
at a deep level and can teach that content effectively. The crux of
these standards, deep knowledge of content and skills in effective
teaching methods, should apply to CTE teachers as well, including those
entering the teaching profession through traditional teacher education
programs and those transitioning into teaching from business and
industry through alternative certification programs. CTE teachers
should be able to demonstrate content mastery through a method
appropriate to their areas of expertise, utilizing industry-based
credentials or assessments aligned with career clusters where
available. An expanded focus must be placed on professional development
for all teachers in academic and technical integration and contextual
teaching strategies.
Recommendation 7: Offer Flexible Learning Opportunities to Encourage
Re-entry and Completion
True quality high school reform must include effective strategies
to re-engage and reconnect young people who have failed or are in
danger of failing to complete high school. These young people have been
failed by the current high school system. With a national graduation
rate of approximately 71 percent, millions of young people are out of
school and grossly ill-equipped to compete in the 21st century
workforce and economy. To reform high school without a strategy to re-
engage these young people who have already dropped out would be to
abandon them to, and accept the social costs associated with, bleak
futures marked by reduced earning potential, poverty, crime, drug
abuse, and early pregnancy. High schools must provide a continuum of
flexible interest-based learning opportunities that utilize effective
teaching methodologies and are responsive to students' varied needs and
life circumstances.
Recommendation 8: Create System Incentives and Supports for Connection
of CTE and High School Redesign Efforts
In many states and school districts, CTE leaders are providing the
major impetus and resources for rethinking the instructional and
organizational design of the traditional high school. However, in some
locales, superintendents, school leaders and school reform advocates
are reportedly overlooking the role of CTE in providing meaning,
relevance, and experience in deeply contextualized learning of subject
matter. This oversight will limit the effectiveness and impact of the
high school redesign agenda. Policymakers at the federal, state and
local levels should see academic and interest-based courses as
complementary of one another, and create initiatives that support rich,
interest-based programs to be built around a core of rigorous academic
expectations.
Recommendation 9: Move Beyond ``Seat-Time'' and Narrowly Defined
Knowledge and Skills
U.S. high schools operate on a well-established set of expectations
for size, time of day and seasons of the year that programs and classes
are offered, how instructional material is delivered and what
constitutes success in terms of the students' knowledge and skills. In
order for our education system to adopt the new goal of getting every
student ready for careers and college, we suggest a shift in focus to
the underlying principles for what students learn and how we teach it,
including what knowledge and skills are measured, how students are
asked to demonstrate their knowledge and skills and how school is
offered for all young people, particularly for the many students who
are currently disengaged and leaving, or have already left, the
traditional high school. Clearly, we believe that CTE courses and
instructional methodologies have a place in the high school
environment, and that there should not be an artificial split between
academic coursework and vocational studies, nor should exposure to CTE-
type coursework be delayed until late in high school or college.
Rather, we believe that all coursework, with clearly articulated
standards and expectations, can help build within students the mix of
skills, aptitudes and attitudes they will need for success after high
school. Designing American high schools around the needs of students in
the present and the future requires honesty, courage, and a willingness
to change familiar structures and practices in the best interests of
our young people. Real change, made for the right reasons and toward
the right mission, will yield dramatically better results and a more
hopeful future for America's young people and for our national economic
and cultural well-being.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Gong.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN GONG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Mr. Gong. Members of the committee, I am glad to be here
and offer these comments on the discussion draft.
For the past 20 years, I have been working on assessment
and accountability, primarily at the State level, to help
foster student achievement and school capacity. I know
firsthand the positive influence that good assessment and sound
accountability systems can have to promote equitable school
learning and deep school improvement. I also know the
difficulties of doing it right.
I am grateful to be in this setting because States usually
do this with their State accountability systems, but they do it
much more frequently than every 5 years, and thereis a much
tighter conversation about how to evaluate the legislation
implementation and capacity.
Because I work primarily on the technical side, I had
several comments on the technical aspects of the current
legislation and the discussion draft. I was a member of the
ESEA expert panel; I think you all have received this report.
These have some of the larger points; I will mention three
specific examples of how technical things make a difference.
People mentioned about whether the standards were rigorous
enough. In 2004-2005, over half of the States had already
identified at least one out of five of their schools as not
meeting AYP; seven States had identified over half of their
schools. That number will be higher this year, and it will go
up next year when the AMOs go up.
Others have shown that the rigor of State standards are not
related to their NAEP performance.It is simply not true that
States that are low performing on NAEP set their standards low,
so we need to look at empirically what the relationship is
between the rigorous State standards and what we can do about
it.
Here is a second point. The ``minimum-n'' subgroup sizes
and the confidence intervals are important safeguards to make
reliable accountability decisions. Our studies show that a 95
percent confidence interval for the overall decision, rather
than for each subgroup content area, as proposed in the
discussion draft, would help avoid misclassifying as many as 20
percent of the schools; that is, this classification rate is
high now and people are worrying about what to do about it.
There is technical advice that can help you pick the right one
if you are concerned about accuracy in schools.
The third example is, I think it is clear to be more valid
school accountability should be broadened to include student
growth. Unfortunately, our studies and others show that the way
that growth has been defined by the U.S. Department of
Education in its growth model pilot actually hardly differs at
all from percent proficient. In the first, year, two States had
about 2,200 schools. The growth assessment only made a
difference in 8 of those schools. We will see how many it makes
this year. We are in favor of growth; it is really important
how it is measured.
What I would like to spend the rest of my time on is
supporting the draft's vision of investing in future
assessment; particularly I strongly support provisions in the
discussion draft that include support for a wider and more
valid set of assessments including the performance and local
assessment pilots. This is not about going soft on
accountability; this about creating a census to develop
assessments that more validly reflect what the next
generation--not this one, the next generation--what America's
students truly need to know and be able to do.
The first is that, as people mentioned, this legislation
will help us attend a very important skill simply not possible
to assess well in current traditional assessments. The time
that we have for assessments--people are running about an hour
to 2 hours; it is 50 questions, often multiple questions with
two or three short-answer questions. The logistics simply will
not allow us to assess the things that are most important,
particularly for college and work readiness.
Interestingly, Massachusetts, among other States, looked at
what was going on with their dropouts, and they found out that
a significant proportion of the students who dropped out had
already passed Massachusetts's rigorous exit exam. The students
weren't lacking in the basic skills, there were a number of
other things; and that is true for college success. So we need
to have assessments that will look at the most important
things.
The second is that this draft, discussion draft, provides
an investment in the future infrastructure of assessment. For
example, currently, our children play computer games that
already immerse them in realistic role-playing situations,
distributed group competitive strategies and that support voice
and motion recognition. I can't imagine that in 20 years
computers won't be more advanced, but I can imagine that unless
we make this type of investment, educational testing in 20
years will be exactly the way it is now. You may have some
computer adaptive assessments, but it won't be testing anything
more important. This bill is an important step in the right
way. This is not about watering down accountability; this is
about laying the foundation for more valid assessments.
I believe that universities' research centers and private
sector together can help bring this about, but it needs the
Federal sponsorship as a catalyst to provide the focus. People
have been interested in this type of assessment for many years.
It has never become practical; it would have a better chance if
we had the type of pilot programs that are sponsored here. It
is a good time for midlevel course corrections and for
investing in college-ready performance and local assessments.
A valid accountability requires valid assessments. I urge
Congress to support the suggestions made for reauthorization
today. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Gong, Executive Director, the National
Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment
Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, members of the Committee, I am
Brian Gong, Executive Director of the National Center for the
Improvement of Educational Assessment. I appreciate the opportunity to
offer my comments and encouragement to substantially improve No Child
Left Behind assessment and accountability provisions in the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
For the past 20 years--long before No Child Left Behind--I have
worked on improving assessment and accountability systems to help
foster student achievement and school capacity. I know firsthand the
positive influence that good assessment and sound accountability
systems can have to promote equitable student learning and deep school
improvement. I also know the difficulties of doing it right. As a
research scientist at Educational Testing Service in the 1980's I
worked on developing innovative instructional assessments that would
support classroom learning and teaching. In the mid-1990's I served as
the Associate Commissioner of Curriculum, Assessment, and
Accountability in the Kentucky Department of Education. (Kentucky, one
of the first and longest-tenured state accountability systems, is
notable for tackling the technical challenges of scoring, reliability,
and large-scale administration of performance-based, non-multiple
choice assessments. Kentucky still uses a writing portfolio in its
accountability system.) Our non-profit Center for Assessment is
currently working with 20 states across the nation to provide technical
assistance in one form or another to support assessment and
accountability systems that are educationally and technically sound.
The Center for Assessment is also regularly called upon to provide
technical assistance in these areas, by groups including the U.S.
Department of Education, the Council of Chief State School Officers,
and the National Center on Education Outcomes. I recently served on the
Expert Panel on Assessment convened by the Forum on Educational
Accountability; the final report, Assessment and Accountability for
Improving Schools and Learning (2007) is available here today and
addresses in more depth many issues relevant to reauthorization. The
Center for Assessment is also working on areas outside of NCLB,
including formative assessment and college readiness with some states
and organizations including Achieve and the Gates Foundation.
My comments fall in two main areas:
I applaud the recognition for some mid-course corrections
to ESEA. Several of the provisions of the discussion draft respond to
concerns, but need some tuning in the legislative solutions.
I strongly support provisions in the discussion draft that
move from fixing ``what is'' to pointing us where we need to go in the
future of assessment and accountability.
Some Mid-Course Corrections
I comment on several areas in the discussion draft that
courageously acknowledge some problems in the 2001 legislation and
undertake making mid-course corrections.
1. To be more valid, school accountability should be broadened to
include student growth. Everyone is concerned about whether schools
helped students learn during the year, not just how high they scored.
Unfortunately, our recent studies show that the way that growth has
been defined by the U.S. Department of Education in its Growth Model
Pilot program actually hardly differs from Status (percent proficient).
Reauthorization should include a true pilot of how growth could
effectively be measured and used for accountability.
2. It absolutely makes sense to distinguish between a school that
fails to meet a few of the hurdles from a school that fails to meet
many. But, there are many cases where performance of one or two
subgroups are not only very important but can be measured very
reliably. Reauthorization should consider ways to make meaningful,
reliable distinctions besides just counting the numbers of students and
subgroups and making a decision each year.
3. ``Minimum-n'' subgroup sizes and especially confidence intervals
are important safeguards to support making reliable accountability
decisions. Setting common thresholds across states makes sense from a
technical standpoint. Hopefully the final reauthorization version will
alter slightly the thresholds. Our studies show that a 95% confidence
interval for the overall decision--rather than for each subgroup/
content area decision--would help avoid as many as 20% of the schools
being misidentified.
4. In my opinion, the aspirational goal of 100% of the students
proficient by 2013-14 is not a credible goal. It is possible to define
goals that will be challenging, rigorous, equitable, and possible. In
2004-05 over half of the states had already identified at least 20% of
their schools as not meeting AYP; seven states had identified over half
of their schools. Even more will be identified next year when the AMO
targets are increased. The reauthorization must address this
fundamental issue.
5. Working with states on accountability issues over the past 15
years, I have become more convinced that strong accountability systems
are important, and can be helpful, but are not enough. In fact, many
schools do not know what to do to improve, and many face serious
structural barriers, such as hiring and retaining strong teachers who
are effective with the students in the school. The reauthorization and
any school improvement plan must have a better theory of action than
saying ``Clear goals and strong sanctions will motivate schools and
districts to solve this problem.'' I simply do not believe that is
true; it is not a helpful characterization of the problem or the
solution to improving American education. The discussion drafts
attention to improved professional development, coupled with an
improved accountability system is a step in the right direction, but
needs to go much further in terms of strong models of support.
6. We need to work to include accountability special populations in
meaningful ways. However, our current attempts at assessment of
students with disabilities and students with limited English
proficiency reflect more noble policy aspirations than sound
measurement. Reauthorization should take a more realistic look at what
is scientifically known about good assessment and learning, and inform
the accountability requirements accordingly.
7. Much of the complaints from the states reflect not so much the
statute, but the process of interacting with the U.S. Department of
Education. Reauthorization would do well to attend to how the process
of interpreting, enforcing, and supporting the implementation of the
law is done, not only by the states, but also by the federal Executive
Branch.
8. I think that content standards, assessments, and accountability
must be yoked together with equally strong curriculum and instruction
in order to have effective learning and teaching. I do not believe that
movement towards federal or national standards can be effective without
equal attention to curriculum. Reauthorization must pay attention to
the debate of the proper role of the federal government in establishing
supra-state standards.
Support for Draft's Vision of Investing in Future Assessment
I strongly support provisions in the discussion draft that include
support for a wider and more valid set of assessments, including
performance assessments. This is not about going soft on
accountability. This is about creating incentives to develop
assessments that validly reflect what the next generations of American
students truly need to know and be able to do. The proposed legislation
is a good step in that direction.
Some people may portray this as a backdoor attempt to water down
accountability or to undermine rigorous standards. I don't read the
discussion draft that way, and I wouldn't support it if I thought it
did. I read the draft as providing incentives to try to develop more
advanced assessments, including performance-based assessments; it
provides a clear mandate that such assessments are not to be used for
accountability unless and until they meet rigorous criteria
administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It's my professional
opinion that there is a pressing need for these more valid assessments
for accountability, and that it will be possible to include local and
performance assessments for accountability in ways that reliable,
valid, and credible.
I support the discussion draft's attention to three longer-term
needs in assessment.
1. It helps us attend to some very important skills that are simply
not possible to assess well in current traditional assessments,
particularly several aspects associated with college and work
readiness.
Problems of college readiness will not be solved largely by having
a more stringent graduation standard, a longer end-of-course exam in
Algebra, or federal performance standards for what it means to be
proficient. Certainly we need to ensure that high school students have
the academic knowledge these things represent. But success in college
and success in life requires a whole set of additional skills than are
currently being assessed. These skills have been called ``habits of
mind'' by some. That's a fancy title, but the skills are familiar--
extended problem solving, ability to do research, write clearly,
monitor one's own performance to be sure it is appropriately accurate
and precise. In addition, we've heard for decades that employers care
more about what graduates can do than what they know, and even more
about how they actually perform in real world settings, not the
artificial confines of a standardized test. That's why employers and
colleges are both interested in performance assessment and
documentation of such things as ability to communicate well orally,
ability to work well in a small group, honesty, self-discipline,
responsibility for getting the work done.
I believe that we all would agree that such things are important
and that such things are not being assessed at all in our current
assessments. I believe that we can do much more to assess such vital
college readiness skills, and do it in a way that is valid, reliable,
affordable, credible, and useful. The alternative is to do nothing. And
then, even if the grand goal of NCLB is reached in 2013-14, we'll find
that we have students who can spit back answers on a multiple-choice
test, with perhaps a few short answers, and even perhaps solve some
pretty hard Algebra items about polynomial functions--but they may not
be any better prepared to succeed in college, work, or life. The
discussion draft represents an attempt to seize this opportunity to
invest even a modest amount in assessing those essential learning
skills that really matters, which we're not doing now.
2. It provides an investment in the future infrastructure of
assessment, such as complex performance assessments, the use of
technology, and advanced psychometric models that incorporate what is
known about how people learn.
It is true that there are current technical and operational
challenges to using performance assessments at large-scale for high
stakes purposes. The road for implementing complex assessments in K-12
education has been rocky. That is exactly why the field and the nation
need the investment outlined in the discussion draft. For example, our
children already play computer games that immerse them in realistic
role-playing simulations, distributed group competitive strategies, and
that support voice and motion recognition. I cannot but imagine that in
20 years computers will have even more capacity. But I can imagine that
unless an investment is made, educational testing in 20 years will be
as hobbled by a lack of imagination and by 19th century measurement
theories as it is today. Reauthorization should look to the future as
well as try to make mid-course corrections to the present. We should
apply what the professions, the military, industry, and other nations
are learning about how to develop and administer complex performance
assessments.
3. It provides needed federal sponsorship that will catalyze
partnerships and applications that will address and sustain the effort
to develop new assessment infrastructure.
I believe that universities, research centers, and the private
sector together can help bring the next generation of valid assessments
to the schools. But it won't happen without a catalyst to focus the
use, practicality, and time schedule. The federal government can
appropriately provide that sponsorship, as is proposed in the
discussion draft. Valid accountability requires valid assessments. The
discussion draft provides a vision and a path for both.
It's a good time for mid-course corrections, and for investing in
the future of college-ready and performance assessments. I urge
Congress to support the suggestions for reauthorization I've mentioned
today.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. I will begin with the
front row, and we will work our way back up.
Mr. McKeon. I have a brief question for you, Dr. Cannaday.
Do you know how you feel about the draft? Do you think that it
includes enough State and local flexibility?
Mr. Cannaday. Congressman McKeon, I believe it begins to
move in the right direction. I would encourage that it
differentiate that flexibility that it is predicated on.
Experiences that demonstrate that the State is responsible,
accountable to young people making progress, and substantial
progress, and where that is the case, greater flexibility to
innovate; and where it may be the case that States are less--
cannot demonstrate they are moving in an appropriate direction
fast enough, that there be more intervention.
So I think you are moving in the right direction, but just
create flexibility and differentiate options.
Mr. McKeon. Let me ask you if you would work with us to
craft provisions that allow States to enter into a performance
agreement with the Secretary that gives them increased
flexibility such as consolidating numerous programs and so
forth.
Mr. Cannaday. We would be more than happy to.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I know that Mr. McKeon is a
senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and they begin
their hearings on General Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's
report in just a short while. But thank you very much.
Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My question
is directed to Mr. Cohen.
I wanted to hear from you your thoughts on the role of
teachers in the project that you have talked about here. Many
of our newer and younger educators have themselves been
disconnected in isolated systems of education by themselves.
How are our educators oriented or reoriented to teach in a
manner that you are recommending? And how does this draft
legislation facilitate this type of teacher orientation with
regard to education delivery?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. That is an important question, how
teachers are involved in the processes that are laid out in
this draft, particularly around standard setting.
I can tell you that in the work that we have done in
States, at the end of the day. The standards that are set are
done by committees of K-to-12 teachers, higher-ed faculty and
employers; and they reach out to their counterparts, oftentimes
in very sophisticated ways in each State.
So in a number of States, for example, at the higher-ed
level where they have simple mechanisms in place, they have
surveyed thousands of faculty members and shown them potential
standards and asked for feedback.
Most States have a mechanism, if not similar to that, at
least a functional equivalent of involving teachers in the
standard development process at the K to 12 level as well.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Yarmuth?
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address Mr. Cohen also on the issue of the
local pilot program. And it probably comes as no surprise I
would side with my fellow Kentuckian.
Your concerns about them seem to be based on the assumption
that local systems would not be more ambitious than the States
might be. And I wonder why it seems like there is a sense of
skepticism there, when, in fact, I can see easily situations
where local districts would want to exceed the measurements
that the State might develop.
Mr. Cohen. I can imagine a situation where some local
districts would want to exceed the standards that the State
develops. What I can't figure out is how, by allowing the local
developed assessments, given that dynamic, that you end up with
a system of consistency across the States, where students in
one district are held to the same expectation that students in
another district are.
When I listened to Brian talk, when I listened earlier to
Linda Darling-Hammond talk about what they hoped to achieve
through the local assessment pilot, it seems to me those are
precisely the same things that can be achieved through the
State assessment program that is also included in the
legislation. I don't hear anything that is inherently local in
the benefits of the pilot program.
So it seems to me, if NCLB accountability is built on the
notion that we are going to hold all students to the same
standards, there are real advantages to doing that at the State
level rather than the local level. That doesn't mean you can't
involve local districts in the development of the standards,
but then they still ought to be applied on a state-wide basis.
Mr. Yarmuth. Well, maybe I would ask Mr. Gong to respond to
that.
But it also occurs to me that in some States you have
dramatically different situations. In my district, we have one
public school district, 97,000 kids, a very urban community
with a lot of urban problems, particularly mobility of students
and so forth, very different from most of the rest of Kentucky.
So, intuitively, it would seem to me there would be great value
in allowing some pilot programs to try to develop assessment
systems.
But if Mr. Gong would like to comment, that would be great.
Mr. Gong. I think that the local pilot is really important
because one of the shortcomings is that they have to come up
with a decontexturalized way to assess what students know. And
so you look at the writing prompts, for example, you have to
have something that any student can answer but that is not
connected at all to their curriculum.
The local assessment, the most important feature is not
that it is locally developed--because you do have quality
issues--it is that it is sensitive to the context that students
learned in. Because then you can know whether they are merely
parroting back what the teacher said or whether they are really
applying that. You cannot tell that in a standardized
assessment because you don't know what the relationship is
between the performance and the instruction.
So the most important thing about local assessment is that
it allows you to interpret what the students are applying and
what they are merely repeating back.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is also for Mr. Cohen.
You made the point that in setting standards for post-
secondary readiness is that the higher education community has
to play a much larger role.
So, just quickly, how do you see that process, going
forward? What is the best way to structure the kind of
articulation that would need to take place?
Mr. Cohen. When we have worked with States doing this, we
have asked them to create a team that involves State post-
secondary leadership, as well as faculty, particularly those
involved in making placement decisions as to whether students
are in credit-bearing or remedial courses, faculty from the K
to 12 level as well, and, in a slightly different manner,
employers.
The main part of the process involves looking at data. What
is the evidence, number one, about the relationship between
what students take and learn in high school and what it takes
to succeed in college? What are the success rates of students
who are taking different courses, for example?
Secondly, looking at the post-secondary curriculum in a
range of first-year, credit-bearing arts and science courses.
What are being taught in those courses? What will faculty there
tell you is what they are prepared to review when students come
in? And what are they going to say if the kid doesn't know
that, ``They are not in the right place, because we are not
going over that''?
And I don't mean this just in an anecdotal manner, but with
some evidence behind it. What we have found when we have done
that is that it is possible to get a consistent definition of
readiness, at least with regard to quantitative skills and some
English, reading, writing, communication skills, to get a
common definition of readiness across public institutions
within a State, which is very important, because if you can do
that, then it is very easy to say to the K to 12 system, ``Here
is the target you need to aim for.'' If you can't get that,
then there are thousands of targets for high schools to aim at
and no clear definition of what it means to be ready.
Let me just also add, when you bring the workforce training
people into this and ask them to describe what their curriculum
looks like, what they expect of people coming into workforce
training programs, you tend to get this enforced as well. So it
is important to do that, as well.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Mr. Gong.
You say that, as the Department now uses growth, it hardly
differs from the status method, the percent proficient, and
that the reauthorization should include a true pilot of how
growth could be effectively measured.
Are you saying there are problems in the measurement and
evaluation or in the data-keeping? What do we need to change to
get this right?
Mr. Gong. There are two parts. One is the definition of
growth, and then the other is the definition of what is enough
growth.
In many of the systems, in fact, what is being measured is
a combination of growth and percent proficient. And when those
two are mixed, where they are called growth, it is not
surprising that, in fact, you are really not giving credit for
growth, you are really giving credit for whether those students
start off high enough.
The second one, I understand, is a controversial one. When
the definition is that the students must become proficient
within 3 years, hardly any students do that. So it is not that
they are not growing. It is that they are not growing enough by
that definition. And so, that is a thorny dilemma for people to
look at.
Empirically, we are starting to see how much students
actually are growing in some of the highest-performing systems,
the medium systems and lower systems. And even the very high
ones, they are not growing enough for substantial proportions
to be proficient in 3 years.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. If I might follow on to that, I don't know
if you heard Mr. Jennings' suggestion that that would be tied
to high-achieving schools. Is that related to what you just
said?
Mr. Gong. I didn't hear Mr. Jennings' testimony.
Chairman Miller. Well, we will match you up with the
testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to ask one question as sort of a surrogate for
one of my colleagues who raised a point.
Ms. Bray and Mr. McPartland, you both talked about high
school education and dropouts and dealing with the neediest
students in that area. My colleague indicates that, in his
schools, he found that there was a correlation between dropouts
and failure to have some financial assistance in paying for
transportation to school for 7th- to 12th-graders. And his
thought was that it might make sense to have a Federal, State
and local funding partnership to underwrite those
transportation costs, at least for students that might qualify
already for free or reduced-price school lunches.
Have either of you heard of that problem in other
jurisdictions, other places?
Mr. McPartland. Well, the first thing is that kids must
attend regularly to benefit from the high school program. One
of the highest correlations of failing courses and dropping out
is that kids don't get there. So if transportation is part of
that reason, we really have to face head-on the problems of
absenteeism and poor attendance. It is very likely, in certain
circumstances, transportation might be part of it, and then
that should be part of a solution.
Mr. Tierney. And have you heard of that at all?
Mr. McPartland. I haven't, myself. But, again, I am
emphasizing the attendance. In the urban districts, in
Baltimore, my own city, the kids do take public transportation.
And there had been some safety issues that the youngsters have
pointed out. It is not the availability of transportation but
whether they are willing to use it or not.
So, to that extent, I have heard about it. But, again, if
that is what is keeping kids from attending dependably every
day, it should be part of the solution.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Bray?
Ms. Bray. I can't say we have specific information on that.
I can tell you somewhat anecdotally many of the career and
technical educational centers have what are called alternative
training programs. And they are for students who are in danger
of dropping out. They don't have enough credits; they have
missed a lot of programs. And the transportation is provided by
the home high school to those career tech centers, where they
spend the day and get personalized instruction and are caught
up and it is taught contextually. And their success rate in
those programs is over 90 percent.
So that is helping. But it is sort of a narrow anecdote to
what you are asking. We don't really have information on that.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. A generic question to Mike: Among the important
elements in Title I, we have four pillars, I call it:
standards, testing, adequate yearly progress and intervention.
In our work--and we have done a lot of work and we have
listened to people all over the country--is there one of those
pillars where we should go back and do a little more work on
that? Is one pillar weaker than the others? And, if so, could
you be specific on where we might be weaker?
Mr. Cohen. To be honest, I have not looked at all four
pillars equally. But my sense is you have moved in the right
direction on every one of them. The standards and testing
comments, proposals, already covered--at least most of them in
the right direction. And my guess is the differences among some
of us could be narrowed with a little bit of discussion.
Clearly a differentiated approach to interventions makes
sense, making a distinction between schools that are failing to
meet the mark by miles for all kids versus those that are just
not there for a few. A differentiated approach makes all the
sense in the world, so I think you are moving in the right
direction on that as well.
Mr. Kildee. That is encouraging. We worked hard, and we
appreciate the input of all of you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Just let me, Ms. Bray, say, maybe you can send this to all
the members of Congress again, the findings of your ``Ready for
College and Ready to Work,'' that you stated in your testimony
that the levels of readiness for high school graduates need to
be prepared for college and for the work training programs are
comparable. That is what I hear from employers and from college
personnel in my district all the time, whether it is community
college or State college or the university system. And somehow
we have got to figure out how we do that.
I would also say that, too often, within the Beltway,
current technical education is still sort of viewed that this
is the vocational education that we grew up with 30 years ago,
and not recognizing how complicated the workplace is today, the
proliferation of technical manuals to keep up with skills that
are yesterday's titles but vary today in terms of technical
skills and critical thinking skills. And so I appreciate you
for your testimony.
Let me just say I am quite pleased at the attention that
this pilot project is getting. Because I have talked to so many
CEOs, so many venture capitalists, so many economists that tell
me one of the real problems we have here is, while we are
reauthorizing this legislation, is, at the same time, to think
about the future. Because this isn't about kids graduating
today; it is about kids moving into a workforce where they are
going to be required to have another set, you know, more and
more, a set of skills that aren't taught in more schools. And
that is: working cooperatively, working in collaboration,
working across school districts, across school rooms to develop
a set of skills.
And I remember back to my opposition to the growth model
for a number of years and then watching a pilot project evolve
to such a point where I felt I had confidence in it, but many
people had confidence in it before me. As I think Mr. Gong
pointed out, this has been under discussion for a very long
time but has never had the kind of financing that might allow
us to make a determination whether or not there is another way
of providing assessments that drive the kind of curriculum, the
kind of skills that we want.
We would, if it was adopted--and, mind you, it is a long
way to adoption from today, and it would have to be signed off
by the Secretary and the panels and all the rest of that--we
would still require that they have to participate and be
measured on statewide exams on math and reading.
But I am encouraged that it has got--I thought this would
be buried in the bill and wouldn't get the kind of attention
that so many people who are betting, if you will, real money,
real jobs and real decisions about staying in America or not
with their future investments are telling me the skills that
they need.
As I have said, repeating what they have told me, that they
need graduates and people who can work across companies, across
the country and across continents. And those skills they don't
see being truly developed under this system today. And they are
very worried that we are not thinking about the kid who is
starting school today in kindergarten as opposed to thinking
about the one that is in 4th or 8th grade and we are drilling
in on that student.
We are trying to build an improved system for those current
students. We are also trying to build in the opportunity to
look at how we make overall improvements and options available.
So thank you very much for your testimony. And again, we
look forward to working with you as we go through your remarks
or suggestions. They are very helpful to us, and we will
continue that. So thank you for your time and your expertise on
this matter.
Our next panel, focusing on civil rights organizations,
will begin with Nancy Zirkin, who is the vice president and
director of public policy for the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights; Peter Zamora is the regional counsel for the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Stephanie
Jones is the executive director of the National Urban League;
Dan Losen, who is the senior education law and policy associate
with the Civil Rights Project; and Dianne Piche, who is the
executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights;
Delia Pompa, who is the vice president of the education
programs for National Council of La Raza; Katy Neas, who is the
director of congressional relations for the Easter Seals'
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities; and Myrna
Mandlawitz, who is policy director of the Learning Disabilities
Association of America.
Welcome, and thank you for being here what is now, I guess,
this afternoon. And, again, thank you for so much help, you and
members of your organizations, and resources that you have
pointed us to, have provided to us, as Mr. McKeon and Mr.
Castle and Mr. Kildee and I have tried to develop this
discussion draft.
Nancy, we will begin with you. Welcome.
And, again, the lights will be green, after 4 minutes
yellow--most of you know this process--it will be yellow, and
then red we would like you to be able to finish up. But, again,
we want to make sure that you impart what you want to the
committee.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF NANCY ZIRKIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC POLICY, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Ms. Zirkin. Thank you. I am Nancy Zirkin, vice president of
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which is the
nation's oldest, largest and most diverse civil and human
rights coalition. With nearly 200 member organizations, they
are united in the belief that access to a quality public
education is a fundamental civil right for all children.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
McKeon for the opportunity to testify today and for your
leadership and the hard work you and your staffs have been
putting into this reauthorization. We appreciate our input into
the process.
Within the coalition, there is a great diversity of
opinions about No Child Left Behind. You will hear from several
LCCR members on this panel and undoubtedly others before the
end of the day. There are some provisions in this draft that we
all support, such as differentiated consequences for our
schools that fail to make AYP. And there are some provisions
that several or more of LCCR groups won't agree with.
What we can all agree on is that the law needs substantial
improvements, which must be done very carefully.
Toward that end, we are particularly pleased by the
attention being given to high school improvements and the
graduation rate crisis afflicting low-income and minority
students.
Setting a dedicated funding stream for high schools as well
as a clear and realistic definition of graduation rates and
demanding real accountability for all subgroups is long
overdue.
However, we would caution you to avoid reducing a school's
dropout rate to be used as a substitute for improving its
graduation rate. States and schools must not be allowed to
classify students who have left school as anything other than a
dropout unless they have verified that the student has enrolled
in another school. There must be accountability for any student
who does not stay in school through graduation.
We also have serious reservations about the inclusion of
local assessments in the bill. We share the desire to find a
way to spur innovation to improve the quality of assessments,
and appreciate your attempting to actually do so with the pilot
project in Section 1125.
Even though the draft would require that the State
assessment still be given, we remain concerned about the
implementation of local assessments, including how performance
on the tests would be factored into AYP determinations and the
practicable ability of any State, let alone the Department of
Education, to effectively monitor them to ensure that they are
not used to evade or weaken accountability under the AYP
rubric.
While the timing of the release has not allowed us to fully
review it, we are encouraged by the inclusion of Title VI in
the pilot project program for enhanced assessments on a
statewide basis. We hope that the final draft will place
greater emphasis on this approach to improving assessments.
We also appreciate the draft's approach to English language
learners. And we share the views which you will hear shortly by
Ms. Pompa and Mr. Zamora.
We made clear in our testimony and policy letter at the
joint committee hearing on March 13 that, while substantial
improvements are needed in how the law treats language minority
students, inclusion and accountability for these students is
essential. We believe that sensible revisions to the law can
maintain and strengthen accountability, improve the funding
structure, implement what we have learned so far and make the
law fair, flexible and funded, as Chairman Miller has called
for. Missing this opportunity to reauthorize the law would have
terrible consequences in the field where improvements are
desperately needed.
We look forward to continuing to work with the committee to
strengthen the law and its implementation and to seek a careful
and deliberative reauthorization in this Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Zirkin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Zirkin, Vice President and Director of
Public Policy, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)
Good morning, I am Nancy Zirkin, Vice President and Director of
Public Policy of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the
nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights
coalition, with nearly 200 member organizations that are united in the
belief that access to a quality public education is a fundamental civil
right for all children.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and
all of the Members of Committee for the opportunity to testify today,
for your leadership, and for the extraordinarily hard work you and your
staffs have been putting into this reauthorization. We appreciate
having been brought into the process and that some of our input is
reflected in the current draft.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) may be the most
complicated law this Congress addresses, but from the perspective of
the civil rights coalition, it may also be the most important. Some
groups within and outside of our coalition are inclined to defend the
current law against almost any changes. The agenda of others appears to
be to completely dismantle the law. Neither option is acceptable.
Within the coalition, there is a great diversity of opinions about
No Child Left Behind--you've already heard from several LCCR members on
this panel, and several more will be testifying later today. There are
some provisions in this draft that we all support, such as
differentiated consequences for schools that fail to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), and there may even be a few that most oppose.
What we can all agree on is that the law needs substantial
improvements, which must be done very carefully. Towards that end, we
are particularly pleased by the attention being given to high school
improvement and the graduation rate crisis afflicting low-income and
minority students. Setting a clear and realistic definition of
graduation rates and demanding real accountability for graduation for
all subgroups is long overdue, as is a dedicated funding stream for
high schools.
However, we would caution you to avoid allowing reducing a school's
``dropout'' rate to be used as a substitute for improving its
graduation rate. There are too many examples of states and schools
finding ways to classify students who have left school as anything
other than a ``dropout.'' The bottom line is whether the child stayed
in school through graduation and there must be accountability for any
student who did not.
We also have serious reservations about the inclusion of local
assessments in the bill. We share the desire to find a way to spur
innovation to improve the quality of assessments and appreciate that
you are attempting to do so with the pilot project in Section 1125. We
recognize that the draft would require that the state assessment still
be given, however we remain concerned about the implementation of local
assessments, how performance on the tests would be factored into AYP
determinations, and the practical ability of any state--let alone the
Department of Education--to effectively monitor them to ensure that
they are not used to by individual ``bad actors'' to evade or weaken
accountability under the AYP rubric. While the timing of the release of
Title VI has not allowed us to fully review it, we are greatly
encouraged by the inclusion of Section 6112, the pilot program for
enhanced assessments on a state-wide basis. We hope that the final
draft will place greater emphasis on the state-wide approach to
improving assessments.
We also appreciate the draft's approach to English language
learners (ELLs) and share the views already expressed by Ms. Pompa and
Mr. Zamora. We made clear in our testimony and policy letter at the
joint committee hearing on March 13th that while substantial
improvements are needed in how the law treats language minority
students, inclusion and accountability for these students is essential.
In light of the poisonous atmosphere left behind by the failure of
comprehensive immigration reform, ensuring the inclusion of ELLs--
nearly 80 percent of whom, contrary to popular perception, are American
citizens--is more important than ever.
There has already been some posturing on both sides about it being
better to let this reauthorization fail rather than make some
compromises to build a governing consensus. In the interests of
children who truly have been left behind--and are still being left
behind 5 years after NCLB was passed--we urge you not to let that
happen.
We believe that sensible revisions to the law can maintain and
strengthen accountability, improve the funding structure, implement
what we have learned so far, and make the law ``fair, flexible, and
funded,'' as Chairman Miller has called for. Missing this opportunity
to reauthorize the law would have terrible consequences in the field
where improvements are desperately needed and in Washington, where the
political climate for the law is likely to deteriorate further.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to
strengthen the law and its implementation, and to seek a careful and
deliberative reauthorization this year.
Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act with More Funding, Better
Enforcement, and Additional Supports for Struggling Schools
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Miller: On behalf of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest,
largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with nearly
200 member organizations, we are writing to express our priorities for
the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). While it
has been a controversial law, NCLB's goal of educating all children,
regardless of race, gender, disability, language or economic status, is
laudable. LCCR is committed to strengthening implementation and
enforcement of NCLB, as well as working toward improvements in the
statute and significantly overdue increases in funding.
LCCR believes that access to a high quality education is a
fundamental civil right for all children and that several core
principles must be adhered to in federal education policy. First,
federal policy must be designed to raise academic standards. Second,
those high standards must apply equally to all students, of all
backgrounds. Third, schools should be held accountable for meeting
academic standards. Fourth, there should be good quality assessments
that are linked to academic standards. Finally, federal and state
governments must ensure that schools, particularly those in
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, have the resources they need to
give all children the chance to meet those standards.
When NCLB was passed, its ambitious goals were accompanied by
ambitious funding authorization levels and extensive promises from the
administration and Congress to fund the law's programs. Of great
importance, the most targeted part of the Title I formula was funded
for the first time following the passage of NCLB, resulting in
significant increases in federal funds for districts with the highest
concentrations of students from low income families. While there was
also a substantial overall first-year increase over pre-NCLB federal
education funding levels, funding has fallen far short of the law's
authorized levels. The cumulative funding shortfall is already over $56
billion and one conservative estimate of President Bush's FY 08 budget
request places it $14.8 billion below a projected figure based on the
current NCLB's authorization levels. If this Congress is serious about
education reform, it must prioritize education spending.
NCLB Can Do More to Raise State Standards and Align Standards with
Curricula
At its core, NCLB depends on state standards and state definitions
of student proficiency at meeting those standards, and ultimately takes
on faith that schools and school districts will adequately align their
curricula with the state standards and provide all children the
opportunity to meet the standards. Experience has now shown that in too
many places, standards are not high enough, some states are setting the
bar for proficiency too low, and curricula, standards, and assessments
are not adequately aligned to give all students--and their teachers--a
fair chance to meet the standards. In some schools, particularly those
with extreme poverty concentration, where many minority students are
enrolled, children are not provided with a rich challenging curriculum
that is aligned to the standards. As a consequence, they may be tested
on material that they have had no actual opportunity to learn. LCCR
believes there are many areas where NCLB can be strengthened to require
more front end planning by state and local education agencies,
including:
Section 1111(b) should adopt a mechanism to ensure that
state academic and proficiency standards are subject to review to
ensure that both are sufficiently rigorous to keep students on track
for on-time graduation from high school and entry into postsecondary
education or the workforce.
There should be dedicated funding for voluntary state
consortia designed to pool expertise and resources to raise state
standards. Access to this additional pool of grant funding should come
with additional oversight from the Department of Education.
Recipients of Title I funding should be required to ensure
that curriculum in Title I schools is aligned with stat standards.
Specifically, sections 1111 and 1112 should be amended to require that
state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs),
respectively, describe in their Title I plans the concrete steps they
will take to ensure this alignment occurs and is carried out in each
Title I school. These new provisions should be accompanied by guidance
from the Department on what constitutes proper alignment and by
dedicated funding for professional development to train staff
throughout the educational system on how to do it.
NCLB Can Do More to Improve Assessments
Assessments play a crucial role in NCLB and their results have high
stakes consequences for schools, educators, students, and parents. NCLB
depends on reliable assessment data for its accountability system.
States bear the primary responsibility for assessments and more should
be done to ensure that states do not cut corners and that assessments
are truly aligned with standards. Unfortunately, the federal government
has done the bare minimum required under the law to fund assessments,
appropriating only $2.34 billion during the first six years of NCLB.
According to a study by the GAO, it would have cost an additional $3
billion to fund the type of blended multiple choice and constructed
response system many experts believe is necessary for an accurate in-
depth measure of student learning. LCCR believes NCLB can improve
assessments and build greater public understanding and support for the
accountability system by:
Substantially increasing funding for the development of
better assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics and of new
assessments required under the law in science, including subsidizing
the development of constructed response testing.
Dedicating funding for professional development targeted
toward assessment literacy for parents and educators to ensure that
they understand the process and development of assessments and how they
relate to the standards and curricula.
Requiring that information explaining the assessments and
how the data will be used, as well as the local education agency report
cards, be distributed to parents in multiple media, formats accessible
to the lay person, and in alternative languages.
Promoting parental involvement through inclusion in
sections 2113 and 2123 of funding for professional development for
educators and principals, respectively, on effective parental and
family communications and engagement strategies.
Building Public Support for School Interventions that Will Help
Struggling Schools
LCCR is committed to NCLB's goal of supporting students in
struggling schools. We hope that with a renewed emphasis on
accountability and funding, some additional supports, and refinements
to improve implementation, schools in need of improvement can be turned
around. LCCR believes NCLB should be amended to:
Permit LEAs to continue to provide interventions and
support to a school for one additional year after that school has
exited In Need of Improvement status while the LEA reviews the
effectiveness of the measures and plans for how to maintain the gains.
The interventions that can be continued should include the full
remedies allowed by the statute, including school choice and
supplemental education services (SES), and all in-school interventions
such as professional development.
Require states to evaluate the quality and effectiveness
of their SES providers and ensure that providers are serving the full
range of students, including English language learners (ELLs) and
students with disabilities.
Allow the Secretary to grant waivers, on a case-by-case
basis, enabling districts in need of improvement to become certified as
SES providers if they can demonstrate their capacity to provide
effective services.
Require that teachers in schools in need of improvement
have data reports on their incoming students prior to the start of the
academic year so that they have a reasonable opportunity to tailor
instruction to the academic strengths and weaknesses of their students.
Ensure that teachers and parents are fully included in all
stages of the development and implementation of the school improvement
plan, which should include access to professional development for
improving knowledge and skills on data use, selecting effective
programs and curricula, and developing school-based leadership for
school reform.
Reverse the Department's assertion that SES providers are
not recipients of federal funds, and therefore not directly subject to
several federal civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975.
Updating the Calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress through the
Inclusion of Growth Models
The fundamental task of all schools and teachers is ensuring the
academic success of their students. When students begin the year at
grade-level, or proficient in NCLB terms, the relevant growth is just
one academic year to stay at grade-level and proficient for the next
year. But, NCLB data has given us bracing and undeniable evidence of
how far behind so many of our students are. To bring 100 percent of
those children up to grade-level proficiency, NCLB now seeks to hold
schools accountable for much more than just regular annual growth. In
that context, giving schools credit toward meeting their adequate
yearly progress (AYP) requirements for an accelerated growth trajectory
makes sense and LCCR supports it, however does so with the following
qualifications:
No growth model should be implemented without a robust
data system in place capable of reliably tracking individual students
from year to year.
