Mr. McElroy: Madam Secretary, it's great to have you here with us at the AFT, and we appreciate you joining us today. It must seem like forever that you've been secretary, but it's really a relatively short time.

Secretary Spellings: Yes, about five months.

Mr. McElroy: And we're glad that one of the things you were able to do was join us.

You know, Secretary Spellings, Toni mentioned that she had a great relationship with our people in Texas. She's also spent a good portion of her professional life trying to improve public education, and she does that for a number of reasons. Probably one of the most important reasons is that she's a parent like many of us. And in one of her speeches a little while ago, she said something about dealing with No Child Left Behind, that in the first few years it was like emerging from the "terrible twos." And I guess we all know what the terrible twos were like, any of us who have raised children.

Since she's taken office, Secretary Spellings has shown an openness to deal with the AFT, and for that, we appreciate that as well.

When I spoke to you yesterday, I mentioned most recently this difficulty we had of aligning the paraprofessionals' timeline within the law for their requirements with the end of a school year, and I told you I wrote a letter to Secretary Spellings I guess last May. And then we met in June. And right after that, not just because of us—I'm sure she heard from a lot of people—but she responded and made the change that was necessary. And a lot of paraprofessionals are here, and I want you to know they were very grateful for you.

Now, you know, there are a lot of things that we're involved in here in education, and as I said to the secretary when we met, that this is a great organization and it's made greater by your participation, especially at this conference. I say that, and I'm not afraid to say it; I brag about it. We were kidding about it outside. I said this is the greatest educational conference any organization in education runs, bar none.

And we have an awful lot of people who are involved in a lot of the issues that are important to everybody who's in this business.

So while we won't always see eye to eye—by the way, I have four kids, and I don't always see eye to eye with them—

Secretary Spellings: How about your wife?

Mr. McElroy: And my wife, maybe 50 percent of the time. But the truth is that we've got a good, I think a good opening dialogue, and with people on your staff and with ours, we look forward to a very positive relationship, really on the bottom line here, on behalf of all the kids we serve.

So welcome, and thank you for being here.

Secretary Spellings: Thank you, Ed. I'm delighted to be here. I always wanted to be on the Oprah show. And if my knees were a little better, I'd try to get up and down on the chair and jump up and down and say, "I love it, I love it, I love it."

I love QuEST. I love AFT.

So anyway, thank you, Ed, for your hospitality today, and I too am very encouraged and hopeful about our relationship. And that really is born out of my great experience in Texas with John Cole, and Gayle Fallon, and John O'Sullivan and the folks that I've had long experience working with, decades in fact, which I am embarrassed to say.

And when Bush was governor, we had a lot of partnerships with our friends at the Texas Federation of Teachers on eliminating social promotion, on reading instruction. And what I know about TFT—and it's true of AFT—is that some of the best thinkers and the smartest folks and the most strategic policy thinkers are in your organization, and I'm thrilled to work with them.

Now, you obviously had a great leader in Albert Shanker, who has always talked about accountability and standards, and quality curriculum, and sound professional development, the role of teachers, all of the kinds of "big-think stuff," like we say in Texas; country before country was cool on a lot of this stuff. So anyway, I'm proud to work with you.

Sandy Feldman, obviously followed in that legacy also. I hear she's doing better.

Mr. McElroy: She's doing well, happily.

Secretary Spellings: I'm thrilled about that. She's a great, great asset to this organization, and we need all the help we can get.

We, as you said, are not always going to agree on everything, but I think we have a whole lot that we do agree on, and notably, reading instruction, professional development—some of those things that are so critical and key to No Child Left Behind.

I know that you all have launched a campaign about getting NCLB right, and there's nobody who wants to get it right more than I do. And it is obviously one of the president's most significant domestic accomplishments. We, through this act, are doing something, and saying we're going to do something that we have never done before as a country—and really I don't know that any other country has said they're going to do it—and that is educate every single, solitary child to high levels. And that's hard.

