<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:23691.wais]
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: THE NO CHILD LEFT
BEHIND ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 29, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-691 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Major R. Owens, New York
California Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Judy Biggert, Illinois John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
John Kline, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Cathy McMorris, Washington Tim Ryan, Ohio
Kenny Marchant, Texas Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tom Price, Georgia John Barrow, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 29, 2005............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boehner, Hon. John A., Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kildee, Dale E., Substitute Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 46
Statement of Witnesses:
Haycock, Ms. Kati, Director, the Education Trust............. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Additional responses submitted........................... 46
Jewell-Sherman, Dr. Deborah, Superintendent, Richmond Public
Schools.................................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Additional responses submitted........................... 47
Spellings, Hon. Margaret, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education.................................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: THE NO CHILD
LEFT BEHIND ACT
----------
Thursday, September 29, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Boehner
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, McKeon, Castle,
Ehlers, Biggert, Tiberi, Osborne, Wilson, Kline, McMorris,
Marchant, Price, Fortuno, Boustany, Foxx, Drake, Miller,
Kildee, Owens, Payne, Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy,
Tierney, Kind, Kucinich, Holt, Mrs. Davis of California,
McCollum, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Grijalva, Van Hollen, Bishop,
and Barrow.
Staff present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member;
Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lucy House,
Legislative Assistant; Kimberly Ketchel, Communications Staff
Assistant; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Alexa Marrero, Deputy Communications
Director; Emily Porter, Coalitions Director for Education
Policy; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern
Coordinator; Kevin Smith, Communications Director; Jo-Marie St.
Martin, General Counsel; Rich Stombres, Assistant Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Ellynne Bannon,
Legislative Association/Education; Denise Forte, Legislative
Associate/Education; Ruth Friedman, Legislative Association/
Education; Lauren Gibbs, Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd
Horwich, Legislative Association/Education; Ricardo Martinez,
Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Legislation
Assistant/Education; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff
Director.
Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and Workforce will come to order.
We are holding this hearing this morning to hear testimony
on ``Closing the Achievement Gap in America's Schools: the No
Child Left Behind Act.''
Under the committee rules, opening statements are limited
to the chairman and ranking member. Therefore, if other members
have written opening statements, they will be included in the
hearing record, and with that, I ask unanimous consent for the
hearing record to remain open for 14 days to allow member
statements and other material referenced during this hearing
this morning to be made part of the official hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Let me say good morning to all of you, and thank you for
joining on the historic No Child Left Behind education reform
initiative and its implementation.
I am pleased to welcome Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings for her first opportunity to testify before the
committee since being sworn in as the eighth Education
Secretary of the United States.
We are welcoming Secretary Spellings for her first official
testimony, but we are also welcoming her back to the committee.
Two weeks ago, Secretary Spellings and Secretary of Labor
Elaine Chao were here to brief members of the committee on the
relief efforts underway for the victims of the hurricanes in
the Gulf Coast region, and I would like to thank the Secretary
for her willingness to brief both Republican and Democrat
members of this committee, and for the ongoing efforts by the
Department of Education to address the needs of students in
schools impacted by these hurricanes, but today we are here to
discuss the implementation of No Child Left Behind.
This is not a new topic for this committee. In fact, we
have held a series of hearings since NCLB was signed into law
by President Bush in January of 2002 to examine all facets of
the law's implementation, and from local flexibility and new
parental options to teacher equality and accountability, this
committee has continued to examine how states and local schools
are implementing this bipartisan initiative to close the
education gap and the achievement gap in America's schools.
It has been nearly four years since NCLB was signed into
law in Hamilton, Ohio, in my district. In that time, the law
has precipitated a fundamental shift in America's education
system.
We are seeing a culture of accountability take hold, one
that is producing significant gains in student achievement,
particularly among disadvantaged students who were once allowed
to fall between the cracks.
In July, the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, known as the Nation's Report Card, showed
the highest levels of student achievement in the history of the
long-term trend analysis, and larger gains amongst minority
students in the last five years than in the previous three
decades.
No Child Left Behind called for the most sweeping education
reforms in a decade, and so, it is no surprise that its
implementation has seen a few bumps along the road. It is those
bumps along the road, those challenges that have cropped up
over time, that reinforce the importance of the law's inherent
flexibility.
No Child Left Behind is not a rigid, one-size-fits-all
approach to improving our schools. The law is grounded in
flexibility and local control. No one has demonstrated that
more effectively than Secretary Spellings.
Since enactment of NCLB, the Department of Education has
provided significant flexibility to states and local
communities to meet the goals of the law.
Flexibility has been provided for children with
disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, highly
qualified teachers, participation rates, and supplemental
education services, and I welcome this flexibility,
particularly because it has been provided to address specific
challenges while maintaining the core principles of the law.