For English language learners, evidence suggests rapid
initial growth that corresponds to the initial period of language
acquisition, but that initial growth cannot be used for the basis of a
projection for sustained subject matter content growth. At this time,
there does not appear to be any viable growth model available for ELL
students. The statute should require that the Department carefully
scrutinize any state proposal for how it plans to account for ELL
students within a growth model.
Educational Services and Assessments Must be Improved for English
Language Learners
Students who are still learning English have been poorly served by
the educational system for far too long. NCLB's disaggregated data is
helping to highlight the gross contours of the problem, but is still
not giving a very clear picture of it or doing enough to solve the
disparities. Better communication and outreach to parents in accessible
languages, higher quality alternative language assessments, and equal
access to supplemental services for ELLs are all necessary. LCCR does
not support additional exemptions of ELLs from Title I assessments
beyond the current one-year exemption in reading/language arts for
newly-arrived ELLs. LCCR believes that NCLB should be amended to:
Establish a separate funding stream to ensure the
development of appropriate academic assessments for ELLs. Priority
should be given to states with the highest numbers of ELLs.
Require that states with significant ELL populations from
a single language group develop valid and reliable content assessments
designed specifically for that language group.
Require SEAs to certify that there are SES providers on
their providers list with demonstrable capacity in meeting the
educational needs, including language acquisition needs, of ELLs. SEAs
must also ensure that appropriate SES providers operate in locations
with high ELL populations.
Require SEAs and LEAs to undertake linguistically and
culturally sensitive outreach (including partnering with community-
based organizations) to notify students and parents of student
eligibility for SES and/or school choice.
Require that schools, in calculating AYP, include in the
limited-English-proficient (LEP) category: 1) current ELLs; and 2)
former ELLs who have exited the LEP category within the last two years.
Require, for the purpose of public reporting of student
academic performance, that the LEP category be disaggregated into the
following:
1) LEP students who enter the U.S. school system at 9th grade or
above; 2) students who have exited the LEP category within the last two
years; and 3) recent arrivals who are ELLs who have been in the U.S.
school system for less than 12 months.
Limit the ability of schools and school districts to
obscure the failure to reach ELL students (or other subgroups) through
large ``N-size'' statistical cut-offs. N-sizes should be consistent for
all AYP subgroups within a district or school.
Federal Education Law Should Create Meaningful Graduation Rate
Reporting and Help Schools Reduce Dropout Rates
High school graduation is a minimal qualification for economic
opportunity, yet it is an opportunity that is rapidly slipping away
from as many as half of African-American, Latino, and Native American
children, and a quarter of white children. Students with disabilities,
low-income students, language minority students, and students from some
groups within the Asian Pacific Islander community are also graduating
at alarmingly low rates. Inconsistent--and often deliberately
misleading--school reporting of official dropout rates has hidden the
extent of the problem for too long and there are reasons to be
concerned that increased accountability for test scores may create
additional pressure to ``push out'' more students. LCCR believes that
NCLB should be amended to:
Require graduation rate reporting that is disaggregated by
subgroup and in a format that can be fully cross-tabulated.
Require graduation data based on the year-to-year
promotion rate method of accounting for all students as they progress
each year beginning in ninth grade.
Use graduation rates that have clear and consistent
national definitions, and are reported as 4-year and 5-year (and
possibly others) completion rates.
Prohibit schools from exempting students who have been
incarcerated from their graduation rate calculation, out of concern for
the growing problem of the school-toprison pipeline.
Fund data system upgrades and the training and support
required to manage the longitudinal data systems necessary to track
multi-year graduation rates.
In addition to improving reporting, there are many programs the
federal government can promote to improve graduation rates for
vulnerable students and schools. LCCR supports amending the law to:
Fund research and technical assistance on indicators of
dropping out in early grades and effective early intervention
strategies.
Add individual graduation plans for parenting teens and
students facing other graduation challenges, such as chronic
absenteeism.
Target professional development to dropout prevention.
Fund more intervention programs and services to reach
students at risk of dropping out.
Add requirements in the SEA and LEA plans on rigorous
coursework and on-grade course-taking.
Make career and technical education (CTE) programs more
widely available for students for whom CTE programs can serve as an
incentive to graduate.
Support Early College High Schools to address one area of
lack of proficiency, e.g. reading, language proficiency, math, or
science.
Fund extended learning time in high school.
Strengthen parental involvement provisions.
LCCR believes that access to a high quality public education is a
civil right for all children and that in the tradition of the Civil
Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Acts of both 1965 and 2006, the
No Child Left Behind Act can play an important role in making that
right a reality. We look forward to working with Congress to strengthen
the law and its implementation. For additional information, please
contact Nancy Zirkin at (202) 263-2880 or [email protected], or
David Goldberg, Program Manager and Special Counsel, at (202) 466-0087
or [email protected].
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Zamora?
STATEMENT OF PETER ZAMORA, REGIONAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. Zamora. Chairman Miller, members of the committee, I am
Peter Zamora, Washington, D.C., regional counsel for the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF is a national, nonprofit legal
organization that uses litigation, policy advocacy and
community education to protect the civil rights of the Latino
community.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is a critical
civil rights statute for Latinos. Latino students, who comprise
20 percent of America's K-12 student population, often
experience extreme education inequality in our nation's public
schools. The No Child Left Behind Act has highlighted this
inequality and has tried to ensure that schools and school
districts could no longer prioritize the education of certain
student populations at the expense of others. The current
reauthorization presents a historic opportunity to build upon
current law while correcting defects that have limited its
effectiveness.
My comments today will focus upon the nation's 5.5 million
English language learners, who comprise over 10 percent of the
total student population. Over three-quarters of the ELLs are
Latino, and nearly half of Latino students are ELL.
Despite common assumptions to the contrary, native-born
U.S. citizens predominate in this student population, which
often suffers particularly acute educational inequality and
underperforms on nearly every measure of academic performance.
The ESEA must promote increased resources, better instruction
and improved academic outcomes for this large and growing
student population.
ELLs require academic assessments or assessment
accommodations that are tailored to their academic and
linguistic needs. The bipartisan draft bill recently released
by this committee provides greatly increased supports for
improved native language assessments, simplified English
assessments, portfolios and testing accommodations for ELLs.
First, the bill would target significant levels of federal
funds for States to develop valid and reliable assessments for
ELLs. States would be required to implement appropriate
academic content assessments for ELLs within 2 years or face
withholding of State administrative funds.
The bill also supports the increased use of native language
assessments, which are most appropriate for recently arrived
ELLs and students who receive dual language instruction.
The bill would also strengthen accountability for ELLs who
are not tested in their native languages by requiring States to
implement research-based practices to provide accommodations
for ELLs who are tested for content in English.
These key reforms will ensure that States will finally, 15
years after they were first required to do so under the 1994
act, develop and use assessments that generate meaningful
results for ELLs.
At the same time, the bipartisan draft grants increased
flexibility to State and local officials in the treatment of
ELLs under ESEA. Notably, during the 2-year window in which
States are developing appropriate assessments for ELLs, the
draft bill would permit schools and districts to calculate AYP
for reading using results from English proficiency assessments
for students at the lowest levels of English proficiency.
It also permits schools and districts to exempt the scores
of recently arrive ELLs from one administration of the language
arts assessment and to count former ELLs in the ELL subgroup
for 3 years after they gain English proficiency.
So under the terms of the bipartisan draft, teachers and
local education officials will finally have the tools that they
need to measure ELL student knowledge, and they will gain
increased flexibility in the inclusion of ELLs in local
accountability systems. States will receive increased federal
funding and technical assistance to support ELL assessment and
instruction. And ELLs will finally be permitted to participate
on an equal basis in ESEA programs and to fully benefit from
key reforms to education systems nationwide.
So, in conclusion, the No Child Left Behind Act has focused
greatly increased attention upon the academic concerns of the
Latino population and especially English language learners. The
poor student outcomes of Latinos and ELLs were generally a
well-kept secret prior to NCLB. This, thankfully, is no longer
the case.
But the act can be improved, especially for ELLs, by key
reforms that will be authorized under the bipartisan draft bill
that will be debated in this committee later this month. As we
move forward in enacting and in later implementing this key
civil rights law, we must ensure that we fully consider the
interests of Latinos and ELLs in every provision of the act.
The draft bill currently contains many new proposals,
including growth models, multiple measures of achievement and
local assessments, that, if approved, will require that
officials pay particular attention to the needs of Latinos and
ELLs in order to ensure that these measures are implemented
effectively. For, if any of the ESEA's provisions are
ineffective for Latinos and for ELLs, they will be ineffective
in eliminating educational disparities in America's public
schools, and a large and growing population of our future
workforce will be unprepared for the demands of the 21st-
century workplace.
So MALDF looks forward to continuing to work with this
committee and with the full Congress to renew the ESEA in a
manner that meets the needs of Latino students and ELLs. Thank
you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Zamora follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Zamora, Washington, DC, Regional Counsel,
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, I am Peter Zamora, Washington
D.C. Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (MALDEF). Founded in 1968, MALDEF is a national
nonprofit legal organization that employs litigation, policy advocacy,
and community education programs to protect and promote the civil
rights of the Latino community.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is a key
federal civil rights statute for the Latino community. Latino students,
who comprise 20% of America's K-12 student population,\1\ have
traditionally experienced extreme educational inequality in our
nation's public schools.\2\ The 2002 reauthorization of the Act,
commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act, greatly strengthened
the ESEA for Latino students by holding states, school districts, and
schools accountable for the academic success of all students. By
disaggregating data for racial and ethnic minorities, language
minorities, low-income students, and students with disabilities, the
Act ensured that schools could no longer prioritize the education of
certain student communities at the expense of others. In highlighting
disparities in educational outcomes that continue to characterize U.S.
public education, the ESEA has required officials at every level of
government to focus upon addressing inequalities that mar our national
commitment to educational opportunity.
The current reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act presents an historic opportunity to build upon the
achievements of the 2002 reauthorization while remedying defects that
have limited the law's effectiveness in eliminating educational
inequalities. I am pleased to offer MALDEF's views regarding the
reauthorization this critical federal civil rights law.
I. English Language Learners and the ESEA
While the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has greatly
affected the entire Latino student community, it has been particularly
significant for English language learner (ELL) students, who often face
particularly acute educational inequalities. My testimony will focus
upon the particular needs of the ELL student population and the
bipartisan draft bill's reforms relating to ELLs.
The nation's 5.5 million English language learner (ELL) students\3\
significantly underperform on nearly every measure of academic
performance. In the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress,
for example, only 29% of ELLs scored at or above the basic level in
reading, compared with 75% of non-ELLs.\4\ ELLs also drop out of school
at very high rates: Latino ELLs aged 16-19, for example, have a 59%
dropout rate.\5\
The academic success of the ELL student population is critical to
the success of the Latino community and the U.S. student population as
a whole. Over three-quarters of ELLs are Latino, and nearly half of K-
12 Latino students are ELL.\6\ Over the past fifteen years, ELL student
enrollment has nearly doubled, and experts predict that one-quarter of
the total U.S. public school population will be made up of ELLs by
2025.\7\
Despite common assumptions to the contrary, native-born U.S.
citizens predominate in the ELL K-12 student population: 76% of
elementary school and 56% of secondary school ELLs are citizens, and
over one-half of the ELLs in public secondary schools are second- or
third-generation citizens.\8\ The stereotype of ELLs as foreign-born
immigrants is, therefore, inaccurate: the majority are, in fact, long-
term ELLs whose academic and linguistic needs are not being met by our
public school system.
II. Invalid and Unreliable Assessments Have Hindered the Effective
Operation of the ESEA for ELLs
The No Child Left Behind Act adopted a sound approach to improving
ELL student achievement. ELLs face the dual challenge of learning
English while simultaneously gaining academic knowledge in an
unfamiliar language.\9\ NCLB addresses each aspect of this challenge:
Title I requires accountability for the content knowledge of the ELL
subgroup, while Title III requires accountability for English language
acquisition.
Significant implementation failures by federal and state agencies
have severely hindered the effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs, however.
Chief among these implementation failures is that states have not yet
implemented valid and reliable Title I content or language proficiency
assessments for ELLs, and the U.S. Department of Education has not
provided sufficient technical assistance or guidance to the states in
the development of appropriate assessment policies and practices.\10\
Consequently, schools and districts have struggled under NCLB to
demonstrate academic gains for the ELL student population, and ELLs
have been denied the full benefit of the law's key reforms.
III. Ongoing Efforts to Improve Assessments for ELLs
In order for the ESEA to be effective in eliminating educational
disparities, ELL students require assessments and/or assessment
accommodations that are tailored to their specific academic and
linguistic needs. This is required not only by sound educational
practice and the express terms of ESEA, but by the Supreme Court's
decision in Lau v. Nichols.\11\ Lau held that Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 requires schools to deliver academic services to
ELLs that are tailored to their linguistic abilities and academic
needs.\12\
Although the statutory requirement for valid and reliable
assessments for all students originated in the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has only
recently begun to enforce these provisions as they relate to ELL
students. ED has also recently embarked upon a long-overdue project to
provide technical assistance to states in developing and implementing
appropriate assessment policies and practices for ELL students.
In August of 2006, MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, the
U.S. Department of Education, and education officials from all 50
states launched the ``LEP Partnership'' to provide technical assistance
in appropriate ELL assessment practices to the states. The LEP \13\
Partnership unites assessment experts, federal and state officials, and
advocates in an unprecedented collaborative. Our focus is to improve
assessment practices for the 2006-07 testing cycle and to support
improved ELL assessment practices for future years. The next formal LEP
Partnership meeting will be held in Washington, D.C. in October of
2007.
Our efforts are beginning to yield results, but Congress must
provide additional support to states in the development and
implementation of appropriate academic and linguistic assessments for
ELLs. The technical expertise needed to develop and implement sound
assessments for ELLs exists, but thus far we have not generally seen
necessary efforts at the federal and state levels to appropriately
include ELLs in statewide assessments. Both the federal government and
the states must do much more to implement native language, simplified
English, portfolio, and other assessments designed to measure ELLs'
academic content knowledge.
IV. The Committee on Education and Labor's Draft ESEA Reauthorization
Bill
In its bipartisan draft bill to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Committee on Education and Labor
has proposed critical reforms that will greatly improve the
effectiveness of the Act for ELLs. This ``discussion draft'' provides
increased federal supports for appropriate assessment practices as well
as flexibility for schools, districts, and states in the treatment of
ELLs under ESEA accountability systems. Many of the Committee's
proposed reforms respond to proposals offered by the Hispanic Education
Coalition, which unites 26 key national and local organizations in
support of improved Latino educational opportunities. These reforms
will greatly assist schools, districts, and states in demonstrating
academic growth for ELLs and will ensure that ELLs may benefit from
education reforms prompted by the ESEA.
First, the discussion draft provides significant levels of targeted
funding for the development and implementation of valid and reliable
academic content assessments for ELLs. It would require states that
have not implemented appropriate assessments for ELLs to immediately
target 16.5% of their state assessment funds to developing and
implementing assessment systems that will allow ELLs to be
appropriately included in ESEA accountability.\14\ States would be
allowed two years from the date of enactment to develop assessment
systems that generate valid and reliable results for ELLs.\15\ To
enforce this provision, the statute would require the Secretary to
withhold up to 25 percent of states' Title I administrative funds if
they have not developed appropriate assessments 2 years from the date
of enactment.\16\ These critical reforms will ensure that states will
finally, fifteen years after they were first required to do so by the
1994 ESEA, implement assessment systems that generate meaningful
results for ELLs.
The discussion draft would also provide key federal supports for
the increased use of native language academic content assessments,
which are most appropriate for newly-arrived ELLs and students who
receive dual language instruction. Under current law, states are
required to implement such assessments when it is ``practicable,'' but
most states have not prioritized the development and implementation of
native language content assessments. To remedy this defect in NCLB
implementation, the draft bill would enact a ``trigger'' to ensure that
schools and districts are able to assess members of significant
populations of ELLs in their native languages, when consistent with
state law.\17\ This reform will especially support schools and
districts that offer dual language instruction, which education
research has shown to be the most effective instructional method for
ELLs.
The bill would also strengthen accountability systems for ELLs who
are not tested in their native languages. It would require state
education agencies to implement policies to provide assessment
accommodations for all ELLs and present research-based evidence of the
accommodations' effectiveness in yielding valid and reliable data on
ELL academic achievement.\18\ This is also a significant improvement to
the law, one that will ensure that states appropriately include all
ELLs in ESEA accountability systems.
At the same time, the draft bill grants increased flexibility to
states, districts, and schools in the treatment of ELLs, especially
during the 2-year window in which states are developing valid and
reliable content assessments. During this 2-year window, the bill would
permit schools and districts to, for the first time, calculate AYP for
reading/language arts using results from English language proficiency
assessments for ELLs at the lowest levels of English proficiency.\19\
Schools will therefore be relieved of pressures to demonstrate ELL
academic achievement using assessments that have not been valid and
reliable for ELLs. Because English language proficiency assessments are
not ultimately comparable measures of content knowledge in reading/
language arts, however, this 2-year window will close when states
implement the appropriate content assessments described above.
The draft would also provide additional increased flexibility in
the treatment of ELLs that was not in the ``No Child Left Behind''
statute. First, it codifies Department of Education regulations that
exempt recently-arrived ELLs (those who have attended schools in the
U.S. for less than 12 months) from one administration of the state's
reading/language arts academic assessment.\20\ In addition, the draft
would permit schools to count ELL students who have acquired English
proficiency as members of the ELL subgroup for 3 years after they gain
English proficiency,\21\ which will benefit schools that are doing a
good job helping students learn English.
Title III of the discussion draft, ``Language Instruction for
Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students,'' also reforms the
ESEA to the benefit of ELLs. The draft Title III would require the
Secretary of Education to improve data collection and grant
distribution practices with respect to ELLs.\22\ It would require
states to describe how they will ensure that ELLs and immigrant
children ``access the full curriculum in a manner that is
understandable to and appropriately addresses the linguistic needs of
such children.'' \23\ It would also specifically authorize program
activities that support ``instructional programs that promote academic
proficiency in more than one language,'' i.e., bilingual education
programs of instruction.\24\
V. Conclusion
The No Child Left Behind Act has focused increased attention upon
the academic and linguistic concerns of the Latino population,
especially English language learners. The poor academic achievement
levels of Latinos and ELLs were generally a well-kept secret prior to
NCLB; this, thankfully, is no longer the case. NCLB has increased the
pressure at every level of our education system to improve results for
underperforming students, and this is clearly a step in the right
direction for student populations that have historically existed in the
shadows of the U.S. public education system.
As ESEA is debated, approved, and implemented, officials at all
levels of government must ensure that they fully consider the
educational interests of Latinos and ELLs. If ESEA reforms are
ineffective for these large and growing student populations that
disproportionately suffer from low academic achievement, ESEA will be
ineffective in reforming our public education system as a whole.
The bipartisan draft reauthorization bill recently released by the
House Committee on Education and Labor includes numerous reforms that
will greatly improve the law's effectiveness for students while
ensuring that it is less burdensome to our nation's schools and
teachers. Latino students, especially English language learners, stand
to benefit from many ESEA reforms that would be authorized under the
draft bill. MALDEF looks forward to continuing to work with this
Committee and the full Congress to ensure the timely renewal of this
critical civil rights legislation.
endnotes
\1\ Source: U.S. Department of Education. See http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/coe/2007/section1/indicator05.asp
\2\ See, e.g., Ferg-Cadima, James A., Black, White, and Brown:
Latino School Desegregation Efforts in the Pre- and Post- Brown v.
Board of Education Era, Washington, D.C.: Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund (2004) (available at: http://
www.maldef.org/publications/pdf/LatinoDesegregationPaper2004.pdf).
\3\ Source: U.S. Department of Education. See www.ed.gov/admins/
lead/account/lepfactsheet.html.
\4\ National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP): Reading and Mathematics, Washington, DC
(available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading--math--
2005/).
\5\ See Fry, R., Hispanic Youths Dropping Out of Schools: Measuring
the Problem, Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center (2003), p8.
\6\ See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/fastfaq/4.html; see
Lazarin, M., Improving Assessment and Accountability for English
Language Learners in the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C.:
National Council of La Raza (2006), pl (noting that 45% of Latino
students are ELL).
\7\ Source: U.S. Department of Education. See http://
www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html; http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
methods/english/lepfactsheet.html.
\8\ See, e.g., Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J.,
& Herwantoro, S., The New Demography of America's Schools: Immigration
and the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute
(2005), p18.
\9\ See, e.g., Short, Debra, & Fitzsimmons, Shannon, Double the
Work: Challenges and Solutions to Developing Language and Academic
Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners, Washington, D.C.:
Alliance for Excellent Education (2007).
\10\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind
Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure
Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency, GAO-07-140, July
2006 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06815.pdf).
\11\ 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
\12\ Id.
\13\ ``LEP'' is an acronym for ``Limited English Proficient,''
which is synonymous with ``English language learner.''
\14\ Section 6113(c)(2).
\15\ Section 1111(b)(10)(C).
\16\ Section 1111(b)(10)(A).
\17\ Section 1111(b)(6)(C).
\18\ Section 1111 (b)(3)(D)(xi)(II); Section 1111(b)(3)(D)(xi)(IV);
Section 1111(b)(3)(D)(xi).
\19\ Section 1111(b)(10)(B).
\20\ Section 1111(b)(1)(Q).
\21\ Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(dd).
\22\ Section 3111(c).
\23\ Section 3113(b)(2).
\24\ Section 3115(d)(8).
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Jones?
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE J. JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
URBAN LEAGUE
Ms. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am Stephanie Jones, the executive director of the
National Urban League Policy Institute, and we are the policy
research and advocacy arm of the National Urban League.
On behalf of Marc Morial, our president and CEO in the
Urban League movement, I thank this committee for the
opportunity to offer our comments on this draft, the discussion
draft focusing on No Child Left Behind.
Throughout our 97-year history, the National Urban League
has amassed substantial experience in the development and
implementation of programs that serve children and youth. In
just the last 3 years, for example, the National Urban League
has directly served nearly three-quarters of a million young
people through a range of programs conducted by our hundred-
plus affiliates around the country.
Last July, the National Urban League unveiled our
groundbreaking Opportunity Compact, which is a comprehensive
set of principles and policy recommendations designed to
empower all Americans to be full participants in the economic
and social mainstream of this Nation.
The Opportunity Compact is premised on four cornerstones,
the first and most fundamental of which sets forth policies
that guarantee our children the opportunity to thrive. Our
Opportunity Compact and its opportunity to thrive shares many
of the goals of No Child Left Behind because we recognize that
only with a solid quality educational foundation can America's
children grow up to partake in the other critical opportunities
that all Americans deserve.
Unfortunately, however, for too many African American and
Latino children, the vision of No Child Left Behind has yet to
be fully realized. In light of our deep interest in and
considerable knowledge of this issue, last month we submitted
to the committee our extensive recommendations for this
reauthorization. We are pleased that many of our
recommendations are reflected in this draft and our hope or
that our comments today and our work with you as we move
forward will be of benefit to you.
Now, the draft takes some very positive steps toward our
mutual goal.
First, when it comes to addressing resource inequities in
our schools, we feel that you are moving in the right
direction, particularly by proposing to close the comparability
loophole that currently allows school districts to provide
high-poverty schools with less State and local funding, which
is measured largely through teacher salaries.
The draft document also appears to strengthen the inclusion
of nonprofit, community-based organizations, which is a very
positive development.
So we are encouraged by these steps, but there are some
other areas of the draft that need improvement. And I will go
through each of those. And if, as a matter of time, if I don't
get to all of them, it is not that we don't find them
important, it is just really a function of time.
Now, while the draft provides for multiple indicators and
assessments to measure adequate yearly progress beyond reading
and math tests, we believe that the menu approach, whereby
States can pick from a list of indicators, is confusing and has
the potential for loopholes through which districts can hide
the performance of certain populations. We recommend that a
comprehensive accountability framework with an index using
multiple measures be put in place, so that schools are
accountable for student growth along all parts of the
achievement continuum.
The draft document takes a positive step toward a
longitudinal data system, as well. However, we are concerned
that the proposed data system is not more directly tied to a
comprehensive accountability framework. If the intent is to
truly hold districts accountable for higher academic
achievements, the districts must provide the necessary
structures, supports and conditions for high-quality teaching
and learning. Therefore, the National Urban League recommends
that States be required to develop longitudinal data systems
with unique student identifiers that align student data with
teacher data, school performance and resource data.
We find the section on school improvement and supplemental
education services to be especially problematic. The draft
document limits access to SES only to students attending high-
priority schools and also maintains the cap on monies available
for this service. We strongly oppose a tiered system and
recommend that SES eligibility requirements be changed to offer
immediate academic support to all students not proficient,
rather than have them wait for 3 years before they can receive
desperately needed academic support.
In our 2007 ``State of Black America'' report, the National
Urban League recommended longer school days to keep young
people, especially African American boys, focused on education
and away from the distractions that can lead them down the
wrong path. We are pleased that the draft includes extended
learning time as a proven intervention option. However, we
strongly urge that any experiment with expanded learning time
be funded in addition to, not at the expense of, supplemental
education services.
The draft also requires that all students be taught by
teachers who meet at least a minimum standard of
qualifications. However, there does not appear to be any
provision for incentives, outlined in our recommendations, for
securing highly qualified teachers and principals and no
provision for increasing African American male teachers.
Moreover, this section appears to have too many loopholes that
could undermine the teacher quality requirement. We recommend
further work be done in this area to ensure that districts
fulfill their obligation to provide qualified teachers to all
students.
The National Urban League applauds the draft documents that
strengthen parental involvement policies as an important step
toward holding schools more accountable. We urge Congress,
however, to go further and truly empower parents by including a
private right of action, as recommended by the Commission on No
Child Left Behind.
And although we have not reached the funding point of this
process, we must never forget that these improvements that we
recommend, while commendable and much-needed, will be little
more than empty promises unless they are fully funded. So I
take this opportunity to urge you in the strongest possible
terms to fully fund No Child Left Behind and to ensure that all
monies authorized be appropriated to reach all eligible
children.
The National Urban League appreciates this opportunity to
share our views with the committee at this very early stage of
the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, and we
look forward to working with you to ensure that No Child Left
Behind lives up to its original promise on behalf of all of
America's children.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie J. Jones, Executive Director, National
Urban League Policy Institute
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, I am Stephanie Jones,
Executive Director of the National Urban League Policy Institute
(NULPI). Located here in Washington, D.C., the Policy Institute is the
research, policy and advocacy arm of the National Urban League.
Dedicated to the pursuit of economic self-reliance and equal
opportunity for African Americans, the Policy Institute's work focuses
on the National Urban League's 5-point empowerment agenda that
includes: economic empowerment, education and youth development, health
and quality of life, civil rights, and racial justice and civic
engagement.
On behalf of Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban
League (NUL), I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to
offer our comments on the August 28, 2007 committee staff discussion
draft that focuses on Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, the heart of which is known as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). Our analysis of the draft bill is based on how it responds to
our extensive recommendations for NCLB reauthorization that were
submitted to the Committee on August 9, 2007. (Copy attached)
Throughout its 97-year history, the National Urban League has
amassed substantial experience in the administration and implementation
of programs that serve children and youth. In just the last three
years, 2004--2006, the National Urban League has directly served more
than 727,918 children and youth\1\ through a range of programs. The
Urban League network of affiliates is directly involved in various
aspects of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)--as operators of charter
schools, Supplemental Educational Service (SES) providers, participants
and partners under the 21st Century Learning Communities, parent
education specialists, and members of local and state school
improvement teams.
In July 2007, the National Urban League unveiled its groundbreaking
Opportunity Compact, a comprehensive set of principles and policy
recommendations designed to empower all Americans to be full
participants in the economic and social mainstream of this nation.
(Copy attached) The Opportunity Compact is premised on four
cornerstones: 1) the Opportunity to Thrive (Children); 2) the
Opportunity to Earn (Jobs); 3) the Opportunity to Own (Housing); and 4)
the Opportunity to Prosper (Entrepreneurship).
The Opportunity to Thrive is the first and most fundamental of
these four cornerstones because only with a solid, quality educational
foundation can America's children grow up to partake in the other
critical opportunities that all Americans deserve. For too many African
American and Latino children however, the vision of NCLB has yet to be
realized. According to the National Urban League's Opportunity Compact,
Despite the goals of the [NCLB] Act, African American and Latino
students continue to lag behind their white and Asian American peers on
national standardized achievement tests. The disadvantages many
minority students face on a daily basis can have a serious impact on
their educational experiences. For example, minority students often
attend high-poverty, poorly resourced schools with less rigorous
curricula\2\ * * * They also experience the injustices of
overrepresentation in special education classes and under-
representation in gifted and advanced placement classes.\3\ In addition
to inadequate resources, minority students are more likely to be taught
by poorly qualified or inexperienced teachers.\4\ Research also
suggests students of color may experience bias, such as lower teacher
expectations and less challenging academic standards than their white
counterparts.\5\
It is from this perspective that we offer our comments on the draft
proposals for reauthorization of NCLB.
Accountability--Multiple Indicators/Assessments. While the draft
provides for ``multiple indicators/assessments'' to measure Adequate
Yearly Progress beyond reading and math tests, it makes this a State
option. In our recommendations, the National Urban League did call for
the use of multiple measures of assessment but we are not in favor of a
``menu'' approach where States could pick and choose from a list of
indicators. We recommended that a ``Comprehensive Accountability
Framework'' be put in place so that schools are accountable for student
growth along all parts of the achievement continuum. Multiple measures
allow for evaluation of a full spectrum of standards including higher-
order thinking skills and performance skills. They also allow for
greater accountability checks and balances so that one measure does not
occur at the expense of others--e.g. boosting test scores by pushing
out low-performing students. Therefore an index using multiple measures
allows States to track students' growth at every point on the
achievement spectrum. An ``index'' using multiple measures should work
much like those used in employment or economic forecasting (GNP or Dow
Jones). The multiple measures recommended would create a ``dashboard''
to gauge student growth.
The language used in the draft appears to allow greater opportunity
for cherry picking indicators. The ``menu'' approach outlined in the
draft is confusing and has the potential for loopholes through which
the performance of certain populations could be hidden.
Addressing Resource Inequities in Our Schools. The draft appears to
move in the right direction on this issue by proposing to close the
comparability loophole that currently allows school districts to
provide high-poverty schools with less state and local funding, which
is measured largely through teacher salaries. It requires districts to
attain equity in teacher distribution and to include this information
on district report cards. Title I funds were intended to supplement
those schools that had high numbers of disadvantaged students in order
to provide ``added'' support. The notion is that Title I would bring
``additional'' monies to high poverty schools when operating from an
equal funding base as measured by teacher salaries. Instead, many of
these schools received fewer state and local dollars because districts
used Title I funds to supplant rather than supplement.
Community Based Organizations. The draft document appears to
strengthen the inclusion of non-profit community based organizations
throughout various components of the Act.
Longitudinal Data System Requirement. The draft document takes a
positive step towards a longitudinal data system. However, NUL is
concerned that the proposed data system is not more directly tied to a
comprehensive accountability framework. The NUL recommends that states
be required to develop longitudinal data systems with unique student
identifiers that align student data with teacher data, school
performance, and resource data. If the intent is to truly hold
districts accountable for higher academic achievement then districts
must provide the necessary structures, supports and conditions for high
quality teaching and learning.
School Improvement and Supplemental Educational Services (SES). The
National Urban League finds this section to be especially problematic.
First, the NUL strongly opposes a tiered system. ``Priority Schools''
are those that miss AYP in one or two student groups. ``High Priority
Schools'' missed AYP in most, if not all of their student groups. Only
``High Priority Schools'' would be required to provide students with
SES or choice. Therefore, when the school data is disaggregated and one
or two students groups do not show growth then the district will not be
required to provide SES or choice. Given that the draft also allows
States to ``choose'' indicators from a ``menu'' it will be a given that
States could manipulate this to show the fewest student groups as
missing AYP. It must be noted that the draft document does not appear
to provide any provisions for the same one or two students groups
showing up as missing AYP for multiple years. Though these schools will
have ``two'' interventions from a list to these ``struggling students''
we view this basically as paperwork.
In its comprehensive recommendations, the NUL recommends that SES
eligibility requirements be changed to offer academic support to all
students not ``proficient'' immediately rather than have them wait
three years before they can receive academic support.'' The draft
document limits access to SES to students only attending High Priority
Schools and also maintains the ``cap'' on monies available for this
service. Districts must only set aside ``20 percent of the agency's
annual allocation or an amount equal to at least 20 percent of each
identified school's allocation''. It also appears that the draft
document would allow districts to request the State to spend less and/
or ``use up to 10 percent for school improvement and assistance
measures'' thereby reducing the amount even further. The NUL would
strongly oppose this as well. Many more students are in need of SES
services then who actually have the opportunity to receive them.
Extended Learning Time. In our 2007 State of Black America report,
the NUL recommended longer school days to keep young people--especially
young boys--focused on education and away from the distractions that
could lead them down the wrong paths. However, we strongly urge that
any experiment with expanded learning time be funded in addition to,
and not at the expense of Supplemental Educational Services.
Teacher Quality. The draft requires that all students be taught by
teachers who ``meet at least a minimum standard of qualifications.''
There does not appear to be any provision for incentives outlined in
the NUL's recommendations for securing highly qualified teachers and
principals, and no provision for increasing African American male
teachers as proposed by NUL. This section appears to have too many ways
for districts to NOT meet the teacher quality requirement. There still
remain too many loopholes for districts. Though the draft states that
``struggling'' students must not be taught by an ``unqualified
teacher'' for more than ``two consecutive years'' the draft goes on to
say if districts can't find a qualified person then they must make this
public to parents and the community and take steps to try to correct
it. The original law called for the use of qualified teachers but
districts made use of waivers and therefore the most ``struggling''
students continue to be taught by under-qualified teachers (those
teaching out of field, etc). The NUL recommends further work in this
area to eliminate districts from opting out from their obligation to
provide qualified teachers to all students.
Private Right of Action. The National Urban League supports the
bipartisan report of The Commission of No Child Left Behind (2007)
recommendation that parents and other concerned parties have the right
to hold districts, states, and the US Department of Education
accountable for implementing the requirements of NCLB through enhanced
enforcement options with the state and the US Department of Education.
States and the US Department of Education should be required to
establish a process to hear complaints, with the only remedy being the
full implementation of the law. The National Urban League applauds the
draft document's strengthened Parental Involvement policies as an
important step towards holding schools more accountable. We urge
Congress to go further by including a private right of action as
recommended by the Commission.
The National Urban League appreciates this opportunity to share our
views with the Committee on this very early stage of the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that the No Child Left Behind Act lives up
to its original promise on behalf of all America's children.
National Urban League (www.nul.org). Established in 1910, The Urban
League is the nation's oldest and largest community-based movement
devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and
social mainstream. Today, the National Urban League, headquartered in
New York City, spearheads the non-partisan efforts of its local
affiliates. There are over 100 local affiliates of the National Urban
League located in 36 states and the District of Columbia providing
direct services to more than 2 million people nationwide through
programs, advocacy and research.
endnotes
\1\ (2007 Urban League Census)
\2\ See Christopher B. Knaus. ``Still Segregated, Still Unequal:
Analyzing the Impact of No Child Left Behind on African-American
Students.'' In The State of Black America 2007. National Urban League.
2007.
\3\ See Caroline Rothert. ``Achievement Gaps and No Child Left
Behind.'' Youth Law News. April--June 2005.
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ Ibid.
______
National Urban League Recommendations for the Reauthorization of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Introduction
The National Urban League (NUL) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, civil
rights, and community based organization providing direct services,
research and policy advocacy to help individuals and communities reach
their full potential. NUL works primarily with African American and
other emerging ethnic communities through its network of over 100
professionally staffed affiliates in over 36 states and the District of
Columbia. The NUL and its affiliates work to close equality gaps for
people of all economic levels and stages of life.
Throughout our 97-year history, we have amassed substantial
experience in the administration and implementation of programs that
serve children and youth. In just the last three years, 2004-2006, the
National Urban League has directly served more than 727,918 children
and youth\1\ through a range of programs. The Urban League network of
affiliates is directly involved in various aspects of No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB)--as operators of charter schools, Supplemental
Educational Service (SES) providers, participants and partners under
the 21st Century Learning Communities, parent education specialists,
and members of local and state school improvement teams.
All children deserve the opportunity to thrive
In July 2007, the National Urban League unveiled its groundbreaking
Opportunity Compact, a comprehensive set of principles and policy
recommendations designed to empower all Americans to be full
participants in the economic and social mainstream of this nation. The
Opportunity Compact is premised on four cornerstones: 1) the
Opportunity to Thrive (Children); 2) the Opportunity to Earn (Jobs); 3)
the Opportunity to Own (Housing); and 4) the Opportunity to Prosper
(Entrepreneurship). The Opportunity to Thrive is the first and most
fundamental of these four cornerstones because only with a solid,
quality educational foundation can America's children grow up to
partake in the other critical opportunities that all Americans deserve.
It is with this goal in mind that the National Urban League,
drawing upon our extensive knowledge and experience base, presents our
analysis of the vision and promise of NCLB and urges that Congress take
the following ten steps to ensure that NCLB lives up to its promise:
1. Authorize at least $32 billion to fully fund NCLB and ensure
that all monies authorized be appropriated to reach all eligible
children;
2. Require states to compare and publicly report resources
available to achieve a sound and basic education for every child in
every school;
3. Replace Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) with a Comprehensive
Accountability Framework that can more accurately capture student
performance using multiple measures of achievement;
4. Enact a federal teacher and principal supply policy to identify
and support highly qualified and effective teachers and leaders for all
students;
5. Establish a private right of action that gives parents and other
concerned parties the ability to hold districts, states, and the US
Department of Education accountable for implementing the requirements
of NCLB;
6. Guarantee that all three- and four-year olds have access to full
day, developmentally appropriate, high quality early childhood
education;
7. Change Supplemental Education Services (SES) eligibility
requirements to offer immediate academic support to all students not
``proficient;''
8. Provide increased funding to states for SES and require
districts to provide academic support to ALL eligible students;
9. Create a new federal secondary school improvement fund to
support low-performing middle and high schools;
10. Increase funds to provide for more meaningful, understandable
and timely information regarding key school and student performance
data.
The vision of NCLB
In 2002 Congress signed into law NCLB with bipartisan support. This
version of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was also
acknowledged by the civil rights community because it was unprecedented
in that it placed an emphasis on improving education for those
populations that are not well served by the nation's education system--
students of color, those living in poverty, new English learners and
students with disabilities. In setting annual test-score targets for
subgroups of students, NCLB aimed to raise achievement and close the
achievement gap with a goal of ``100 percent proficiency'' by 2014.
Under the law, a school's failure to meet these targets, or annual
yearly progress, could lead to school reconstitutions or closures, as
well as the ability of parents to transfer their child. The premise of
holding schools, districts and states accountable for the education of
our children must be applauded even if implementation was very much
shortsighted.
In fact, NCLB contains certain clear breakthroughs in education.
First, data about students' performance is disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, language and class, exposing what many in the civil rights
community have long known: poor children and children of color are not
receiving the kind of education that will lead them to high academic
performance. Second, under NCLB all students are entitled to a
qualified teacher, thereby acknowledging that students in poor families
and students of color experience a revolving door of inexperienced and
untrained teachers. Students in urban schools are more likely than
their more affluent counterparts to be taught by a teacher who does not
hold a major in the subject area they teach or a long term substitute
not fully licensed. According to the research of Ron Ferguson,
professor at Harvard University Graduate School of Education, the
greatest in-school factor affecting student performance is the quality
of the teacher. The compulsory nature of schooling should require the
concomitant right of students to have access to a qualified teacher.
And finally, NCLB provides more provisions for parent involvement and
engagement than any other piece of US Department of Education
legislation. The NCLB provisions that empower parents and guardians to
demand that their children receive the opportunities to learn under the
law are unprecedented.
Implementation of NCLB has received mixed reviews. Many question
whether NCLB has actually improved student performance; some others
suggest that it has actually impeded progress. Clearly, changes are
needed if NCLB is to grow closer to its original intent. The following
are the National Urban League's recommendations for the reauthorization
of NCLB.
Money does matter
Congress and the President have under funded NLCB by approximately
$56 billion since its inception. The President's proposed 2008 budget
would again under fund the law by another $15 billion for a total of
$71 billion since NCLB was enacted in 2002. Though the rhetoric on NCLB
is unprecedented in its goal to ``ensure that all children have a fair,
equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education'',
the federal government has not invested in making this happen.
Currently, NCLB funding represents less than 10 percent of most
schools' budget.\2\ According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service, Title I, Part A, alone the largest program under NCLB, would
have required approximately $24.7 billion dollars in FY04 to serve all
children counted under the Title I basic formula using the law's own
expenditure factors. (CRS, RL31487, ``Education for the Disadvantaged:
Overview of ESEA Title I-A Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind
Act.'') \3\
Recommendation 1: The National Urban League recommends that at
least $32 billion be authorized to fully fund NCLB and that all monies
authorized be appropriated to reach all eligible children.
A comprehensive accountability system
NCLB was ambitious in its attempt to put into place an
accountability system to ensure that all students are ``proficient'' by
2014. Testing is an important tool within an educational accountability
system. Within a classroom testing is a diagnostic tool to help
teachers gauge student learning and provide valuable information on
what students know and what skills sets they are lacking At the
district level testing affords administrators greater understanding of
how schooling is affecting different populations of students. The
National Urban League supports the disaggregation of data under NCLB
and believes it should continue. Additionally, the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) gives a national perspective of how the
nation's schools are performing overall, even though it must be
remembered that education is a state responsibility and this nation has
no national curriculum of what students should know and be able to do.
Unfortunately, testing alone has become synonymous with the notion of
accountability and a single test has become the sole measure to gauge
progress. By and large, students bear the brunt of this narrowly
defined system of accountability.
The National Urban League believes that a more comprehensive system
of accountability is needed, one that not only holds students,
districts, and states accountable to help students become
``proficient''; but also holds the federal government accountable for
investing in high quality education for all students. The following
recommendations are key steps to achieving this goal.
Close the Equality Gap by Ending Resource Inequities in Our Schools
To ensure that all students have access to the structures,
supports, and opportunities to learn, the law must address the stark
educational inequities in resources. In some states, the per pupil
expenditures in high-spending schools exceed low-spending schools by a
ratio of three to one. These inequities are further exacerbated across
states and in schools serving high numbers of children of color and
those with high concentrations of English Language Learners. If schools
are to close the achievement gap by 2014, we must also close the
equality gap among schools.