And not only are we going to say that, but we're going to look in the mirror and look at the data and be accountable as a country for doing that.

So I think this is a really important time to be in education policy and to be working with you all, and I am honored to be serving at this historic time, as I know you are, Ed.

When I was confirmed by the Senate, I said that what we needed to do was to implement this very important historic law in a sensible and workable way, and I have had the opportunity to work on behalf of local school districts, to work at the state legislative level, to work for two Texas governors, and now at the federal level.

And so I think I have some appreciation of, you know, who's trying to sort through what at what level. I really believe that we ought to be about results for kids over bureaucratic compliance, so long as we're abiding by what I call the "bright line" principles of the law, annual assessment, disaggregation of data—I mean staying the course on the big things, but when we can align paraprofessional requirements with teacher requirements and do it in a sensible way, or when we can use our best research and best science around educating special ed kids and understanding that there are more kids than just 1 percent who are going to take additional time and different instruction, that's what I mean by sensible and workable.

And there's more to come. So I go around the country listening to your members, and listening to educators and administrators and parents, and I hear a lot of the same thing. I hear that people want to—you know, it gets in the press as, you know, growth model. People want to have credit for making gains. They want to get credit for progress. And I'm glad that you're going to work with me on finding ways that we can do that.

I hear that there are real issues around students who have limited English proficiency and how we make sure that we're accountable there while being sensible. So that's another area that I hope we'll partner in.

So anyway, I'm thrilled to be here with you. My commitment to you is that we continue the good relationship that I've always felt, and the kinship that I've felt with your organization over the two decades or so that I've been involved in this.

So I'm glad to be here, and fire away.

Mr. McElroy: Okay. Well, actually, as Toni mentioned, we asked our members to put in some questions and ask you to respond to some questions. And of course, the biggest one I think that we're attempting to deal—well, first of all, we realize that we have an agreement on overall goals. I don't think there's any disagreement on the overall goals. But the devil's always in the details. The first and the biggest problem we face is AYP, the measure of yearly progress. It's particularly troublesome because our people feel it really doesn't measure growth.

Do you have any thoughts on whether that's accurate, our assessment—I believe it is—and then what can we do about it? What are the changes that may be contemplated?

Secretary Spellings: Well, I think there are lots of answers to that question, and I think the first part of it is what I said in my opening remarks, is that we need to figure out ways that we can harmonize this growth model notion, this credit for progress over time and the technical aspects of that. But let's be clear—and I know you know this, we talked about this—that to have a sound growth model system, you have got to have annual data. So those states that have not yet flipped the switch on annual data, it's going to be difficult to do.

So, you know, what are the necessary conditions for that sort of policy process? I'm committed to work on that, and I think people ought to get credit for progress. That's how we did it in Texas. So I think we're trying to work through kind of the policy issues and how to harmonize that.

The other thing I would say—and I do this all the time and I pledge to you that I will, and I know you talk about it also—is, you know, not meeting AYP, or a school that is in need of improvement is not, in my opinion, a failing school.

And I would say to my friends in the press that every organization in this country—I certainly know the Department of Education needs improvement; AFT probably needs improvement.

Mr. McElroy: Certainly does.

Secretary Spellings: But that we need to understand what that means and what it provides in the way of information. And so when third graders, African-American third graders in math are off the bubble, you know, what does that mean? What are the implications? What do we do as a school? That doesn't necessarily mean that the school is failing, in my view. That tells us where we ought to work. So I think we need to dial down some of the anxiety about it just generally. So that's the second thing I would say.

And the third thing I would say is that it is important, and that's what is contemplated in this law, is that we do believe, and we really mean it, that we are going to get to the goal line, that while we want to give credit, that it's important and appropriate, that we not say, well, some kids and this—you know, that it not be fungible as it has been in times past. So I think it's a high bar, no doubt about it, but I'm confident with some of the things that we're doing and reading in other places, that we're going to get there.