Recommendation 2: The National Urban League recommends that states
be required to compare and publicly report resources available to
achieve a sound and basic education for every child in every school.
Where inequities appear, states should develop a five-year plan for
equalizing resources and require a publicly-reported bi-annual report
that evaluates progress towards the five-year goal. Federal incentives
should be available to states to develop alternative school-finance
formulas that minimize heavy reliance on local property taxes and
increase resources for the students and school that need it most.
Replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with a Comprehensive
Accountability Framework
The current system of a school's success is measured through AYP,
which places the full responsibility for accountability on the backs of
students. AYP is calculated based on a single test measure and
penalizes schools with a diversity of populations, e.g. large numbers
of students on free or reduced lunch, in special education, and English
Language Learners. Again, the NUL supports the disaggregation of data
as an accountability element. A more comprehensive accountability
system is needed which uses multiple measures of assessment of student
progress and achievement coupled with school indicators that provide
the conditions that support high quality teaching and learning.
Accountability standards for student achievement must be tied to the
accountability for districts and states to provide the necessary
structures, supports, and conditions for better teaching and learning.
Students and teachers should not bear the brunt of accountability
alone.
Recommendation 3: The National Urban League recommends that annual
yearly progress (AYP) be replaced with a Comprehensive Accountability
Framework that can more accurately capture student performance using
multiple measures of achievement, including higher-ordered thinking and
understanding, and ensure appropriate assessments for special education
students and English Language Learners. Rather than provide a single
snapshot of student performance as with AYP, a more comprehensive
accountability system would require schools to increase their
disaggregate graduation rates over time and consider graduation rates
on an equal footing with high-quality assessments aligned to college
and work readiness in determining school quality. States would be
required to develop longitudinal data systems with unique student
identifiers that align student data with teacher data, school
performance, and resource data.
All Students Must Have Access to Highly Qualified and Effective
Teachers and Leaders
Currently teacher quality is unevenly distributed in our schools.
Those schools serving students with the most challenging needs are most
likely to have the least qualified and least effective teachers. If we
are serious about all students performing at high levels, then all
students must have access to highly qualified teachers and principals.
According to Ronald Ferguson, professor at Harvard University, the
greatest in-school factor affecting student performance is the quality
of the teacher. Christopher Knaus noted in the National Urban League
State of Black America 2007 report that high-poverty schools have three
times as many uncertified or out-of-field teachers as low-poverty
schools. These schools are more likely to have the ``least experienced
teachers, the highest teacher turnover rates, the highest percentage of
teachers teaching outside of their fields, and often have the highest
student-to-teacher ratios.'' The National Urban League supports the
recommendations to ``Provide Students with Excellent Leaders and
Teachers They Need to Succeed'', contained in The Plan for Success,
developed by the Campaign for High School Equity, of which we are a
member.
Recommendation 4: The National Urban League recommends that a
federal teacher and principal supply policy be enacted to identify and
support highly qualified and effective teachers and leaders for all
students. Provide higher pay and other incentives, such as home-buying
programs or tax credits, to attract effective school leaders and
teachers to serve in high-need schools. Special attention should be
made to recruit and support African American males' entry into teaching
and the principalship through scholarships, loan forgiveness,
fellowships, and other incentives.
Parents and Guardians Must Be Given a ``Private Right of Action''
NCLB requires states to measure student achievement and hold
schools accountable for results but it does not provide adequate
remedies for students when states and schools fail to implement the
requirements of NCLB. States are required to develop plans for
assessment and accountability systems yet there are no ``enforcement
obligations'' of the district, states, or the US Department of
Education. Parents and other citizens must be given the right to ensure
that states are living up to the requirements and obligations of NCLB.
Recommendation 5: The National Urban League supports the bipartisan
report of The Commission of No Child Left Behind (2007) recommendation
that parents and other concerned parties have the right to hold
districts, states, and the US Department of Education accountable for
implementing the requirements of NCLB through enhanced enforcement
options with the state and the US Department of Education. States and
the US Department of Education should be required to establish a
process to hear complaints, with the only remedy being the full
implementation of the law.
Investing in strategies to support student success
While it is important to have in place an accountability system
that measures progress toward the goal, NCLB must provide equitable
investment in the structures and supports that foster high quality
education and academic success. As Christopher Knaus states in NUL's
State of Black America 2007 report, NCLB has largely invested in the
``outcomes of inequality''--the achievement gap, rather than investing
in closing the inequality of opportunity to learn. The following
recommendations focus on key student support strategies:
Increase Incentives and Support for Full-Day, Developmentally
Appropriate, High-Quality Early Childhood Education for all
Three and Four Year Olds--Universal Pre-K
The National Urban League, in its State of Black America 2007:
Portrait of the Black Male report, called for universal early childhood
education as important measure for addressing the crisis of the black
male in America. But universal early childhood education not only
benefits young black men; it is critical that ALL children enter school
ready to take advantage of teaching and learning in order to be
successful in their schooling.
According to ``Years of Promise,'' the report of the Carnegie Task
Force on the Primary Grades (1996), these early years are crucial in a
young person's life when a firm foundation is laid for healthy
development and lifelong learning. According to ``The Economic Impact
of Child Care and Early Education: Financing Solutions for the Future''
(April 2005), high quality early childhood education helps prepare
young children to succeed in school and become better citizens; they
earn more; pay more taxes, and commit fewer crimes. Further, every
dollar invested in quality early care and education saves taxpayers up
to $13.00 in future costs. Children in these early years make
tremendous gains in cognition, language acquisition, and reasoning
which form the foundation for later learning. Children who have access
to high-quality preschool programs are better prepared to enter primary
grades and have a better chance of achieving to high levels than those
who do not.
Recommendation 6: The National Urban League recommends that all
three- and four-year olds have access to full day, developmentally
appropriate, high quality early childhood education. Incentives should
be put in place to encourage all early childhood education service
providers to become NAEYC (National Association for the Education of
Young Children) accredited, especially in high-need areas.
All Low Performing Students Must be Given the Support and Assistance
They Need in Order to be Successful
Under NCLB, if a Title I school fails to meet its learning goals or
annual yearly progress (AYP) for 3 consecutive years, a child receiving
free or reduced lunch in that school is eligible to receive additional
academic support through SES (supplemental educational services).
However, common sense would tell us that learning is a cumulative
process. Children's learning deficiencies will exacerbate exponentially
the longer they do not receive the academic support they need.
According to the US Department of Education, in the 2004-2005 school
year only 19% of the students eligible to receive supplemental
educational services under NCLB were enrolled. Approximately 38% of
districts spent 20% or less of the amount set aside for SES in 2004-
2005. Only 18% of districts spent 80% or more of the amount set aside
for SES in 2004-2005. If we are truly committed to closing the
achievement gap, then students must receive the supports they need to
achieve at higher levels when they are identified and not years later.
Districts should not be allowed to turn away eligible students,
restrict grade levels, limit dates for enrollment, or limit the number
of service providers because they do not want to spend their Title I
dollars. More than 70 Urban League affiliates throughout the country
offer homework and tutorial support during non-school hours serving
more than 200,000 young people annually. Fifteen Urban Leagues are
state approved as SES providers.
Recommendation 7: The National Urban League recommends that SES
eligibility requirements be changed to offer academic support to all
students not ``proficient'' immediately rather than have them wait
three years before they can receive academic support.
Recommendation 8: Provide increased funding to states for SES and
require districts to provide academic support to ALL eligible students.
Create a New Federal Secondary School Improvement Fund to Support Low-
Performing Middle and High schools
The nation's middle and high schools are in crisis. The National
Urban League is a member of the Campaign for High School Equity,\4\ a
coalition of civil rights organizations who believe that our children
must graduate from ``high school with a quality education that prepares
them for college, the twenty-first century workplace, and overall
success in life.'' About half of students who graduate leave high
school are unprepared to be successful in college. The nation spends
more than $1.4 billion a year in community college remedial education
alone for those students who do attend college but without the
necessary preparation they should have received while in high school.
Research contained in, ``The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent
Education for All of America's Children,'' (January 2007) states that
``each new high school graduate would yield a public benefit of
$209,000 in higher government revenues and lower government spending
for an overall investment of $82,000, divided between the costs of
powerful educational interventions and additional years of school
attendance leading to graduation. The net economic benefit to the
public purse is $127,000 per student and the benefits are 2.5 times
greater than the costs.''
Recommendation 9: The National Urban League recommends that a new
federal secondary school improvement fund be created to support low-
performing middle and high schools.
Increase Support for Family Engagement and Support for Greater Student
Learning at Home and in School
The positive connection between parent involvement and student
success is supported by more than 35 years of research (Henderson &
Mapp (2002); Catsambis, (2001); Simon (2004); Boethel (2003); Bohan-
Baker & Priscilla (2004)).\5\ Schools with well-structured, high
quality parent and family involvement programs see higher student
grades, test scores, and graduation rates, a decrease in the use of
drugs and alcohol and fewer instances of violent behavior rates, and an
increase in teachers' and administrators' morale and job satisfaction.
A two-year study by the Appleseed Foundation found that even though
NCLB had many laudable provisions for parent engagement, districts
failed to provide parents with information in a clear and timely
manner. The information that was provided, was not sensitive to the
cultural, language, and needs of those served.
Recommendation 10: The National Urban League recommends that funds
be increased to provide for more meaningful, understandable and timely
information regarding key school and student performance data. States,
districts and schools should be required to use multiple strategies for
communicating with parents that are culturally sensitive and in the
language of the home.
endnotes
\1\ (2007 Urban League Census)
\2\ Darling Hammond, Linda. May 21, 2007. The Nation.
\3\ As referenced in ``Title I funds: Who's Gaining, Who's Losing &
Why''. The Center on Education Policy, June 2004.
\4\ Campaign for High School Equity, A plan for success:
communities of color define policy priorities for high school reform.
(2007)
\5\ Henderson & Mapp, A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. (2002);
Catsambis. Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's
secondary education: Connections with high school seniors academic
success. (2001); Simon. High school outreach and family involvement
(2004); Boethel. Diversity: school, family, and community connections
(2003); Bohan-Baker & Priscilla. The transition to kindergarten: A
review of current research and promising practices to involve families
(2004).
______
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Losen?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. LOSEN, SENIOR EDUCATION LAW AND POLICY
ASSOCIATE, CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT OF UCLA
Mr. Losen. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
distinguished members of this committee, for this opportunity
to testify. My name is Dan Losen, and I offer this testimony on
behalf of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, where I am the
senior education law and policy associate.
Our extensive national research and publications on Title I
and dropouts during the last 8 years inform these comments.
We praise the bipartisan discussion draft revising No Child
Left Behind. It represents a substantial improvement, while
preserving No Child Left Behind's most important values.
Among the major improvements are the provisions fostering
comprehensive reforms based on research and emphasizing
progress and those provisions that reward success for the
attainment of education's broader goals, including graduating
from high school.
My testimony highlights several of our recommendations
submitted for the record.
First, mandate multiple measures, including 4-year
graduation rates, for subgroups of students to be credited as
integral parts of a reformulated adequate yearly progress
accountability system.
Second, put an even greater emphasis on realistic progress
measures based on levels of growth and outcomes that successful
schools have actually achieved.
Third, create valid measures for English language learners'
progress, mandate their use, and provide for the preparation of
teachers qualified to educate the 10 percent of students who
are English language learners.
Fourth, eliminate supplemental education services as a
mandatory remedy and use those funds instead to improve State
and local capacity to implement major school and district
reforms.
Fifth, regularly provide transfer opportunities to clearly
superior schools across district lines.
And, sixth, there should be a national report that looks at
nonschool factors and their impact of achievement on students
served by Title I.
I would like to elaborate on four of these.
Multiple measures: The discussion draft significantly
improves No Child Left Behind where it encourages the use of
multiple measures for accountability. Over 20 civil rights
groups and many educational leaders have called for this
change, providing that adequate yearly progress credit also be
given for significant growth on these multiple indicators in a
compensatory rather than add-on fashion.
Although the draft recognizes the importance of progress
measures, it still requires that all students be proficient by
2014. This deadline requires that the schools and districts
furthest from the goal make the most extraordinary gains, far
more than the most successful districts attain. The solution is
to set reasonable growth goals and hold schools and districts
accountable for improving at a rate that research says is
achievable. Otherwise, thousands of schools, including many
making moderate gains, will be labeled failures. This also
encourages the flight of highly qualified teachers away from
where they are needed most.
High school graduation rates: There is a graduation rate
crisis that poses a clear and present danger to our social and
economic future. In some districts, fewer than 50 percent of
students of color are earning a diploma. The draft's emphasis
on high school graduation, including a disaggregation for
accountability, could very well provide a remedy and makes the
whole accountability system far more rigorous.
However, our written testimony provides details on how
using a single on-time graduation rate rather than the two
rates proposed by the draft would close unintended
accountability loopholes if combined with incentives to work
with students who need extra time to earn their diploma.
Now, I should add that, in doing so, in switching back to a
single rate, we shouldn't allow students to change cohorts. It
has to be transparent. That is critical for the accountability
on graduation rates.
Transfers: We support the draft's policy giving the most
disadvantaged students in low-performing districts the first
opportunity to transfer to highly functioning districts.
However, the transfer provisions should ensure that schools
accepting transfers are substantially better and that parent
information systems be improved. Incentives for voluntary
interdistrict transfers to strong schools should be added.
English language learners: Subgroup accountability,
including English language learners, is critically important
but complicated, because we have severely inadequate tests.
This draft makes positive changes but should be strengthened in
two ways.
First, it should mandate research and test construction at
the national and regional levels to create valid measures for
major language groups. Sanctions should not be imposed on the
basis of existing invalid tests. Only valid tests should be
required for accountability purposes.
Second, the proposal should do more to train highly
qualified teachers to work with English language learners.
Toward this end, Departments of Education, the State and
Federal level should be required to develop and implement
teacher training standards to ensure that teachers serving high
numbers of English level learners are highly qualified and
understand how to help students facing great challenges of
learning another language while struggling to keep up
academically.
We believe that the proposed revisions to No Child Left
Behind should foster great equity in educational opportunity
for American children. With further improvements to the
excellent beginnings of this draft, we believe that educators
and civil rights advocates, community members across the
country, will find that their concerns have been heard, along
with new inspiration to help achieve its goals.
I would like to thank you once again for this opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Losen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel J. Losen, Senior Education Law and Policy
Associate, on Behalf of the Civil Rights Project of UCLA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf
of The Civil Rights Project at UCLA, I would like to express our
gratitude for this opportunity to comment on the Miller-McKeon
``Discussion Draft'' of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The current version of the Act is referred to
as ``The No Child Left Behind Act'' (NCLB) in this testimony. The Civil
Rights Project's central focus has been educational opportunity and our
research indicates that Title I of the Act can significantly improve
outcomes for disadvantaged children throughout our nation, but that
this potential has never been fully realized. Our most recent research
shows that the No Child Left Behind Act falls short of its laudable
goals in important ways. Therefore, we thank you for your tireless and
bipartisan efforts to strengthen this law in this promising draft.
The core mission of the civil rights project is to bridge the
worlds of ideas and action in service to the civil rights movement in
America. We commission research and work with scholars across the
country on education reform toward the pursuit of racial and ethnic
equity. Specifically, we have conducted 19 studies during the initial
congressional consideration of the law and ongoing studies of the NCLB
implementation process in six states and 11 school districts. In
addition our work on the book, Dropouts in America and on regional
reports and conferences around the country on this issue has put us in
the center of the movement to lower the scandalous loss of students in
our high schools. We believe that the breadth and depth of our
research, always centered squarely on issues of racial justice, makes
us well positioned to comment on the draft. Our research informs our
testimony.
We believe the draft proposal contains changes that can be expected
to improve the equality of opportunity for all children and especially
disadvantaged children of color. However, we have also found several
serious shortcomings and inconsistencies in the draft bill and we have
attempted to provide specific suggestions for improving the draft, some
of which are broad, while others suggest specific changes to the
legislative language.
Multiple Measures
Among the most important improvements in this proposal is its call
for multiple measures to be used to evaluate schools and for allowing
educators to receive accountability credit for significant growth on
several indicators besides assessments in reading and math. To the
extent that the theory of test driven accountability shapes school
teaching, the health of the country depends on having standards in more
than two or three subjects and the health of the democracy requires,
for example, that students know something about our history and
government. This principled shift toward a multiple measure system was
expressed in a letter that was signed by over 20 prominent civil rights
organizations, and sent to the members of this committee a few weeks
prior to the release of this draft. It is not good for civil rights if
students in high poverty black and Latino schools have their education
reduced to rote drilling in limited subjects when this comes at the
expense of every other aspect of the curriculum not tested. As a
remedy, we support broader accountability and ending the incentive for
schools to push out or transfer out students with lower test scores.
This draft represents a major stride toward such accountability.
On the other hand, the most serious flaw in this draft concerns the
retention of an arbitrary accountability time line, that all students
be proficient by 2014, along with a set of calibrated benchmarks. This
uniform deadline assumes that the schools and districts furthest from
the goal can make the most extraordinary gains. But the assumption
directly contradicts what research tells us about the rates of
improvement we can expect from the most successful districts. The goal
of 100 percent proficiency in six more years will not be attained
because all schools and districts would have to do something that has
never been done in any district unless the standards were extremely
low. The solution is straightforward--set reasonable growth goals and
hold schools and districts accountable for improving at a rate that
research says is attainable. Specifically, the 100% proficiency
requirement by 2014 undermines the credibility of the law, punishes
rather than rewards many successful schools, and should be replaced by
realistic growth targets based on the progress achieved in the quartile
of districts making the most rapid progress in the state. This is
consistent with the shift of attention to progress measures in the
draft bill. Shifting the focus from the unattainable ideal to ambitious
yet realistic goals would also help create conditions more likely to
encourage highly qualified teachers and principals to stay in the
schools that most seriously need them.
The draft proposal also adds strength reporting where it expands on
the requirement that states include in their accountability system's
determination of adequate yearly progress high school graduation rates
and at least one other achievement indicator for elementary schools.
The major changes here are that the draft would require disaggregation
for subgroups for graduation rate accountability and enable states
greater power to create more balanced and comprehensive accountability
systems, subject to the approval of the Secretary. CRP applauds the
draft's addition of these critically important accountability changes.
However, we urge the committee to add as a possible, if not required,
indicator that schools and districts measure progress on grade
promotion rates. We believe states should be required to report these
rates disaggregated by subgroups and encouraged to address the problem
of the massive retention of students, particularly in the high school
transition years, most profoundly in grade 9. Adding this measure to
reporting and accountability is important because research on retention
in grade has shown that it is extremely expensive, has few academic
benefits, and increases dropout probabilities.
Graduation Rate Measurement and Accountability
Our research shows that the widespread failure to earn a high
school diploma has had a devastating impact, especially in nonwhite
communities where employability and income are drastically reduced with
predictable effects on family instability and crime. In some districts
more than half of our African American, Latino and American Indian
students fail to earn high school diplomas. Failure of this magnitude
represents a clear and present threat to our social and economic
future. Research shows that massive flunking in ninth grade, before
tenth grade testing, is a chronic problem especially among minority
youth, and is linked to higher dropout rates. Without graduation rate
accountability, schools evaluated based on test scores can look
successful if more of their relatively low achieving students are
retained in grade 9, and then dropout. The new, more comprehensive
accountability system this discussion draft introduces would reveal
this artifice when it masks fundamental failure. Toward this end, the
addition of graduation accountability for subgroups of children for
graduating with a real diploma is critically important. Moreover, the
discussion draft's emphasis on graduation can be expected to make the
whole accountability system more rigorous and effective for all.
However, we are especially concerned that despite the tremendous
improvement in the draft proposal, and to the extension of Title I
resources and focus on high school reform, there are also some serious
flaws. We have questions about the discussion draft's accountability
program and possible unintended incentives for putting students on
slow-tracks toward graduation. Just as research suggests the definition
of proficiency was ``watered down'' in some states in response to
greater test based accountability, we worry that the standard
graduation rate, that is supposed to evaluate the typical four year
high school by calculating the percentage of students of a entering
high school cohort that graduate ``on time'' (in four years) with real
diplomas, will similarly be watered down if safeguards are not added.
Specifically, we are concerned that the discussion draft's system
for accountability and reporting of graduation rates, where it
introduces the ``extra year'' simultaneously introduces accountability
loopholes and unnecessarily complicates the evaluation of high schools.
Based on our work with public education and civil rights advocates, we
believe that transparency will make reporting and accountability
systems far more effective at generating public pressure on the right
problems. While it may be possible to close the loopholes and retain
the system as drafted, we recommend replacing the ``extra year''
provisions for reporting and accountability with a simpler and more
manageable system. We need a clear and relatively simple metric that
shows whether schools are moving forward or backward on the goal of
graduating their students on time. They should also be credited
separately for work they do to graduate students later without
introducing uncertainty into the basic measure.
The required calculations and reporting requirements of two groups,
an ``adjusted cohort'' graduation rate and an ``extra year'' adjusted
cohort rate both complicates and waters down the ``on time'' four year
rate. The clarification of the ``graduation rate'' is a considerable
improvement over the current law to the extent that it provides a
uniform definition, is based on the performance of a cohort of
students, and helps eliminate many of the loopholes in reporting and
accountability that CRP's research has revealed as contributors to
artificially inflated graduation rates which have often greatly
overstated true completion levels. Despite these substantial and
critically important improvements, the ``adjusted cohort'' definition
as drafted in Section 1124 beginning on page 318 at line 17 is flawed
because there is no reference to the ``standard number of years'' or a
``4 year'' rate for high schools that begin in grade 9, as provided in
the original NCLB. By leaving the ``exit year'' undefined and unbounded
this way, schools are not evaluated according to a standard expected
time for completion. This might allow a watering down of the standard
graduation rate for reporting called for in the National Governors
Association compact on this subject. Further, if graduation rates could
be based on different exit years this variability would make comparing
rates from school to school or district to district much more
difficult.
The construction of the EXTRA YEAR graduation cohort in Section
1124 opens up tremendous accountability loopholes: Few students
transfer after they complete Grade 12 (Grade 13?) as an ``Extra Year''
transfer if they move to a new district. On the other hand, many
students who do not pass grade 12 in their first attempt try again over
the summer or in this EXTRA year (Grade 13). The draft proposal's
language on transfer confirmation is strong where it requires formal
documentation of the transfer from the receiving school or diploma
awarding educational program. In contrast, the departure confirmation
is very weak as it requires formal documentation from the school that
the student has departed from but no formal confirmation from a parent
or guardian or other close relative. Therefore, the net impact is that
while very few students will transfer in, if students move out of
district after flunking grade twelve their departure can artificially
improve the performance of a regular high school.
There are complex issues here that make strengthening the departure
confirmation requirement problematic especially in highly mobile
communities. Fundamentally, if the parents failed to provide formal
notice, schools cannot easily get reliable confirmation from another
source. The extra year, therefore, adds an extra year of very difficult
to confirm departures from the cohort. What makes matters worse, is
that all of these ``extra year'' departures are, by definition,
students who were counted as ``non-graduates'' for the standard ``on
time'' or four year cohort. In other words, all of the difficult to
confirm departures in the ``extra year'' would have previously counted
against the school and district for ``on time'' rate accountability
giving struggling schools a tremendous incentive to record dropouts as
``extra year'' departures.
The Civil Rights Project suggests eliminating the ``extra year''
adjusted cohort entirely. Federal law should maintain the primacy of
the ``on time'' four year rate and only require states to track and
report the adjusted cohort graduation rate cohort as it pertains to an
``on time'' graduation rate. In this way, when there is public
discussion of the graduation rate, all will know this is the standard
four year rate. The technical solution is to both eliminate the ``extra
year'' rate and add language to the construction of the ``adjusted
graduation rate cohort'' indicating that it is a ``four year'' or ``on
time'' rate, or ``based on the standard number of years.''
Graduation Rates Counting for AYP
The new discussion draft adds language that sets a graduation rate
goal of 90% and would reward schools and districts that fall short of
this goal, but that meet the graduation growth rate with a bonus of up
to 15 percentage points that could be used as an offset against
calculating AYP based on assessments. This is a major improvement as it
represents a reasonable compensatory system. We also believe the
discussion draft adds important vitality to graduation rate
accountability where it delineates the reasonable growth rate,
requiring an average of 2.5 percentage points for what we interpret to
be a standard ``on time'' or 4 year adjusted cohort. To build on these
strengths, we encourage the drafters to attend to three major
weaknesses of the extra year and alternative schools provisions
pertaining to graduation rate accountability.
1. There is no research that would support applying a uniform
growth rate of 2.5% and a goal of 90% graduation to all alternative
schools. The category of alternative schools includes those that serve
as ``dumping grounds'' for students regular high schools will not deal
with as well as schools that are led by amazing staffs who give new
chance to young people who face what seem like hopeless odds. Obviously
accountability should target the dumping grounds and reward the heroic
efforts. While this accountability might be appropriate for some
schools we believe it is misplaced as it would apply to many others.
The issue arises because the discussion draft fails to acknowledge the
wide diversity of such schools, and the fact these schools usually
serve the very highest risk student populations. An alternative school
of this sort that reaches out to dropouts, students who have been in
prison, and teen parents, with a graduation rate of 65% earning real
diplomas, is a success. A regular high school with that rate should be
regarded as failing. Rather than apply the same graduation rate goals
to schools serving the most at risk populations as regular schools,
NCLB should provide schools and districts with incentives to help these
youth earn real diplomas in extended years. This is the kind of issue
where the standard may best be set by state officials working with
experts, subject to federal approval.
2. If extra year rates are the equivalent of ``on time'' rates for
accountability there is an incentive to put disadvantage minority youth
on the ``slow track'' so that the school can improve the chances of
making AYP. The EXTRA year rate should never be allowed to wholly
substitute the ``on time'' rate for a school designed around a four
year system. As the discussion draft is written, a school could make
AYP and earn a 15% compensatory bonus even if the 4 year rate declined.
The Civil Rights Project is concerned that low achieving students, and
especially students of color who have a history of being segregated
into low tracks in secondary school, could be put on the slow track to
make it easier for the school and district to meet the disaggregated
graduation rate goals. Further, at least one study indicates that a
diploma earned in 5 years is far less valuable than one earned ``on
time.''
3. A third major problem is that The EXTRA YEAR accountability
provision gives schools and districts many more ways to game the system
including an incentive to increase grade 9 retentions. Schools are
currently encouraged to improve scores artificially, in part because
test scores are carefully counted and graduation rates are not. We are
concerned that without safeguards, the ``extra year'' would introduce a
new incentive to retain more low achieving students at grade 9 where
schools could add a year of test prep for the grade 10 test, knowing
they also have an extra year to finish school. District data indicate
that the highest numbers of students dropout of high school before
grade 10. The unintended consequences of adding an extra year is that
it also adds an incentive for retaining students in grade 9, where the
extra year could be used for test preparation.
CRP recommends replacing the 5 year and alternative school
accountability with an extended years graduation rate safe harbor
provision. We believe that there are better and simpler ways to provide
schools and districts with greater incentives to help students needing
more time to eventually earn their high school diploma. There should be
a basic ``on time'' rate plus a second chance provision (safe harbor)
that gives credit for all extended years diplomas, not just one extra
year.
The suggested safe harbor would give districts equal credit for all
the students that earned a diploma in a given year, including all those
that needed more time, without a limit. This would make the whole
section easier to read, and would mean that alternative schools would
not be required to achieve the same high goal or rate of growth as
regular high schools. The provision we recommend would provide an
incentive to reach out and serve students who needed more time as it
would allow for AYP to be made by a school or district that had an
extended years program if the additional diplomas of the program
participants, when added to the standard ``on time'' calculation,
enabled the 2.5% growth requirement to be met. All alternative schools
not linked to a specific high school would have their diplomas count
toward the district's safe harbor. To retain the primacy of the ``on
time'' goal and ensure that the greater incentive was to have students
graduate ``on time'' the availability of the 15% compensatory bonus
could be either reduced, or eliminated if this safe harbor was needed
to make AYP. CRP suggests that additional safeguards should further
limit the use of the safe harbor to when four year graduates constitute
at least 75% of the diplomas awarded. This safeguard would prevent a
struggling school abusing the second chance provision and putting all
low achievers on a slow track to graduation. On the other hand, where
proven-effective specialized or alternative high schools and programs
were purposefully designed to award diplomas after five years, the law
should make waivers available, subject to the review of the Secretary.
The basic Graduation Rate Safe Harbor provision could be worded as
follows:
Graduation Rate Safe Harbor
Schools and districts that fail to meet the 2.5% growth requirement
may still make AYP for graduation rates if all the following conditions
are met:
a. The school or district's ``safe harbor graduation rate'' in
paragraph (b) for the group or groups in question was at least 2.5
percentage points higher than the 4 year rate for the prior year and at
least 75 percent of the diploma recipients, overall or for any subgroup
are four-year ``on time'' graduates.
b. The ``safe harbor'' graduation rate is determined by adding the
number of diploma recipients that were awarded in the current year to
students that are not part of the current year's adjusted cohort to the
numerator and denominator of the adjusted cohort graduation rate
calculation. If the ``safe harbor'' rate is 2.5% points or more higher
than the ``on time'' graduation rate for the prior year the school or
district makes AYP.
c. Safe Harbor Restrictions: A state may award a maximum of 5 bonus
points to a school or district for achieving the AYP graduation rate
goal under the safe harbor provision.
Longitudinal Data Policies and Oversight
Even in states with advanced longitudinal data systems may need a
combination of support and oversight. Our recent review of the Texas
system, a system regarded by many as the ``gold standard'' revealed how
the state adopted policies that seriously reduced the usefulness of the
data, such as failing to track GED enrollees or treating all duplicate
records and students with unknown status as errors and erasing them
from the system. Therefore, law should require additional quality
control measures and funding of these systems to ensure they are
adequate and have policies in place that will accurately track students
who otherwise might disappear from school records. If these systems are
not able to document the destination of substantial numbers of
students, especially students of color, who simply disappear from the
system, it will not provide a reliable source for policy making and
evaluation of educational progress.
Discipline Data
CRP commends the committee's draft for requiring local educational
agency report cards to include rates of suspension and expulsion
disaggregated by subgroup in Section 1111 (2)(B)(ii)(III). However the
state report card provisions should contain a parallel provision,
including the disaggregation of this data in state reports.
Transfer Options Triggered by Accountability
In several places the draft acknowledges that rigorous standards
and raised expectations must be paired with serious support provided to
those schools and districts needing to make hard changes. One of these
is providing a transfer option to students in schools and districts
needing improvement, having failed to make AYP for two consecutive
years. In particular we applaud that the draft would authorize states
to enable the most disadvantaged students in low performing districts
the first opportunity to transfer to highly functioning districts.
As it stands, problems often arise under the transfer provision
where a school not meeting standards is required to permit its students
to transfer to a school meeting standards in the same district. That is
not adequate because, for technical reasons, the transfer options are
limited in most districts and often do not include many options to
attend less impoverished schools with genuinely higher levels of
academic success. In fact, because a school can fail AYP because of the
performance of a single subgroup, or because 95% of the students were
not tested, students are often faced with the option of transferring to
a school with an overall lower average achievement level than the
school they are leaving. Funding a transfer from a weak school to a
weaker one is an inexcusable waste of money.
Further, while the draft correctly would not allow transfers to
schools filled beyond their capacity, the lack of viable transfer
options is all too often the reality in large urban districts with few
highly performing schools and many struggling ones. The draft should
add the option to transfer to a school located in a different district
should the immediate district not have enough highly performing schools
to accommodate all the transfer candidates. Toward the goal of
providing truly beneficial transfer opportunities, we urge the
committee to add financial incentives for receiving schools and
districts to encourage the use of the inter-district transfer
provisions and for transfers to the very highest performing schools
generally.
Extensive research on voluntary transfers and school choice in many
contexts and even in other countries consistently shows that
disadvantaged parents have little information about the choices and are
much less likely to transfer to the best options than families with
more resources and connections. For this reason good magnet school
plans tended to provide extensive parental information about school
quality and opportunity and active personal outreach and welcome to
disadvantaged parents through parent information centers and other
mechanisms. We believe that such efforts are needed.
Without such mechanisms we believe that the transfer resources are
likely to produce little or no real gain in too many cases.
Supplemental Services
Supplemental services such as tutoring by highly qualified
educators can be invaluable. However, there is no evidence that the
existing SES program is a wise investment and many reasons, from
research on serious school reform, to think that it is not.
Specifically, there is very little research documenting the
effectiveness of Supplemental Educational Services. Until there is
better evidence of the effectiveness of these programs, they should not
be required and there should not be a mandated set-aside. The worst
result would be to create a new lobby of corporate providers able to
secure funding without accountability. Tutoring is a valuable
educational process but most likely to be effective when done on a one-
to-one basis by a professional teacher and linked to the school's
curriculum.
If the set-aside is to be continued, we suggest adding a federally
mandated evaluation of the entire program, possibly in place of the
requirement for local evaluations in the draft since few districts have
the capacity to do professionally credible evaluations of this sort and
studies by providers represent fundamental conflicts of interest. We
further recommend that SES instructors be subject to the Highly
Qualified Teacher provisions of NCLB since we agree with the law's
fundamental emphasis on teacher quality.
Budget Set-Aside
Since only one in fifty eligible students has chosen the transfer
option, we recommend that that set aside be limited to 5% for possible
highly positive transfers (described above) and that 5% of the current
set aside be transferred to state school improvement efforts and the
remainder into implementation of the school's improvement plan, which
could, of course, include targeted tutoring linked closely to the
school's educational mission
If SES is to continue, it is essential to have a serious
independent national evaluation documenting what is being done with the
money and identifying its longitudinal effects. Further, federal
antidiscrimination laws should be made clearly applicable to SES
providers by formally identifying them as recipients of federal
funding. The current language in the draft on this subject is found in
the current law, but there are serious questions as to whether it is
sufficient to prevent SES providers from discriminating.
State Capacity
The Civil Rights Project's research in this area has revealed a
major problem with the expanding state role in the current law, that is
not addressed in the committee's draft--that is that the states receive
more adequate funding for the extremely complex tasks they are given
under this law. We recommend that the state share of the Title I
allocation be doubled to 10 percent. Our research in six states shows
that the state agencies are overwhelmed and have few resources to
oversee the required reforms of very large numbers of schools falling
behind NCLB goals. Anyone who has examined the disaster of Katrina or
knows the excellence of the National Park Service should recognize how
decisive good and expert administration is essential in managing
complex and difficult changes. It is obvious to us from our research on
state capacity that state officials working with the best of attentions
simply do not have the resources to do what the law demands of them.
Requiring fundamental changes without creating administrative capacity
is an exercise in rhetoric.
Charter Schools
Charter schools are public schools with special governance
arrangements expected to provide services regular public schools cannot
or have not provided, increasing the opportunity for students. In light
of the fact that these schools disproportionately serve minority
students and are offered as options for transfer for those families
under the law, and public schools may be involuntarily transformed into
charter schools, it is very important that they be evaluated and the
information be made available to citizens and families with transfer
rights. NCLB should more explicitly require that all publicly funded
schools in each state be evaluated under the same terms and subjected
to the same level of accountability.
The Testing and Accountability For English Language Learners
The testing and accountability for English language learners have
been central points of contention in the operation of NCLB because of
the conflict between the very good ideas of subgroup accountability and
inclusion of English language learners in the groups of students the
schools are responsible to help and the bad problems of severely
inadequate tests and unreasonable expectations. We believe that this
draft bill makes some important positive changes but that its benefits
could be strengthened. We call attention to two major issues:
The bill definitely moves in a positive direction in requiring the
use of the tests most likely to adequately measure students' knowledge
of the subject, independent of the language dimension. The requirements
to develop appropriate tests and other measures as well as appropriate
assessments of English language development are substantial
improvements. Although the existing NCLB has greatly accelerated work
on these issues it is important to note that there is still much that
needs to be learned about the psychometric construct of English
proficiency, its relationship to academic language, and what expected
growth targets may be for different groups of students, at different
ages. Even California, which has by far the largest ELL population and
has invested in this work, is far from firm conclusions and many other
states have not demonstrated the technical or policy will yet to pursue
these issues. Much of the work has been on Spanish-speaking students
and addressing many small language populations has yet to begin.
Therefore the law should strongly encourage research and test
construction at the national level and among regional consortia of
states, initially for the largest language groups, particularly those
facing linguistic isolation in communities and schools. States should
be required to develop or collaborate in developing such tests for
large language groups, either on their own or in cooperation with
federal projects or multi-state consortia should be encouraged. States
should be required to use these measures as soon as they are available
since they will offer much more accurate measures of students'
knowledge and progress than existing tests.
In the very important sections on teacher quality the lack of any
real preparation for teachers to deal with the tenth of students who
are ELL is not mentioned as part of the quality definition. In a
situation where a tenth of our students are ELLs and almost half of
teachers have ELL students in their classes, highly qualified teachers
need training to help reach these students. We believe that the
Department of Education and state Departments should be required to
prepare analyses of key competencies such teachers need and to submit
plans to provide the necessary preparation for teachers who wish to be
considered highly qualified in areas and schools with substantial
presence of such students.
Prioritization and Sanctions
The draft proposal includes provisions to allow Priority Schools
and High Priority Schools to select from a menu of options. Priority
Schools must select 2 or more and High Priority Schools must select
three specified, plus one additional option. We do not think Congress
should require multiple simultaneous reforms from deeply troubled
schools with limited capacity. This tends to produce confusion. CRP
recommends that schools identified for improvement, including those
identified as priority schools and high priority schools, be allowed to
choose developing a schoolwide program as an additional important
option. This suggestion reflects the judgment of Congress in enacting
the Obey-Porter legislation and the many references in the draft law to
research based strategies. We recommend focusing on evidence-based
school improvement strategies and giving them time to work.
School Redesign
This is a central provision. We recommend that the ultimate
sanction of converting a school to a charter school be rewritten to
include schools that have charter-like independence within a public
system, including magnet schools and pilot schools, since both have
evidence of positive benefits, including the new evaluation of Boston's
pilot schools. Magnets and pilots share the charter situation of
autonomy from normal system requirements, leaders and teachers and
parents who chose to participate, and educational experimentation and
competition. There is no evidence that the fact that they are under
ultimate legal control of a school district makes them less effective
than charters.
Feasible Levels of Simultaneous School Transformation
We strongly support the authorization to school district to limit
the number of schools designated for High Priority Redesign but believe
the fraction of schools subject to simultaneous drastic redesign is
still too high given the intensity of the effort needed to create new
schools or fundamentally restructure existing ones. Based on work we
and others have done on administrative capacity we recommend that this
be limited to 2-4% of schools in a given year.
Setting the Agenda for Collaboration on Educational Breakthroughs
We strongly recommend that Congress direct the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Education to prepare a report to
Congress by 2009 on the non-school conditions, such as health care,
residential instability, poverty, safety and others that create serious
obstacles for schools striving to achieve the goals of NCLB and to
suggest central issues for other governmental and private agencies to
address which would have demonstrable impacts on school success. As
this draft bill acknowledges in several areas, lasting success in
school requires support from other agencies and governmental programs
This report would include reviews of present and previous experiments
and policies in the U.S. and other nations demonstrating effective
reforms, helping Congress and the executive branch create a federal
agenda that would greatly aid both the schools and children living in
poverty and would be of great interest in many states and communities
and private organizations.
Indian Education
The CRP appreciates the extensive discussion of Indian issues in
the draft bill and urges clarification of the rights of tribally
controlled schools to determine their own assessment policies and urges
consultation with the Indian Education Association in the development
of policies implementing the new law. We recommend that the procedures
for developing more appropriate assessment of special education
students include a specific directive to consider the special
conditions of Indian populations.
Conclusion
I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee once again for their
leadership on this important legislation. We believe that the proposed
revisions to NCLB should foster greater equity in educational
opportunity for American children, and substantially improve learning
and graduation levels. With further improvements to the excellent
beginnings in this draft, we believe that educators and communities
across the country will find that their concerns have been heard along
with new inspiration to help achieve its challenging goals.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Piche?
STATEMENT OF DIANNE M. PICHE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZENS'
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Ms. Piche. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. On behalf of the Citizens' Commission on Civil
Rights, we would like to thank you for this opportunity not
only to testify today but for your strong bipartisan commitment
to strengthening this law.
The Citizens' Commission believes that education is a
fundamental right and that the No Child Left Behind Act
represents our nation's most serious commitment at this time to
closing achievement gaps that inflict pain and injury on too
many of our vulnerable children and their families.
Over the course of the last decade, we have seen real
improvements and progress at schools around the country as a
result of No Child Left Behind and its predecessor, the
Improving America's Schools Act.
But the work of leveling the playing field is hard, it is
tedious, and it is politically challenging. So it is not
surprising to us that there has been significant opposition to
No Child Left Behind from entrenched interests. And many States
and districts have gamed the system with statistical and other
tricks and, in some cases, outright defiance. The result:
Millions of children, particularly African Americans and
Latinos, are left out of the equation. The reality is that
their failure or success does not matter.
In the context of this dichotomy between success on the one
hand and widespread resistance and gaming of the system on the
other, we have analyzed this draft that is before you today.
There are many, many improvements in the draft, and many of my
colleagues have identified and highlighted these improvements.
We also list them in our testimony. So, again, if I don't go
into them here, as Ms. Jones said, we do have them extensively
in our written testimony.
But they include--and let me highlight these--new
safeguards against gaming AYP, including a limit on the ``n
size.'' We don't think you have gone far enough, but we commend
you in taking steps in this direction.
There is much-needed attention in the draft to improving
State data and assessment systems. The reality is that States
have not been able to develop the tests that have been required
either under IASA or under this law. And if you recall, under
IASA, States had 6 years to develop six tests that were aligned
to standards that were valid and reliable, that included all
students and that accurately measured the achievement of
students with disabilities and English language learners, and
they did not do so. NCLB added a whole other layer of
additional tests.
And if you look at the Department of Education's compliance
records, many States are willfully out of compliance with these
requirements today. So we applaud the committee for focusing on
the need to correct and improve the statewide assessments that
are used for accountability.
We also applaud the efforts of this committee to provide
equity in the distribution of teachers to all children. We know
that we can never truly close achievement gaps without first
assuring that poor, minority students have access to the best
possible teachers. And we support the committee's many
provisions that would go in this direction.
But there are other provisions of the draft, Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, that would do significant harm to
accountability and parents' rights.
These include, first and foremost, the local assessment
pilot. We believe this pilot has the potential to set back
accountability and the movement for educational equity for
years and perhaps decades. These assessments would be developed
and scored by teachers and others at the local school district
and then used to decide whether the same adults have done an
adequate job teaching kids. This strikes me as not unlike
permitting my own teenage son and his friends to score their
own driver's license test.
We corrected a situation like this before No Child Left
Behind and IASA, where districts around the country could set
their own low standards and develop their own measures. We
brought together an aligned statewide system of measurement so
that parents and the public would know precisely how their
students and schools stacked up. This pilot could easily take
us back to the days before this change. We could have one set
of standards for well-off suburban areas and one for
impoverished communities; one for the Bronx and one for
Westchester County; one for Baltimore City, one for Bethesda.
We would urge you, at this time, to delete this section.
With respect to multiple indicators, we are also concerned
that the draft, again, dilutes the expectation that all
students will reach proficiency in reading and math, and
endorse the comments of many others who testified today in that
regard.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we
are very concerned that this draft does not include strong
provisions enabling parents to enforce the law and to obtain
relief when their children are trapped in substandard schools.
In fact, the draft appears to take back rights previously given
to parents to transfer their children to a better school or to
obtain free tutoring. So we would encourage you to restore
these rights and to strengthen them. And, particularly, we
endorse recommendations by many civil rights organizations to
provide for a right to transfer outside the school district
where the district won't or can't accommodate parents' requests
for something better.
In closing, if history is any guide, Mr. Chairman, we
believe it will take time and unwavering resolve on the part of
Congress and the executive branch to fully realize the promise
of No Child Left Behind. We look forward to working with the
committee, and we urge you to be strong and to stay the course.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Piche follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dianne M. Piche, Executive Director, Citizens'
Commission on Civil Rights
Good afternoon Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Castle,
and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and our
chairman, William L. Taylor. The Citizens' Commission is a bipartisan
organization established in 1982 to monitor the civil rights policies
and practices of the federal government and to work to accelerate
progress in civil rights. We believe education is a fundamental civil
right.\1\ We also believe that NCLB represents our nation's most
serious commitment at this time to closing our nation's persistent
academic achievement gaps--gaps that inflict enduring pain and injury
on our most vulnerable children, their families and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since 1997, the Citizens' Commission has played a ``watchdog''
role in monitoring implementation and enforcement of key equity
provisions in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), including: standards, assessments, state accountability
systems, teacher quality, and public school choice and supplemental
services. In 2004, we investigated and reported on early implementation
of NCLB's provisions providing a right to transfer Choosing Better
Schools: A Report on Student Transfers Under the No Child Left Behind
Act. In 2006, we released our first report on teacher quality and NCLB,
Days of Reckoning: Are States and the Federal Government Up to the
Challenge of Ensuring a Qualified Teacher for Every Studen? See also
the following reports of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights'
Title I Monitoring Project: R. Rothman, et al., Title I in California:
Will the State Pass the Test? (2002); Closing the Deal: A Preliminary
Report on State Compliance With Final Assessment & Accountability
Requirements Under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (2001),
Dianne Piche, et al, Title I in Midstream: The Fight To Improve Schools
For Poor Kids (Corrine Yu & William Taylor, Eds. 1999), Dianne Piche,
et al., Title I in Alabama: The Struggle to Meet Basic Needs (Citizens'
Commission on Civil Rights, 1999). All reports are available at
www.cccr.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon and their staffs for crafting the
thoughtful proposals we are all here today to discuss. There are many
provisions in the draft that would extend and improve the ESEA reforms
initiated under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 and Goals
2000. (See Appendix A.) The IASA made the central finding that all
children could learn and all but the most cognitively impaired could
learn at high levels. Both the IASA and Goals 2000 spurred states to
begin setting high standards and expectations for all students and to
construct statewide assessment and school improvement systems for
equity and accountability. The No Child Left Behind Act in 2001
strengthened the IASA by adding concrete detail and additional
safeguards to protect the children most in need--poor children,
children of color, children with disabilities and those who are
learning the English language. Both laws were the work of a bipartisan
group of legislators who placed the national interest above
considerations of partisan advantage.
Over the course of the past decade we have seen real academic
progress at schools around the country. These are generally schools
working under the leadership of a dynamic principal who has assembled a
group of teachers and other staff who are committed to the same goals,
who work together cooperatively, and who deliver results. Many young
teachers have been energized by the process and more experienced
teachers have found new motivation. But much more work remains to be
done and the work will be very, very hard. And because the work of
leveling the playing field in public education is so challenging--in
classrooms, school districts, legislatures, and executive agencies--we
have encountered significant opposition to NCLB.
Many of us in the civil rights community have observed that the
resistance to NCLB and the difficulty in securing full and effective
implementation is not unlike what we have witnessed with other critical
civil rights measures. Dianne Piche recently wrote:
NCLB is in many respects the latest in a long line of efforts in
the policy and legal arenas to promote equity and opportunity in the
public schools, including desegregation cases, the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the original ESEA, and school finance and adequacy cases in the
states.
How long does it take a cutting-edge civil rights law to ``work''?
Could a credible argument have been made in 1969, five years after
passage of the Civil Rights Act, that the ambitious law was ``not
working'' and therefore ought to be abandoned? \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dianne Piche, Basically a Good Model. Fall 2007. Education
Next. Accessed 8/26/2007 Available online: http://www.hoover.org/
publications/ednext/9223561.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge you at this critical juncture not to turn back the clock on
the IASA and NCLB, not to succumb to the pressure of special interest
groups and their so-called ``fixes'' to NCLB. Sadly, in most cases
these ``improvements'' promulgated by many of these interests are in
fact measures that would make life easier for the adults--employees and
public officials in our public education system--while inflicting
hardship and injustice on children and their parents.
It is in this context that we offer the following comments
regarding the current draft:
Closing the Teacher Quality Gap
First and foremost, we commend the Committee for proposing a number
of new measures that will help close the teacher quality gap between
schools with high concentrations of poor and minority students and
others. It is folly to believe we can truly close student achievement
gaps without first assuring that our most vulnerable students are
assigned the most qualified and effective teachers. When their schools
are systematically shortchanged by inequitable distribution of teachers
and other resources--on both inter-district and intra-district bases--
they are set up for failure. Contrary to what some commentators have
asserted, the equitable assignment of teachers is a national issue, and
it is a major civil rights priority in education today. Closing the so-
called ``comparability'' loophole is a major step in the right
direction. We urge the Committee to retain and strengthen this
provision and to resist measures to weaken it. Moreover, as we reported
in Days of Reckoning, the vast majority of states have virtually
ignored provisions in current law requiring the equitable distribution
of experienced and qualified teachers. We believe provisions in the
draft will continue and strengthen these requirements.
Assessment and Accountability
Assessment Improvement. The core of reform is a sturdy system of
accountability, which in turn depends on valid tools of assessment.
There is much that needs improvement in assessment. When some of us
first worked on the issue a dozen years ago, we hoped that new forms of
assessment would be devised, and that these assessments would measure
the analytic and creative abilities of students in addition to basic
skills. By and large states have fallen short. Test publishers
persuaded many states to take the easier and cheaper course and simply
to add multiple choice questions with the assurance that they would be
geared to state standards. That is why we are pleased that the draft
includes provisions (and funds) to study and develop ways to improve
assessments, both for accountability and for diagnostic and
instructional purposes.
Additional Subjects. The Commission also has long supported (dating
back to Goals 2000 and the IASA) the development of challenging state
standards and aligned assessments in all the core subject areas,
including, e.g., science and social studies. The draft seeks to
encourage states to move in this direction and we believe this can be a
positive thing for children in high-poverty schools who are often
instructionally deprived across the range of subjects. However, we must
emphasize that introduction of additional subjects into the
accountability system must not be at the expense of basic reading and
math. Despite arguments to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with a
system that relies on mastery of grade level standards in English
language arts and mathematics as the keystone to proficiency. These are
the foundations of learning in many disciplines and many of the most
successful schools find ways to integrate these other disciplines into
reading and math and vice versa. Consequently, we would urge that these
additional subjects be added as ``conjunctive'' rather that
``compensatory'' measures at this time.
Multiple Indicators. In an ideal world, states would have developed
better assessment systems, including a better system of ``multiple
measures'' as called for in Title I dating back to the IASA in 1994.
But they have not. And we find it hard to believe their record will
improve without both additional help and sanctions for noncompliance.
For example, in the 1990s, the Citizens' Commission's Title I
Monitoring Project found that most states came up short in meeting the
requirements of the IASA--to develop six tests in six years that met
basic requirements of reliability, validity, alignment with standards
and full inclusion. (See Title I in Midstream, cited in footnote 1.)
Under NCLB, far more assessments needed to be developed and field-
tested. But as of today, many states are far from the mark,
particularly with respect to the appropriate assessment of ELLs and
students with disabilities.
In this context, the notion of introducing ``multiple indicators ``
into state assessment systems at this time is very troubling. First, we
believe it would be far better to invest in ensuring that the current
state assessments really do the job we want them to do, and for all
students. Second, there is little evidence that some proposed
indicators have a demonstrated relationship to academic proficiency.
While the draft suggests that such a relationship should be shown,
these are just the kind of provisions that are widely ignored by
states. The law should not permit untested and untried indicators to
play any role in determining whether schools and districts have made
adequate yearly progress (AYP). And we would urge Members to be
particularly mindful of provisions that can be gamed to avoid
responsibility. While high school graduation is an appropriate factor
to consider, the law should be unambiguous in requiring that high
school graduation means readiness for post secondary education,
productive work and civic participation.
Transparency and Simplicity. There is one other critical problem
with the section on multiple indicators that needs the Committee's
attention. Much of the criticism of state accountability systems has
rested on the notion that they are far too complicated to be readily
accessible to parents or even to teachers who must make judgments based
on the results. While we are sure this is unintentional, the cure
proposed is worse than the disease. The proposals for multiple measures
make the assessment system far more inaccessible than it is right now.
It will be almost impossible for a parent or educator to figure out
what contribution a score on an additional indicator will make to a
determination of a student's proficiency--or for that matter whether a
school is achieving basic proficiency in reading and math.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Moreover, as the standards for educational and psychological
testing published by the AERA, the APA and the NCME make clear, where
multiple predictors are used, regression analysis or other techniques
should be used for cross validation. (See Standards, p.21.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complexity problem also affects the new effort to provide
gradations of the need for improvement. E.g., while it is commendable
to try to segment these schools into those that need the most help
(``high priority'' ) and those that need less help (``priority'') one
answer may be allowing the school more flexibility in determining which
school operations need the most help and how best to provide it (e.g.,
through, redesign, restructuring, etc) . We will seek to make
recommendations to the Committee for simplification of these
provisions.
Safeguards. Currently millions of students, and disproportionate
numbers of African-American, Latino and other minority students, are
left behind because they are not counted by states in their
accountability systems. We applaud the committee for including
safeguards like a cap on the ``n'' size and limits on confidence
intervals. We do believe, however, that 30 is far too large and
recommend a minimum ``n'' of 20, which has worked and worked well in a
number of states.
Growth Models. Other provisions introduce needed flexibility into
the system. Both of us served as peer reviewers for the Department of
Education on pilot proposals for growth models. We came away with the
conclusion that a system which can track a student's progress over
three years and determine whether she is on a trajectory to meeting
proficiency is a very promising way of assessing progress toward
proficiency. The utility of growth models depends, however, on the
development of reliable data systems and on a commitment by the state
not to manipulate standards to inflate the proficiency rate. It should
also be made clear (as it is not in the staff draft) that these
``alternative systems'' are not additive but must stand on their own.
So just as the ``safe harbor'' provision cannot be added to a growth
model to help a school meet its annual measurement requirement, neither
should any ``multiple indicators'' approved be used in the same way.
Rigorous Standards. The draft nominally requires states to develop
college and work-ready standards, but more attention needs to be paid
to the timeline for this process and to measures to ensure states
really see this challenge through to conclusion. In addition, because
the danger of diluting standards to avoid findings of non-proficiency
is not limited to growth models , but is endemic, we heartily approve
of the draft provision (pp.113-114) calling for a study by the National
Academy of Science of the comparative rigor of state standards and
assessment. It makes sense to call for recommendation with respect to
reducing disparities and developing a common standard. It also makes
sense to provide for two year follow-ups and reports by the Secretary.
This kind of study, along with keeping an eye on disparities between
NAEP scores and state assessments, may help to insure some integrity in
state systems even lacking national standards.
Local Assessments. Finally on the question of assessments we come
to the single provision in the staff draft that is most destructive of
all that the reform effort has sought to accomplish. Section 1125
provides for pilot programs in 15 states to permit ``locally developed,
classroom-embedded assessments.'' These assessments could be used in
determining AYP. Since the 1960s, efforts in the courts and in Congress
have sought to abolish racially dual school systems, segregation in
classrooms, and different standards and expectations for the advantaged
and disadvantaged. Yet with a single stroke, this provision for local
assessments would wipe out everything the law seeks to accomplish. We
could have one set of standards for rural areas and another for urban
areas, one for the Bronx and another for Westchester County, one for
Boston and another for Brookline. Nothing in this section seeks to
ensure that proficiency in one school district will be the same as
proficiency in another. Moreover, given what we know about ``gaming the
system,'' we believe such comparability is highly unlikely.
All of the other efforts to advance educational equity, for
example, by strengthening the comparability section and ensuring high
quality teachers in high poverty schools, would go for naught. There
would be no surer way of shredding an accountability system. This
section must be deleted.
Parents' Rights and Remedies
Right to Transfer and to Supplemental Educational Services. The
draft does not include strong provisions enabling parents to obtain
relief and help when their children are trapped in substandard schools.
In fact, the draft appears to take back rights previously granted to
families under NCLB by unreasonably limiting eligibility for choice and
SES to a much smaller subset of students in need. These provisions must
be restored and strengthened.
The Citizens' Commission has submitted extensive recommendations to
the Committee on improvements to SES and to strengthen public school
choice. E.g., we furnished detailed recommendations to the staff and
Ms. Piche previously testified before the Subcommittee on these issues
on April 18, 2007. We particularly urge the committee to consider our
recommendations on how to guarantee real choices and to facilitate
inter-district transfers where successful schools in a district do not
have capacity for eligible students.
Civil rights organizations were among the original supporters of
the right-to-transfer provisions in both IASA and NCLB and have
supported the free-tutoring provisions as well. We stress that these
provisions were not intended to be ``sanctions'' or punishments for
failing schools (though they can be helpful in improving schools) but
as options that provide some modest measure of relief and compensation
to students who have been wronged by an inadequate education.
Fundamental fairness dictates that if middle-class and wealthy parents
have the freedom to move their children from substandard educational
environments to ones that offer a better prospect, then the poor should
have those same rights for their children. This is especially the case
for children who have been assigned to chronically low-performing
schools.
Enforcement. It is unrealistic and unfair to rely solely on
administrative enforcement at the federal and state levels to vindicate
the rights of students when they are violated by recipients of federal
funds. Parents and students must be empowered to become full partners
in implementing and enforcing the law. CCCR, along with other civil
rights organizations, will be submitting recommendations supporting
enforcement rights of Title I beneficiaries.
appendix a.--to testimony of citizens' commission on civil rights
Provisions Advancing Equal Opportunity
The Miller-McKeon Discussion Draft includes many new provisions
that will advance the educational equity goals of the IASA and the
NCLB. We are still studying the entire draft and will add to this list
in the near future. While some of these proposals will need to be
refined or developed further, we would urge the Committee to include
them in a reauthorized ESEA and without weakening amendments:
1. A new, dedicated funding stream for high schools, with a focus
on challenging and engaging young people and stopping the hemorrhage of
high-drop out rates in high-poverty high schools.
2. Clarification that only valid and reliable measures (verified by
an independent analysis) of student academic outcomes may be used to
calculate adequate yearly progress. The draft also broadens the scope
of accountability by permitting states to hold schools and districts
accountable for teaching and learning in important core subjects (other
than reading and math) like science, social studies and writing.
3. Increased public access to and participation in state and local
school reform efforts, including, e.g., the provision of immediate
access (on the internet) of all state plans.
4. Alignment of state academic content standards and accountability
systems to knowledge and skills needed for post-secondary education and
the modern workplace.
5. Support for the development of state longitudinal data systems
to track student progress over time.
6. Allowance for states to implement rigorous growth models,
following the basic principles and rules for such allowance that were
followed by the Secretary in granting this flexibility to several
promising states. Includes important safeguards to ensure that growth
models do not water down expectations for students.
7. The restoration of the requirement that all students make
``substantial and continuous academic improvement,'' a key provision in
the IASA of 1994 that was deleted in the NCLB of 2001.
8. Maintenance of the ``starting point'' established under NCLB in
2002, along with the 2013-14 deadline for full proficiency.
9. Statutory limits on confidence intervals, large ``n sizes,''
percentages of students with disabilities who can be excluded from
regular assessments, and other State devices that have operated to
leave millions of children--most of whom are minorities--out of the
accountability system.
10. Requirement for much-needed and long-overdue statewide policy
on research-based assessment accommodations and adaptations.----and
p.74-5
11. Strengthened reports to parents on individual student
achievement. P.72
12. Deadline (2 years) by which states must meet a long-overdue
requirement of the IASA of 1994: valid and reliable ways to assess
their ELLs and students with disabilities, and penalty for
noncompliance thereafter.
13. Assurance that curriculum will be aligned with the standards,
with aligned professional development. (86-87)
14. A more sensible approach to accountability that recognizes that
some substandard schools need to improve more, others less or in
different ways, and the attempt to target interventions and resources
to those schools furthest from state standards.
15. Elimination of the loophole in Title I's ``comparability''
provision that for many years has enabled wealthy schools to spend more
per student on teachers' salaries and other educational expenditures
than poor schools in the same district.
16. Other provisions in Title II, including provisions of the so-
called ``TEACH Act'' which has been endorsed by a broad coalition of
civil rights and education organizations.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Pompa?
STATEMENT OF DELIA POMPA, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
LA RAZA
Ms. Pompa. Good afternoon. My name Delia Pompa. I am the
vice president for education at the National Council of La
Raza.
NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination and to
improve opportunities for the Nation's Hispanics. In my role as
vice president for education at NCLR, I oversee programs
ranging from early college high schools and charter schools to
prekindergarten and early childhood education.
My work on public school reform has been shaped by more
than 30 years' experience leading local, State and Federal
agencies and national and international organizations. I began
my career as a kindergarten teacher in San Antonio and went on
to serve as district administrator and as assistant
commissioner of the Texas Education Agency. Only providing
these bona fides so you will know that my heart is in
education.
Since that time, I have been focused on helping academic
institutions understand and respond to the needs of underserved
children and their teachers.
NCLR appreciates that the committee has placed the
education of Latino and English language learners, or ELL,
students at the center of the reauthorization process.
While NCLR is interested in every aspect of
reauthorization, in my testimony today I will focus on the ELL
provisions of the discussion draft released on August 28. I
will provide comments on those aspects for the proposed law.
NCLB reauthorization represents a critical juncture for the
Latino community and for public schools in general. Over the
past decade, Latino and ELL students have changed the
demographics of our Nation's schools. However, historically,
public schools have not provided the Nation's Hispanic and ELL
children with a high-quality education. Over the past 5 years,
awareness of the low achievements of Latinos and ELLs have
increased significantly. The harshest critics of NCLB choose to
blame the law for this. What is seldom mentioned is that NCLB
has highlighted conditions that have been in existence for
decades with little notice or consternation.
When I was teaching 30 years ago, Latino students in the
U.S. did not receive the rigorous coursework and effective
instruction needed to succeed in school and go on to college.
If they were English language learners, the situation was
grimmer. The same applied 20 years ago and 10 years ago. Simply
put, the quality of education available to poor, minority
children in inner cities over the last several decades has not
come close to that available for white children or children in
more affluent communities.
Poor, minority and ELL kids have not been getting a fair
shake, and there has been little public will to change that.
While NCLB has not changed these conditions, it has forced the
public school system to begin addressing them and to put plans
in place to improve educational opportunities for English
language learners.
Unfortunately, 5 years after NCLB's enactment, there are
many myths about the requirements of the law and about Hispanic
and ELL student populations that have sought to weaken the
public will to effectively implement the law.
These include, first, ELL students are causing schools to
fail to make AYP. In fact, according to the NCLB Commission and
other studies, ELLs are not the sole or the main reason schools
are identified as not making AYP.
Another myth is that most Hispanic and ELL students are
immigrants; thus, it is unfair to hold schools accountable for
their academic achievement. The fact is 89 percent of Latinos
under 18 are U.S. citizens.
Another myth is that 5 years is just not enough time for
States, districts and schools to put in place appropriate
assessments for ELLs. The assessment requirements have been in
place since 1994, as was mentioned by my colleagues, under the
Improving America Schools Act.
The most pernicious of all the myths is the notion that too
many out-of-school challenges, including poverty, family
education and limited English proficiency, make it impossible
for schools to close the achievement gap; thus, NCLB's
accountability system is unfair. The fact is many of these
challenges are being addressed through programs such as Head
Start, SCHIP, housing counseling, adult education, Even Start
and so on. While schools have a major challenge, schools are
not alone in this.
Overall, the discussion draft moves the ball forward
significantly for English language learners. Specifically, we
support the following provisions: first, including former LEP
students in the LEP category for 3 additional years so that
their progress may be included in AYP.
Second, we support the codification of the Department of
Education's regulation allowing a 1-year exemption from the
reading test for recently arrived English language learners.
We also support requiring the development and use of
appropriate English language learner assessments 2 years after
the renewed No Child Left Behind law is effective.
Another provision that we support is a special rule
requiring certain States to develop native language
assessments.
And, finally, we support the requirement in the State plans
for professional development and the use of accommodations for
teachers of all ELL students.
NCLB has changed the debate over how best to educate the
Nation's ELLs to a simple question: How can schools improve the
academic achievement and attainment of ELLs? NCLB gives States,
school districts and schools the flexibility to design their
own responses to this question with one caveat: They will be
held accountable for helping ELLs learn English and meet the
same academic standards of other children. NCLR urges Congress
to maintain this focus in final reauthorization legislation.
In conclusion, the demographics clearly show that the
future of our public school system rests on its ability to
prepare the growing number of Hispanic and ELL students for
college and the workplace. Over the past 5 years, there has
been a great momentum behind closing the achievement gap. There
is unprecedented public will to ensure that every child has a
quality education.
Weakening NCLB's accountability measures would weaken the
public will to improve our public schools and would pull the
rug out from under millions of children and their parents, as
well as the Nation's teachers who are committed to providing
their students with a high-quality education.
Thank you for considering our views.
[The statement of Ms. Pompa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Delia Pompa, Vice President, National Council of
La Raza
My name is Delia Pompa; I am the Vice President for Education at
the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). NCLR is a private, nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and
discrimination and improve opportunities for the nation's Hispanics. As
the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in
the U.S., NCLR serves all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of
the country through a network of nearly 300 Affiliate community-based
organizations.
In my role as Vice President for Education at NCLR, I oversee
programs ranging from early college high schools and charter schools to
pre-kindergarten and early childhood education. My work on public
school reform has been shaped by more than 30 years of experience
leading local, state, and federal agencies and national and
international organizations. I began my career as a kindergarten
teacher in San Antonio, and went on to serve as a district
administrator in Houston and as Assistant Commissioner of the Texas
Education Agency. I was formerly the Director of Education, Adolescent
Pregnancy Prevention, and Youth Development for the Children's Defense
Fund, and Director of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
Language Affairs at the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, I
am focused on helping academic institutions understand and respond to
the needs of underserved children and their teachers.
NCLR appreciates the Committee's efforts to hold this hearing on
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965. In particular, we are pleased that the Committee has placed the
education of Latino and English language learner (ELL) students at the
center of the reauthorization process. One immediate benefit of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that it has brought to light issues
concerning ELLs.
As a preliminary matter, I would like to state unequivocally that
NCLR believes that English is critical to success in this nation and
strongly supports English-language acquisition for ELLs and all
individuals who are limited English proficient (LEP). The fact is, NCLR
and its Affiliate Network are in the business of helping LEP children
and adults acquire English-language skills. For example, about half of
our nearly 300 Affiliates provide some English-language acquisition
services. In addition, NCLR's network of more than 90 charter schools
serves a diverse group of students, including ELLs.
NCLR has also invested a great deal of time in shaping the No Child
Left Behind Act and in working toward more effective implementation of
that law, which we see as a linchpin for the future of Latino students,
nearly half of whom are ELLs. NCLR worked with Congress to craft a new
bilingual education law, Title III of NCLB, which has clear
accountability for helping ELLs acquire proficiency in English and keep
up with their English-proficient peers in reading, math, and science.
NCLR worked with Congress to make sure that parents are part of the
education process, particularly immigrant parents who are not English
proficient. NCLR has been working in collaboration with the Department
of Education to improve implementation of the ELL provisions of NCLB
and to fight back efforts to erode accountability for ELLs. We hope to
continue working with Congress to strengthen--not discard--NCLB's
accountability provisions. NCLR's publication, Improving Assessment and
Accountability for English Language Learners in the No Child Left
Behind Act, provides a roadmap for NCLB reauthorization. I would like
to submit a copy of that issue brief for the record.
NCLR has also worked to inform the Latino community about NCLB,
particularly the parents of students most likely to benefit from NCLB,
yet most likely to be ignored. Specifically, NCLR has conducted
workshops and trainings for Latino, limited-English-proficient, and
farmworker parents. In the rural community of Woodburn, Oregon, we
conducted a day-long training which attracted about 100 farmworker
parents of ELLs. Their deep commitment to the education of their
children was clear. Their main challenge in fulfilling their role under
NCLB--to hold their local schools accountable for improving educational
outcomes--is their lack of English proficiency.
While NCLR is interested in every aspect of the reauthorization, in
my testimony today I will focus on the ELL provisions of the discussion
draft released on August 28, 2007. Specifically, I will provide (1)
selected statistics on ELL and Hispanic students; (2) a brief history
of the education of ELL students; (3) a brief discussion of popular
myths about NCLB as it relates to ELL students; and (4) an examination
of key provisions of the discussion draft.
Hispanic Education Statistics
NCLB reauthorization represents a critical juncture for the Latino
community and public schools in general. Over the past decade, Latino
students have had a great impact on the demographics of our nation's
public schools. This can be characterized by Hispanic students' large
numbers, rapid increase, and growing presence in schools, particularly
in ``nontraditional'' states. For example, in 2005, Hispanics accounted
for more than 10.9 million students enrolled in U.S. public schools
(preK-12th grade). Between 1993 and 2003, the proportion of Hispanic
students enrolled in public schools increased from 12.7% to 19%, while
the proportion of White students decreased from 66% to 58%. Between
1972 and 2004, the proportion of the Hispanic student population
increased in the South from 5% to 17%, in the Midwest from 2% to 7%,
and in the Northeast from 6% to 14%.
In addressing education reform, NCLR focuses on ELLs because of
their growing presence in public schools. During the 2004-2005 academic
year, there were an estimated 5.1 million ELL students enrolled in
public schools, representing 10.5% of the total public school student
enrollment and representing a more than 56% increase between 1994-1995
and 2004-2005. Nearly four-fifths (79%) of ELL students are native
Spanish-speakers. Nearly half (45%) of all Latino children in our
nation's public schools are ELL students.
ELLs are often in urban schools and large districts. An estimated
91% of ELL students live in metropolitan areas. In fact, nearly 70% of
the nation's ELLs are enrolled in 10% of metropolitan-area schools; a
quarter of the 100 largest school districts have an ELL population of
at least 15%. However, their numbers are growing in ``nontraditional
states.'' Between 1995 and 2005, states which experienced the largest
growth rates in ELLs included South Carolina (714%), Kentucky (417%),
Indiana (408%), North Carolina (372%), and Tennessee (370%).
Thus, if NCLB and public schools do not work for Latinos and ELLs,
we do not have a functioning public school system in the U.S.
Unfortunately, public schools have not worked thus far for the nation's
Hispanic children.
History of Hispanic Education
Over the past five years, awareness of the low achievement of ELLs
has increased significantly. The harshest critics of NCLB choose to
blame the law for this. What is seldom mentioned is that NCLB has
simply highlighted conditions that have been in existence for decades
with little notice or consternation. When I was teaching 30 years ago,
Latino students did not receive the rigorous coursework and effective
instruction needed to succeed in school and go on to college. If they
were ELL, the situation was grimmer. The same applied 20 years ago, and
ten years ago. Yet, despite receiving less than a quality education,
many of these students received passing grades and eventually graduated
from high school. Simply put, the quality of education available to
poor, minority children in the inner cities over the last several
decades has not come close to that of White children or children in
suburban communities. Poor, minority, and ELL kids have not been
getting a fair shake. And there was no public will to change the
educational experiences of these children because there was no shared
responsibility.
Certainly, the current state of Hispanic education should be a
cause of concern. Some key statistics illustrate this: Latinos do not
have equitable access to preschool education. In 2005, 66% of Black
children and 59% of White children participated in center-based
preschool education programs, while only 43% of Hispanic children
participated. (National Center for Education Statistics, ``Enrollment
in Early Childhood Education,'' The Condition of Education 2006.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006, Table 2-1, p. 2.)
Minority students, including Latinos, are not provided with
rigorous coursework. According to a study by Achieve, Inc., while 74%
of minority girls want to enroll in advanced courses, only 45% of their
schools offer these courses. Similarly, two-thirds of minority boys
have an interest in taking advanced mathematics courses, but fewer than
half attend schools that offer these courses. (``If We Raise Standards
in High School, Won't Students Become More Disengaged?'' Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., 2005. http://www.achieve.org/node/595)
The results speak for themselves. Too few Latinos and African
Americans graduate from high school. Only 53% of Hispanic students and
50% of African American students who enter 9th grade will complete the
12th grade and graduate with a regular diploma, compared to 75% of
White students. (Orfield, Gary, Daniel Losen, Johanna Wald, and
Christopher B. Swanson, Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth Are Being
Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Advocates for
Children of New York and Civil Society Institute, 2004, p. 2.)
Myths and Facts on NCLB and ELLs
While NCLB has not changed these conditions, it has forced the
public school system to begin addressing them and to put plans in place
to improve educational opportunities for ELLs. Thus, NCLR strongly
believes that any changes to NCLB during this reauthorization must
maintain a focus on high standards, assessment, accountability,
parental involvement, teacher quality, and adequate resources.
Unfortunately, five years after NCLB's enactment, there are many myths
about the requirements of the law, and about the Hispanic and ELL
student population. These include:
``ELL students are causing schools to fail to meet adequate yearly
progress (AYP) benchmarks.'' The truth is, according to the NCLB
Commission, ELLs are not the sole reason schools are identified as not
making AYP.
``Most Hispanic and ELL students are immigrants. Thus, it is unfair
to hold schools accountable for their academic achievement.'' The truth
is, the vast majority of Latino children are U.S. citizens by birth;
88% of Latinos under 18 are U.S.-born. Another 1% are naturalized
citizens. About 10% of Latino children under 18 are noncitizens.
According to the Urban Institute, in 2000, only 1.5% percent of
elementary schoolchildren and 3% of secondary schoolchildren were
undocumented immigrants. Fifty-nine percent of elementary school ELL
students are U.S.-born children of immigrants, or second generation,
and 18% are children of U.S. native-born parents, or third generation.
``Five years is just not enough time for states, districts, and
schools to put in place appropriate assessments for ELLs.'' The truth
is, the assessment requirements have been in place since 1994 under the
Improving America's Schools Act (IASA).
There is also a great deal of confusion about regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education related to recently
arrived ELLs. The Department's ELL regulation allows states to exempt
recently arrived LEP students from one administration of the states'
reading/language arts assessment. It requires states to include
recently arrived LEP students in state mathematics assessments, but
allows them not to count in adequate yearly progress determinations the
scores of recently arrived LEP students on state mathematics
assessments. Myths related to the rule abound and include:
``The Department's new rule is unfair because schools currently
have a three-year exemption for newly arrived ELLs.'' The truth is,
there was no exemption of ELLs prior to this rule.
``Because of this new rule, ELLs are being forced to take English-
language tests after one year.'' The truth is, states can still test
ELLs in other languages, consistent with 1111(b)(3)(C) of NCLB.
Most pernicious of all is the notion that ``too many `out-of-school
challenges,' including poverty, family education, and limited English
proficiency make it impossible for schools to close the achievement
gap. Thus, NCLB's accountability system is unfair.'' The fact is, many
of these challenges are being addressed through programs such as Head
Start, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the State Children's
Health Insurance Program, housing counseling, adult education, Even
Start, and so on. Schools are not in this alone.
Key ELL Provisions in the August 28, 2007, Education and Labor
Committee Discussion Draft
Overall, the discussion draft moves the ball forward significantly
with regard to NCLR's principal goal of ensuring that the heart of
NCLB--its foundation of standards, assessments, and accountability--is
strengthened, not discarded, for ELLs. Specifically, we support the
following provisions:
Including ``former-LEP'' students in the ELL category for three
additional years (Page 31, Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(dd)). This
provision give schools additional flexibility in allowing ELL students
who have acquired English proficiency to be counted as ELL for an
additional three years for AYP purposes. This increases the likelihood
that students in the ELL category will make AYP and does not punish
schools which are helping students acquire English. NCLR recommends
keeping the language as it is in the discussion draft.
Codification of the Department of Education's regulation allowing a
one-year exemption from the reading test on recently arrived ELLs (Page
54, Section 1111(b)(2)(Q)). This regulation represents common-sense
policy. Schools should have one year to provide instruction and other
academic supports for recently arrived ELLs in order to demonstrate
whether or not their programming is effective. Any less time would be
unfair to schools, and more time would place ELLs in jeopardy of
falling through the cracks. NCLR recommends keeping the language as it
is in the discussion draft.
Requiring the development and use of appropriate ELL assessments
two years after the renewed NCLB is effective, with the use of
appropriate interim measures for certain ELLs, and with 25% withholding
of funds for noncompliance (Pages 84-85, Section 1111(b)(10)). As noted
above, states have had since implementation of the 1994 law to develop
appropriate assessments. Over the past five years, many states have
made great progress toward complying with this aspect of the law and
should be in a position to meet this requirement. The draft allows
states to use interim measures for those ELLs at the lowest levels of
English proficiency and use their progress in acquiring English as an
interim AYP measure. This provides states with sufficient flexibility
until they develop appropriate assessments. Principals, teachers, and
students should not be asked to wait any longer for appropriate
assessments. NCLR recommends keeping the language as it is in the
discussion draft.
The ``special rule'' requiring certain states to develop native-
language assessments (Pages 81-85, Section 1111(b)(6)). This provision
is intended to provide districts and schools with a significant number
of ELLs from one language group appropriate assessments for ELLs, in
this case a native-language assessment. NCLR supports this provision
because research has consistently shown that some standardized tests
may not effectively assess the academic achievement of ELLs. The
National Research Council found that some ELL test scores may be
inaccurate if ELL students take tests in English, concluding that
``when students are not proficient in the language of assessment (in
this case, English), their scores on a test will not accurately reflect
their knowledge of the subject being assessed (except for a test that
measures only English proficiency).'' However, we would recommend
changing the legislative language and the policy to clarify that 10%
refers to 10% of all students in a state:
``(C) SPECIAL RULE.--Consistent with subparagraph (A) and State
law, in the case of any State where at least 10 percent of all students
who are English language learners share one language, the State shall--
--
(i) develop or make available to such students native language or
[dual language] assessments that are valid, reliable, and aligned to
grade level content and student academic achievement standards; and
(ii) assess such students using such assessments, if such
assessments validly and reliably measure the content and instruction
such students received.''
The requirement in the state plan for professional development in
the use of accommodations (Page 87, Section 1111(b)(11)(G)). This
provision ensures that teachers in states which will use accommodations
as part of their assessment system will be prepared to adjust their
instruction accordingly and use accommodations appropriately. NCLR
recommends keeping the language as it is in the discussion draft.
Conclusion
The debate over how best to educate the nation's ELLs has shifted
dramatically since passage of NCLB. Before NCLB, the ELL student
population was often overlooked. Little to no accountability for the
learning of these students existed. Indeed, most states did not include
ELLs in their accountability systems. In addition, many activists and
policy-makers argued about what was the best method for helping ELLs
acquire English. NCLB has correctly changed the debate on ELLs to a
simple question: How can schools improve the academic achievement and
attainment of ELLs? NCLB gives states, school districts, and schools
the power to design their own responses to this question with one
caveat: They will be held accountable for helping ELLs learn English
and meet the same reading and mathematics standards as other children.
States and districts will have to report to parents on their progress,
and parents will hold schools accountable if they cannot meet their
goals.
In addition, as Congress moves forward with NCLB reauthorization,
we are concerned that members will seek to conflate the education of
ELLs and Hispanic children with immigration policy. We would like to
set the record straight before the debate begins. As noted above, the
vast majority of Latino children are U.S. citizens by birth. Thus, any
attempts to use immigration--legal or unauthorized immigration--to
exclude or marginalize ELL and Hispanic students are without basis or
merit, must be soundly rejected by Congress, and should be described
clearly and without hesitation as an attack on the principle of
inclusion which has characterized the U.S. and the American people.
Congress must move the ball forward on education reform. Given the
demographics noted above, the future of our public school system rests
on its ability to prepare the growing number of Hispanic and ELL
students for college and the workplace. For Latinos and ELLs, inclusion
in NCLB represents the best opportunity to achieve this. This means
that the heart of NCLB--its foundation of standards, assessments, and
accountability--must be strengthened, not discarded.
Over the past five years, there has been great momentum behind
closing the achievement gap. There is unprecedented public will among
educators, policy-makers, and the nation as a whole to ensure that
every child has a quality education. Gutting NCLB's accountability
measures would be a major setback for members of Congress, advocates,
educators, parents, and students hoping to build on this public will to
improve our public schools.
______
[Internet address to National Council of La Raza Issue
Brief No. 16, Mar. 22, 2006, follows:]
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/37365
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Neas?
STATEMENT OF KATY BEH NEAS, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL
RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH
DISABILITIES
Ms. Neas. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Katy Neas, and I speak to you today as
one of the four co-chairs of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities' Education Task Force. I am also director of
congressional affairs at Easter Seals.
CCD is a coalition of nearly 100 national consumer advocacy
provider and professional organizations, headquartered in
Washington, D.C. Since 1973, CCD has advocated on behalf of
people with disabilities of all ages and with all types of
disabilities in their families. And approximately 50 national
organizations participate in our Education Task Force.
Let me begin with stating that No Child Left Behind has
been very good for students with disabilities. The most recent
amendments enhanced improvements made over the past decade to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. When Congress
reauthorized IDEA in 1997, several provisions were added to
this landmark civil rights law.
First, students with disabilities were to have access to
the general curriculum. When IDEA was first enacted, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, in 1975, with your participation, some
thought that that meant that kids should have the right to
physically attend school. In 1997, Congress clarified the law
to mean that not only should students with disabilities have
the opportunity to physically enter a school, but that students
should be taught the same material as their nondisabled peers.
Second, Congress required students with disabilities to be
included in state- and district-wide assessments. For students
who cannot take the regular assessment, their progress was to
be measured based on an alternate assessment. The purpose of
these two provisions was to raise expectations about the
academic achievement of students with disabilities. Our
national policy was that students with disabilities should more
than simply attend school; they should be expected to make
academic progress that is similar to their nondisabled peers.
NCLB continued this path of high expectations. States were
required to measure and report the progress of all children,
including children with disabilities. And as my colleague just
mentioned, we now have meaningful data on the academic progress
of students with disabilities.
Nationally, students with disabilities represent about 13
percent of the total student population. I have prepared a
chart for each of the committee members showing the breakdown
by disability category of students in their States. As you will
see, although disabilities do range across a wide spectrum, we
know that 85 percent of students identified do not have a
cognitive disability. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of students
with disabilities spend more than 80 percent of each school day
in the regular classroom with their peers.
We also have data attached to my testimony that indicates
that test scores of students with disabilities are distributed
across the performance range similar to general-education
students. Thanks to ESEA and IDEA, students with disabilities
are setting high goals and reaching them.
I would like to speak to the draft bill now. Let me start
with a positive element.
First, we are extremely pleased that the bill does not
establish a student's individualized education program as the
accountability measure for students with disabilities. The
purpose of an IEP is to spell out the special education and
related services that a student needs to benefit from
education. IEPs are not designed as tools for holding schools
accountable whether a student is taught to the academic content
and achievement standards. Rather, IEPs set goals and
objectives that the school and parents hope the child will
achieve as a result of achieving special education services.
Additionally, we are pleased that the draft bill maintains
the students' subgroup and requirement for disaggregation of
data. Like the addition of graduation rates as a factor in AYP,
the addition of student growth as an allowable factor in AYP,
the requirement that the subgroup not exceed the number of 30,
that is very important to us.
We appreciate the bill recognizes school-wide positive
behavior supports--that can be helpful--and the requirement of
the development of a comprehensive plan to address
implementation of universal design for learning.
There are a few areas which the disability coalition would
like to see the bill improve.
We would like to see dropped from the bill the provision
that would allow a local education agency to exclude up to 40
percent of students with disabilities, some 2.4 million
students, from grade-level academic standards. Many students
with disabilities can achieve grade-level work when given the
right access to high-quality instruction with qualified
teachers and appropriate accommodations for both instruction
and assessment.
We acknowledge that the bill gives States 2 years to
develop assessments for all students, and we hope the final
bill will propel States to take this action immediately.
In closing, I would like to reaffirm my belief that
students with disabilities have reaped significant benefits
from No Child Left Behind. Students whose progress is measured
get taught. Every principal in every school has the ability to
know the progress of each child in his or her school. Schools
are making decisions on how best to get more children to
achieve at the proficient level, including students with
disabilities. Students with disabilities are being educated in
challenging environments, where expectations of their academic
progress are not automatically set at the lowest bar.
I am hopeful that, when the data is reported in a decade
from now, that we will see the graduation rate of students with
disabilities go through the roof, where more students with
disabilities complete college and have fuller lives.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The statement of Ms. Neas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katy Beh Neas, Co-Chair, Consortium for Citizens
With Disabilities Task Force
My name is Katy Beh Neas and I speak to you today as one of the
four co-chairs of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Education Task Force. I am also Director of Congressional Affairs for
Easter Seals.
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities is a coalition of
nearly 100 national consumer, advocacy, provider and professional
organizations headquartered in Washington, D.C. Since 1973, CCD has
advocated on behalf of people of all ages with physical and mental
disabilities and their families. CCD has worked to achieve federal
legislation and regulations that assure that the 54 million children
and adults with disabilities are fully integrated into the mainstream
of society. Approximately 50 national organizations participate in the
Education Task Force. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you
today regarding the Miller-McKeon Discussion Draft of the
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Let me begin by stating that the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, as amended in 2002, has been good for students with disabilities.