And the early returns, you all—and this is not anything the Department of Education is doing, it's stuff that's going on in your classrooms—you know, are positive. No Child Left Behind is working. I mean for the first time ever we are focusing like a laser on special ed kids in a way that we've not done so before, and it's to the benefit of those kids. You all are teaching in states where progress is being made. The trend line is in the right direction.

So, yes, we ought to perfect and be sensible about it, but we also have to stay the course, as you said.

Mr. McElroy: The issue—and you mentioned Texas has a different model. Are there other states that you know of that at least we should look at in terms of a different model than the current measure of AYP?

Secretary Spellings: Ohio and Tennessee are experimenting with—have done some things to harmonize, you know, a growth kind of concept within their—as part of their accountability system. There are some around the country. As I said, I've convened a group of experts and practitioners, state folks—and I know you'll be helping us also—that can kind of figure out who's doing what well. We've shown states the way and commended them to Ohio and Tennessee, among others, to work with.

Mr. McElroy: All right. I don't want to get stuck on AYP because there's—it really is a big issue, and the idea of failing schools and a whole bunch of other subsets of that issue.

Another thing that people mention all the time is that the concentration on testing has in effect narrowed the curriculum, so that things that were important and people believe still are important, like civics and foreign languages and those things, get short shrift because they're not part of the testing that's done. So paraprofessionals and teachers tell us all the time that the concentration on testing, as we have under NCLB, is narrowing the curriculum and putting more emphasis on the test and less emphasis on instruction and quality curriculum.

And I think that—well, you may like that, but you might not like the next part of what I say, so hold off. However, we also believe, as my friend, John Cole always says, that you have to keep score, and so you have to count, and you have to make assessments because you really have to know where you are.

So how do you take care of the first concern, which I think is a very legitimate concern based upon what you just heard, and the second concern, which is, yeah, we've got to keep score?

Secretary Spellings: I've heard that before about the testing issue, and I think a couple of things—in many ways we're in the infancy of accountability and education in our country. Some states are farther ahead than others, and Gail Fallon will tell you this story too, but it always struck me when in Texas, when after we had just done reading and math, when we had social studies educators and science teachers coming forward and saying, "Please put us on the accountability system."

I am a strong believer in this "what gets measured gets done" kind of notion, and I think—you know, obviously, NCLB requires science standards and measurement eventually—that we're going to end up having a rounding out of this keeping score because it helps educators. It helps the system figure out what we need to do, where and when. And so I do, I think accountability and measurement and testing has been part of the educational enterprise since Socrates, and it will be. And so we need to round out the system a little more. That's the first thing I would say.

The second thing I would say is, you know, it's right and righteous that we started with reading and math. You all know—and I hear from high school teachers all over the country—that if kids can't read proficiently and well, they can't do social studies, science and the rest of the work. And I assume you all believe that because you have been on the front line of improved reading instruction. I mean, you have lived in the middle of—you're warriors on reading, research-based practices, sound teacher training. I mean, you've been relentless on it, and you know that. And so job one is to do reading right and well, and some of the rest of this stuff I think will take care of itself.

I also, as I said, think we're in a process of rounding out the system so that it does measure more things.

Mr. McElroy: I hope that when you're doing that, that we, and I mean collectively, can be part of that discussion because I think that what you get when you talk to the people that we talk to here is that you get a lot of what's really happening in the schools.

I always say—I told you I had met with a congressman that time, and I said to him, "You know how much your policy staff knows about what's going on in schools?" He said, "How much?" I said, "Nothing."

The trouble is—and that's what we want to do, we want to be involved. I know you know what goes on in schools, and so we want to be involved in that process.

Let me get to the real rotten topic quickly: budget.

Secretary Spellings: Those were the easy ones?

Mr. McElroy: Those were the easy ones.

The president sent a budget up on No Child Left Behind. We weren't quite thrilled with the president's budget, but the Congress even gave him less money for the implementation of Title I in No Child Left Behind than the president asked for.

And the end result is that when you go back to the schools at the local level, the end result is that we want to do all of these things, but if the money isn't there—well, there's a squeeze on the money or it comes from other areas. What are your thoughts about funding these things over the long term, and how do you deal with the short-term effects of what the Congress did?