These amendments enhanced improvements made to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) over the past decade. As you know,
IDEA has been successful in ensuring children with disabilities and the
families of such children access to a free appropriate public education
and in improving educational results for children with disabilities.
When Congress reauthorized IDEA in 1997, several important
provisions were added to this landmark civil rights law. First,
students with disabilities were to have access to the general
curriculum. When IDEA was first enacted in 1975, there was a thought
that kids with disabilities have the right to physically attend public
school. In 1997, that right was clarified to mean that not only should
students with disabilities have the ability to physically enter a
school, but that these students should be taught the same material as
their non-disabled peers.
Second, Congress required students with disabilities to be included
in state and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations
where necessary. For students who cannot take the regular assessment,
their progress was to be measured based on an alternate assessment. The
purpose of these two provisions was to raise expectations about the
academic achievement of students with disabilities. Our national policy
was that students with disabilities should do more than simply attend
school. They should be expected make academic progress that is similar
to their non-disabled peers.
With the enactment of the 2002 ESEA amendments, federal education
policy continued on this path of high expectations. The amendments
required all students with disabilities to participate in academic
assessments and to be taught by highly qualified teachers. States were
required to measure and report the progress of all children, with
direct attention placed on the progress of students with disabilities
as a subgroup. We now have meaningful data on the academic progress of
students with disabilities.
Nationally, students with disabilities represent about 13 percent
of the total student population. I have prepared for each committee
member a chart that indicates the breakdown by disability category of
students in their states. Although their disabilities do range across a
wide spectrum, we know that 85 percent of students identified do not
have a cognitive disability. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of students
with disabilities spend more than 80 percent of each school day in the
regular classroom with their peers. We also have data that indicates
that test scores for students with disabilities are distributed across
the performance range similar to general education students.
Thanks to ESEA and IDEA, students with disabilities are setting
high goals and reaching them.
Today, I have been charged with commenting on the positive elements
of the draft bill and providing suggestions on how the draft can be
improved.
Let me start with the positive elements. First, disability
advocates are very pleased that bill does not establish a student's
Individualized Education Program (IEP) as the accountability measure
for students with disabilities. The purpose of the IEP, as currently
configured in IDEA, is to spell out the special education and related
services that a student needs to benefit from education, including the
frequency, duration and scope of these services. IEPs are not designed
or used as tools for holding schools accountable for whether students
with disabilities are taught to the academic content and achievement
standards established by the state for all students. Rather, the IEP
sets goals and objectives that the school and parents hope the child
will achieve as a result of receiving special education and related
services. Unfortunately, not every IEP goal is measured or measurable.
Additionally, we are pleased that the draft bill contains a number
of policies that will directly benefit students with disabilities,
including:
Maintenance of the requirement for disaggregation of
performance and participation data by student groups and adequate
yearly progress (AYP) to be based primarily on academic assessments;
Addition of graduation rate as a factor in adequate yearly
progress;
Addition of student growth as an allowable factor to be
incorporated into AYP (with specific criteria);
Requirement that the number of students in groups for
disaggregation not exceed 30 (with allowable exception not to exceed
40);
Requirement for each state to have an accommodations
policy;
Recognition of school-wide positive behavioral supports
that can help create school environments that are conducive to
learning; and
Requirement for state education agencies to provide an
assurance of the development of a comprehensive plan to address
implementation of universal design for learning (UDL).
There are a few areas in which the disability coalition would like
to see the bill improved. We would like to see dropped from the bill
the provisions that would allow a local education agency to exclude up
to 40 percent of students with disabilities, some 2.4 million students,
from the grade-level academic standards. We appreciate that states have
created appropriate policies to measure the progress of students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities, along with assessments for
students who are expected to achieve grade level academic standards. We
also agree there are students with disabilities who are not achieving
grade-level proficiency, and that the means by which their progress can
be measured are limited. However, there simply is no empirical evidence
to demonstrate that exempting a significant number of students from
grade-level academic achievement standards is the appropriate response.
Many students with disabilities can achieve grade-level work when
given the right access to high quality instruction, with qualified
teachers and appropriate accommodations for both instruction and
assessment. Nationally recognized experts have questioned how a
policy--that will require alternate assessments and modified curriculum
for as more than 2 million students--can be justified when the
regulation for the students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities effectively covers the number of students whose IEPs would
deem them eligible for an alternate assessment. The bill should require
states to develop modified assessments that can appropriately measure
the knowledge and progress of these students.
While the bill allows for the Secretary to reexamine and re-
promulgate regulations as appropriate, we find it disconcerting that
Congress would place into law a provision that clearly continues to be
experimental. Committing this provision to statute does substantially
limit the Secretary's ability to use regulatory powers when findings
indicate significant changes.
In addition, we are concerned about several provisions related to
alternate academic achievement standards. Particularly disturbing is
the provision stating that students assessed on this standard are only
entitled to be included in the general curriculum ``to the extent
possible'' and the provision that merely requires the alternate
academic achievement standards to ``promote'' rather than ``provide''
access to the general curriculum. These provisions undermine the
alignment of ESEA and IDEA, which ensure that all students with
disabilities are involved in and make progress in the general education
curriculum.
Equally disturbing is the omission of language that would align
assessments on alternate academic achievement standards to the state
content standards ``for the grade in which the students are enrolled.''
This omission is significant since the language does appear in the
provisions for assessments on modified academic achievement standards.
The Department of Education guidance indicates that the alternate
achievements standards are to be aligned to the grade in which the
child is enrolled.
Lastly, we would like to see Title I funds be available for early
intervening services.
I'd like to share with you thoughts that one mom shared with a
member of our task force.
Rachel is about to start her junior year of high school. She has
been on an IEP for six years for a specific learning disability in
reading: dyslexia. During her sophomore year, Rachel decided that she
was going to take Advanced Placement American History. This is
considered a college level course and Rachel reads significantly below
grade level. She is cognitively able to handle the material, but the
reading is her biggest challenge. Upon the request of her parents, the
district supplied her text book on CD so she could listen to the text.
In addition, the school tutor read course materials to her as needed
throughout the school year. Interestingly, Rachel scored at the
advanced level on the state graduation test in the area of social
studies during the Spring of her sophomore year. No doubt the quality
of the teaching in her A.P. U.S. History course influenced such high
achievement. Rachel's cognitive ability is well above average, yet her
significant disability in reading prevents her from demonstrating even
higher achievement in testing situations.
We know that student success is predicated on a skilled teacher
along with appropriate special education and related services. The ESEA
must not construct barriers to grade level academic achievement
standards for students like Rachel.
In closing, I'd like to reaffirm my belief that students with
disabilities have reaped significant benefits from the amendments to
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Students whose progress is
measured get taught. Today, every principal in every school has the
ability to know the progress of each child in his or her school.
Schools are making decisions on how to best get more children to
achieve at the proficient level, including students with disabilities.
Students with disabilities are being educated in a challenging
environment where the expectations of their academic progress are not
automatically set at the lowest bar. I am hopeful that when the data is
reported in a decade from now, that we will see the graduation rate of
students with disabilities go through the roof, where more students
with disabilities complete college and have enviable lives.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mandlawitz?
STATEMENT OF MYRNA R. MANDLAWITZ, POLICY DIRECTOR, LEARNING
DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Ms. Mandlawitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Myrna
Mandlawitz, and I am the policy director of the Learning
Disabilities Association of America. LDA appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments today on the discussion draft
of the ESEA.
LDA is a national volunteer organization representing
individuals with learning disabilities, their families and the
professionals who serve them. Our members have worked for more
than 40 years to ensure that children with learning
disabilities have access to the general-education curriculum
and receive the supports they need to be successful in school.
I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman, committee
members and staff for your very hard work in delivering what
LDA believes is a strong start to the reauthorization process.
Overall, we are pleased with many of the elements of the draft,
and encourage the committee to continue to work thoughtfully
and deliberatively, using the practical input from all
interested parties.
While LDA has broad interest in all aspects of the law, in
my brief time today I would like to comment on three specific
items affecting students with learning disabilities: State
options to adopt modified academic achievement standards;
allowance of the use of multiple indicators to determine
adequate yearly progress; and acknowledgment and use of
research-based instruction and interventions, early intervening
services and school-wide positive behavioral interventions and
support.
Students with learning disabilities span the academic
achievement spectrum. Many are able to complete grade-level
work within the normal school year and successfully
participate, with or without accommodations, on the regular
State assessments. However, for other students with learning
disabilities, the rate of learning is slower and may require
additional time to complete grade-level work. LDA supports
challenging academic achievement standards and the option for
States to adopt modified achievement standards for students
with disabilities as necessary.
That said, it will be critically important that States
comply with the draft requirement to establish and monitor
implementation of clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP
teams in determining which students with disabilities should be
assessed based on modified standards. This provision could be
strengthened by adding specific language requiring the U.S.
Department of Education to provide technical assistance to
States in the development of these guidelines.
Again, we view as the greatest challenge to a State's
implementation the determination of which student should be
appropriately assessed based on these standards.
We also commend the committee for requiring that the
Secretary engage in further study, review and disseminate
results of current research and provide ongoing information to
Congress on the challenges of appropriately assessing students
with disabilities. LDA recognizes that development of modified
standards is an emerging area that requires more research and
resources.
We would welcome any additional language on search specific
to developing these standards.
As noted earlier, students with learning disabilities by
virtue of those disabilities do not always respond to the
standard methods of instruction or assessment. In fact,
students without learning disabilities have varied learning
styles as well. Therefore, LDA supports the use of multiple
measures of achievement to ensure that all students are given
adequate opportunities to demonstrate proficiency without
lowering expectations for learning.
While we applaud the committee's inclusion of multiple
indicators for determining AYP, we would ask you consider
broadening the list of allowable indicators, focussing less on
single test results to determine efficiency and focussing more
on individual student progress. Multiple measures of student
achievement using various methods of assessment provide a more
accurate picture of a student's strengths and weaknesses than a
single score on a standardized test. Understanding these
strengths and weaknesses is essential to addressing the
educational needs of students with learning disabilities.
However, care must be taken to ensure such use of multiple
measures for the purposes of AYP does not have the unintended
consequences of more test-testing burdens rather than the more
positive result of improving instruction. LDA approached the
inclusion of response to intervention and early intervening
services in the 2000 reauthorization of the IDEA with some
trepidation since these interventions are focused specifically
on students in general ed rather than students who are
identified as needing special ed. LDA supports the use of
tiered interventions and early intervening services to assist
struggling students and believes these interventions rightly
belong in the ESEA. We are particularly pleased under the local
planned provisions that local districts must describe how
assessment results will be used to provide research-based
interventions, drawing the direct link between assessment and
instruction.
I know that my time has run out here, but I do want to
mention also that we very much support the use of positive
behavioral supports and interventions, noting that the body of
research that demonstrates improving the overall climate for
learning will affect and improve learning for all students.
Finally, I will just mention that we would ask you to look
very closely at including more language on transition planning,
linking back to what many of the previous witnesses have talked
about in post-secondary in looking at the post-secondary and
entering the workforce. So thank you very much for this
opportunity. And LDA looks forward to working with the
committee.
[The statement of Ms. Mandlawitz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myrna R. Mandlawitz, Policy Director, Learning
Disabilities Association of America
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Learning
Disabilities Association of America (LDA) appreciates the opportunity
to provide comments on the discussion draft of Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. LDA is a national volunteer
organization representing individuals with learning disabilities, their
families, and the professionals who serve them. Our members have worked
for more than 40 years to ensure that children with learning
disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and
receive the supports they need to be successful in school.
I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman, Committee members,
and staff for their hard work in delivering what LDA believes is a
strong start to the reauthorization process. Overall, we are pleased
with many of the elements of the discussion draft and encourage the
Committee to continue to work thoughtfully and deliberately, using the
practical input from all interested parties.
While LDA has broad interest in all aspects of the law, in my brief
time today I would like to comment on three specific items affecting
students with learning disabilities:
States' option to adopt modified academic achievement
standards;
Allowance of the use of multiple indicators to determine
adequate yearly progress; and,
Acknowledgement and use of research-based instruction and
interventions, early intervening services, and school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports.
1. Modified Achievement Standards: Students with learning
disabilities span the academic achievement spectrum. Many are able to
complete grade level work within the normal school year and
successfully participate, with or without accommodations, on the
regular state assessments. However, for other students with learning
disabilities, the rate of learning is slower and may require additional
time to complete grade level work.
LDA supports challenging academic achievement standards and the
option for States to adopt modified academic achievement standards for
students with disabilities as necessary. That said, it will be
critically important that States comply with the draft requirement to
``establish and monitor implementation of clear and appropriate
guidelines for IEP teams to apply in determining which students with
disabilities'' should be assessed based on modified standards. This
provision could be strengthened by adding specific language requiring
the U.S. Department of Education to provide technical assistance to
States in the development of these guidelines. We view, as the greatest
challenge to States' implementation, the determination of which
students should be appropriately assessed based on these standards.
We also commend the Committee for requiring that the Secretary
engage in further study, review and disseminate the results of current
research, and provide ongoing information to Congress on the challenges
of appropriately assessing students with disabilities. LDA recognizes
that development of modified standards is an emerging area that
requires more research and resources. We would welcome any additional
language on research specific to developing modified achievement
standards.
2. Use of Multiple Indicators: As noted earlier, students with
learning disabilities, by virtue of those disabilities, do not always
respond to the standard methods of instruction or assessment. In fact,
students without learning disabilities have varied learning styles, as
well. Therefore, LDA supports the use of multiple measures of
achievement to ensure that all students are given adequate
opportunities to demonstrate proficiency without lowering expectations
for learning.
While we applaud the Committee's inclusion of multiple indicators
for determining AYP, we would ask that you consider broadening the list
of allowable indicators, focusing less on single test results to
determine proficiency and focusing more on individual student progress.
Multiple measures of student achievement, using various methods of
assessment, provide a more accurate picture of a student's strengths
and weaknesses than a single score on a standardized test.
Understanding these strengths and weaknesses is essential to addressing
the educational needs of students with learning disabilities. However,
care must be taken to ensure such use of multiple measures--for the
purposes of AYP--does not have the unintended consequences of more
testing burdens, rather than the more positive result of improving
instruction.
3. Response to Intervention (RTI), Early Intervening Services
(EIS), and Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS): LDA approached the
inclusion of RTI and EIS in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act with some trepidation, since these
interventions are focused specifically on students in general
education, rather than students identified as needing special
education. LDA supports the use of tiered interventions and early
intervening services to assist struggling students and believes that
these interventions rightly belong in the ESEA. We are particularly
pleased, under the Local Plan provisions, that local districts must
describe how assessment results will be used to provide research-based
interventions, drawing a direct link between assessment and improved
instruction.
LDA also strongly supports the use of positive behavioral supports
and interventions. There is a considerable body of research
demonstrating that improving the overall climate for learning, as well
as addressing individual barriers to learning beyond purely cognitive
factors, produces higher achievement. Often students with and without
learning disabilities have co-occurring emotional and behavioral
problems, resulting from academic frustrations. Attention to non-
academic supports is critical for all students in meeting the academic
achievement standards.
Finally, LDA appreciates the Committee's acknowledgement of the
importance of ensuring that all students leave school ready for college
or to enter the workforce with marketable skills. We would urge the
Committee to include more language on transition planning, so that
adequate and timely planning occurs to assist students in meeting their
postsecondary goals. Strong transition planning would ensure that
students are enrolled in appropriate courses, would expand their
understanding of options for study, including more career and technical
education options, and ensure that students clearly understand the
ramifications of postsecondary planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments with you. We
look forward to working with you throughout the reauthorization
process.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. And thank you very much to all
of you for your testimony. Are there any questions from members
for the panel?
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Just a statement to Mr. Zamora, and we have
made a good deal of progress starting in 1994 really. I can
recall, at that time, I was chairman of the subcommittee, and I
had--I was assigned to, I think, a sophomore at the time,
Xavier Becerra, you could write the what we call bilingual
education that day. He did an excellent job by consulting with
your organization, and we have grown since then. So your input
even before 1994, but especially 1994 really helped us reach
where we are today, and I very much appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Neas, one of the problems we have had dealing with
disabled children is if we allowed them not to come up to the
regular standard, we will give an incentive to overidentify
people as disabled, children as disabled. How can we
appropriately measure children under IDEA without giving the
incentive to overidentify them?
Ms. Neas. Thank you for that question.
Under IDEA, in order to be eligible for special education
students, a student has to have both a disability and needs
special education services. So by simply having a disability is
not sufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. There are
provisions in IDEA that say if you lack previous education
instruction, lack of language skills, those things don't
automatically make you eligible, and those things need to be
ruled out before a child can be determined eligible.
We now have requirements that were put in the 1997
amendments and then reaffirmed in the 2004 amendments that
prohibit States from having internal funding distribution
formulas that would award school districts for putting children
in more segregated environments. There really are no sort of in
the law incentives to do that. I think, as with many instances
with laws, it is up to parents to make sure that their children
are appropriate, getting the appropriate services that they
need. I think it is challenging now for schools to overidentify
children even though we know it is happening. I think there are
more protections now in the law than ever before. I also think
with the subgroup categories where children can be in more than
one subgroup category, that schools are going to be more
diligent in trying to make sure that a child is in the
appropriate subgroup and not in more than one if that is not
appropriate.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
For Ms. Pompa and Mr. Zamora, the States have a high
participation of English learners, I support them very much.
For that to be effective, is it going to be required that we
have language provisions that complement that policy
initiative? Or that is going to be State driven? I am still not
clear on that, either or both.
Mr. Zamora. It is certainly critical that we do include all
ELL students in NCLB accountability because otherwise they
won't get the same attention that they deserve. But I think
your question sort of notes what has been happening really at
the State level, where the States really haven't prioritized
the development of good content assessments. So actually the
draft bill I think is going to do a lot to support States in
developing appropriate assessments and also really holding them
responsible; that after 2 years, they suffer potential
withholdings if they don't put in place good systems. So,
during that 2 years, there is differential treatment of ELLs
under AYP to help schools and districts out that don't have the
right instruments. But after 2 years from date of enactment, we
will have a very strong testing system and really from a long
time coming, progress notwithstanding, that it has been 15
years, and we still don't have good tests for ELLs.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Would you care to comment?
Ms. Pompa. I would only comment that in States such as
yours where there has been misguided legislation that undoes
the right to provide English language instruction for students,
this provision would help guide those districts to make the
appropriate curricular decisions for those students and
therefore show what children know rather than what they don't
know.
Chairman Miller. Misguided is a nice euphemism. Thank you.
Ms. Piche, you talked about the equity issue involving the
distribution of teachers, provided everybody agrees to that.
Can you reconcile also the workplace prerogatives and rights,
for lack of a better word, that educators have through their
collective bargaining issue versus--if versus is the right
word--the need to create that equity distribution? Can you
suggest a mechanism?
Ms. Piche. This is a very tough issue. But I would say,
yes, it is certainly possible and in fact desirable to
reconcile the collective bargaining rights and other rights
that employees have in this system on the one hand with the
very important rights and interests that parents have in making
sure that their children have teachers who are as qualified as
the kids on the other side of town, if you will.
It seems to me that the current draft strikes a good
balance between that. It preserves the rights of teachers'
unions to bargain collectively at the local level, while at the
same time saying there is a Federal standard, and this is a
civil rights standard. So if you go back, for example, to the
desegregation cases, you find to this day, for example, many
collective bargaining agreements incorporate the goals to have
an equitable distribution of teachers based on race, for
example, which were part of those Federal requirements. So we
do think that the two can, should and need to be compatible.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Also to you, Ms. Piche. In your comments about local pilot
programs, and I want you to know staff was involved in the
development of that provision. And first of all, I will assure
you, the farthest thing from anybody's mind is to allow local
school districts to regress. And in that light, I mean, you
characterized the program as sort of like well, these local
school districts are going to get turned loose and have no
accountability to anybody. And yet, in the draft, these
programs have to be developed with the assistance of experts.
They have to be peer reviewed. They have to be coordinated with
State programs. And there is an audit provision, and the
Secretary has to sign off on them. I can't understand that you
think that there could be a significant regression with all of
that accountability of those power programs.
Ms. Piche. I appreciate your asking the question because
this really goes to the heart to some of our very strong equity
concerns about this draft. First of all, I would say that,
under current law and since 1994, local districts have been
able to--and in fact, the 1994 law really encouraged local
districts to supplement the State's standards and assessments
with their own measures, provided that they didn't dilute this
very important statewide standard that applied to all students,
rich and poor, suburban and rural. And we haven't seen a whole
lot of that happening.
We would like to see more because many of the kinds of
assessments that this bill and your draft would like to see at
the local level are very important. And in fact, they take the
whole technology of assessment one step further, the classroom
embedded assessments. These are not things that we oppose. They
are good for instruction. They are good for diagnosing student
learning difficulties, and they are good feedback for teachers.
We do have a problem though, when you incorporate the
results of those measures into the statewide AYP calculation.
And our concerns are based on a long history of inequity. And
our concerns are based on research that we did during the
period of the Improving America's Schools Act when many
districts and States were transitions from having their local
standards and assessments to the statewide system. And we found
there were huge disparities. In the chairman's home State of
California, over 1,000 different districts had over 1,000
different standards and assessment systems. And we talked to
people in the State education department, and honestly they had
no way of assuring comparability, and that is what we really
worry about. So if these assessments were additive to AYP, if
these assessments were not in a position where some of the same
people who--and systems who were being judged and therefore
exposed to consequences were not in the position of scoring
them, now I think we wouldn't be as deeply concerned.
And so I would hope that, going forward, there may be some
opportunities to talk through some of these concerns and come
to perhaps some improvement in the draft that would provide
teachers with a richer set of tools that they can use in the
classroom without compromising the statewide standard.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you. That is very constructive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I just want to follow along on
that point. Again, I find it hard that this pilot program is
equated with sort of the fall of the American education system.
And now you want to equate it with what existed sort of pre-
1994, I would say more likely pre-2000. But somehow what is
laid out in the legislation, given the process that Mr. Yarmuth
just took you through, you suggested that let 1,000 flowers
bloom wherever it happens. The two systems are entirely
different, and they are additive to the system. I mean, nobody
is throwing out the State system. It is a question of whether
or not you want to make an effort to see what you can
construct, an assessment system that is more helpful to
developing the skills that, again, most of the people who rely
on this education system tell us they think students are going
to need.
That is far different than in my own home State of
California where it was, ``do whatever you want to do and
nobody is paying attention to any of it.'' It seems to me those
are two different systems. But we will work on that in the rest
of the oversight of the draft. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Biggert?
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much for
your testimony and, again, for your help and support in getting
us to this point. And we look forward to working with you.
The next panel will be from the Business Foundation and
Innovation Panel: Mr. Jon Schnur, who will be from New Leaders
for New Schools; Charles Harris, cofounder and executive
partner of SeaChange Capital Partners; Nelson Smith, who is the
president of National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; Josh
Wyner, executive vice president, Jack Kent Cooke foundation;
Sonia Hernandez Rodriguez, executive vice president of the
National Farm Workers Services Center; John Castellani, who is
the president of the Business Roundtable; Jim Kohlmoos, who is
the president and CEO of Knowledge Alliance; and Mike Petrilli
who is the vice president, National Programs & Policy, of the
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. If we can make the transition
here from one panel to another as quickly as we might.
We will begin, Jon, as soon as we get the door closed here
so we will make sure that we can all hear you. Jon, welcome to
the committee. And as we explained to you, we will begin, 5
minutes. The yellow light will come on when then there is 1
minute left. We would like you to finish up, but we want you to
complete your thoughts and impart the information that you
think is important for us to hear at this stage of the process.
STATEMENT OF JON SCHNUR, CEO, NEW LEADERS FOR NEW SCHOOLS
Mr. Schnur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee,
members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify on
this important topic. I am going to try to do two quick things
in these 5 minutes. First of all, tell you briefly some data
and experience from our work with some 200,000 primarily low-
income kids in 10 cities over the past several years and offer
a couple of insights that have emerged from that experience.
Second, advocate for why I believe from this experience it is
so critical to enact the reauthorization of the ESEA No Child
Left Behind this year and some reasons for that with some
specific ideas for what working in this draft legislation as
well as a couple recommendations for what could be renewed.
So New Leaders For New Schools, Mr. Chairman, when you came
to New Orleans this spring and saw the schools there, and met
with leaders from around the country, we are so appreciative of
your engagement, as you know. We now have 400 leaders working
in schools serving over 200,000 low income children in 10
cities across the country. Our focus is on high achievement for
all kids with the focus on the principalship. We have seen from
the research that no good school that has made dramatic change
really has done that without an effective principal. There are
two pieces of student achievement data that I will share with
you that I think underscore the helpfulness of the direction of
this legislation.
Three, first of all, there is a ground swell of support for
the goals that this Congress has set around high achievement
for every child. We have had 7,000 applicants for 400 slots,
all of our new leaders this summer who started our training
from across the country have passionately embraced the goal and
signed contracts committing themselves to achieving the goal of
90 to 100 percent proficiency for children in schools that lead
by 2013. They are passionate and thrilled that the country has
come behind that as a pressing civil rights issue.
The second piece of data that I would offer is on
achievement. Schools led by New Leaders principals, generally
well trained, well recruited, are in fact making faster
progress in academic achievement than the school systems that
they are in. That is the good news.
Bad news, we are not comparing to a norm; neither are you.
We are looking at, what is the dramatic progress that we need
to get to the 90 to 100 percent success rates? When you look at
it that way, of all the very well trained principals, only 20
percent of those schools are actually making the dramatic
progress toward those goals that they need in order to get to
those goals within 4 or 5 years of their principalship.
The good news is there are schools that are achieving these
levels. When people say these are unrealistic, we can cite you
school after school after school, New Leaders-led or otherwise
that in fact is making dramatic achievement gains. Last year,
the most improved schools in all of Sacramento and Chicago were
New Leaders-led schools. There are public schools, district
schools, charter public schools across the country that are
achieving these successes.
Challenges, even when you have hard-working educators
working very hard to achieve those goals, not all of them are
making that. The question is, what do you do when you have got
some progress but not enough progress to get to the goals that
you have set?
I would argue the implication of this is that fast
enactment of this act is crucial for three reasons. One, there
is a sense in the country that the Congress in the United
States may be wavering about the belief that all of our kids
can learn at high levels. There is a sense that the national
government maybe waivers about the belief that all kids can
read and do math at all grade levels. We see it in the schools.
There is a lot of skepticism about that, despite evidence to
the contrary. The first of the three reasons to think it is
critical is for Congress on a bipartisan basis to send the
message that this is not a short-term trend. This is a long-
term commitment to quality education for every child, starting
with reading and math proficiency but not ending there.
The second reason I think it is critical and that we have
seen that it is critical is that there are some big flaws of No
Child Left Behind, some big inadequacies, many of which this
legislation addresses very effectively. And some of these are
very much agreed on policies, but they have big implications
for kids. If you don't pass this now, I worry that waiting 3
years--3 years is a long time to wait in the life of a child as
well as for a country that is working toward achieving these
goals for the country. For example, moving toward a growth
measure of--toward progress over a period of time, most people
here are sitting around the table saying, yes, this is a good
measure.
In fact, in schools, the absence of that is causing very
damaging effects. I have a key member on my team who was
teaching recently, a couple years ago was teaching under No
Child Left Behind in an urban school system. She encountered
the story of a testing coordinator coming to her classroom in
front of the students, in her class and around the school
saying to the teacher, you need to pick two students to move to
proficiency. If every teacher in a school can move two kids to
proficiency, then we will meet our targets. That, as you know,
is happening around the country.
So fast enactment of the right kind of growth model geared
to proficiency is more important I believe than waiting another
3 years to resolve some differences that I really think can be
resolved with the work that you and your teams have been doing.
The second big example of progress that needs to be made
and big flaw in the current bill, I would argue--now there has
been a lot that has been learned about this, so it is less a
critique of what has happened but more of a need for what needs
to be done now, the research is extremely clear, as you have
recognized and led on, Chairman Miller. The most important in-
school factor driving student achievement is the quality of
teaching in the classroom. The second most is the quality of
leadership at the school level. This bill is actually quite
weak, unfortunately the current law is quite weak on driving
dramatic changes in improvement of teaching quality and school
leadership in our highest needs schools to help accomplish the
goals that you have set out.
So I am thrilled that there are many provisions in a very
powerful Title II draft that you and Ranking Member McKeon have
put out there to address this. Number one, to attract teachers
to the schools that need--where they need them the most is
critical. Investing in professional development at the school
level by paying master or mentor teachers more to provide the
right kind of professional develop at the school level;
improving the induction and preparation of new teachers and
principals is critical, other provisions from the Teach Act
that were supported on a bipartisan basis. Formative
assessments, every school we have seen making dramatic progress
has principals and teachers making effective use of data
through formative assessments which you have made a real
priority for school improvement. There are many important
priorities in this bill that I think are critical that we can't
wait 3 years for these to help children benefit from.
I will close quickly by saying that our recommendations for
improvement: One, Chairman Miller you provided terrific
leadership on New Orleans, provided stop-gap incentives to help
attract and retain teachers and leaders in New Orleans. I would
recommend incorporating your renewal act into the No Child Left
Behind reauthorization as well as providing support to rebuild
and modernize the school buildings in New Orleans. The Federal
goal is to help needy schools, and there are no more needy
schools than in the City of New Orleans, and they have been
waiting for a while.
The second recommendation is--I think there are some ways
you can streamline the performance measures in AYP
accountability. It kind of creates a third way between one side
that wants just reading and math measures and one side that
wants an endless list of input measures to say that there are a
small number of outcome measures that ought to be used to hold
schools accountable. I think there are ways of making that work
without watering down accountability for reading and math. And
my final recommendation will be on your Title II component to
include a performance and evaluation plan that would basically
ensure that all the competitive grant programs that you have
got in Title II which we think are very good, that there is an
active effort to learn from those to bring back comprehensive
lessons learned to inform the next reauthorization 6 years from
now. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Schnur follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon Schnur, Chief Executive Officer and
Cofounder, New Leaders for New Schools
Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Committee on Education and Labor today on the crucial and timely topic
of reauthorizing and improving the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and NCLB in order to drive high achievement for every student. As
the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of New Leaders for New
Schools, I am pleased to share a perspective grounded in our current
work with 400 public schools and school leaders serving 200,000 mostly
low-income students in over 10 cities across the United States--
including Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis, Milwaukee, Newark, New Orleans,
New York City, Oakland, Prince George's County, Sacramento, and
Washington D.C.
First, my colleagues and I embrace the nationwide goals of No Child
Left Behind and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--grade-level
proficiency for virtually every student in reading and math--as a
crucial cornerstone of a quality education for every student. We salute
bipartisan leadership--including the crucial leadership of this
committee--for embracing these goals for the nation. There is actually
a groundswell of support for these goals from educators nationwide. For
example, we have had 15 times more applications than slots from
educators and leaders wishing to become urban principals driven by a
belief that every student regardless of background can achieve at high
levels and a sense of urgency and personal responsibility that we as
adults must close the achievement gap All of the ``New Leaders'' who
began their training with us this summer have signed on to at least a
six-year commitment and goals that (at a minimum) 90-100% of the
primarily low-income students in the schools they lead will achieve
grade-level proficiency in core academic subjects and that 90-100% of
their high school students will be graduating by 2014. We are actively
exploring adding a very small number of additional student success
goals such as dramatically increasing the percentage of low-income
students at advanced levels and enrolling and graduating from college.
Like so many other educators across our nation, these instructional
leaders are working every day to translate the goals of these important
national initiatives into reality in low-income, urban schools
nationwide--school by school, classroom by classroom and student by
student. In most of our cities, students in schools led by our New
Leaders principals for at least two years are on average making faster
academic progress than comparable students in the school system--with
the single-most-improved school in cities such as Chicago and
Sacramento led by New Leaders principals. But outperforming the norm is
not enough. That's why we are actively examining why only about 20% of
New Leaders-led schools are
But neither our progress nor our limitations can distract us from
the goal of a high quality education for every student. After all,
while there are many different methods for how to teach children to
read effectively and independently by the 3rd grade, our society and
children cannot afford to question whether we should hold ourselves
accountable for whether every child regardless of background learns to
read effectively and independently by the 3rd grade.
I believe that the birthright to learn how to read, for example,
shouldn't be a New York or Louisiana or California birthright--nor
should it be a birthright only for a child who happens to be born in
certain affluent communities. It should be an American birthright
available to every child that walks in the door of any school in any of
our communities anywhere across our nation. And yet today, a 3rd
grader's ability to read, an 8th grader's ability to do algebra, and a
12th grader's ability to graduate from high school and choose a college
or career is an accident of geography--usually due to family income and
occasionally because a student happens to attend one of the tiny number
of public (or private) schools where today we are achieving such
successes with low-income students. The fact that these successes are
happening in certain schools serving low-income students demonstrates
that our children are capable of such success. The fact that taking
these successes to scale is very hard, complex work--and that we don't
have all of the solutions yet--should not diminish our commitment to
our young people or our educators who are working tirelessly on what
they rightly see as America's top domestic priority.
Second, achieving these goals requires a massive, long-term, and
bipartisan national commitment to success and quick action this year by
this Congress to reauthorize and improve ESEA and NCLB.
Achieving these goals also requires all of us to augment our
institutional self-interests with a civic responsibility to candidly
examine data and experience about our progress, our failures, and what
it will take to succeed together.
Every generation faces a small number of imperative challenges and
opportunities that will most affect whether we bequeath a stronger,
fairer, and more successful society to our children and grandchildren.
There is no greater challenge and opportunity for our generation that
ensuring first-class, high quality public schools available to every
student regardless of background, race, disability, native language, or
income. Doing this and closing the achievement gap will require the
same kind of generational, long-term commitments shown through the
civil rights movement and our triumph over the Nazis. A close
examination of data and experience shows we are dangerously far from
achieving our goals (with for example a typical low-income 7th grader
reading at the levels of a more affluent 3rd grader), but we have begun
to make serious progress in some classrooms, schools and communities. A
close examination of schools under NCLB shows some important strengths
and limitations of NCLB as a tool to help all of our students succeed.
Fast reauthorization will help renew and signal broad, bipartisan
commitment to crucial ESEA and NCLB goals that most of you share--and
to build on important strengths in the legislation. For example, we
continue to see too many people reject the proposition that virtually
every student regardless of background can learn and achieve. We see
too many people who quietly believe that a low-income child or child of
color has less innate capacity to learn and achieve than their affluent
or white peers. We see too many others who believe children regardless
of background might have the capacity to succeed but that we don't have
the capacity as adults to unlock that potential given all of the
obstacles. Those beliefs persist in face of evidence from classrooms
and schools to the contrary. And these beliefs represent some of the
most pernicious and dangerous obstacles to our success. Reauthorizing
ESEA and NCLB will demonstrate to educators, families, students, and
others that the commitment to these goals--success for every student,
holding schools and systems accountable for student progress, a laser-
like focus on closing the achievement gap--transcends any particular
party, President, or Congress.
Fast reauthorization will also address some agreed-on inadequacies
in current law in order to better equip our students and educators to
achieve our shared goals. For example, current law does not make
possible a universally available, high quality ``growth model'' where
schools could be accountable for the rapid progress of actual (and all)
students toward proficiency and above as opposed to the performance of
a group of students just below the proficiency line one year compared
to another group of students the previous year. Current law fails to
focus adequately on scaling up what's working or how school systems and
others can help build the capacity and tools of educators to achieve
these goals--and especially in the lowest-income and lowest-achieving
schools. And current law does not invest or focus adequately in high-
quality assessments and accountability systems to prevent an excessive
focus on (or create a glass ceiling of) test-preparation and basic
skills.
It is my belief that other real, but solvable, disagreements among
education advocates shouldn't keep Congress from building on these
strengths and addressing these and other inadequacies. Failure to act
this year likely means that students will wait at least three more
years for recommitment to these goals and improvement of capacity and
strategies to achieve them. Three years is a long time in the life of a
child. And it is a long time in a nation with urgent and important
goals for educators, students, families, policymakers and others to
accomplish by 2014. Given these moral imperatives and our experiences
and data, I believe it is of utmost importance that Congress
reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and NCLB this
year. The leadership of Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, and this
committee have been and will continue to be absolutely crucial to make
this happen.
Third, the evidence suggests that Congress should place a laser-
like focus on supporting and investing in quality teaching and school
leadership--especially in low-income urban and rural communities--to
achieve our nationwide goals for student success. The evidence is very
clear: the greatest in-school factor affecting student achievement is
the quality of teaching in a student's classroom. And the second
greatest factor is the quality and effectiveness of the principal. And
while the evidence suggests that NCLB has very much helped to focus our
nation, school systems, and schools on the achievement gap, it has not
yet adequately equipped our teachers and school leaders to effectively
solve it.
Studies have shown a difference of 50 percentile points among
students who have had more effective teachers compared to those with
less effective teachers over the course of three years. And studies
have shown that nearly 25 % of the in-school factors affecting student
achievement can be attributed directly to the quality and effectiveness
of the principal. This is second only to the effects of teacher
instruction--which is shaped by the way our most effective principals
select, manage, and develop their teachers. And because principals
select, train, manage, support, evaluate and teachers--and set the
culture for the school--a teaching quality strategy can't be successful
without an effective principal strategy.
The bottom line: the quality and effectiveness of school teachers
and principals matters a lot to the future of our students and to the
future of our nation.
In a world where there are no shortcuts to school success, a
serious focus on supporting quality teaching and school leadership
provides no silver bullet. But systematic efforts to drive the quality
and effectiveness of
Translating this simple insight into effective policy and scalable
practice is no easy task, and Chairman Miller and Congressman McKeon
have thankfully made this a powerful priority in the draft discussion
bill. Enacting the ideas embedded in the Miller-McKeon draft
legislation would make a dramatic contribution to the capacity of our
schools in our neediest communities to accomplish your goals for
student success.
For example, I applaud the draft legislation's focus on:
Attracting and retaining our most effective teachers and
school leaders in our highest-need schools. The bill would provide
crucial incentives to increase likelihood that effective teachers will
remain in or come to high-need schools. As this week's Time Magazine
notes, Chairman Miller provided crucial leadership along with
Representatives Melancon and Jindal (as well as from Senators Landrieu,
Kennedy, and Cochran) to ensure that Congress provided similar
incentives in New Orleans and other communities hit hard by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. It's making a difference in New Orleans and
elsewhere. The focus on systems changes to attract and hire teachers
and school leaders can make a big impact.
Ensuring more school-level instructional support and
feedback--including through master teachers, mentor teachers, teacher
residencies and more. We have learned that professional development is
a crucial investment to support our teachers and principals, and the
most effective professional development is usually school-based and
ongoing as opposed to one-shot sessions outside of the school.
Improving the preparation of aspiring and novice teachers
and school leaders in high-need schools. Investing in teacher and
school leader residencies, merit-based selection models, and ongoing
coaching and support can help ensure the next generation of well-
prepared teachers and school leaders for high-need schools and
communities.
Ensuring greater transparency and focus by states and
school systems on the fair distribution of resources for teachers and
school leaders in the highest-need schools. Conditioning Title II aid
on state progress toward ensuring quality and effective teachers in our
highest-need schools is an important idea. And it is very important in
ensuring that high-need schools have at least their fair share of
experienced and effective teachers and instructional leaders--and it is
critical that more resources and professional development be available
in our high-need schools given that most of our highest-need schools
tend to have the most novice teachers.
Investing in and scaling what's effective. This
legislation includes important and innovative support to identify
what's working in driving dramatic student achievement gaps and provide
additional resources to help those successful efforts serve more
students. Rarely do successful efforts get recognized and scaled. This
legislation would do that, explain and share what's working, and build
greater capacity among effective school systems and educators to
continue their work and serve more students. I appreciate the
leadership of Chairman Miller as well as Representative Carol Shea-
Porter on this important effort.
It is not easy to balance the urgency of the need for effective
principals at scale (especially in our highest-need schools) with the
need to ensure that these reforms are implemented in a deliberate, high
quality way. Too often, powerful ideas are lost to inadequate knowledge
about how to bring ideas to scale, limited capacity, and well-
intentioned but poorly planned implementation. As we consider solutions
and strive to meet the urgent educational needs of children as quickly
as possible, we must both identify how the federal government can be
most effective in this work and recognize the current need for more
research and development as well as learning on how to gain clearer
knowledge, build capacity, and quickly scale effective efforts. This
legislation manages to strike the right balance between these
priorities--including providing the kind of R &D that would be
supported in human capital efforts through a number of innovative,
competitive grant programs.
I have three major recommendations for improving this legislation.
First, I recommend that the MillerMelancon-Jindal RENEWWAL legislation
be incorporated into this reauthorization to ensure additional support
to ensure effective teachers and school leaders in New Orleans and
other communities hit hard by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I also
recommend that reauthorized ESEA and NCLB provide New Orleans and these
communities with crucial support to help rebuild and modernize school
facilities--and work with others in Congress to amend the Stafford Act
to remove bureaucratic obstacles that currently require FEMA to only
fund the rebuilding of low-income schools to atrocious pre-Katrina
standards. This is an opportunity to modernize and rebuild school
buildings to post-Katrina standards of excellence not pre-Katrina
standards and specifications that went hand-in-hand with the historic
poor performance of the New Orleans schools.
The next 12 months represent a crucial inflection point for the
city of New Orleans and other communities hit hard by these
hurricanes--and the fate of the public schools will be a crucial factor
affecting the success of these communities. This year is the crucial
time to ensure that these communities have the teachers, school
leaders, and investment in facilities they need to succeed. This year
is when the direction of these schools and communities will be set for
years and decades to come.
Second, I recommend streamlining the provisions on performance
measures to ensure transparency and accountability on a small set of
important, measurable outcomes such as high school graduation rates,
college enrollment, and improved success on AP and IB assessments
without reducing accountability and support for reading and math
proficiency. I think that a solution can be found that ensures a focus
on this broader set of rigorous student success outcomes that matter to
students, business, and our society without diminishing crucial
accountability and support for reading and math proficiency. I'd be
happy to discuss ideas for doing this after the panel has finished
providing testimony. These differences can be reconciled. I strongly
encourage you not to let the vital, speedy reauthorization of ESEA and
NCLB be slowed by what are truly solvable differences on these issues.
Third, I recommend instituting a greater investment and focus on
the evaluation and performance-orientation of many of the human capital
initiatives in the discussion draft of Title II. In my view, the
competitive grant programs outlined in this legislation can provide
important R &D for how to ensure successful teaching at greater scale.
But they will only maximize their intended impact if there is:
a rigorous evaluation of all programs funded by these
initiatives,
continued funding for only those programs that demonstrate
progress in student achievement, and
a research plan and strategy for reviewing the findings
across programs to ensure that there are lessons learned and
recommendations for an even broader focus on human capital that can
inform the next ESEA reauthorization 6-7 years from now.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share these perspectives and
recommendations with you. My team and I are happy to work with you and
your staff in any way that might be helpful to inform your continued
deliberations on this vital topic. Thank you for your leadership on
these issues--your speedy work on the reauthorization of ESEA and NCLB
can make a profound impact on our children, schools, and nation.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Harris.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES HARRIS, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE PARTNER,
SEACHANGE CAPITAL PARTNERS
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you so much for the opportunity to testify about the vital
importance of reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.
A brief introduction on my own background might provide
some helpful context. I am not an educator by training or
practice. I spent the bulk of my career as a corporate finance
partner at Goldman Sachs where I arranged financings and
mergers and acquisitions for a large number of corporations
across a broad array of industries and where I served as a
leader of the firm-wide committee that assessed the risks and
rewards of specific underwriting transactions. We got some of
those right.
Over the years, I have also been active as a philanthropist
in the field of education involved with expanding pre-K to
higher education. In 2002, I decided to invest my time as well
in pursuit of the improvement of educational opportunity and
practices. With advice and input from a number of highly
regarded foundations and individual philanthropists, this work
lead me to join my former Goldman Sachs partner, Robert Steel,
who is currently serving as Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Domestic Finance, in founding a nonprofit financing
organization called SeaChange Capital Partners.
The mission of SeaChange Capital Partners is
straightforward. While there are many innovative and effective
ventures in education, there are also many that lack the
funding to grow to a scale where they can significantly improve
the landscape of American education. We intend to serve as a
matchmaker between selected proven nonprofit programs in the
ample and growing philanthropic resources of the Nation. We
will identify the programs, perform in depth due diligence,
work with management to market the programs to a nationwide
philanthropic network, ranging multi-million dollar, multi-year
rounds of financing to fuel their growth, much in the same
manner that outstanding business organizations finance their
expansion.
Numerous studies have shown the cost of financing in the
nonprofit sector far exceeds the cost in the for-profit sector.
We believe that by adapting financing techniques as appropriate
to the social sector, we can realize real efficiencies. Once we
complete the fundraising for our own operations, our goal
during our initial 3 years is to arrange $100 million in growth
capital financing at a cost much lower than is generally the
case for nonprofits.
Happily, Goldman Sachs has agreed to provide a portion of
our start-up capital and to support us with human capital as
well. I am also pleased to report that we are far from alone in
this effort. Many in the private sector have recognized the
growth capital problem. Our general purpose is the same as the
bringing success to scale concept in the draft legislation to
assist the most effective programs in reaching many more of our
young people. In joining this effort, we won't be speculating.
Instead, we will rely on intensive research to find the
organizations that have a common set of core characteristics,
strong missions, well-developed programs, talented management
teams, compelling results in their work to date, a commitment
to measuring what they do and adjusting their work based on
what they have learned from the data and, importantly, well-
crafted strategies for growth. I would like to emphasize that
we will be selecting operating organizations for this
financing, not simply effective program elements.
Mechanisms to evaluate impact on academic achievement
already exist. I believe it is critical for the Federal
Government and the private sector to collaborate to identify
what works best and to bring the substantial financial
resources required to these efforts. I believe that NCLB is
bringing success to scale and, when instituted, will allow the
private sector's philanthropic contribution to mesh with the
government's effort in a unified and collaborative way with
evaluation methodologies and matching funding provisions that
will appeal to private philanthropists.
One other point from the draft that I would like to
address. As a person who spent his business career using data
to measure progress and make decisions, I believe we should not
abandon the useful standardized assessment that NCLB has put in
place at the State level. I applaud your decision to include a
variety of new measures as well that I believe will do a better
job of giving us all clearer insight into how a school is
performing.
You have included college enrollment rates as one of your
new measures. Through my work with the national organization
based here in Washington called College Summit, I have seen
firsthand how a commitment to tracking the college enrollment
rates of graduating seniors in high schools in low-income
communities when combined with programming to build the
school's capacity to assist these students in the transition
from grade 12 to 13 is significantly enhancing college-going in
these communities.
Since then--I know a number of people have said this today.
Since high school graduation cannot be considered an end to
itself today, I believe the Federal Government should consider
a high school's trend in college enrollment an important
supplemental measure of adequate yearly progress in that
school. As with other measures of progress, it is no surprise
that superintendents and principals are more likely to be
successful in meeting goals for which they have been held
accountable and for which the data is public. I hope that my
perspective from the private sector will help persuade you all
of the importance of supporting bringing success to scale and
also the advisability of adding college enrollment trends as an
additional measure of a high school's success. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles T. Harris III, Co-Founder and Executive
Partner, Seachange Capital Partners
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today about the vital importance of
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
better known as the No Child Left Behind Act.
Background
A brief introduction to my background may provide some helpful
context for my testimony today. I am not an educator by training or
practice. I spent the bulk of my career as a corporate finance partner
at Goldman Sachs, where I arranged financings and mergers and
acquisitions for a large number of corporations across a wide array of
industries, and where I served as a leader of the firmwide committee
that assessed the risks and rewards of specific underwriting
transactions.
Over the years I have also been active as a philanthropist in the
field of education, involved with programs spanning pre-K to higher
education. In 2002 I decided to invest my time as well in pursuit of
the improvement of educational opportunity and practices, with advice
and input from a number of highly regarded foundations and individual
philanthropists. This work led me to join my former Goldman Sachs
partner Robert Steel (currently serving as Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Domestic Finance) in founding a nonprofit financing
organization called SeaChange Capital Partners.
SeaChange and ``Bringing Success to Scale''
The mission of SeaChange Capital Partners is straightforward: while
there are many innovative and effective ventures in education, there
are also many that lack the funding to grow to a scale where they can
significantly improve the landscape of American education. We intend to
serve as a matchmaker between selected, proven nonprofit programs and
the ample and growing philanthropic resources of the nation.
We will identify the programs, perform in-depth due diligence and
work with management to market the programs to a nationwide
philanthropic network, arranging multi-million dollar, multi-year
rounds of financing to fuel their growth, in the same manner that
outstanding business organizations finance their expansion. Numerous
studies have shown that the cost of financing in the nonprofit sector
far exceeds the cost in the for-profit sector. We believe that by
adapting financing techniques from the for-profit sector, as
appropriate, to the social sector, we can realize real efficiencies.
Once we complete the fundraising for our own operations, our goal
during our initial three years is to arrange $100 million in growth
capital financing at a cost much lower than is generally the case for
nonprofits.
Goldman Sachs has agreed to provide a meaningful portion of our
startup capital and to support us with human capital as well. I'm also
pleased to report that we are not alone in this effort; many in the
private sector have recognized the growth capital problem.
Our general purpose is the same as the ``Bringing Success to
Scale'' concept in the draft legislation: to assist the most effective
programs in reaching many more of our young people.
In joining this effort, we will not be speculating. Instead, we
will rely on intensive research to find the organizations that have a
common set of core characteristics: strong missions; well-developed
programs; talented management teams; compelling results in their work
to date, a commitment to measuring what they do and adjusting their
work based on what they learn from the data, and well-crafted
strategies for growth.
Mechanisms to evaluate impact on academic achievement already
exist. I believe it is critical for the federal government and the
private sector to collaborate to identify what works best and to bring
the substantial financial resources required to these efforts. I
believe that NCLB's ``Bringing Success to Scale'', when instituted,
will allow the private sector's philanthropic contribution to mesh with
the government's efforts in a unified and collaborative way.
College Enrollment Rates as a Measure of High School Success
As a person who spent his business career using data to measure
progress and make decisions, I believe that we should not abandon the
useful standardized assessments that NCLB has put in place at the state
level. I applaud your decision to include a variety of new measures
that I believe will do a better job of giving all of us a clearer
insight into how a school is performing. You've included college
enrollment rates as one of your new measures. Through my work with a
national organization based here in Washington, called College Summit,
I have seen first-hand how a commitment to tracking the college
enrollment rates of graduating seniors in high schools in low-income
communities, combined with programming to build the schools' capacity
to assist these students in the transition from grade 12 to 13, is
significantly enhancing college-going in these communities. Since high
school graduation cannot be considered an end in itself in today's
hypercompetitive economy, I believe the federal government should
consider a high school's trend in college enrollment an important
supplemental measure of adequate yearly progress in that school, as set
forth in the draft NCLB legislation. As with other measures of
progress, it's no surprise that superintendents and principals are more
likely to be successful in meeting goals for which they are held
accountable and for which the data is made public.
Closing
I hope that my perspective will help persuade you of the importance
of supporting ``Bringing Success to Scale'' as a way to spread
effective practices in public education, and of the advisability of
adding college enrollment as an additional measure of a high school's
success.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF NELSON SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. I appreciate being asked to join this august panel
today. I am Nelson Smith. I am president of the National
Alliance For Public Charter Schools, which is the national
nonprofit representing all sectors of the charter school
movement.
I want to first take a moment to commend the committee for
the very open and transparent approach in this reauthorization.
I know that you have talked to a lot of people, and part of
what I want to say today is really a response to some of what
you have heard. You have my written testimony. So I will just
summarize and talk very briefly about a couple of points. First
of all, the national charter community very strongly supports
No Child Left Behind. It has done so since it was passed in
2002. This is based on a lot of conversations we have had with
folks in the field. What is most appealing is the combination
of the high standards for all children and the disaggregation
of data, which has revealed some troubling achievement gaps
that you have heard about this morning.
If there is one great mission for public charter schools,
it is closing those achievement gaps. We want to commend the
committee, first of all, for the draft on Title V, which
incorporates the provisions for the Federal Charter Schools
Program. This is a very solid well-managed program that over
the last decade has been an immeasurable support to the growth
and the quality and numbers of charter schools around the
country. This draft expands the growth of high quality public
charters. It will strengthen accountability, and particularly,
it will broaden replication on a nationwide basis of effective
charter models that work. And we think that this is a perfect
corollary to the broader goals of No Child Left Behind. When
you identify schools in need of improvement, when you have
identified students that need other choices, you need to have a
supply of healthy new public school options to give those
parents. So we applaud your work on Title V and the Charter
Schools Program.
As you know, charter schools are public schools. And
therefore, they are also subject to the accountability
provisions of Title I, and I would like to just take a moment
and summarize what is in the written testimony about at least
one and perhaps two aspects of Title I. We have some misgivings
about a subject you have already heard about this morning, that
is the question of multiple indicators in addition to reading
and math for measuring schools. We know that you have heard
from a lot of districts and particularly individual schools
around the country, some of them charter schools, that we think
it is unfair to be held accountable for one snapshot of test
score results. And that is a legitimate issue, and we very
sympathetic to that. We are very glad that you have heard that
message. And we are also glad by the way that you have taken a
very serious approach to trying to respond to it. Multiple
indicators could mean a lot of things, a grab bag of possible
indicators. But what is in the draft is actually a pretty
serious set of rigorous measures that could be added onto
reading and math.
The problems that we had with the approach are three. First
of all, I think, as you have heard from other panelists this
morning, there is no way around the fact that this is going to
some extent vitiate commitment to reading and math as the
cornerstone indicators of whether students are being prepared
for the economy and for productive adult life; if you reduce it
as much as 25 percent, the impact that reading and math has on
adequate yearly progress.
Secondly, a point that hasn't been made except sort of
tangentially this morning is that the complexity that you will
encounter, and that schools and parents and States will
encounter if indeed they take this option of broadening the
number of indicators. I have here a chart from one of our most
successful public charter schools here in D.C. And if you are a
parent or a policymaker and you want to know how they are doing
in reading, you might go to the public charter school's Web
site and you would see this chart. This is just the AYP's
measures on reading. There are 108 different cells in this
chart. I know the committee members can't see them, but this is
what is referenced in our testimony. And it is not linked
there.
Let's say a State takes you up on the addition of multiple
indicators, as good as they might be. You will add perhaps
several hundred more cells. You also have to have somewhere an
explanation of the various weightings that are given to the
core measures and the multiple indicators, measures. So we
think this is especially for parents but especially also in
terms of the paperwork and reporting burdens for small schools,
many of which are charter schools, and for their authorizers
some of which are not local education agencies and do not
otherwise collect this data. We think this mitigates against
the approach. And finally, I want to say that you have kind of
solved the problem elsewhere in the draft. And I want to draw
your attention to this connection. The draft has a very sound
approach toward using growth models as a component of adequate
yearly progress. If you have a solid student level
longitudinally linked growth model that gives you achievement
data over time and shows the impact of schools on the
development and learning of that student as he or she moves
around, you then are not relying on a single snapshot from a
single day of a single set of tests. You are relying on a much,
much broader picture of what the actual impact of schools is on
that student as opposed to whatever the school brings from
family or prior educational experiences. So given that you have
largely solved that problem, we would strongly suggest that
that be considered the answer to the snapshot problem. There
are other aspects of this that I would take some more time for,
but I see the red light is on. It is all in the written
testimony. I would be happy to take questions afterwards. Thank
you.
[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson Smith, President, National Alliance for
Public Charter Schools
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McKeon, and members of the Committee,
good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
recommendations to improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I am Nelson Smith, President of the National Alliance for Public
Charter Schools (the Alliance), a nonprofit organization representing
all sectors of the national charter school movement.
Background: A Commitment We Share
In 1965, President Johnson signed into law the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Subsequent reauthorizations have seen
changes in the name and scope of this groundbreaking law, but its goals
have always remained the same: improving public schools for our
nation's most underserved children. An overwhelming number of public
charter schools subscribe to this same philosophy, and these
independently operated public schools today serve a higher percentage
of poor students, minority students, and English language learners than
traditional public schools.
The federal government has played a critical role supporting the
growth of public charter schools. Initially created in 1995, when only
seven states had charter laws and just 60 schools operated in the
country, the federal Charter Schools Program has been instrumental in
propelling public charter school growth. Currently, there are over
4,000 charters schools enrolling over 1.14 million students in 40
states and the District of Columbia.
As public schools, charters are open to all students, regardless of
income, gender, race, or religion. Like other public schools, charter
schools receiving federal money fall under the purview of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). While there are certain programs that only
impact them, charter schools are required to operate under many of the
same NCLB requirements as traditional public schools.
No legislation is easy to craft, and reauthorizing a bill as large
and complex as NCLB is particularly difficult. The Alliance commends
the Committee and its staff for their hard work on this discussion
draft, and more broadly, for the open and transparent manner in which
the reauthorization effort is being managed.
Title I and the Accountability System
No federal education program has had as broad an impact as Title I.
NCLB pushed its effect even further by striking a new accountability
bargain. In exchange for Title I funding, schools must work towards
universal student proficiency by 2014, the first year a class would
graduate after having spent their entire K-12 education career under
NCLB's requirements. This bargain relies on a complicated but
manageable Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measurement. States set their
own standards and proficiency goals, and are required to administer
yearly reading and math tests in grades three through eight and one
grade in high school. Schools are required to report the progress of
subgroups of students via race and ethnicity, economic status,
disability level, and language proficiency. For schools and districts
to make AYP, tested students have to meet certain increasing
percentages of proficiency as well as test participation goals.
Despite the complexity of this approach, the national charter
community has strongly supported NCLB, particularly because its
accountability rules have laid bare the troubling gaps in achievement
between groups of American students. If there is one great goal of our
movement, it is closing those gaps and providing high quality education
for all students.
As we all know, the 2002 Act has flaws. By relying on end-of-year
``snapshots'' of average proficiency levels, it fails to acknowledge
that students often enter schools with skills far below grade level, or
to recognize schools that make significant student-level gains but fall
short of the AYP bar. The current system continually forces states to
push for higher absolute achievement levels, but fails to measure or
credit student progress toward those increasingly challenging summits.
We have strong empirical evidence from studies in three of the
largest chartering states (Florida, California, and Texas) that charter
school students typically enter our schools behind their peers in
academic performance. As the AYP threshold rises, charter and other
public schools that actively recruit low-performing students will
likely be labeled ``in need of improvement'' even if they achieve
substantial annual gains in student achievement, creating a huge
disincentive to create schools that serve the nation's most
disadvantaged students.
To remedy these problems, the current discussion draft includes a
well-crafted growth model that will reward public schools across the
country for their actual effect on individual students. Moreover, it
will recognize those schools that barely missed making AYP, but clearly
produced impressive academic results.
The discussion draft also requires states to develop longitudinal
data systems capable of tracking individual student results and linking
those results back to individual teachers. This information will help
identify truly effective teachers and inform policy makers in future
discussions about teacher qualifications.
While there are many positive aspects about the draft's proposed
accountability system, there are three areas that deserve
reconsideration.
Multiplying Complexity. First, the draft allows states to use
multiple indicators for determining AYP, partially substituting these
indicators for the law's current requirements for proficiency on
reading and math tests. We know that the Committee has faced enormous
pressure to include additional indicators, and appreciate your effort
to include rigorous measures. However, we are concerned that the
complexity of the proposed approach outweighs its potential benefits.
States adding new indicators will surely become embroiled in the same
disputes over measurement and reporting that have marked the first five
years of NCLB. The burden of data collection will be multiplied for all
public schools, but will weigh especially heavily on charter schools
and their authorizers.
Besides diluting focus on the paramount objective of reading and
math proficiency, the proposed system would greatly complicate
achievement reporting, a hallmark of the current NCLB. For instance,
for one charter school here in Washington, D.C., there are 108 cells in
its reading report card alone.\1\ Under the proposed system, parents
could receive report cards with several hundred additional cells--not
to mention explanations of weighting formulas for counting math and
reading test results as 75% of AYP and the new indicators as 25% of it,
as the draft allows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capital City Public Charter School, 2006 AYP Report: http://
www.dcpubliccharter.com/nclbayp/allreports/capcitynclbayp.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More to the point, multiple indicators simply may not be necessary.
The primary shortcoming of NCLB's current approach to AYP--and the
source of much current criticism of the Act--is that by relying on one-
day test ``snapshots,'' it may identify for improvement schools that
are actually making substantial progress but fall short of absolute
proficiency standards. By allowing states to consider growth measures
in AYP, the draft largely resolves this problem.
Restricting Choice. A second source of controversy in the 2002 Act
is that the accountability system treats all schools that don't make
AYP the same. A school that misses AYP in only one subject for one
subgroup should be treated differently than a school that misses in
almost all subjects for just about every subgroup. The need for a
system that recognizes these differences has been broadly endorsed by
the Administration, the Aspen Commission, and other groups.
However, the discussion draft responds by creating a two-tiered
system for categorizing schools that don't make AYP for two consecutive
years. For schools that don't make AYP for the next two years, it
creates another two-tiered classification system. Apart from the
complexity of this approach, and the real possibility of arbitrary
judgments by school districts, the interventions proposed for schools
in the various categories differ dramatically. The net result would
deny parents and families the new opportunities they were guaranteed in
the 2002 Act.
Currently, if a school does not make AYP for two consecutive years
or more, it must offer all of its students the option of transferring
to a higher-performing public school, including a charter school. The
new system would require a smaller number of struggling schools to
provide this option. We recommend that the draft be changed to require
that all schools that fail to make AYP for two years or more must
continue to offer public school choice to all of their students.
Keeping the Loophole Closed. Finally, with respect to the proposed
rules on restructuring, there is good news and bad news in the draft.
Currently, if a school does not make AYP for six consecutive years, it
faces a range of consequences including contracting, state takeover,
and closure/reopening as a charter school. The impact of this provision
has been severely limited by a loophole that allows districts to pursue
``any other major restructuring of a school's governance arrangement,''
which has been by far the preferred option and resulted too often in
cosmetic changes. We applaud the Committee for closing this loophole,
but we caution that the proposed new rules will create an even larger
one. Schools that chronically fail students must be an urgent priority,
period. Allowing districts and states to put them on ``List B'' and
then merely suggesting a set of remedies will simply replicate the
sorry record of the past five years.
Title II and Highly Qualified Teachers
The quality of a student's teacher is the most important
controllable factor impacting a student's achievement. If a student has
highly effective teachers year after year, a bright academic future is
likely. Conversely, several consecutive ineffective teachers can cause
serious harm to a student's potential.
The No Child Left Behind Act took some important first steps on the
teacher quality issue, attempting to ensure a highly qualified teacher
(HQT) for every student. However, the law's definition of a highly
qualified teacher focused more on inputs such as degrees and
certifications than on classroom effectiveness.
For charter schools, NCLB explicitly defers to state charter law
regarding certification requirements. If a state does not require any
charter teachers to be certified, NCLB does not impose that additional
mandate. Fortunately, the discussion draft keeps this provision.
In other areas, however, the discussion draft maintains aspects of
the current law that make innovation difficult not only in charter
schools, but in any small school--a point recognized in the U.S.
Department of Education's recent rulemakings regarding HQT rules in
rural schools. For example, the list of core academic subjects for
which NCLB's teacher requirements is applicable is long, and
demonstrating subject-matter competency in multiple subjects can be
time-consuming and burdensome for teachers (and expansive for schools).
These requirements are particularly problematic for high schools using
project-based or other interdisciplinary methods. Teachers in such
innovative high schools should be allowed to demonstrate their
abilities in a manner consistent with the environment in which they
teach.
The Alliance recommends that NCLB provide broader latitude to
states in defining teacher quality, including allowing states to define
core subjects. It should also encourage states to focus on teacher
effectiveness instead of input-based qualifications. This shift will be
facilitated by the move to an accountability system that includes
student-level growth data, which should be the foundation for the
definition of a ``highly effective teacher.''
Title V and the Charter Schools Program
In the last 20 years, few education reforms have been as successful
as charter schools, which have provided thousands of new public school
choices to children and families who need them the most. While many
public school districts around the country struggle to maintain their
current students (particularly in inner cities), charter schools have
grown exponentially since 1992, and demand continues to grow. We
estimate that there are over 300,000 students on charter schools
waiting lists.
The federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) has been an invaluable
and well-managed contributor to the success of the charter school
movement. The program has provided much needed financial assistance to
charter schools to cover start-up costs.
Over the past two years, the Alliance has engaged in a nationwide
dialogue with charter school operators, key stakeholders, and other
supporters to consider what changes ought to be made to enhance the
program. The discussion draft incorporates many of the most important
suggestions from the field, which we deeply appreciate.
First, while helping charter school start-ups remains the
foundation of the CSP, the draft also provides greater support for the
expansion and replication of successful charter models. In particular,
the draft allows more than one CSP grant per recipient and permits
charter support organizations to receive grants to undertake expansion
and replication activities. We emphasize that enabling the growth of
high-quality charter schools is a crucial corollary to the other goals
of NCLB. Parents must have an expanding array of solid new public-
education options in communities where their children are disserved by
the traditional system.
Second, the draft strengthens the priority criteria by
which the Secretary of Education may award grants to states. An ideal
state charter school law encourages growth and quality as well as a
high degree of school autonomy and accountability. To motivate states
to adopt the ideal law, the draft adds priorities to encourage the
creation and support of non-district authorizers, the strengthening of
charter school autonomy and accountability, and the provision of
equitable funding to charter schools.
Third, the draft strengthens the administration of the CSP
by allowing charter school authorizers to serve as grant administrators
in addition to state education agencies (SEAs). In some states, the SEA
may be the best organization to manage CSP funds. These SEAs have
involved their state's public charter school leaders in the
administration of their grants and in developing programs that reflect
their state's specific needs. In states where SEAs have fallen short in
administering (or even applying for) the program, however,
accountability will be enhanced by allowing charter school authorizers
to compete for the CSP grant administrator role.
Fourth, the draft allows the Secretary of Education to
allocate funds as needed between the Charter Schools Program and State
Facilities Incentive Grants Program. Despite the continuing growth of
public charter schools, the CSP funding level has been relatively
stagnant for the past five years. This funding challenge is further
exacerbated by the reservation of up to $100 million in new CSP funds
for the State Facilities Incentive Grants Program. By granting
discretion to the Secretary, the draft allows for federal
appropriations to respond to the needs of the states, recognizing that
in certain years more money will be needed for the CSP, while in other
years more money will be needed for the State Facilities Incentive
Grants Program.
Fifth, the law creates a national dissemination program.
As charter schools continue to grow, the best practices developed in
these innovative public schools must be disseminated to all other
public schools. Previously, the CSP's dissemination activities were
primarily state-focused. As proposed by the law, a new national
dissemination program will encourage the sharing of charter schools'
best practices among public schools across the nation.
Finally, the draft incorporates reauthorization of the
Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program, an important
vehicle for encouraging private sector investment in charter school
facilities. This change will enhance administrative efficiency in the
overall charter schools programs.
Conclusion
Few pieces of federal legislation have as far-reaching and
important an impact on this nation's disadvantaged students as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As custodians of this
legislation, it is vital that the Committee ensure reauthorization
happens in a timely manner this year.
NCLB 1.0 was clearly a momentous step in the right direction for
American education. However, too many of our most vulnerable children
still remain in struggling schools. As the Committee works to create
NCLB 2.0, we urge that you put much stronger emphasis on creating new,
high quality public charter schools where they are most needed--schools
that will foster radically higher academic achievement for children who
are still, today, left behind.
As you move forward with your markup, I hope you will look to the
National Alliance for Public Charter schools as a resource in your
discussions. I want to again thank the Committee for inviting me to
testify today.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Wyner.
STATEMENT OF JOSH WYNER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, JACK KENT
COOKE FOUNDATION
Mr. Wyner. Thank you Chairman Miller, other distinguished
members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss a population previously ignored in Federal education
policy and underserved in our Nation's schools; that is, the
3.4 million American students who are overcoming challenging
socioeconomic circumstances to excel academically. Today, the
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises are pleased to
release this report, ``Achievement Trap: How America is Failing
Millions of High Achieving Students From Lower Income
Backgrounds.''
This report contains new and original research regarding
the educational experiences of high-achieving lower-income
students from first grade through graduate school. Our research
comes from 20 years of longitudinal data from three Federal
databases. It examines the experiences of students who perform
in the top quartile on nationally standardized academic
assessments in those databases and are from the bottom half of
the national income distribution. I am here today to discuss
our research findings as they relate to a very important
concept being considered by this committee, whether Federal
education law should measure not only schools--should hold
schools not only accountable for the academic growth of
students at proficiency but also those students who are
performing at advanced levels. In other words, how do we close
the gap at the high end of achievement?
We view as essential two ideas in this draft bill. One,
that schools should be held accountable for the number of
lower-income students achieving not just at proficiency but
also at advanced levels. And secondly, that schools should be
held accountable for the number of lower-income students who
pass IB and AP exams. And that additional high quality AP and
IB courses be made available in high schools with high
concentrations of low-income students. A brief summary of four
of the key research findings from our report will demonstrate
why we view these measures as so important. Our first finding,
there are a lot of these extraordinary students across America.
In the 6 years that I have been doing this work and the Jack
Kent Cooke Foundation has been working with these students, we
are frequently met with the idea that there aren't a lot of
low-income kids who achieve at high levels. This report refutes
that. There are 3.4 million students by our estimation in our
Nation's K-through-12 schools today who score in the top
economic quartile even though they are from families below the
national median. That is greater than the population of 21
individual States. More than a million of these students are
eligible for reduced and free lunch.
Second finding, these students are everywhere, and they
reflect the racial diversity and the diversity overall of
America. When they enter first grade, these students are in
urban, suburban and rural communities in numbers that are
proportionate to the overall first grade population. The same
is true of gender. They are boys and girls in numbers equal to
the overall first grade population. And perhaps most
importantly, they are black and white, Hispanic and Asian in
numbers that are proportionate to the overall racial and ethnic
population of American first graders. In other words, what
happens to these students is not an issue for any one of us or
an interest group issue; it is an issue for all of us.
Third finding, high-achieving lower-income students
disproportionately fall out of the high-achieving group during
both elementary and high school. What did we find in this
respect? I think in elementary school it is most dramatic.
Nearly half of the students who are from lower-income brackets
who are performing in the top quartile in reading at the
beginning of elementary school fall out by fifth grade. Nearly
half of those students. In high school, it is about a quarter
of students who enter eighth grade performing at the top
quartile. They are falling out of the top quartile by 12th
grade in math.
In both cases, upper-income students do much better than
lower-income students. So if you are a high achiever, it
matters what your income level is in terms of your ability to
maintain that high achievement level. Our final finding, lower-
income students with high potential rarely rise into the top
quartile of academic achievement. Specifically, the percentages
are somewhere between 4 and 7 percent in both elementary school
and high school of students from the bottom income half who can
actually rise during those periods into the top quartile of
achievement on either reading or math. If you look at that for
higher-income students, the numbers are at least twice that
rate.
We do not believe importantly that the interests of these
students, that the needs of these students should be pitted
against students who are below proficiency. Advanced students
and students below proficiency who are from lower-income
backgrounds are facing the same kinds of challenges. They are
not being served adequately in our schools. We work with a lot
of these students at the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, and one
student we have been working with for the last 6 years from
rural Oregon I think said it best.
He said, there are a ton of smart low-income students in
this country who don't have someone to speak for them, no one
to get them the programs and enrichment they need. In modern
society, we tend to associate monetary gains with success. And
sadly, with this paradigm, we often fail to recognize that
academic talent which rests within lower-income students.
It is our view that we should continue to work to close the
proficiency gap as No Child Left Behind has worked so hard to
do and the education department of this committee has worked so
hard to maintain in the current draft bill that you have before
you. But that struggle has to be accompanied by a concerted
effort to promote high achievement in the low-income population
as well.
Unless we do so, many more of America's brightest students
will meet the same educational fate that we have seen in the
research for our report. So we are encouraged by the efforts of
this committee to change that, to broaden the current focus on
proficiency standards in No Child Left Behind and to establish
policies and incentives that expand the number of lower-income
students who achieve at advanced levels. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Wyner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joshua Wyner, Executive Vice President, Jack Kent
Cooke Foundation
Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and other
distinguished members of the committee.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss a population previously
ignored in federal education policy and underserved in our nation's
schools: the 3.4 million American students who are overcoming
challenging socioeconomic circumstances to excel academically.
Today, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises are
releasing this report, Achievement Trap, which contains new and
original research regarding the educational experiences of high
achieving, lower-income students from first grade through graduate
school.
Our research comes from 20 years of longitudinal data from three
federal databases. It examines the experiences of students who perform
in the top quartile on nationally standardized academic assessments and
are from families in the bottom half of the national income.
We are here today to discuss our findings in the context of No
Child Left Behind reauthorization, in particular because they relate to
an important concept being considered by this committee--whether
federal law should measure and hold schools accountable for the
academic growth of every student, including those performing at
advanced levels.
We view as essential two provisions in the draft bill:
That schools should be held accountable for the number of
lower-income students achieving not just proficiency but also at
advanced levels and
That schools should be held accountable for the number of
lower-income students who pass international baccalaureate and advanced
placement exams.
A brief summary of four of our key research findings will
demonstrate why we view such measures as so important.
First, there are lots of these extraordinary students across
America.
There are 3.4 million students in our nation's K-12
schools today scoring in the top academic quartile even though they are
from families earning below the national median.
This population is greater than the individual population
of 21 states.
More than a million of these students are free and
reduced-lunch eligible.
In other words, what happens to high-achieving lower-
income students is a substantial education policy issue.
Second, these students are everywhere and reflect the diversity of
America.
They are in urban, suburban, and rural communities in
numbers proportionate to the overall population.
They are black and white, Hispanic and Asian, and boys and
girls in numbers that are proportionate to the overall racial and
ethnic population in America.
In other words, what happens to high-achieving lower-
income students is not an interest-group issue; it is about all of us.
Third, high-achieving lower-income students disproportionately fall
out of the high-achieving group during both elementary and high school.
Specifically, we found that
Nearly half of the lower-income students who achieved
reading scores in the top quartile in first grade fell out of the top
quartile in reading by fifth grade.
In high school, one quarter of the lower-income students
who had top-quartile math scores in eighth grade fell out of the top
academic quartile by twelfth grade.
In both cases, upper-income students maintained their
places in the top quartile of achievement at significantly higher rates
than lower-income students.
And finally, lower income kids with high potential rarely rise into
the top quartile of achievement. Specifically, we found that * * *
Only between 4% and 7% of students from lower-income
families rise into the top academic quartile during elementary school
and high school.
By contrast, children from families in the upper income
half are at least twice as likely to rise into the top academic
quartile during both elementary school and high school.
These findings make clear that we are squandering talent throughout
K-12 education. Tanner Mathison, a student from rural Oregon who has
been a part of the Cooke Foundation Young Scholars Program, recently
described one reason that may be happening:
``There are a ton of smart, low-income students in this country who
don't have someone to speak for them--no one to get them access to the
programs and enrichment they need,'' Tanner says. ``In modern society
we tend to associate monetary gains with success, and sadly, with this
paradigm, we often fail to recognize that academic talent can rest
within lower-income students.''
The needs of high potential and high-achieving students like Tanner
should not be pitted against the educational needs of students who
achieve below proficient levels.
We must close the proficiency gap if our nation is to achieve its
promise of equal opportunity at home and maintain its economic position
internationally.
But, this struggle to reverse under-achievement among low-income
students must be accompanied by a concerted effort to promote high
achievement within the same population.
Simply put, lower-income students achieving at advanced levels are
not exempt from the struggles facing other lower-income students.
Holding on to that faulty assumption will prevent us from reversing
the trend made plain by our findings: we are failing these high-
achieving students throughout the educational process.
This failure is especially severe in a society in which the gap
between rich and poor is growing and in an economy that increasingly
rewards highly-skilled and highly-educated workers.
We are therefore encouraged by the effort of this committee to
consider ways to broaden the current focus on proficiency standards in
NCLB, and to establish policies and incentives that expand the number
of lower-income students who achieve at advanced levels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing
me to testify.
______
[Internet address to ``Achievementrap,'' How America Is
Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students From Lower-Income
Families, a report by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, follows:]
http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf--web/Documents/
Achievement%20Trap.pdf
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Rodriguez.
STATEMENT OF SONIA HERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARM WORKERS SERVICE CENTER
Ms. Rodriguez. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller and members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the House Education and Labor Committee today to discuss
the committee's discussion draft relating to Title I of ESEA. I
am here today representing the National Farm Workers Service
Center, a nonprofit organization affiliated with the United
Farm Workers of America. Both foundations were founded by Cesar
Chavez in the 1960s to improve the lives of farm workers and
other working poor.
Through the National Service Center, we have been providing
educational services to the working poor since its inception.
For the last 3 years, we have also been SES providers.
In addition, I am here as co-chair of the Coalition for
Access to the Educational Resources, CAER, which is a nonprofit
grassroots organization representing parents, families,
educators and providers, and along with the Education Industry
Association, a trade organization representing over 3,000
businesses. In a letter recently sent to you, Mr. Chairman, by
UFW president Arturo Rodriguez, he stated his concerns
regarding possible changes to the SES provisions of Title I.
The farm workers he represents work under conditions most
of us could not tolerate, laboring under a blazing sun with the
hope always of providing a brighter future for their children.
Farm workers want educational opportunities for their families.
As an SES provider, we have worked with children in poor rural
communities, in farm labor camps and in struggling urban
centers. The proposed changes to SES may deny services to the
very children who need more help and more access to supportive
services. Our hope is that we would be serving more children
and not less. It is important I think to know and to recognize
that SES is working for our children. As an organization, we
not only measure student progress, focussing specifically on
reading and math, we also work to help parents understand that
their children need to go into high school. We help them
understand that they need to get on college track and that they
need to monitor what is happening to their students as they go
into high school.
But we also look at additional indicators to show that our
programs are working. For example, we know that children who
are performing poorly don't like to go to school. So we check
with their teachers to make sure that their attendance is
increasing. We check for classroom participation. Children that
are feeling better about their capabilities tend to participate
more. We check for homework completion. And when it comes to
English language learners, one of the largest populations that
we serve, we measure their acquisition of academic English, not
just conversational English but academic English that gives
them the opportunity to access content.
The recent RAND study documents progress in nine large
school districts. The RAND Corporation found that participation
in SES by students in nine school districts nationwide,
including Los Angeles and San Diego, had a statistically
significant positive effect on students' achievement in reading
and math. We also know that SES is highly valued by parents.
More than 80 percent of parents believe that SES is having a
direct positive impact on their children's academic
performance.
We are asking that even though this program is still
relatively new, well, it is certainly new to us, that it is
showing promise for some of the neediest students that we work
with, and we are hoping in its early stages of implementation
you would not abandon it. In fact, let me go a step further and
ask for your help in several areas.
To be more successful in the field, we find that we need
access to school facilities. Too often when we are dealing in
some of our communities, we find that unless kids are able to
go home or find a way to get home from school, that
transportation becomes a serious problem for them. Some of them
live 20, 30 miles from school. Hard to imagine, but that is
actually true.
Secondly, we would be encouraged to see the rollover of SES
funds from 1 year to the next. Too often districts know if they
sit on them long enough, the money stays with them, and the
services that were supposed to be provided never do get
provided. The support for English language learners is really
critically important as well as for students with special
needs. Time on has for them--is a really important, important
concept, an important way of dealing with their needs. And most
of all, we would ask that you not reduce the number of students
to be served or the funds with which to serve them. Again, on
behalf of CAER, EIA and the Chavez Farm Worker Movement, we
want to thank you for everything that you are doing for No
Child Left Behind. We do believe that NCLB offers to increase
educational opportunities for Latinos and other working poor
families in our Nation, and we stand ready to help in any way
that we can. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hernandez Rodriguez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sonia Hernandez Rodriguez, Executive Director,
National Farm Workers Service Center
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and members of the
committee, thank you for the privilege and opportunity to appear before
the House Education and Labor Committee today to discuss the
Committee's discussion draft relating to Title 1 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon,
I first would like to commend you on the countless hours that you and
your staffs have worked to produce the discussion draft. In my humble
view, there are few pieces of legislation that this Committee will
consider during this Congress that will be as important and have as
long-lasting an impact on the future generations of our country than
the reauthorization of the ESEA, or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as it
is widely referred to coast-to-coast.
Chairman Miller, it is particularly an honor to appear before you
because I live in California and am a constituent of yours.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I am here representing the National Farm
Workers Service Center which is one of the many high-quality, state-
approved providers of Supplemental Education Services' tutorial
services in California and across the country. We are also a member of
the Education Industry Association (EIA), the industry trade group that
represents many of the 3,000 approved SES providers. I am also co-chair
of the Coalition for Access to Educational Resources (CAER) along with
former Governor of Nevada Bob Miller. CAER is a national grassroots
coalition committed to educating parents and policy makers about the
options available under NCLB.
I would like to spend my brief time addressing the committee on the
SES section of the discussion draft. First, let me give you the good
news before I review the not so good news in the discussion draft. We
know that SES is working, both in California and nationwide. The recent
study conducted by the Rand Corporation found that participation in SES
by students in nine school districts nationwide--including Los Angeles
and San Diego--had a statistically significant, positive effect on
students' achievement in reading and math. We also know that SES is
highly valued by parents and students alike. SES studies consistently
demonstrate that some 80 percent of parents believe that SES has had a
positive impact on their children. I can certainly assure you that many
of the parents and students that I work with on a daily basis in
California, are pleased that SES remains a critical element of school
reform interventions that are recommended in the discussion draft. We
are also encouraged that the Committee has taken steps that we believe
will improve certain aspects of SES, particularly those related to
better access to school facilities and to the provision of services to
students with special needs and needs and others with limited
proficiency in English.
At the same time, we are very concerned about a few significant
items that we discovered while reviewing the discussion draft, and we
hope that the Committee will change these provisions prior to formally
introducing a final bill. As the EIA has described in the comments that
the association submitted to the Committee, which I will outline
shortly, we believe that several provisions included in the draft
would: (1) significantly reduce the overall number of students in low-
performing schools who can take advantage of and benefit from these
services; (2) substantially cut the amount of total funds currently
available for free tutoring; (3) not go far enough to ensure that all
districts are taking the necessary steps to ensure SES is offered to
all eligible students and (4) limit school district options in seeking
both nonprofit and for-profit partners for school services beyond SES.
I would like to briefly touch on the issues of greatest concern to
us.
Reduction of Universe of Students Eligible to Receive Free Tutoring
The discussion draft includes several provisions, which taken
together, would severely reduce the number of students likely to be
eligible for free tutoring Just a few days ago, Secretary Spellings
announced her Department's finding that just half of the current number
of SES students will get free tutoring should the proposed language
become law. In particular, the draft provides States the option to
develop a system of multiple indicators to help schools meet their
annual measurable objectives by giving credit to those schools that
might otherwise not be able to meet their annual goals of students
proficient in math and reading.
The discussion draft would allow schools to use a new performance
index measure to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and also
create a pilot program (that could be extended to all 50 States within
three years) encouraging a system of local assessments that would be
used to determine AYP. By reducing the number of schools identified as
in need of improvement, these provisions would mean that a significant
number of students would lose their access to free tutoring services--
in spite of the fact that these same students would continue to be in
the same schools that have not been able to demonstrate academic gains.
While our comments do not provide specific recommendations on the
aforementioned concerns, we raise these issues in hope that we can have
a more in depth dialogue with you and your staff regarding the likely
impact of these provisions on the nearly 3 million students currently
eligible for free tutoring under NCLB.
In addition to provisions which could fundamentally alter the
current assessment and accountability systems at the State and local
levels, we are also concerned with proposed language that would have
the effect of significantly scaling back the instances in which SES
would be offered to eligible students.
Specifically, under the draft proposal, schools would no longer be
deemed as missing AYP unless the same group failed to meet the same
proficiency target in the same subject for two consecutive years. This
is a considerable departure from current law, which does not enable
schools to avoid missing AYP simply because different groups within the
school missed proficiency targets over the course of several years.
The draft proposal would also modify which schools in improvement
would be required to offer SES. Under current law, all schools missing
AYP for three consecutive years must provide SES. The discussion draft
would allow districts to develop a new, less stringent category of
``priority'' schools which would have the option of providing SES. In
all likelihood, once again, this change will greatly reduce the number
of students who--under current law--have opportunities to receive free
tutoring services.
Reduction in the Amount of Funds Available for Free Tutoring
While the discussion draft maintains a set-aside of funds to be
used to provide SES, the language actually makes considerable changes
to current law that would result in significantly less funding being
available to provide SES to eligible students. Specifically, current
law requires any district with one or more schools that are required to
offer SES to set aside district level funds in ``an amount equal to 20
percent of its allocation under subpart 2 [Title I].'' The discussion
draft would drastically reduce this amount in virtually all school
districts by requiring that only 20 percent of ``each identified
school's allocation'' be set aside for SES and public school choice
options. To ensure that a proportional amount of funds are spent under
the discussion draft as they are in current law, every Title I school
in the district would have to be required to offer SES and public
school choice--which is not a realistic expectation under current law
or the provisions of the discussion draft.