Secretary Spellings: Well, you know, funding for No Child Left Behind and federal education policy is up about 40 percent since the president has taken office, and you know that, frankly, that outpaces the percentage increases that we have in states and local districts. That's a fact.

You know, we're always going to have these discussions about money, we really are. That's part of the negotiated process, if you will, to use some of your language. And I'm an advocate for resource for education, and I'm going to use my access to the White House to fight for all I can get within the budget. In a time of war, it's tough. So, you know, it's something that we're always going to struggle with.

But I'm proud that the president has increased funding, as we have. I'm proud that we have focused Title I funding, as never before, on our neediest kids. Our federal commitment has always been to our neediest children, special ed and Title I kids in particular, and those resources have been increasing very significantly over the last five years.

Mr. McElroy: Yeah. If you take five years, I want to tell you that we just did some research ourselves, and we find that about two-thirds of our districts—I think this is right—will receive fewer Title I dollars than last year, two-thirds of them. Now, that means a third of them will receive more, and that's a concentrated thing. But there is a real problem out there, and we need to get that message back to the president, to the Congress especially, to let them know that this is done. I'm glad to hear that you're in there at least advocating for—and I realize there are a lot of pulls on education, but you know, I don't think Rumsfeld is running any cake sales for funds. Anyway, those are all the people that are running those cake sales.

Secretary Spellings: You ought to get a bumper sticker, Ed.

Mr. McElroy: But anyway. Well, how about—let's talk about teachers for a minute. You know, public school teachers under the law have to meet this highly qualified status. By the way, that's something that we've supported.

Secretary Spellings: Sure.

Mr. McElroy: And then you have supplemental education service providers, who are allowed under the law to provide these services, and charter school teachers, and none of them have to live up to the same standards.

Mr. McElroy: And the only question I have is, at some point, should the people who are providing these services allowed under the law, and should the charter school teachers at some point, have to meet the same standards that the people we represent do?

Secretary Spellings: Well, you've got a couple of questions in there. Let me say with respect to supplemental service providers and charter schools, for that matter, I mean, both of those entities have to demonstrate results, or else they can't be on state-approved lists. Charter school laws, obviously, are primarily designed by states. Some have and some haven't required various different provisions for charter school operators and the like. But what I do know is that charter schools do have to be accountable under the provisions of No Child Left Behind with respect to student achievement, and they're public schools. So that's the first thing I would say.

The second thing I would say about supplemental services is, you know, they're supplemental. They have to prove results, and they are not the bulk of the instructional day and time for kids being educated in that environment. So that's just something we're going to agree to disagree on, I hope agreeably. But in some ways it's a state issue, but—

Mr. McElroy: It's not an easy issue, and I understand that. I have anecdotal data on this—I don't have any data; we will have. But there's a sense among some of the people where a lot of these services are being provided by private companies, for example, that the motive for doing it isn't to help, but it's that you've got to figure out how you can make a profit doing this.

And the reason why I'm saying it, because that's precisely the question that the member asked in this particular instance was, "Hey, you know, we're held to these standards. I've got this company coming in to do this. The company isn't held to the same standards, and their goal for doing this isn't even what my goal is."

Secretary Spellings: But they are held to the standard of, you know, results for kids. States have a responsibility to evaluate the performances of people that they put on the list, and that's what they are charged with judging. And so over time, that will net out. I mean if those people are not providing high-quality services for kids as determined by the state, then they're going to go off the list.

I would also say, Ed—

Mr. McElroy: I'm going to hold you to that.

Secretary Spellings: — it was encouraging when I see the AFT in New York become a supplemental service provider. I mean, get on out there and become a supplemental service provider.

Mr. McElroy: We actually have a number of locals that are doing that. UFD is one of them.

And the difference—and my dear friend, Randi Weingartner [ph] is the president of that local, is someone near me. I can't see her. Where are you?