Ensuring Funds Remain Available for SES
The draft proposal begins to take steps to address the issue of
local districts not fully spending their set-aside and ensuring that
all eligible students are notified of these services. However, we
believe the draft does not go far enough with respect to this issue and
requires further changes that we have shared with the committee.
Let me briefly touch on a few more issues with which we have
concerns before closing my comments.
Extended Learning Time Programs
According to the National Assessment of Title I (February 2006),
the percentage of identified Title I schools experiencing various types
of interventions since identification for improvement (2004-2005) shows
that 24 percent of schools in year 1 of improvement; 29 percent of
schools in year 2 of improvement; 42 percent of schools in corrective
action; and 31 percent of schools in restructuring are already using
funds for extended learning time programs. In light of current,
significant school expenditures and the new Expanded Learning Time
Demonstration Program authorized under Part J, we believe that extended
learning time opportunities are adequately addressed in the discussion
draft and no diversion of set aside funds is warranted.
That said, if language remains in the bill which will allow money
set aside for SES and public school choice options to be used for
extended learning time programs, it should be clarified to ensure that
the set aside amounts to a maximum of 10 percent of the 20 percent
described and equates to 2 percent of the LEA allocation.
Facility Access
We are pleased the discussion draft addresses obstacles providers
face in accessing school facilities to provide tutoring services.
However, we would recommend that the language be clarified to ensure
that SES providers have the same access to facilities on the same terms
that are available to other groups that seek access to the school
building.
Regulations
We believe the provisions regarding regulations are not necessary
as the Secretary is already able to regulate on these issues which are
already included as part of the State process for identifying
providers.
Role of For-Profit Entities Supporting Schools Beyond SES
While the National Farm Workers Service Center is a non-profit
entity, we believe that ``No Child Left Behind'' in general, and SES in
particular, should offer SES-eligible families as many options for
their children as possible. In addition, school districts themselves
must be free to procure services from a broad array of vendors as they
do under current law.
To that end, we believe that for-profit organizations, along with
non-profit entities such as the Farm Workers, should be able to
participate in any appropriate NCLB, including SES, drop out prevention
and school redesign activities. Language in the discussion draft
excludes profit-making organizations, and should be changed to be as
inclusive as possible.
Conclusion
I know that the Committee and the Congress have a lot of unfinished
work regarding NCLB, but I also know that the issues that I outlined
regarding SES are critically important to our children. Again, on
behalf of the National Farm Workers Service Center, I appreciate the
Committee's efforts to improve and strengthen SES for our children, and
thank you for the opportunity to make our views known to the Committee
today.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Castellani.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CASTELLANI, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Castellani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished
members of the committee, on behalf of the Business Coalition
for Student Achievement, BCSA, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the coalition's views on the discussion draft for
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am
also here because education reform is such a high priority for
the chief executive officers who are the members of the
Business Roundtable. The BCSA represents business leaders from
every sector of the economy. We believe that improving the
performance of our K-through-12 education system is necessary
to provide a strong foundation for both U.S. competitiveness
and for individuals to exceed in our rapidly changing world. It
is for this reason BCSA continues to stand firmly behind the
principles underlying the No Child Left Behind Act. We are also
part of a broad coalition NCLB works, and this includes
business education community and civil rights groups that share
the common belief that NCLB has been instrumental in focussing
our Nation on improving academic achievement for all students.
As this committee moves forward, we strongly urge that you
resist any changes to the law that would undermine or reduce
this fundamental focus. And at the same time, there are areas
where NCLB does need improvement and expanded flexibility. We
are pleased that the discussion draft includes math and reading
proficiency by 2013 and 2014. We are pleased that it includes
post-secondary and workplace readiness, accountability and
rigor for high school and student growth models as well as a
uniform end size. However it is detailed in our formal
comments, we are deeply concerned about provisions that we
believe could undermine the current accountability for all
students to reach proficiency. The draft provides a path by
which States could create accountability systems that are so
complex as to be rendered meaningless. While we do not believe
it is the intent of this committee to reduce accountability, we
do have serious concerns about the draft's cumulative impact. I
want to make it clear that the business community supports a
core curriculum for all students, and employers are looking for
skills that go beyond those in the current law. However, any
additional measures must be additions to and not subtractions
from the current requirements.
For example, we support adding science to the current
accountability system. Science should not be an optional
indicator for extra credit if a school falls short of its
reading and math targets. Our test for supporting the draft as
it is, is based on two key questions. First, do the proposals
advance or dilute accountability? And second, are they based on
or do they generate sound data? The current draft does not pass
that test. Now that being said, we are pleased with the
dialogue we have had with you and your staff since the release
of this draft. We remain hopeful that our concerns can be
addressed and that you will have the full support of the
business community behind reauthorization of this important
law. It is outlined in greater detail in our submitted
comments.
The following four areas are those in which we have the
greatest concern. First, the draft creates too many
opportunities for schools to game the system, obscuring the
fact that students are not progressing toward being able to
read and do math at grade level. It allows schools that do not
meet their annual objectives in reading and math to meet their
targets based on other measures. Second, it significantly
weakens the process by identifying schools in need of
improvement, it allows schools to ignore shortfalls in math and
reading just because the lack of improvement shifts groups from
year to year. Third, it dramatically reduces the availability
of public school choice and supplemental educational services
and substantially reduces funding for these options. And
fourth, it establishes a difficult to understand and explain
and implement multiple measures framework. We want to ensure
the reauthorization does not result in masking what NCLB has
exposed, the fact that too many students, many from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds, are moving through our
schools without the basic skills necessary to be successful and
productive citizens.
Mr. Chairman, you have conducted a remarkably open process,
and we have great respect for your leadership and commitment as
well as that of Representative McKeon. Again, I want to thank
you for this opportunity to testify, and we look forward to
working with the committee as the reauthorization process moves
forward.
[The statement of Mr. Castellani follows:]
Prepared Statement of John J. Castellani, President, Business
Roundtable, on behalf of the Business Coalition for Student Achievement
(BCSA)
Chairman Miller, Senior Republican Member McKeon and other
distinguished Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Business
Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA), I am pleased to be here today
to discuss the Coalition's views on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and specifically
our views on the Committee's staff discussion draft for reauthorization
of Title I of this law. I also am here because education reform is such
a high priority for the CEO members of the Business Roundtable.
The BCSA represents business leaders from every sector of the
economy and believes that improving the performance of the K-12
education system in the United States is necessary to provide a strong
foundation for both U.S. competitiveness and for individuals to succeed
in our rapidly changing world.
As employers, we understand the important role the U.S. business
community must play in ensuring the American education system prepares
our youth to meet the challenges of higher education and the workplace.
It is for this reason BCSA has been a staunch supporter of education
reform and continues to stand firmly behind the principles underlying
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
We are also part of a broad coalition--NCLB Works--which includes
business, education, community, and civil rights groups working to
strengthen and reauthorize the Act. We share the common belief that
this law has been instrumental in focusing our nation on improving
academic achievement for all students and we stand behind NCLB's goal
of all students being able to read and do math on grade level by the
2013-2014 school year.
As this Committee moves forward with reauthorization, we strongly
urge that you resist any changes to the law that would undermine or
reduce this fundamental focus.
At the same time, there are areas where NCLB needs improvement and
expanded flexibility, and we formally shared our ideas with the
Committee earlier this year. For example, BCSA supports allowing States
to implement well-designed growth models to determine adequate yearly
progress (AYP). We also believe school districts should have the
ability to target the most significant interventions to those schools
that are the furthest behind in ensuring all of their students are
proficient.
BCSA is pleased that discussion draft includes:
math and reading proficiency by 2013-14
postsecondary and workplace readiness
accountability and rigor for high school
student growth models
uniform N-size
However, as we detailed in our formal comments to the Committee, we
are deeply concerned about provisions included in the draft that we
believe would undermine the current accountability for all students to
reach proficiency. The draft provides a path by which States could
create accountability systems so complex as to be rendered meaningless.
While we do not believe it is the intent of the Committee to reduce
accountability, BCSA has serious concerns about the draft's cumulative
impact on accountability for improved academic achievement for all
students.
I want to make it very clear that the business community supports a
core curriculum for all students, and employers are looking for skills
beyond those in the current law. However, any additional measures must
be additions to, not subtractions from, the current requirements. For
example, we believe that science should be added to the current
accountability system. Science should not just be an optional indicator
for extra credit if a school falls short of its reading and math
targets.
Our test for supporting the bill as it is currently drafted is
based on two key questions: First, do the proposals advance or dilute
accountability? Second, are they based on or do they generate sound
data? The current draft does not pass that test. That being said, we
have been very pleased with the dialogue we have had with you and your
staff since the release of the discussion draft and remain hopeful that
our concerns can be addressed prior to the bill's introduction and that
BCSA can lend the full and enthusiastic support of the business
community behind the reauthorization of this important law.
As outlined in greater detail as part of our submitted comments,
the following areas are those in which we have the greatest concern. In
particular, the discussion draft:
Creates too many opportunities for schools to game the
system, obscuring the fact that students are not progressing toward
being able to read and do math on grade level. It allows schools that
do not meet their annual measurable objectives in reading and math to
be considered as meeting their targets based upon other measures,
including local assessments;
Significantly weakens the process for identifying schools
in need of improvement. It allows schools to ignore shortfalls in
proficiency in math and reading just because the lack of improvement
happens to shift subgroups from year to year. It overly limits the
identification of schools in need of the most assistance to improve
student achievement;
Dramatically reduces the availability of public school
choice and supplemental educational services and substantially reduces
funding available for such options; and
Establishes a difficult to understand, explain, and
implement multiple measures framework. This framework runs counter to
NCLB's current transparent accountability system. It also creates a
confusing accountability system to address the critical need to
increase high school graduation rates.
We want to ensure this reauthorization does not result in masking
what NCLB has exposed. The fact is that too many students--many from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds--are not getting a high-quality
education and are moving through our schools without the basic skills
necessary to be successful and productive citizens.
Mr. Chairman, you have conducted a remarkably open process and we
have great respect for your leadership and commitment, as well as that
of Representative McKeon. The reauthorization of NCLB provides an
opportunity to take the next, and important, step of not just
identifying schools in need of improvement, but ensuring they have the
tools necessary to reach higher levels of achievement.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify, and we look
forward to working with the Committee as this reauthorization moves
forward.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Kohlmoos.
STATEMENT OF JIM KOHLMOOS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, KNOWLEDGE
ALLIANCE
Mr. Kohlmoos. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name
is Jim Kohlmoos. It is my pleasure and honor to present the
testimony on behalf of Knowledge Alliance. And thank you for
this opportunity. By way of introduction, Knowledge Alliance is
a nonpartisan coalition of 30 leading research and development
organizations in education around the country. Our members
include a diversity of nonprofit, for-profit organizations,
public and private universities involved in virtually every
aspect of education reform, touching virtually every school
district in every State and territory in the country.
While the business of research and development,
particularly in education, can sometimes seem confusing,
detached and overly complex, our collective cause as an
alliance is actually quite straightforward, to connect the
research community with the school improvement enterprise and
to use the best available research-based knowledge to help all
students achieve. R&D is the lifeblood of innovation and
productivity in other sectors, and we believe the same should
be true in education, particularly as it relates to school
improvement.
We applaud the bipartisan effort thus far, as others have,
in sustaining the key goals of No Child Left Behind. The tricky
part, of course, as we have already heard, is how best to
achieve those goals. To be sure, reaching consensus on new
accountability provisions and fixes will be challenging to say
the least, but we hope that there will be a broad agreement on
shifting more attention to school improvement, and to your
proposals for sustaining and scaling improvement efforts. In
this regard, we have three general observations to make. First,
the discussion draft's greater focus on school improvement
moves reauthorization in the right direction. We think it is
important to put this reauthorization in historical context, as
Mr. McKeon did last week at your business coalition. For the
past 20 years, dating back to the first Bush Administration,
the Federal administration policy has been guided with a
standards-based reform framework, one which has not really been
overly debated here today.
The idea is to develop standards; align the system through
those standards; create strong accountability measures; and,
last and certainly not least, to deliver solutions to schools.
With NCLB's heavy emphasis on accountability in 2002, we
believe the conditions now are ripe to move to the next level
and focus greater attention on school improvement. As embedded
in your discussion draft, the next reauthorization should aim
to balance the needed sanctions with compelling robust
innovative solutions.
Second, invest in building local and State capacity for
school improvement. We believe the discussion draft is on the
right track in emphasizing the need for capacity building. We
would go so far as to recommend that the new title of the
statute be called something like, ``Building America's Capacity
for Excellence for All Children,'' which would create an
interesting acronym following NCLB and ESEA.
We are pleased by the proposed increase in the State's set-
aside for school improvement, the continuation of the State
Formula Grant Program, which Congress just recently funded for
the first time, and the inclusion of a broad array of new
programs for high schools, for data systems, for adolescent
literacy. And we are particularly pleased with the second
generation of comprehensive school reform about which we have
several specific recommendations for change.
Third, inject a sense of rigor in school improvement
efforts, more than a sense of rigor; inject rigor in school
improvement efforts. We agree with the inclusion of the term
scientifically valid research, as defined in the Education
Sciences Reform Act that has been included in many different
places in the draft. This definition creates a market demand
for research-based knowledge and strikes, we think, a practical
balance between relevance and rigor in implementing key
provisions in the statute. The term should be consistently
applied throughout the entire statute.
We applaud also including third party expert service
providers as part of the State's system of delivering needed
school improvement, including comprehensive centers, regional
education laboratories, the National Research and Development
Centers and other school improvement experts who can quickly
and effectively mobilize high-quality intensive assistance.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen the benefits of many effective
school improvement initiatives all across the country. I
highlighted them in my written comments. There is a lot of good
work going on out there that needs to be scaled and sustained
and further refined through research and research development.
I noted in my comments, transformative school improvement
efforts in Calexico Unified School District, the Northwest
Regional Laboratory's intensive work in turning around, the
National Center of Research on Evaluation Standards and Student
Testing at UCLA, which is using rigorous methods for validating
promising after-school programs in numerous States and stirring
new innovative approaches.
In summary, this reauthorization can and should accelerate
nationwide efforts to fulfill the promise of NCLB. Through a
robust and rigorous system of school improvement, we believe
that the increasingly urgent needs for turning around low-
performing schools can and would be met. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Kohlmoos follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Kohlmoos, President and CEO, Knowledge
Alliance
Good morning. My name is Jim Kohlmoos, president of Knowledge
Alliance. It is my pleasure and honor to present this testimony on
behalf of the Knowledge Alliance. We appreciate this opportunity to
present to the Committee our comments and recommendations on the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
also referred to as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
By way of introduction, Knowledge Alliance (formerly known as
NEKIA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association composed of 30
leading education organizations dedicated to expanding the use of
research-based knowledge in policy and practice in K-12 education. In
the aggregate, Alliance members are involved in virtually all aspects
of school improvement including high-quality education research and
development, dissemination, technical assistance, professional
development and evaluation at the federal, regional, state, tribal, and
local levels. We firmly believe that the effective use of research-
based knowledge can significantly enhance and accelerate the nationwide
efforts to improve academic performance and close achievement gaps in
K-12 education.
While the business of research and knowledge creation and use can
sometimes seem confusing, detached, and complex, our goal is very
straightforward and clear: to help educators use and apply the best
available research-based knowledge to help all students succeed.
We applaud the bipartisan effort throughout the process in
sustaining key goals of NCLB. We believe that this reauthorization is
an opportunity not only to improve some of NCLB's accountability
provisions, but also to give greater focus to school improvement and to
more effectively deliver research-based solutions to schools that have
the greatest needs
We offer this testimony at a critical juncture in the evolution of
education reform in this country. As you know, federal education policy
has evolved in phases over the past 15 years. The focus on standards
and assessments in the late 1980s and early 1990s spawned major
attention on the alignment of standards, curriculum and assessments in
the 1990s, which in turn played a role in the current emphasis on
accountability. The next logical step in this standards-based continuum
is to deliver of solutions to the problems identified by the
accountability system. This means focusing comprehensive and vigorous
attention on school improvement and providing significant new resources
and expertise targeted both to turning around low performing schools
and to building a knowledge-based capacity and infrastructure for
sustained improvement. As a nation, we have already made a firm
commitment through the NCLB to provide a world class education to every
student that attends our schools. With this upcoming reauthorization we
believe that the time has come to take this next big step towards this
ambitious goal.
We have already provided extensive comments to the Committee
regarding the Title I reauthorization draft, but I wanted to take a few
minutes to make some general comments and suggestions:
Focus priority attention and resources on school improvement and
capacity building--We applaud the greater emphasis in the discussion
draft on building capacity at the state and local levels to provide
urgently needed school improvement support in terms of expertise,
research-based knowledge and funding. In order to reflect the
importance of school improvement and capacity building, we recommend
that the title of the statute reflect this emphasis: for example,
``Building America's Capacity for Excellence for All Children Act.''
This will help highlight school improvement and capacity building as
one of the guiding principles of this reauthorization.
Increase investments in School Improvement Grants--We are pleased
by the proposed increase to 5% for the state set aside for school
improvement. We also suggest to ensuring the continuation of the
formula grant program for states which the Department of Education
recently activated. To ensure the successful expansion of school
improvement grants, we encourage the Committee to increase the
authorization to $500 million over the life of the authorization.
Define and consistently include the term ``Scientifically Valid
Research''--We agree with the inclusion of this term in many places in
the draft. We suggest that the definition should be the same as that
used in the Education Sciences Reform Act with only slight modification
to address external validity issues. This definition reflects the need
for both relevance and rigor in developing and implementing key
programs and provisions in the statute. We also suggest that term be
consistently used throughout the statute. In order alleviate confusion,
other related terms such as ``evidence-based'' should be avoided.
Launch the ``second generation'' of Comprehensive School Reform--We
applaud the inclusion of this ``second generation'' program and
recommend that the program be of sufficient size and scope (authorized
at least $300 million). A State formula grant system through which
competitions would be conducted for LEA subgrants allows all states to
participate and increases the diversity of grantees. Awards to the LEAs
should be at least $100,000 the first year (to allow for start-up
costs) and $50,000 in subsequent years. Up to a 3% set aside for
national activities should be included for further model development,
quality center evaluations and clearinghouse activities.
Involve expert, third party providers in the state system of
assistance--We applaud including third party service providers as part
of the state system of delivering needed school improvement.
Specifically, this support should include the Comprehensive Centers,
the Regional Educational Laboratories, the National Research and
Development Centers, and other school improvement specialists and
entities which will help to mobilize intensive and extensive
assistance.
We have seen the benefits of many effective school improvement
initiatives at the local level which emphasize capacity building and
the use of scientific valid research in delivering solutions to
specific problems and circumstances. Allow me to briefly share with you
three examples. The Calexico Unified School District, where nearly 80%
of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches,
contracted with WestEd in 2001 to work intensively with six
underperforming schools. WestEd helped the schools create and implement
an improvement plan and then worked with all nine Calexico schools to
define a common language of teaching for administrators and coaches.
Both now provide specific feedback to teachers on instructional
practices and regularly analyze and discuss classroom instruction. By
2005, all schools had made great achievement gains, reflected in an
increase of 124 points, on average, on California's Academic
Performance Index.
The Siletz Valley Charter School in Oregon, the local school for
the Siletz tribe, became successful over a four-year period with
intensive support from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
(NWREL). Beginning as a failing school with a 78 percent poverty rate,
it now has more that 80 percent of their students meeting or exceeding
state benchmarks in both reading and math. As a school improvement
consultant to the school, NWREL helped the staff find appropriate
curriculum materials, conduct qualitative reading inventories, use
children's literature to build decoding skill, comprehension, and
positive attitude, implement the 6+1 Trait approach to assessing and
teaching writing, and collect data to support Title I eligibility. This
school not only avoided closure, but is now a thriving, successful
community school.
The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and
Student Testing (CRESST) at UCLA is using rigorous multiple methods to
validate the promising afterschool practices of sites located in
Connecticut, Florida Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania (among
others). Findings are being used to create training and web-based tools
to help afterschool programs across the country to implement more
effective interventions in reading, math, arts, homework help, and
technology. The project is being conducted in collaboration with
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory and the National
Partnership for Afterschool Learning, which also brings together and
benefits from collective reach of numerous other R&D organizations
around the country.
By focusing greater attention on school improvement and capacity
building as a key element of the next reauthorization, the Committee's
discussion draft is headed in the right direction. ESEA can and should
re-shape and accelerate nationwide efforts to fulfill the promise of
NCLB. Through a robust system of support that emphasizes rigor and
relevance and the use of scientifically valid research in its
solutions, we believe that the increasingly urgent needs for turning
around low performing schools can be effectively met. With our
recommendations we are committed to helping the Committee find common
ground in fulfilling the legislation's ambitious goals.
We thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank you
again for your ongoing dedication to our nation's children.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Petrilli.
STATEMENT OF MIKE PETRILLI, VICE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL
PROGRAMS & POLICY, THE THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION
Mr. Petrilli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
honored to represent the Thomas B. Fordham institute, an
independent education policy think tank located here in
Washington. As a think tank guy and not a lobbyist or a
representative of an interest group, I enjoy a certain amount
of freedom to call things as I see them.
Let me state an obvious truth, one that you clearly
wrestled with in the development of your discussion draft. When
it comes to accountability, it is impossible to offer
meaningful flexibility to the States while at the same time
foreclosing any possibility of chicanery. In other words, if
you were 100 percent committed to ensuring that the Nation's
schools operated under a rock solid tamper-proof set of
accountability rules, you would build it yourself from
Washington. You would create a water-tight national
accountability system complete with national academic
standards, national tests and national school ratings. You
would ask an independent commission to determine what students
need to learn in order to compete with the rest of the world,
have them build top-notch tests, design sophisticated growth
models, decide appropriate end size and confidence in the
rules, develop a rating system with well designed school
labels; every school in the country would be judged in exactly
the same way.
And this isn't a crazy idea. I and my Fordham colleagues
would discuss going national with such an accountability system
so long as we also went flexible with everything else, how
schools spend their dollars, what kind of teachers they can
hire, how States and districts can intervene with schools that
aren't making the grade, how many choices families have among
schools, and on and on. It is pretty clear, though, that you
aren't willing to call for such a national accountability
system. And to be fair, neither are the business groups and the
civil rights groups and some of the other accountability hawks,
much less of course the administration.
So you are left with a delicate balancing act that you are
trying to get right. If you give too much flexibility to
certain States and districts, they will make Swiss cheese out
of NCLB version 2.0. If you give too little flexibility though,
well-meaning States will continue to chafe against the Federal
dictates, unable to implement world-class accountability
systems that, left to themselves, they might have otherwise
developed.
This is a true dilemma, and there is no right answer. The
best that you can achieve, though, is to provide political
cover and enough flexibility for States that want to do the
right thing. While we are moving to perverse incentives, we
might be pushing States to do the wrong thing. So let me
explain briefly what that means. For well-meaning States, and
let's imagine there are so many of them out there, you need to
allow them to have a set of design principles for their
accountability system, not a rigid system that is imposed on
them.
Now you seem to agree with this approach to some degree.
When it comes to growth models, you rely on design principles
rather than specific dictates. Yet, in other cases, you lapse
into what might be considered over prescription. For example,
you open the doors to multiple indicators, good indicators in
my view. But you limit the rates to 15 and 25 percent
respectively for elementary school and high school. So why not
20 and 30 percent or 25 and 35 percent? You also allow States
to move from the current system of labeling schools in one of
two ways, either make AYP or they don't, to one of three ways,
they make AYP or they are a priority school or they are a high-
priority school. Why not four types of labels or five? A, B, C,
D, E and F? We are not necessarily arguing for greater
leniency. If you have to pick numbers, your numbers are
generally fine. But no matter what numbers you go with, they
are going to constrain some States in unforeseen and
undesirable ways. So, instead, why not focus on design
principles. For example, you could say the States could develop
a school rating system with multiple gradations, the most
severe label has to be reserved for schools where the vast
majority of schools are failing to meet State expectations, one
where also subgroups of students are achieving at high levels.
Moving from prescription to design principles would give well-
meaning States some much needed breathing room. Now, may it
also open the door to abuse by States that want to do the wrong
things? Yes, of course, it could. The best you could do,
though, is again to remove perverse incentives that might be
pushing them in the wrong way. The worst reverse incentive that
you still have in this discussion draft is the requirement that
100 percent of students have to be proficient by 2014 or on a
trajectory to get there.
The evidence is clearly in, this measure is doing harm; it
is rewarding States that have low standards and pushing States
with high standards to lower the bar further. And in a
classroom, what this means is that our teachers are under a lot
of pressure to aim for very low-level skills. I don't think
that is what any of you have been intending to do. What you
could do is to adopt the education trust proposals, and it
would allow States to move to more rigorous standards and tests
and then aim for less than universal proficiency.
The other big perverse incentive in the discussion drafts
is your decision to not require priority schools to provide
supplemental educational services. This creates huge incentives
for States that don't like supplemental services to play games
to try to label as few schools as possible as high priority. At
the very least, you might offer all schools that are priority
and high priority make sure that they offer supplemental
services. Even better, why not require every Title I school in
the country with a lot of poorer students that are below
proficient and not on trajectory to get to proficiency to
provide supplemental services. Let's think of supplemental
services as a benefit for students, not as a sanction for
schools.
It is a lot of great work here. Again, you have a very
tough, difficult balancing act to play if you are not willing
to go all the way and have a national accountability system. If
you keep moving in this direction by focusing on design
principles, we think that you will produce a law that is less
than perfect, but better than good. That is a step in the right
direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Petrilli follows:]
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Do we have questions from the panel?
Chairman Miller. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with Mr.
Kohlmoos, I was intrigued by your wish to abolish the phrase
evidence based and replace it only with scientifically valid
research.
In our effort to avoid code words or politically loaded
language in this bill, I'd like you to say one or two things
that would be measured differently using the one phrase rather
than the other, what records would be kept differently?
Mr. Kohlmoos. The term ``scientifically valid'' is one that
is contained in the Education Sciences Reform Act, as you know,
and outlines a series of nine, or eight, principles to guide
the methodological approach to different programs. And that
definition we think is much better than the definition of used
``scientifically based'' research that is currently----
Mr. Holt. Give us one or two things that would be done
differently if we were using that other phrasing.
Mr. Kohlmoos. I think there would be less of an inclination
to immediately have a knee-jerk reaction towards using
randomized field trials for everything you could possibly do.
This scientifically valid research values high-quality rigorous
scientific inquiry, but it emphasizes that the method to be
used should be a function of the question being asked rather
than the other way around.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Castellani, having sat on the Glenn
Commission with two of your CEOs, Craig Barrett and Ed Rust,
and knowing Mr. Ryan from Prudential in my home State of New
Jersey, I know how devoted they are to this and how much
thought has gone into your recommendations. Nevertheless, we
run into a lot of opposition in saying that science should be
counted in measurements of progress.
Can you help me explain to the skeptics why we should add
one more measurement for yearly progress? Not to me, because I
have always maintained science is not just another subject.
Mr. Castellani. Well--and please don't let the committee or
you misunderstand me and misunderstand our position. We would
support adding science as an addition, not as a substitute.
When we look across those skill sets that are necessary for
U.S. businesses to be competitive, not only today but in the
future, our members who are the chief executive officers of the
160 largest companies in the country find a common shortfall,
and that is skills both today and in the future that are in the
areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Those skill sets are short now. They will get even scarcer in
the future. And the capability for U.S. industry to be able to
innovate and compete in an international marketplace is really
going to be dependent on the availability of those skill sets.
So that is why it is very, very important for the Business
Roundtable.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petrilli, I find your testimony to be very interesting
and very thoughtful. I would like to you ask you in layperson's
terms--since you are not a lobbyist, you are a think tank guy,
as you said--what one or two things specifically do you think
we need to do because clearly we are not going to have the
initial thing you talked about. What one or two things do you
think can make this bill as good as we can get this bill?
Mr. Petrilli. Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman.
Again, I think removing this goal of getting 100 percent
proficiency by 2014 is very important. That objective has
incredible appeal and we all understand why it is important to
say No Child Left Behind, but the reality is this is having
serious consequences. It really does seem to be driving States
to lower their standards, especially States that had very high
standards before and are now aiming more towards the middle.
What that means is that if schools are focusing on the
bubble kids or trying to get to that proficiency level in
States with very low proficiency, it means they are really
driving the level of instruction down. I think that would make
a huge difference if you found a better way to aim high. Again,
I think Education Trust had some good ideas. If States are
really aiming for college readiness by the 12th grade, you
might aim for 80 or 85 percent instead of 100 percent. The way
to think about this may be to focus on the end point:
Proficiency really only has meaning when we talk about when the
next step is ready in an educational process. So 12th grade
proficiency is what really matters by the 12th grade as the
student is ready to go on to college or enter the workforce. In
grades K to 11, basically, proficiency is to make sure whether
or not students are on track for reaching that end result and
goal. The focus might be on making sure students are on the
trajectory to get to proficiency by the time they graduate high
school, and then States may have more incentives to make sure
the bar for proficiency is set high and is really meaningful. I
think that would be the most transformative thing that you
could do to encourage States to lift the bar and have schools
lift the level of instruction they are providing.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to make a brief statement in response to some
of your comments, Mr. Petrilli. It is really to get on the
record the fact that I think all of us applaud the notion that
the Federal Government should do everything it can to make sure
that there is equity in education throughout the country. The
fact remains, there have been a lot of statements made that
imply States are not trying to do the right thing, avoiding
accountability and so forth. I kind of take offense to that. My
State was one of the leaders in trying to create a very
comprehensive and meaningful assessment program. We were held
up as a model several years ago. We are still paying, as every
other State is, 90 percent of the bill, local tax dollar,
property taxes, financing, education. Many States are doing the
best they can.
I don't think there is one Governor, one mayor, who doesn't
believe that education is a huge priority. We have
accountability level starting with site-based decision making
councils at the school level and we have voter-elected school
boards, as most districts do. We have a State system that is
providing accountability.
So just in terms of getting on the record the fact that I
believe No Child Left Behind is important because it sets some
standards so that States can't avoid it. But I think most
States are doing as good as they can or trying to improve
education for everyone.
So when the heavy hand of the Federal Government is held
above us, we have to remember that there are a lot of people at
ground level working really hard to make sure we accomplish the
same goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Ms. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it Ms. Rodriguez?
Ms. Rodriguez. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. I have Hernandez here.
Ms. Rodriguez. It is Rodriguez.
Mrs. Biggert. In your statement you said that Secretary
Spellings had announced that finding half of the current
members of SES students will get the free tutoring under this
law?
Ms. Rodriguez. I am sorry, I didn't actually hear that.
Mrs. Biggert. In your statement, there is a reduction of
students eligible to receive free tutoring. Could you explain
that a little bit more? Is that because there is a high-
priority school, then a priority school?
Ms. Rodriguez. I think the change was mentioned earlier;
with the identification in the categorization of schools as
high-priority schools, now we are talking a more bifurcated
approach, two sets of categories, and only the lower number of
schools would actually get that recognition. And then the money
that is designated would be based on the schools rather than on
the districts and that would make a huge impact.
Mrs. Biggert. I have two questions on this. Number one, if
it is a high-priority school, then all of the students in that
school, because they haven't met average yearly, probably would
have an opportunity for tutoring, even though some of them did
meet----
Ms. Rodriguez. It doesn't play out that way now. The school
becomes designated, and then what the district does is identify
the lowest performing children in those schools and those are
the ones that receive the services.
Mrs. Biggert. It is not every student?
Ms. Rodriguez. No.
Mrs. Biggert. Is every student eligible?
Ms. Rodriguez. Technically.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you know how many schools--they are
eligible, but are there a lot of students that really should
fit into that category that isn't enough money?
Ms. Rodriguez. No, I don't have that statistic. We have
been checking with the Department of Education to get more firm
numbers how this would play out if the changes were actually
enacted, and we have not gotten good numbers so I would be
leery to say something about that.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up on that line of questioning because
if a school failed AYP because of one subgroup, should the
response to that be targeted to the subgroup that caused the
failure, or should the response be spread all over the school,
including extra services to subgroups that are already making
satisfactory progress?
Ms. Rodriguez. Well, I think, quite honestly, the way the
districts have been operating is to identify the subgroup that
is not performing at the proficient level. So those are the
children that have been actually receiving services. Do I agree
with that? Yes, I do actually.
Mr. Scott. So it should be targeted to the subgroup that
caused the failure?
Ms. Rodriguez. Yes. I think the children with the greatest
needs should be the ones that would receive the first option.
Now, clearly, some families choose not to do that for a lot of
reasons; they may not have access to providers, et cetera. So
once you have hit that mark, then the additional students who
then are also eligible, if you break them down according to
test scores, those that are below basic, far below basic, et
cetera, become eligible.
Mr. Scott. The question, though, is if one subgroup failed,
everybody else is doing fine, if you have limited funds why
wouldn't you put all of the money addressing the problem? Why
would you try to spread it out amongst those not having a
problem? That might cause some to be technically ineligible.
Ms. Rodriguez. Those that are not eligible don't receive
services now. My understanding is they wouldn't receive
services under the changes recommended. Although a school is
identified as a high-priority school, not all students are
eligible for the services. The money isn't going to go that far
anyway. They work with the lowest performing groups and, yes,
they do target; and we have no problem with targeting the
children with the greatest need.
Chairman Miller. I think if I am correct, as the gentleman
stated, in the high-priority schools, current law--in the
discussion draft, current law is the same as low-income
children across that school because they have failed in a
number of different areas. In the priority schools, the school
could choose the option of providing these services to those
children in that group on the basis of trying to target the
resources, and until we know more about how effective these
programs are, we think that targeting and choice to local
schools--our local school district is one way to go, but that's
open for discussion.
Any further discussion? Thank you for your participation
and for your suggestions.
Our next panel will be made up of the Teaching and School
Leadership Panel. MaryKate Hughes, who is a math teacher from
D.C. Preparatory Academy. And I would like to recognize
Congressman Mahoney from Florida to introduce the next person
on the witness list.
Mr. Mahoney of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
letting me have this honor of announcing Ms. Rooker, who is
from Charlotte County, one of the principals of Neil Armstrong
Elementary School. She's been a teacher for 30 years, a master
teacher and principal for 3 years. We had a great day together
down in the district. This is a person of true passion.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, we had
another person from Charlotte County at an earlier panel,
Andrea Messina, who was testifying for the Aspen Institute
Commission. And I am real proud of the fact these fine
educators and people who care about our children are here
representing today.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I appreciate you making the
recommendation that we should hear it again. I heard from Ms.
Rooker down in Florida. And it is pretty compelling.
Next would be Mr. Reg Weaver who is the president of the
National Education Association; Kati Haycock who is the
president of Education Trust; Antonia Cortese, executive vice
president of American Federation of Teachers; Frances Bryant
Bradburn, who is the director of instructional technologies,
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; Mary Kay
Sommers who is a principal at Shepardson Elementary School in
Colorado; and Kristan Van Hook who is the senior vice
president, Public Policy and Development, National Institute
for Excellence in Teaching.
Welcome to the committee, we appreciate you making the time
available to us for your suggestions.
For those who haven't testified before, you will be given 5
minutes. A green light will be on on the indicators on the
table. A yellow light will go on when you have about a minute
left, and a red light when we would like you to finish up. But
again, we want you to complete your thoughts and make sure you
have imparted the information that you think is essential to
the committee at this stage of the process.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Hughes, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF MARYKATE HUGHES, MATH TEACHER, D.C. PREPARATORY
ACADEMY
Ms. Hughes. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
I am a sixth grade math teacher at D.C. Prep, a public
charter school serving a high-need student population in the
poorest census track west of the Anacostia River here in
Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the founding faculty of D.C.
Prep in 2003, I was a teacher in the District of Columbia,
teaching fifth grade.
The mission of D.C. Prep is to prepare our students for
excellent college preparatory high schools. Our new students
come to us in fourth grade, about 40 percent behind their peers
nationally, so they need to make over a year's progress every
year in order to be prepared for entrance into these excellent
high schools.
Attracting, developing and supporting teachers is critical
to our mission because the student achievement goals of D.C.
Prep are not attainable without a high-quality faculty.
Since we began over 4 years ago, we have struggled to
recruit our outstanding faculty from the existing pool of
applicants. This is not an uncommon challenge. Finding
professionals who are prepared to create success where so many
others have failed is no small task. We realized there is a
tremendous need to implement a support structure that enabled
highly intelligent, highly motivated teachers who continually
improve the effectiveness of their instruction if students were
going to continually make more than a year of progress.
The teacher advancement program has provided the framework
for us to make this happen in our school. Through career
ladders for teachers, objective evaluation and coaching and
performance-based pay linked to student achievement, our
mission is becoming a reality. For example, students who have
been with us for 3 years have doubled their proficiency rate in
reading and tripled their proficiency rate in math, compared to
their peers in neighboring D.C. Public schools.
Our parents also note positive changes in the students'
attitudes and behaviors towards doing well in school. They rate
their childrens' attitude toward academic achievement an
impressive 4.7 out of 5. Perhaps what makes me most proud is
that every single member of our first graduating class was
accepted to a high school with over 90 percent graduation rate
compared with 55 percent in the District.
I share these things with you to highlight the fact that
high-quality teachers do make a difference in student
achievement. In fact, they make a critical difference. The
question is how do we recruit, train and retain high-quality
teachers so that our success is not uncommon. For us the
teacher advancement program has been the answer. One of the
most powerful aspects of the program is the opportunity for
teachers to increase their skills and take on additional
leadership roles and responsibilities while remaining in the
classroom.
I became a mentor teacher during our first year of
implementation in 2005 and this year have advanced to the
position of master teacher, overseeing all aspect of TAP
implementation. With some creative scheduling, I am able to
fill this role and remain a classroom teacher, able to directly
impact students. Because of the opportunities created through
TAP, I have expanded my influence beyond the students in my
classroom. As I work closely with other teachers to develop
better instructional techniques throughout our school, their
students are also positively impacted. Because of this, I
continue to be motivated and excited by my profession.
The importance of support, coaching and career advancement
within the classroom environment cannot be overstated. When I
began my teaching career, I felt daunted by the prospect of
having the same job responsibilities for the rest of my life. I
didn't know how to reach all of my students, and I felt
isolated and unsure how to move forward. Still, I loved being
in the classroom and was hungry for a way to grow
professionally that would make a significant impact on my
students' achievement. Without the support and knowledge I have
gained through TAP and the opportunity to take on new roles and
challenges as a mentor--and now I am a master teacher--it is
likely I would not still be teaching. It is certain I would not
be as effective a teacher as I have become.
Since implementing TAP at D.C. Prep, we have been able to
recruit outstanding teaching professionals who I believe
typically would not have stayed in the teaching profession.
Most of our teachers had multiple job offers in the D.C. Area,
and time and again they tell us support, opportunities for
career advancement, and financial incentives are the reason
they chose our school over the others.
If we want to draw intelligent and highly motivated
teachers into the schools that need them most, we need to be
prepared to support and reward them. My experience is that good
intentions are not enough to compel promising teachers to
remain in a profession that can be isolating, with no clear
path to success. Performance-based pay incentives provide a
focus for teachers in their work afford them opportunities to
advance in their work, and make a greater impact and recognize
their contributions in a tangible way.
At D.C. Prep our success for students is inextricably
linked to our outstanding faculty. TAP is an instrument for
attracting qualified candidates to our school because they know
they will be supported to improve, and rewarded for their
efforts. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hughes follows:]
Prepared Statement of MaryKate Hughes, Master Teacher, DC Preparatory
Academy
Thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning the
importance of teacher quality to student achievement, and programs
proposed by the Committee to fund career opportunity and teacher
performance compensation with the goal of increasing student
achievement.
I am a 6th grade math teacher at DC Prep, a public charter school
in Washington, DC serving a high need student population in the poorest
census tract west of the Anacostia River. I joined the faculty at DC
Prep as a founding teacher in 2003 when we opened our first school and
currently am the Master Teacher, responsible for providing professional
development, evaluation, and coaching for teachers at DC Prep in
addition to teaching 6th grade math classes.
This past year, I was surprised and honored to be selected by the
Milken Foundation as a National Educator of the Year, an award given to
only one hundred teachers across the country each year who display
exceptional educational talent, inspire and motivate students,
colleagues, and their communities, and demonstrate long-range potential
for leadership. In addition, I teach an elementary math methods
graduate school class at American University.
DC Prep currently manages two campuses, DC Prep Edgewood, which
opened in the fall of 2003, and serves 275 students in grades four
through eight, and our newly opened elementary school which opened this
fall and serves 300 students from preschool to third grade. Currently,
sixty percent of our students in these schools qualify for free or
reduced price lunch.
DC Prep plans to continue expanding to a total of four elementary
and four middle schools by the fall of 2012, serving a total of
approximately 2500 students. We plan to locate our campuses in the
poorest sections of Washington DC where local schools have about 75
percent free and reduced price lunch students. DC Prep will recruit its
student population primarily from these neighborhoods and we anticipate
at least 50 percent of the student body at each new school will qualify
for free and reduced price lunch.
DC Prep was created to bring the lessons learned in high-performing
schools nationwide to bear on the tremendous need in Washington DC and
to build an effective organization capable of opening and running high-
quality schools on a large scale. We strive to prepare our students,
many of whom enter DC Prep far behind their peers academically, to
attend and be successful at the most competitive college preparatory
high schools.
Our first step was to create one excellent school located in an
under-served community and use it as a model to expand into a system of
high-performing schools--ultimately serving thousands of children in
Washington. DC Prep partnered with the National Institute for
Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to bring the Teacher Advancement Program
(TAP) to these schools in order to address one of our most pressing
challenges--developing and supporting a highly effective teacher for
every student.
TAP is a comprehensive, research-based reform designed to attract,
retain, support, and develop effective teachers and principals. It
combines comprehensive teacher support with performance pay incentives
to create an instructional environment that is continually focused on
advancing student learning. Attracting, developing, and supporting
excellent teachers is crucial to our mission because the student
achievement goals of DC Prep schools are simply not attainable without
a high quality faculty.
Since we began over four years ago, we have struggled to recruit
our outstanding faculty from the pool of applicants we received for
teacher and principal positions. This is a challenge faced by schools
around the country. What's more, we find that among the applications we
do receive, only a small percentage of them meet the standards we have
set for teaching excellence (high expectations for all students,
demonstrated analytical skills, and a minimum of two years urban
teaching experience). Thus, there is a critical need both a) to ensure
that DC Prep continues to provide an environment that attracts and
retains the most qualified and effective teachers, and b) to expand the
number of teachers with the requisite skills and knowledge to respond
to DC Prep's growing demand. I believe TAP helps us address both of
those needs.
Introduction of TAP at DC Prep
After our first two years of operation of DC Prep Edgewood, a
middle school serving grades four through eight, DC Prep began
discussions with NIET about implementing the Teacher Advancement
Program (TAP), . During our initial years, we had achieved some early
academic gains with students who historically were not achieving at the
levels necessary to enter competitive college preparatory high schools.
Yet after achieving these gains, our student's achievement scores began
to plateau and were not reaching the levels necessary to enable the
majority of our students to enter top high schools.
We realized there was a tremendous need to implement a support
structure that enabled teachers to continually improve the
effectiveness of their instruction if students were going to continue
improving academically. TAP had an established track record of success
with similar teachers and students in other high need schools. The
method for achieving these results was an intensive focus on increasing
teacher quality through a comprehensive program that included 1) school
based professional development led by Master and Mentor teachers, 2)
career opportunities for teachers to take on additional roles and
responsibilities with additional pay without leaving the classroom, 3)
a fair, rigorous and objective evaluation system for teachers and
principals implemented and overseen by their colleagues, and 4)
performance based pay incentives for teachers and principals. DC Prep
began implementing TAP in the fall of 2005 with the first year serving
as a ``practice'' year, where all aspects of the program were
incorporated, but no performance bonuses were awarded.
Student Achievement Results with TAP in the Pilot Year
TAP has been instrumental in building a professional learning
community at DC Prep Edgewood where teachers feel both supported and
challenged to refine and deepen their craft. This has been done through
TAP by fostering a culture of continuous professional growth and
reflection, creating multiple career paths for teachers, and rewarding
effective teaching as demonstrated by student achievement. The
introduction of weekly TAP cluster groups--small groups of teachers
discussing instructional skills and strategies for students--along with
bi-monthly interim assessments has ensured periodic monitoring of
student progress and given faculty the data and skills to continuously
tailor instruction to areas of academic need throughout the school
year.
When asked how TAP has impacted her own teaching, one DC Prep
language arts teacher responded TAP has raised the level of
professionalism in our school community and created a culture of
reflective practitioners who strive to be the best teachers they can
be. Personally, the support and coaching which TAP has provided to me
has allowed me to grow tremendously as a professional and has
ultimately made me a more effective teacher as evidenced by the growth
of my students.
With the support of TAP, we have been able to demonstrate success
and ensure our students--even those who enter the school far below
grade level--are prepared for future academic and career success. For
example:
Students who have been at DC Prep for three years have
doubled their proficiency rate in Reading and tripled their proficiency
rate in Math compared to their peers in neighboring DC public schools,
as measured by the DC-CAS, the public standardized test used by the
District.
Roughly 60 percent of three-year veteran students (6th and
7th graders) achieved proficiency or higher on the DC-CAS in the spring
of 2006.
Parents also note positive changes in their children's
attitudes and behaviors as a result of a DC Prep education. When
presented with the following statement: ``Since coming to DC Prep my
child thinks doing well in school is * * * 1 (Not Important), 3
(Somewhat Important), 5 (Very Important),'' parent rankings averaged a
very positive 4.7.
Career Opportunities
One of the most powerful aspects of this program is the opportunity
it creates for teachers to increase their skills and take on additional
roles and responsibilities while remaining in the classroom. I became a
mentor teacher during the first year of the program in 2005, and in
this position was responsible for providing professional development,
individualized support, coaching, and conducting evaluations for career
teachers. To accomplish these tasks, I was provided with release time
from my own classroom for several hours each week.
This year I am serving as the Master Teacher at DC Prep Edgewood,
overseeing a team of several Mentor Teachers. Together with the
Principal and Assistant Principal, we make up the ``leadership team''
for the school and set school-wide goals based on data and student
needs, as well as provide professional development, coaching and
evaluation for our career teachers.
As the master teacher, it is my role to provide ongoing, applied
professional development, and observe, evaluate, and coach the faculty
at DC Prep. In this role, I identify research-based strategies for
teachers to use in addressing specific needs of students in their
class. We identify these needs through standardized testing and
classroom based assessments, as well as taking into account each
teacher's individual evaluation of classroom skills and knowledge.
After field testing the strategies to tailor them to our specific
student population, I plan and implement clusters for teachers to learn
the strategies for classroom implementation. Finally, I manage the
teacher evaluation process, observing teachers in the classroom and
providing specific and individual feedback for each teacher afterwards
for the purpose of professional growth.
Being involved in TAP has expanded my influence beyond the students
in my classroom. It has allowed me to develop my own teaching
expertise, which has brought instruction in my classroom to a higher
level. As I work closely with other teachers to develop better
instructional techniques throughout our school, their students are also
positively impacted. Further, I've been able to connect with other
outstanding educators throughout the country, which has expanded my
scope of understanding about successful teaching techniques and
strategies. Because of these opportunities, I continue to be motivated
and excited by my profession.
The importance of support, coaching, and career advancement within
the classroom environment cannot be overstated. When I began my
teaching career, I felt daunted by the prospect of having the same job
responsibilities for the rest of my life. I did not know how to reach
all of my students and I felt isolated and unsure how to move forward.
Still, I loved being in the classroom and was hungry for a way to grow
professionally in a way that would make a significant impact on student
achievement. Without the support and knowledge I have gained through
TAP, and the opportunity to take on new roles and challenges as a
Mentor and now a Master Teacher--opportunities that have advanced my
career and skills but kept me connected to teaching students in the
classroom--it is likely I would not still be teaching. I certainly
would not be as effective a teacher as I am.
Performance Pay
DC Prep did not award performance pay in its first year of TAP
since we treated this as a practice year. This past year was the first
year teachers received performance pay bonuses. I believe the
establishment of performance pay at DC Prep is one factor that has
helped to focus teachers on the specific student achievement goals we
have for our students. Bonuses for increased student achievement do not
by themselves improve teacher skills, but they do provide concrete
goals for teachers and they reward and acknowledge outstanding effort.
The other aspects of TAP--professional support, coaching, evaluation
and career opportunity--are essential to complement performance pay as
they provide a mechanism for teachers to improve their practice and to
increase student achievement on a consistent basis.
Since implementing TAP at DC Prep, we have been able to recruit
outstanding teaching professionals who I believe typically would not
have stayed in the teaching profession. On the math team last year, we
had a teacher who had been a successful technology consultant as well
as another who was an experienced engineer. Both of these teachers were
high-achieving in their first careers, but came to teaching for the
altruistic reasons typically attributed to many who join the teaching
profession. However, my experience is that good intentions are not
enough to compel the best and the brightest to stay in a profession
that can be isolating and challenging with no clear path to success.
Policies promoting performance based pay need to do more than simply
offer financial incentives and bonuses. They need to provide a
mechanism for intelligent, highly motivated individuals to become and
remain teachers who make a positive impact on student achievement.
Teacher Retention and Satisfaction
Entering our third year with TAP at DC Prep, we have found it has
had a positive impact on both teacher satisfaction and retention. While
teachers at DC Prep are already highly motivated and professional
individuals, TAP provides the structure for us to create a school-wide
instructional environment that continuously focuses on the best
teaching practices and student achievement. This creates an outlet for
teachers to experiment and share ideas, improve instruction within the
classroom, and advance student learning together, while providing
support and development training. This has been invaluable in our work
to keep our students on the upward path to higher achievement as well
as our efforts to attract and retain the most qualified, highly-
motivated faculty. TAP is the reason many teachers choose our school
over others, and it is one of the reasons these outstanding teachers
remain at our school. It is a key ingredient to our success.
We recently received the results from the standardized test our
children take to show progress for the No Child Left Behind Act. Over
the past four years, our average new 4th grader comes to DC Prep about
40 percent behind the national average achievement in math and reading.
It is our mission to make up that gap in the five years they spend with
us. We had our first graduating class this past spring, and so we
looked forward to our scores with anticipation. As the head of the math
team, I was particularly eager to see our math scores. As has been
typical for us, fewer than 40 percent of our 4th graders scored
proficient or better on the math test. The longer our students had been
at the school, the higher their scores: 65 percent of our 6th graders
and 87 percent of our 8th graders scored proficient or better this past
year in math. While there are many factors that contribute to student
success, much of the credit for this incredible improvement lies with
the faculty of our school. TAP has been a successful tool for us to be
able to recruit, train, support, and reward our faculty for creating
this kind of achievement.
Performance Based Pay One Part of Comprehensive Teacher Quality
Solution
Performance based pay systems should be a small part of a
comprehensive plan to improve the recruitment, retention, and training
of quality teachers. In our experience at DC Prep, TAP is a vehicle for
attracting more qualified candidates to our school because they know
they will be supported to improve and rewarded with high student
achievement. The performance based pay incentives within TAP provide a
focus for teachers in their work, afford them opportunities to advance
and make a greater impact, and recognize their significant
contributions in a tangible way.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. I was remiss; I want
to say I was honored to be at the ceremony when you received
the Milken Foundation Prize as educator of the year.
Ms. Hughes. Thank you, I was honored.
Chairman Miller. I was honored to be at your school 2 weeks
ago. I spent most of my time trying to teach the students how
to be a pirate, but we got along famously. But thank you for
gathering the educators that you did on that morning so that I
could hear a cross-section of thought about No Child Left
Behind.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Rooker.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN ROOKER, PRINCIPAL, NEIL ARMSTRONG
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ms. Rooker. Thank you for welcoming me here today, Mr.
Chairman. I would hire you anytime.
Chairman Miller. You may have to.
Ms. Rooker. I speak to you today, though, from the school
house level. I am a school principal and so many of us school
principals agree on the intent of this act. No child should
ever enter a classroom unless there is a well qualified and
certified teacher standing at that door. No child should be in
a classroom unless good teaching and learning take places every
day in that room. And no child should enter a classroom unless
their teacher sees them as a worthwhile and capable individual
and learner.
Schools should be held to a high level of accountability as
they are responsible for our most special resource, our
children. This act hoped to put a stop to the schools that
failed to live up to that obligation, our D and F schools. But
along the way, as it addressed the failing schools, there were
some unexpected and unwelcome consequences involving successful
Title I schools.
Two and a half years ago I was appointed principal at Neil
Armstrong Elementary School, Charlotte County, Florida, a Title
I school that had not made AYP previously for 3 consecutive
years. The percentage of students at Neil Armstrong on free and
reduced lunch is the highest in the district. The school also
is a center school for the District for ELL learners and
children with cognitive disabilities such as autism.
There were no changes in staff made when I took on the
principalship. The staff focused on aligning their teaching
goals with State standards. Teaching strategies were based on
research-based strategies that have the best research base that
they will make the positive difference in academic achievement
in children.
At the end of my first year there, 05-06, the school made
AYP for the very first time. During this past school year, 06-
07, we continued our emphasis on power standards and research-
based strategies. On State accountability tests the percentage
of students meeting high standards of reading improved from 71
percent to 82 percent from the previous year. In mathematics
the percentage meeting high standards improved from 62 percent
to 87 percent. The percentage making learning gains in reading
improved from 65 to 77 percent, while the percentage making
learning gains in math improved from 66 to 80 percent. The
percentage of that lowest quartile making gains in reading
improved from 69 percent to 80 percent, while 74 percent, the
lowest quartile, made gains in math.
The excitement grew at our school about the gains in
student achievement as the State of Florida rewarded school
grades to the school districts and individual school. I am
fortunate to work in a school district that has been graded an
A consistently.
In order to receive a grade of A, a school must achieve 525
points. These points are awarded based on the percentage of
students meeting high standards as well as the percentage
making learning gains and the percentage of students moving out
of that lowest quartile.
Neil Armstrong was awarded 620 points. That was the highest
number of points in the District and ranked us 17th among the
entire State of Florida. The school was ready to enjoy the
distinction of having two consecutive years of AYP. Certainly
since school achievement was up double digits from the previous
year when we made AYP, 06-07 AYP would be no problem.
Unfortunately, Neil Armstrong did not make AYP despite
these double-digit improvements in math and reading. Regardless
of the significant academic improvement from the previous year
when the school was judged as making AYP, the school was
required to begin the year by sending out a letter to every
parent of every student identifying our school as a school in
need of improvement. Parents were offered an opportunity to
send their children to another school and were offered
supplemental educational services. Our outstanding staff was
heartbroken. Should our school not make AYP this year, despite
our outstanding academic achievement, we will be forced to
redesign our school and we will be forced to redesign our staff
and administration.
Neil Armstrong succeeds when students succeed. Our students
are succeeding, yet the evaluation of our school is based on a
flawed process. Success or failure is based on a single test
score. Neil Armstrong with disabilities and Hispanic students
were not capable test takers that day. Students that are not
capable test takers will label a school a school in need of
improvement. A school labeled as a need of improvement faces
punitive sanctions. Instead of celebrating our academic
achievements with the community or students and staff, we are
busy transferring students to neighboring schools, finding new
bus routes to get students there, and trying to explain to some
less than capable supplemental educational services providers
what a school academic goal should even look like, because some
of them have not a clue.
We are chasing down parents until we get a response from 51
percent of our parents as to whether they wish the service of
an SES provider or not. Our community and our students deserve
a better use of our time. Schools believe in value effective
and comprehensive accountability systems, but an accountability
system that is just keeping a single score and makes victims
out of schools is not an accountability system that gives much
information about classroom teaching and learning or about
teaching practices and curriculum. It is a system that ignores
the indicators of a viable school curriculum.
I thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Rooker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen Rooker, Principal, Neil Armstrong
Elementary School
Two and one half years ago I was appointed principal of Neil
Armstrong Elementary School in Charlotte County, Florida, a Title 1
school that had not made AYP for three consecutive years. The
percentage of Neil Armstrong students on free and reduced lunch is the
highest in the district. The school also is a center school for English
Language Learners and students with cognitive disabilities such as
autism.
There were no changes in staff made when I assumed the
principalship. The staff focused on aligning their teaching goals with
state standards. Teaching strategies were based on researched based
strategies that have positive effects on student learning. At the end
of the 05/06 school year, the school made AYP for the first time.
During the past school year (06/07) we continued our emphasis on
power standards and researched based teaching strategies. On the state
accountability tests the percentage of students meeting high standards
in reading improved from 71% to 82% from the previous year. In
mathematics the percentage meeting high standards improved from 62% to
87%. The percentage making learning gains in reading improved from 65%
to 77% while the percentage making learning gains in math improved from
66% to 80%. The percentage of the lowest quartile making gains in
reading improved from 69% to 80% while 74% of the lowest quartile of
students made gains in math.
The excitement about the gains in student achievement grew as the
state of Florida rewarded school grades to school districts and
individual schools. Charlotte County is an outstanding school district
and has consistently been awarded a grade of A. In order to receive a
grade of A, the school must earn at least 525 points. Points are
awarded based on the percentage of students meeting high standards as
well as the percentage making learning gains and the percentage of the
lowest quartile that make learning gains. Neil Armstrong was awarded
620 points, the highest number of grade points in the district and 17th
among all public schools in Florida. The school was ready to enjoy the
distinction of 2 consecutive years of earning AYP. Certainly, since
student achievement was up by double digits from the previous year when
the school made AYP, 06/07 AYP would be no problem.
Unfortunately, Neil Armstrong did not make AYP despite these double
digit improvements in math and reading. Regardless of the significant
academic improvement from the previous year when the school was judged
as making AYP, the school was required to send a letter to every parent
of a student at the school identifying it as a school ``in need of
improvement''. Parents were offered an opportunity to send their child
to another school and were offered Supplemental Educational Services.
Our outstanding staff was heartbroken. Should the school not make AYP
this year, despite outstanding academic achievement, we will be forced
to redesign our school.
Neil Armstrong succeeds when students succeed. Our students are
succeeding. Yet the evaluation of our school is based on a flawed
process. Success or failure is based on a single test score. Neil
Armstrong students with disabilities and Hispanic students were not
capable test takers. Students that are not capable test takers will
label a school a ``school in need of improvement.''
A school labeled as ``in need of improvement'' faces punitive
sanctions. Instead of celebrating our academic achievements with the
community, students and staff, we are busy transferring students to
neighboring schools, finding new bus routes to get students there,
trying to explain to some less that capable SES providers what an
academic goal should look like, and chasing down parents until we can
get a response from at least 51% of them as to whether they wish to use
the service of an SES provider. Our community and students deserve a
better use of our time.
Schools believe and value effective and comprehensive
accountability systems. But an accountability system that is just
keeping a single score and makes losers out of schools is not an
accountability system that gives much information about classroom
teaching and learning or about teaching practices and curriculum. It is
a system that ignores the indicators of a viable school curriculum.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Weaver.
STATEMENT OF REG WEAVER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weaver. When I came before you in March at the outset
of the SEA reauthorization process, I expressed hope that we
would have an opportunity for renewed broad and bold and
national discussion about how to improve and support public
education.
Mr. Chairman, in July you indicated that No Child Left
Behind, as it has played out in the field, is not fair, not
flexible and not funded and we agree. So this is an opportunity
for a major course correction, and for us it is about more than
fixing No Child Left Behind's accountability provisions. Our
members care deeply about this process and its outcome because
they have lived for more than 5 years under a system that was
crafted without enough of their input and has had negative
unintended consequences. They are counting on a thoughtful
process this time and a bill that recognizes the flaws of the
current test label punish theory of education reform.
The bottom line is this. We do not believe the committee'S
first discussion draft of Title I adequately remedies the
problematic provisions of the current law. The draft provisions
around growth models and meaningful multiple measures are too
rigid. They do not represent a greater fairness or flexibility.
They represent more one-size-fits-all approach prescriptions
from the Federal level. And this reauthorization should send a
message to students that they are more than just a test score.
We should be sending a message to educators that the art and
practice of teaching is and must be about more than just test
preparation.
Unfortunately, this draft misses the mark about how to
adequately serve and educate all children. It avoids, once
again, the more difficult discussion of what services and
outcomes are important for all stakeholders to be held
accountable. We have been hopeful that this reauthorization
finally would address the fundamental truth and the real
education accountability. And that real education
accountability is about shared responsibility to remedy
intolerable opportunity gaps. Yet, 50 years after Brown v. the
Board, too many policymakers at all levels still seem unwilling
to do anything but point the finger and avoid responsibility.
It is time to force a dialogue about how to share in that
responsibility.
In reviewing the committee draft, we find an entirely
insufficient focus on the elements of our positive agenda that
would truly make a difference in student learning and success.
These include class size reduction, safe and modern facilities,
early childhood education, and a real attempt to infuse 21st
century skills and innovation into our schools. We find no
recognition of the impact of teaching and learning conditions
on teacher recruitment and retention, particularly in the
hardest-to-staff schools. Instead we find more mandates and
even more prescriptive requirements.
We are greatly disappointed that the committee has released
language that undermines educators' elective bargaining rights.
This is an unprecedented attack on a particular segment of the
labor community, the Nation's educators.
Finally, let me address a point about which there should be
no mistake. NEA cannot support Federal programs, voluntary or
not, that mandate pay for test scores. To mandate a particular
evaluation or compensation term of a contract would be an
unprecedented infringement upon collective bargaining rights as
well as protections. We think this to be offensive and
disrespectful of educators.
We are not able to support the Title I or Title II
discussion draft as it is currently written. We are hopeful
that the committee will take the time to get it right. Our
members are not afraid of those who hurl accusations about what
is in their heart every day when they teach and care for our
Nation's young people. Our members are united and will stand
firm in our advocacy for a bill that supports good teaching and
learning and takes far greater steps toward creating great
public schools for every child.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee.
[The statement of Mr. Weaver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reg Weaver, President, National Education
Association
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, on behalf of the 3.2 million members of the National
Education Association, thank you for inviting us to speak with you
today about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA).
When I came before you in March at the outset of this process, I
expressed our members' hope that this ESEA reauthorization would
finally offer an opportunity for a renewed, broad, and bold national
discussion about how to improve and support public education. I shared
with you that I had appointed a very thoughtful and diverse committee
of our members to help outline what, in our view, would be a positive
reauthorization of ESEA. They worked for over two years--hearing from
experts, digesting volumes of research, and listening to practitioners
across the country--to come up with not just recommendations about how
to change AYP, but substantive, thoughtful recommendations about how to
define and create a great public school for every child.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESEA: It's Time for a Change! NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA
Reauthorization, http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/images/posagenda.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, this reauthorization is and should be about more than
tweaking the No Child Left Behind portions of ESEA. It should be a
comprehensive examination of whether federal policies follow what the
research says about how children learn and what makes a successful
school.
Mr. Chairman, in July you indicated that No Child Left Behind as it
has played out in the field is not fair, not flexible, and not funded.
We agree. So, this is the opportunity for a major course-correction. As
we speak, our ESEA Advisory Committee, as well as our members and
affiliates, are still analyzing the Title I draft just released last
week to determine what the proposed changes would mean in their state
and district systems and, more importantly, whether they will improve
America's classrooms for our students. And, these same members and
affiliates will also begin analyzing the 601 pages for the remaining
titles released just days ago. We will use those analyses to inform
this Committee about the impact of the proposals across the country.
It is important that you all understand that our members care
deeply about this process and its outcome because they have lived for
more than five years under a system that was crafted without enough of
their input and that has proven to be unworkable and in too many cases
has had negative, unintended consequences. They are counting on a
thoughtful process this time and a bill that recognizes more than just
the technical flaws with the statute, but the conceptual and
philosophical flaws of the current test-label-punish theory of
education reform.
The bottom line is this: While we applaud the Committee for
identifying most of the problematic provisions of the current law, we
do not believe the Committee's first discussion draft of Title I
adequately remedies them.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We have previously provided the Committee with detailed
comments about the Title I discussion draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are pleased that the draft includes the concepts of growth
models and multiple measures in an attempt to get a more accurate
picture of student learning and school quality. These provisions,
however, are inadequate, as the accountability system the Committee
envisions still relies overwhelmingly on two statewide standardized
assessments. This does not give real meaning to the growth model and
multiple measure concepts and defies the advice of assessment experts
across the country, some of whom are here today.
For example, shouldn't we truly value the percentage of students
taking Advanced Placement or honors courses not only as an indicator of
the number of students receiving a more challenging educational
experience, but also as some indication of areas where access to these
curricular offerings is limited? We do not believe that prescribing a
limited list of measures that states can use and not allowing them to
propose other indicators in crafting meaningful accountability systems
is in keeping with measurement experts' guidance about multiple sources
of evidence. We do not believe this represents greater fairness or
flexibility. Rather, it represents more one-size-fits-all prescription
from the federal level.
Again, this reauthorization for us is about more than fixing AYP
and other provisions that have been problematic; it's about recognizing
that providing a quality education to every student takes more than a
measurement system. It's about sending a message to students that they
are more than just test scores. We should care as much OR MORE about
whether a child graduates after receiving a comprehensive, high-quality
education as we do about how he or she performs on a standardized test.
We should be sending a message to educators that the art and practice
of teaching is and must be about more than test preparation. If the
only measures we really value are test scores, rather than some of the
other indicators of a rich and challenging educational experience and
set of supports provided to students, then we will have missed the mark
again about adequately serving and educating all children. We will have
avoided yet again the more difficult discussion of what services AND
outcomes are important for all stakeholders to be held accountable.
We should all keep in mind that the original purpose of ESEA was to
attempt to remedy disparities in educational opportunities and
resources for poor children. To that end, we have been hopeful that
this reauthorization finally would address the fundamental truth that
real education accountability is about shared responsibility to remedy
intolerable opportunity gaps.
Again, as I stated in March, if one of our goals is to remedy
achievement and skills gaps that exist among different groups of
students in this country, we cannot do so without also addressing
existing opportunity gaps. Why is it that 50 years after Brown vs.
Board, and after 30 years of litigation in 44 states to address
equitable and adequate educational opportunities and resources, policy
makers at all levels still seem unwilling to do anything but point
fingers and avoid the responsibility to tackle this insidious problem,
which continues to plague too many communities and students? This is
about more than disparities in per pupil spending across states, within
states, and within districts; it's about disparities in the basics of a
student's life--disparities in the learning environments to which
students are subject, disparities in the age of their textbooks and
materials, disparities in course offerings, disparities in access to
after-school help and enrichment, and yes, disparities in access to
qualified, caring educators.
Given the fact that so many Title I students are not fully served
due to current funding levels and historically haven't been, we have
been hopeful that THIS reauthorization would mark an opportunity to
address these inequities from a policy standpoint, not just an
appropriations standpoint. It's past time to stop pointing fingers
about whose responsibility it is to address opportunity gaps. It's time
to force a dialogue about how to share in that responsibility.
In a preliminary reading of the remaining titles of the Committee's
ESEA reauthorization discussion draft,\3\ we find an entirely
insufficient focus on the elements of our Positive Agenda that would
truly make a difference in student learning and success. These include
early childhood education, class size reduction, safe and modern
facilities, and a real attempt to infuse 21st century skills and
innovation into our schools to ensure that public education in this
country is relevant and engaging to students in the changing, inter-
dependent world. We can find no significant discussion of the fact that
teaching and learning conditions are one of the two main factors (low
salaries being the other) that continue to create the teacher
recruitment and retention problem, particularly in the hardest to staff
schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We will provide a detailed analysis of the remaining titles of
the Committee's draft by the Committee's September 14th deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, there are more mandates and even more prescriptive
requirements. This will detract from the essential element of public
education: good teaching and learning. More mandates aren't magically
going to make kids read at grade level or perform math on grade level.
Tweaks to the measurement system won't ensure that students perform any
better on assessments. Good teaching practice, involved parents and
communities, and engaged students will do that.
We are gravely disappointed that the Committee has released
language in Title I and Title II that undermines educators' collective
bargaining rights. This is an unprecedented attack on a particular
segment of the labor community--the nation's educators. Time and time
again, our members in bargaining states don't simply negotiate about
money, they negotiate about the very conditions that impact teaching
AND learning. In almost every circumstance, those conditions--class
sizes, professional development, collaborative planning time to name
just a few--have a direct impact on students.
Finally, let me address a point about which there should be no
mistake. NEA cannot support federal programs--voluntary or not--that
mandate pay for test scores as an element of any federal program.
Teachers aren't hired by the federal government; they are hired by
school districts. As such, the terms and conditions of their employment
must be negotiated between school districts and their employees. To
attempt to enact any federal program that mandates a particular
evaluation or compensation term of a contract would be an unprecedented
infringement upon collective bargaining rights and protections.\4\ This
is offensive and disrespectful to educators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We have attached to this testimony a more detailed explanation
of our views regarding professional pay for educators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not able to support the Title I or Title II discussion draft
as currently written. We are hopeful that the Committee will take the
time to get this right. In essence, we urge you not to rush to mark up
a bill that would lead to yet another set of unintended consequences.
In closing, I want to emphasize that our members are not afraid of
those who hurl accusations about what's in their hearts every day when
they teach and care for our nation's students. Our members are united
and will stand firm in our advocacy for a bill that supports good
teaching and learning and takes far greater steps toward creating great
public schools for every child.
appendix.--professional pay for the profession of teaching
July 23, 2007
The profession of teaching should offer a brilliant and rewarding
field for professionals committed to the success of their students.
Unfortunately, today's teachers still struggle with fundamental needs.
Too often, teachers barely make ends meet, find insufficient support
for quality professional development and are inconsistently compensated
for assuming additional, demanding responsibilities.
Compensation systems must be designed to firmly establish teaching
as a respected profession and improve student learning through improved
teacher practice. A comprehensive pay system must support factors shown
to make a difference in teaching and learning--the skills, knowledge,
and experience of classroom teachers.
NEA supports key strategies that can meet these goals.
Congressional leadership can accelerate the advancement of the
profession of teaching and improve conditions for student learning
through the actions outlined here.
1. Express support for improved starting salaries.
We know that quality teachers are the key to providing Great Public
Schools for Every Student. In order to attract and retain the very
best, we must pay teachers a professional level salary. We must ensure
a $40,000 minimum salary for all teachers in every school in this
country. While that is primarily a state and local government
responsibility, Congress can express support for this minimum salary in
the ESEA reauthorization.
2. Through congressional action, take advantage of the flexibility
of salary schedules now in place to offer incentives for teachers to
gain additional skills and knowledge and for taking on challenges and
additional responsibility.
Compensation systems now have the flexibility to accommodate some
immediate changes. Congressional action that takes advantage of what is
already in place will make more of a difference, faster, than trying to
reinvent the system.
NEA recognizes the need in many jurisdictions to bargain (or
mutually agree to, where no bargaining exists) enhancements to the
current salary schedule. NEA already supports many ideas to enhance the
single salary schedule. Congressional support for diverse approaches
could spur needed change and enable local school districts to tailor
action to their specific educational objectives.
NEA supports:
Incentives to attract qualified teachers to hard-to-staff
schools.
Incentives for the achievement of National Board
Certification.
Incentives for teachers to mentor colleagues new to the
profession.
Incentives for accepting additional responsibilities such
as peer assistance or mentoring.
Additional pay for working additional time through
extended school years, extended days, and extra assignments.
Additional pay for teachers who acquire new knowledge and
skills directly related to their school's mission and/or their
individual assignments.
Additional pay for teachers who earn advanced credentials/
degrees that are directly related to their teaching assignments and/or
their school's mission.
Group or school-wide salary supplements for improved
teacher practice leading to improved student learning, determined by
multiple indicators
3. Include in the ESEA reauthorization a competitive grant program
that provides funds on a voluntary basis to states and school districts
to implement innovative programs such as those listed in item two.
ESEA offers the opportunity to provide incentives to strengthen the
profession of teaching. In constructing those incentives, NEA believes
that federally-supported programs will be most effectively implemented
when teachers have the opportunity to understand them and option to
embrace them. Therefore, any such federal program for compensation
innovations must require that such program be subject to collective
bargaining, or where bargaining does not now exist, subject to a 75
percent majority support vote of the affected teachers.
4. NEA opposes federal requirements for a pay system that mandates
teacher pay based on student performance or student test scores.
There are innumerable reasons for steering away from such schemes:
tests are imperfect measures; student mobility in a given district or
classroom might be high, skewing the system; test scores are not the
only measure of student success; single year test scores do not measure
growth. In addition, a federal mandate that requires test scores or
student performance as the element of a compensation system undermines
local autonomy and decision making.
To be clear: NEA affiliates at the local and state levels are open
to compensation innovations that enhance preparation and practice which
drive student performance. NEA underscores that in those circumstances,
local school administrators and local teacher organizations must work
together to mutually decide what compensation alternatives work best in
their particular situation. The federal government can play a role in
providing funds to support and encourage local and state innovations in
compensation systems, but the federal government should leave the
specific elements to be decided at the local level.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Haycock.
STATEMENT OF KATI HAYCOCK, PRESIDENT, EDUCATION TRUST
Ms. Haycock. Chairman Miller and members of the committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this
afternoon. As I think many of you know, I and my colleagues at
the Education Trust spend most of our time not here in
Washington, but in schools in districts around the country.
Our experiences over the last couple of years have left us
very much encouraged about the impact of your bold leadership
to date. Schools across the country are unquestionably more
focused on student learning. And we are no longer sweeping the
underperformance of some groups of kids underneath the rug. But
though the data unquestionably shows some progress, it is a
sobering reminder of how much remains to be done.
Today, roughly six in ten of our African and Latino fourth
graders can't even read at the basic, much less the proficient
level. That means in other words that today a majority of our
African American and Latino kids at fourth grade cannot read.
If you look up at the 12th grade, what you see very clearly is
African American and Latino youngsters performing in both
reading and math at about the same level at their white eighth
grade counterparts.
No matter how you think about our future as a country,
whether it is in economic terms or in terms of the health of
our democracy, what is clear is this: We continue to need to
stretch goals. We cannot back down now. Clear and high goals,
in other words, are hugely important if we are both going to
raise overall achievements in this country, but also close once
and for all the gaps between groups that have haunted us for so
long.
As Mr. Miller said so clearly in this morning's Washington
Post, however, we are not going to get there with just goals
alone. We have to close the gaps in teacher quality as well.
Let me be clear here. I do not want to suggest that there
aren't some great teachers in high poverty schools. There
certainly are. And I get a chance to watch some of those
teachers almost every week. But no matter which measure of
teacher quality you use, it is very clear that high poverty
schools and the children they serve continuously come up on the
short end.
Certainly teachers are not the only things that matter in
terms of student achievement. Curriculum matters a lot,
effective principals matter a lot, and so do parents. We all
certainly know that. But overwhelming evidence makes it
abundantly clear that teachers matter more than anything else.
The students who have a sequence of strong teachers in a row
will soar, no matter what their family background, or kids that
have two or three weak teachers in a row literally never
recover.
Now, largely because of your leadership back in 2000-2001,
NCLB itself addressed issues of teacher quality much more
thoroughly than any previous iteration of the Elementary and
Secondary Act. But as I know you all know, we didn't make
anywhere near the kind of progress that you had hoped to bring
about in a fair distribution of teacher talent.
We have learned a lot along the way about how to do even
better. In our judgment, the discussion draft that you produced
does a terrific job of addressing almost all the lessons that
we have learned to date, including the need for better data
systems, a need for increased clarity--which actually means
when you say the poor kids deserve their fair share of strong
teachers--and also providing generous support for teachers to
work in and succeed in high poverty schools.
Two provisions are hugely important. Number one, first
among these is really the proposed changes in the comparability
requirements of the law. As I think all of you know, current
Federal law is based on a fundamental fiction. It is the idea
that a school within a district gets the same amount of State
and local dollars as its neighbor across town and that Federal
dollars come to you if you have more poor kids so you can
provide them extras on top of that even base.
Unfortunately, the comparability test that you provided in
current law makes that a fiction, because you allow the
exclusion of teacher salary, which is the majority of school
budget from those calculations.
Our research in California, and Texas and elsewhere shows
what that means is that schools that are predominantly black,
or Hispanic or high poverty in a district may get a quarter
million or a half million, if they are a high school, maybe
even a full million dollars less than the exact same school on
the other side of town that has more wealthy kids. That is a
real abuse. It is a rip-off Federal dollars that are intended
to provide more to poor kids and provides Federal cover for a
deep injustice.
Thankfully, your proposed provisions will end that once and
for all. We hope you don't back down.
The second, though, is lets be clear. Nobody wants to
attain a better balance of teacher talent by dragging teachers
kicking and screaming from one school to another. Nobody wants
to do it that way. To achieve that goal, districts need to make
schools with lots of poor kids attractive to teachers to teach.
The committee draft takes important steps enabling schools
to do that by dealing with these resource questions, by
authorizing incentive and performance pay, and by continuing
the concentrations of Title II dollars in the districts that
serve the most poor kids. You could, and we hope will, go one
step further to make sure those Title II dollars get to the
schools that actually need them the most.
In the weeks ahead I have no doubt that you will
undoubtedly get a lot of pushback about those provisions. They
will be labored a big Federal intrusion, robbing Peter to pay
Paul, a Robin Hood scheme, just to name a few. I hope you
remain steadfast in your commitment to right that wrong. Nobody
has suggested that poor kids need to have all of the good
teachers, we have only asked that they get their fair share.
Given the huge importance of quality teachers, that is common
sense and it is also common decency.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Haycock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kati Haycock, President, the Education Trust
Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for providing me with the opportunity to testify before you this
morning on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, in
particular about the teacher quality provisions.
This Committee has shown great leadership not only in confronting
the achievement gap in our public schools, but also in recognizing that
improving the quality of teaching at high-poverty and high-minority
schools is the most effective gap-closing strategy. While the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) addressed teacher quality issues more directly
and thoroughly than in any previous authorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, it is has not yielded all the needed and
hoped-for change. There is still much to do. And there are some very
clear ``lessons learned'' from the last five years that point toward
more effective policies.
The Committee's discussion draft embraces many of those lessons and
proposes important and constructive changes to the current law. The
draft, however, leaves one huge problem unaddressed.
The positive changes in the draft include:
Support for better information and data management systems
that will allow state and local policymakers and administrators to make
informed, rational and just decisions about the deployment of teacher
talent;
Increased clarity about Congressional intent on the
equitable distribution of teachers;
The demand for real fiscal comparability between Title I
and non-Title I schools; and
Powerful incentives and supports for teachers to work at
and succeed in hard-to-staff schools.
There is, however, some unfinished business in the draft. It
neglects to correct one of the most glairing shortcomings of the
original law. The current law fails to target Title II funds to the
hardest-to-staff or highest-poverty schools. And the draft, as it
stands, makes the same mistake. While it is the clear intent of the law
that these funds reach these schools, we know from the experience of
the last five years that without clear direction from Congress, Title
II money will not benefit the schools that need the most help.
We Know That Good Teachers Make an Enormous Difference
Researchers are finding that strong teachers make a huge difference
for our most educationally vulnerable kids.
Researchers in Texas concluded in a 2002 study that
teachers have such a major impact on student learning that ``* * *
having a high quality teacher throughout elementary school can
substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-
economic background.'' \1\
A recent analysis of Los Angeles public school data
concluded that ``having a top-quartile teacher rather than a bottom-
quartile teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the
black-white test score gap.'' \2\
A second study in Texas showed that the teacher's
influence on student achievement scores is twenty times greater than
any other variable, including class size and student poverty.\3\
But the Students Who Most Need Good Teachers Don't Get Them.
Despite these and other studies that document the tremendous power
that great teachers have to help students overcome the burdens of
poverty and racism, we persist in providing those who need the most
from their teachers with the teachers who have the very least to offer
them.
Nationally, fully 86% of math and science teachers in the
nation's highest minority schools are teaching out of field.\4\
In Texas high schools with the most African American
students, ninth-grade English and Algebra courses--key gatekeepers for
high school and college success--are twice as likely to be taught by
uncertified teachers as are the same courses in the high schools with
the fewest African American students. Similarly, in the state's
highest-poverty high schools, students are almost twice as likely to be
assigned to a beginning teacher as their peers in the lowest poverty
high schools.
And let's not just pick on Texas: Researchers reported
recently that economically advantaged fifth-grade students in North
Carolina were substantially more likely than other students to be
matched with highly-qualified teachers.\5\ Across the state, African-
American seventh graders were 54 percent more likely to face a novice
teacher in math and 38 percent more likely to have one for English,
with the odds even greater in some of North Carolina's large urban
districts.\6\
Recent research conducted by The Education Trust and
stakeholders in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois found similar inequitable
distribution problems.\7\ In Illinois, for example, 84% of the schools
with the most low-income students were in the bottom quartile in
teacher quality, with more than half in the very bottom 10% of teacher
quality. Among low-poverty schools, only 5% were in the bottom quartile
of teacher quality.\8\
In 2000, teachers in the highest-poverty schools in New
York City were almost twice as likely (28%) to be in their first or
second year of teaching compared to teachers in the lowest-poverty
schools (15%). Similarly, more than one in four (26 percent) students
of color was taught by teachers who had failed the general knowledge
certification exam, compared to only 16 percent of white students.\9\
The Effects of these Unjust Distribution Patterns on Achievement is
Dramatic and Devastating
In high-poverty, high-minority high schools in Illinois
with above-average teacher quality, students were almost nine times as
likely to demonstrate college-ready academic skills as their
counterparts in other high-poverty, high-minority schools with lower
teacher quality. Indeed, students who completed Calculus in schools
with the lowest teacher quality were less likely to be college ready
than their counterparts who completed only Algebra II in schools with
medium teacher quality. The simple truth is that if you do not have
high-quality teachers, you do not have rigorous courses, no matter what
the course name says.
Research in Tennessee shows that teacher effects are
cumulative. Students who start the third grade at roughly equal
achievement levels are separated by roughly 50 percentile points three
years later based solely on differences in the effectiveness of
teachers to whom they were assigned. Students performing in the mid-
fiftieth percentiles who were assigned to three bottom-quintile
teachers in a row actually lost academic ground over this period,
falling to the mid-twentieth percentiles.
What about students who start off low-achieving, as do so
many low-income students? Researchers from the Dallas public school
district concluded: ``A sequence of ineffective teachers with a student
already low-achieving is educationally deadly.''\10\
I want to acknowledge that despite these overall trends, there are
some truly fantastic teachers in our high-poverty schools who are
achieving dazzling success for their students and their communities.
Indeed, at The Education Trust we celebrate these educators and seek to
learn from their accomplishments. But these exceptional teachers are
exactly that--exceptions. For no matter the measure of teacher quality,
the conclusion is always the same: low-income students and students of
color are consistently assigned to less qualified and less able
teachers than are their peers. These inequalities undermine their
educations, their life chances and ultimately our collective future.
Much of the research cited above had not been published five years
ago when Congress passed NCLB, but the research available at the time
was enough to convince members that the achievement gap couldn't be
closed without addressing the teaching talent gap. Congress made an
historic and critical attempt to focus the attention of state and local
education leaders on assuring teacher quality and turning around unfair
and damaging teacher distribution patterns.
The teacher-related provisions in No Child Left Behind embody three
basic principles:
1. That all students are entitled to qualified teachers who know
their subject(s) and how to teach them;
2. That parents deserve information about their children's
teachers; and
3. That states, school districts and the national government have a
responsibility to ensure a fair distribution of teacher talent.
To accomplish these goals, Congress increased funding for teacher
quality initiatives by 50%, from $2 billion to $3 billion per year--on
top of significant increases in Title I, which can also be used to
improve teacher quality. These new dollars were targeted to high-
poverty school districts, and local leaders were given nearly
unfettered discretion to spend the money in ways that were tailored to
local circumstances.
Despite a sincere effort by Congress, the law has not been a
sufficiently powerful tool to achieve the hopes of legislators or to
meet the needs of students. Some of the failure is due to utterly
inadequate implementation efforts by the Department of Education, some
is due to massive resistance from powerful adult stakeholders, and some
portion of that failure is rooted in the flaws in the statute itself.
The discussion draft, by significantly recasting the law, addresses
many of the problems that the original statute had, and would be a
powerful lever of greater equity in the distribution of teachers.
Proposals Are Headed In Right Direction
Data to Drive Decision Making
A major impediment to meaningful improvement is the lack, in most
states, of data systems that are capable of analyzing whether the
distribution of qualified and effective teachers stacks the deck
against poor and minority students. Despite a plethora of external
studies showing pervasive problems in the supply of strong teachers in
high-poverty schools, most states and districts are not collecting or
using such data to guide local efforts. Indeed, in the summer of 2006,
when USDOE finally asked states to comply with teacher equity
provisions of Title II, most states were unable to report even the most
basic information on whether poor and minority students were taught
disproportionately by inexperienced and unqualified teachers.
Congress should provide dedicated funds to each state for the
development and operation of education information management systems
and set minimal requirements for such systems. One such requirement
should be that the systems have the ability to match individual teacher
records to individual student records and calculate growth in student
achievement over time.
The data systems called for in Title I of the draft--which provides
for matching of students and teacher records and could measure
classroom-level learning growth--coupled with the teacher needs
assessments called for in Title II will provide objective decision-
making data to replace the good intentions and bad habits that are now
the basis of too many education decisions.