Secretary Spellings: Over there.

Mr. McElroy: Right over here at the end. She'd be the first one to tell you, they're not looking for a profit. Am I right?

Anyway, I want to get through most of the questions that were left by the people on the Web site that we were able to deal with.

You know, Congressman Miller introduced a bill—when I spoke last year, and I know you know this because we spoke about it—teacher retention is a big problem, both in terms of keeping these young teachers who begin and get frustrated. Part of it is compensation, but part of it is just the environment and the induction methods that we use.

You know, we use the same induction method that they taught me to swim by at the Boys' Club, which is stand near the pool, and they pushed you in.

Secretary Spellings: Can you swim?

Mr. McElroy: I can swim, yeah. It was at least a legitimate method of teaching, I guess.

But my point is that a lot of new teachers go into schools—and you know this—you know, teaching is such a difficult job, and yet they're in there, and we don't have the—and we have them in places, the right kinds of programs, but we certainly, systemically don't have the right kind of programs.

So Congressman Miller introduced a bill that would basically offer resources to increase teacher retention, provide for mentoring and other kinds of things.

Has the Department looked at that, and are you prepared yet to be able to say where you are on some of that stuff?

Secretary Spellings: Well, I mean, I'm generally familiar with the legislation, obviously, and I think there are some things that we like very much that are in that legislation, I think as Congressman Miller does, and long has. In fact, he was the primary driver basically since I was at the birth of No Child Left Behind—on the HQT provisions and on the sections of the law that related to teachers. So he is a true believer about the importance of high-quality teaching, no doubt about it.

And there are, you know, the provisions for loan forgiveness, the provisions for the incentive fund. I mean the president has—and I am encouraged that we've gotten $100 million in the House-side for a fund so that we can start rewarding people for teaching in our neediest and hardest places to work. You all know that sometimes we don't do that in real life, and things like that. So I mean I think there are certainly some elements. I think we share the same goal. You know, retention, attracting and retaining high-quality folks is super-critical, particularly if we're going to meet these goals.

So, yes, there are some things we like, some things probably less so, but I'm looking forward to working on it with you.

Mr. McElroy: We're looking forward to that too. At least it's dealing with what a lot of our people tell us are real issues out there, the whole question of, you know, 50 percent of the teachers leaving within five years. It's terrible—what a talent pool is out there that we could be using to do the most important job we do, which is educate kids.

High school reform is an issue, as you know, and I suppose you're going to be getting into this big time. But one of the questions here was interesting. One of the trends is to take large schools and break them into smaller schools. And the question that came up, which is a good one, is do you see that as the way to do these things? And one of the issues is that sometimes these large schools are broken into smaller schools that, in effect, just mirror the larger school and are just as ineffective. Interesting.

Secretary Spellings: Yes. Well, I think we don't know the answer, is the short answer about, you know, small schools: Does that work? Does that hold promise? And obviously there are initiatives and efforts to look at that going on around the country. You know, not to sound like a "Johnny one-note," but we don't have very much data and information about high schools and what does work and doesn't, and conditions and so forth.

I mean, I think there are people who are trying that; the jury's out. We're going to get some information to see if that is the right thing to do, break up schools into smaller parts, or what are the things that are going to help us do better in high school?

We have a problem. We get about, you know—a third of the kids don't graduate on time. We have kids who are not prepared for college or the workplace, which are becoming increasingly rigorous and skills-oriented, and we need a major ratcheting up of curriculum in high schools, and on and on.

So we do have issues. And I think we don't know yet exactly what the cure is. I think we know that part of it is the need for kids to read proficiently. That's why the president has proposed the High School Striving Readers Initiative. We need to crack the code with middle and high school students on reading as we've done I think reasonably well in the early grades. So there's work. And I don't know yet, unfortunately.

Mr. McElroy: We're certainly not only concerned about the size of schools—you know, you mentioned an important issue, the issue of people who get to high school and still are not even marginal readers, never mind proficient. And, then, of course, there's still in many places in the country, many of our urban and rural areas, too high a dropout rate.

Secretary Spellings: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. McElroy: So we need to work on those things as well, and we want to work with that as well.

The achievement gap, especially among poor kids. They say that before the kids get to school, the biggest reason obviously for that is principally, the biggest reason is poverty, and we know in places where we have—and there's far too few in this country—that quality early childhood education actually works.

And we know the administration, the president, has talked about improving Head Start. But we don't hear a lot from anybody yet about really improving high-quality early childhood education. Are you anywhere near to getting to that, and from a Department point of view?

Secretary Spellings: Right. As you know, Head Start is run by the Health and Human Services Department, and we have worked—I mean, I say this more as my former, with my former hat as Domestic Policy Advisor—that we've done a lot of work to train teachers in Head Start programs, to provide, you know, a checklist of how kids are doing in Head Start programs; that we have more coordination, foster more coordination, between schools and that transition between a pre-K program, in this case Head Start or any other, and the school system. I mean it's little disingenuous of us to say, you know, reading on grade level by the end of the third grade, but, you know, here are all these kids over here that you all in the schools have, you know, little or nothing to say about.

And so, you know, I'm a strong advocate for fostering more of that kind of relationship because I think it's absolutely critical.

On the things that we run at the Department of Education—Even Start, Early Reading First—I think we're beginning to see some, particularly in Early Reading First, which is, you know, the baby of Reading First, some very promising trends around using, you know, research-based instructional principles with, you know, young children, alphabetic knowledge and that sort of thing, that can really pay big dividends and help them be successful and ready for school.

Mr. McElroy: You know when Sandy was president, a couple of years ago, at a conference like this, she proposed what we call it Kindergarten Plus. And remember, and we've had a couple of places—New Mexico, for one—you can help me. I know you're all in the front row—New Mexico is one—I think Louisiana did a pilot program on it. And the results have been terrific.

Is there any thought, any plan, any possibility of expanding that program over a short or medium period of time so that kids really do have a shot when they get into, as you said, into the early grades for reading?

Secretary Spellings: Right.

Mr. McElroy: And?

Secretary Spellings: Specifically, what program?

Mr. McElroy: That's the expansion of kindergarten to full day —

Secretary Spellings: Oh.

Mr. McElroy: — and those kinds of things.

Secretary Spellings: Yeah. That's largely, as you know, a state —

Mr. McElroy: State.

Secretary Spellings: — issue.

Mr. McElroy: Yeah.

Secretary Spellings: And we—I mean I'll just tell you, in Texas, we were, you know, early adapters, as we say—had, you know, three- and four-year-old programs—Gail knows—in the mid '80s, and had full-day kindergarten as part of our, you know, foundation school program and so, in fact, when Bush was governor, he was the first Texas governor who had ever invested any state money in Head Start. So, you know, we're strong believers in early childhood programs, and what value they can bring to schools. But we have got to get out of this silo notion that, you know, the schools are here, and pre-K programs are over here, and never the twain shall meet.

I mean I just don't think it's the best way to do business.

Mr. McElroy: No. Actually, neither do we, and we'd be willing—because we haven't talked about this —

Secretary Spellings: We haven't.

Mr. McElroy: It's funny to have a conversation like this

Secretary Spellings: Yeah. I mean we're really having a conversation up here.

Mr. McElroy: We hadn't talked about that issue. But I would really like our people to meet with the Department on that because I think that's a big, there is a big disconnect.

Secretary Spellings: Absolutely.

Mr. McElroy: And it doesn't make any sense from a public policy point of view.

Secretary Spellings: None.

Mr. McElroy: So let's do that.

Secretary Spellings: Okay.

Mr. McElroy: All right.

Secretary Spellings: Perfect.

Mr. McElroy: Couple of last—these are the last couple of questions. But one of the teachers said that everyone is working very hard at his school to make AYP. The school has students with—and you mentioned this to some extent. Let's talk about it for a minute.

The school has students with severe, moderate and mild mental disabilities. He wants to know how 100 percent of these kids, these students, can achieve proficiency when the goals of their individual IEPs, the Individual Education Plans, IEPs, may not be the same as the achievement benchmarks under No Child Left Behind. I don't know how to answer that.

Secretary Spellings: Well, I've got a couple of answers.

The first answer is, you know, I think—I hope people are starting to know this, that we have, and for the first time ever, the Department of Education is putting about $14 million for a toolkit to implement this 2 percent flexibility that I've offered to states and that now about 29 states—I asked before I walked out the door—29 states have amended their state accountability plans to, you know, take us up on this very sensible offer that there are one percent of the kids that we know are, you know, are so severely disadvantaged that they, you know, are not part of the accountability system.

Then there's about an additional 2 percent—our best scientists, researchers, NIH, NICHD tell us, you know, can be instructed to those levels with more time, with appropriate interventions and so forth. And so that's the quid pro quo that I have with states, which is show me you're going to get real, Dr. Phil, about, you know, how to educate that two percent of the kids, and we at the federal level are going to help you, you know, get that research out, get those best practices out so that we can meet those goals.

So the first part of the question is it's not all. We've got, you know, a range here that we've got a different strategy for. That's the first thing I would say.

And secondly, you know, I think some of these proficiency standards, all of these definitions, are obviously things that are set at the state level. And so, you know, I don't know where this person is from, but that's maybe the first place to go and find out, you know, what the goal line looks like.

Mr. McElroy: Yeah. Part of the disconnect is that you have these federal guidelines and federal rules, and then each state gets to figure out how to do it themselves. I would propose, but I would be assassinated —

Secretary Spellings: Not by me.

Mr. McElroy: Not by you, but by others. I would propose that if anybody wanted to really make sense of education in this country, we have one rule. But you don't want to get run over by the states' right advocates in this country.

But I won't propose it.

Secretary Spellings: Are you—you're not a federalist, are you?

Mr. McElroy: A little bit. Maybe a little. Anyway, last part, because it relates to the first one. And another teacher who had the same kind of questions, but he has English Language Learner students. And he's said that the students make great progress, and I think that's true generally. You hear that generally of these kids. We've figured out how to do that. Isn't that great?

Secretary Spellings: It is.

Mr. McElroy: We've done a great job with that in this country. But they don't really reach proficiency until they actually exit the English Language Learner subgroups

Secretary Spellings: Mmm hmm.

Mr. McElroy: And he said aside from including them for two years after they become proficient in English, what else can we do to make AYP more fair and accurate for the group? The feeling is that the kids are making great progress, but not quite measuring up to the benchmark yet, and are tagged as either failing or something such as that.

Secretary Spellings: Well, I think some of that is going to be part of our discussion on the growth model issue and credit for progress and so forth. And the second part of the answer, and I'd, you know, want to work with you all on this—and I've said there were three issues I hear about a lot—special ed, ELL, growth model.

And I'm convening a group around those ELL issues. I do think we're learning some things out there every day, now in the three and a half years that No Child Left Behind has been in place. You know, what are our findings? What do we know that can help us, you know, make more sensible policy? And I think this is something that, frankly, and, you know, everybody in this room knows this, we've got to be very smart about, because our student population is getting ever more diverse with each passing year.

And we've got to figure out how to do this and do it well.

Mr. McElroy: Well, I want to say this in front of everybody that there are very few people at your level of government—and I mean this—who would come here, sit in front of a group like this, and answer questions that I put to them. Very good.

Secretary Spellings: Well, thank you, Ed. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Mr. McElroy: No. And so they do and I very much appreciate your willingness to do that. We do look forward to working with you. I met, and our people have met, some of your staff. You've got a great staff. And we look forward to working with you. Look, bottom line, and I don't care where we disagree; that's easy. But the bottom line is that we're going to do what's best for kids, and I know you want to do what's best for kids. And they all want to do what's best for kids, and that's what we're going to be about. So thank you.

Secretary Spellings: Thank you very much.

####