Flexibility must not be confused with weakening the law's
demand that all children be given a high-quality education, and
we will not compromise on that idea that no child should be
left behind.
Today we will hear from Secretary Spellings on how states
and schools are working to close the achievement gap, using the
tools provided by NCLB. We will hear from the superintendent of
the Richmond, Virginia, public school system to learn firsthand
what is happening at the grassroots level, and we will hear
from the director of The Education Trust, a group focused on
improving academic achievement, to gain a perspective of an
independent organization on how the implementation of NCLB is
progressing.
I hope to learn more about what No Child Left Behind has
done to transform our nation's schools. I also hope to begin
asking questions about the future of No Child Left Behind,
because when the law comes due for reauthorization, this
committee should have in its possession the knowledge and
insight that come with ongoing review.
We have not stopped asking questions about how the law is
working and what it means for children, parents, teachers, and
schools, and in the coming months, we will continue to examine
the progress of No Child Left Behind and its implementation in
order to begin to lay the ground work for the law's future
reauthorization.
I want to thank Representative Miller for his continued
commitment to the principles of No Child Left Behind. He and I
don't always agree, but on this issue, I think I am proud--I
don't think, I am proud to stand behind him unwavering in our
belief that all children deserve a high-quality education, and
I look forward to working with him today and in the future as
we assess what No Child Left Behind has meant for our nation's
schools and what possibilities lay ahead, and with that, I
would like to yield to my friend from Michigan, the substitute
ranking member today, Mr. Kildee.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us for this hearing on
the historic No Child Left Behind education reform initiative and its
implementation. I'm pleased to welcome Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings for her first opportunity to testify before the Committee
since being sworn in as the eighth Education Secretary of the United
States.
We're welcoming Secretary Spellings for her first official
testimony, but we're also welcoming her back to the Committee. Two
weeks ago, Secretary Spellings joined Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao to
brief members of this committee on the relief efforts underway for the
victims of the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region. I'd like to thank
the Secretary for her willingness to brief both Republican and Democrat
members of this committee, and for the ongoing efforts by the
Department of Education to address the needs of the students and
schools impacted by these hurricanes.
Today we're here to discuss implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act. This is not a new topic for this committee. In fact, we've
held a series of hearings since NCLB was signed into law by President
Bush in January 2002 to examine all facets of the law's implementation.
From local flexibility and new parental options to teacher quality and
accountability, this committee has continued to examine how states and
local schools are implementing this bipartisan initiative to close the
achievement gap in our nation's schools.
It has been nearly four years since NCLB was signed into law in
Hamilton, Ohio. In that time, the law has precipitated a fundamental
shift in America's educational system. We're seeing a culture of
accountability take hold; one that is producing significant gains in
student achievement, particularly among disadvantaged students who were
once allowed to fall between the cracks. In July, the results of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as ``the
Nation's Report Card,'' showed the highest levels of student
achievement in the history of the long-term trends analysis, and larger
gains among minority students in the last five years than in the
previous three decades.
No Child Left Behind called for the most sweeping educational
reforms in a decade, so it's no surprise that its implementation has
seen a few bumps along the road. It is those bumps along the road,
those challenges that have cropped up over time, that reinforce the
importance of the law's inherent flexibility. No Child Left Behind is
not a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to improving our schools--the
law is grounded in flexibility and local control. No one has
demonstrated that more effectively than Secretary Spellings.
Since enactment of NCLB, the Department of Education has provided
significant flexibility to states and local communities working to meet
the goals of the law. Flexibility has been provided for children with
disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, highly
qualified teachers, participation rates, and supplemental educational
services. I welcome this flexibility, particularly because it has been
provided to address specific challenges while maintaining the core
principles of the law. Flexibility must not be confused with weakening
the law's demand that all children be given a high quality education.
We will not compromise on the idea that no child should be left behind.
Today, we will hear from Secretary Spellings on how states and
schools are working to close the achievement gap using the tools
provided by NCLB. We'll hear from the superintendent of the Richmond,
VA public school system to learn first hand what is happening at the
grassroots level. And we'll hear from the Director of the Education
Trust, a group focused on improving academic achievement, to gain the
perspective of an independent organization on how the implementation of
NCLB is progressing.
I hope to learn more about what No Child Left Behind has done to
transform our nation's schools. I also hope to begin asking questions
about the future of NCLB. When the law comes due for reauthorization,
this committee will have in its possession the knowledge and insight
that come with ongoing review. We have not stopped asking questions
about how the law is working and what it means for children, parents,
teachers, and schools. In the coming months, we will continue to
examine the progress of NCLB implementation, and begin to lay the
groundwork for the law's future.
I'd like to thank Rep. Miller for his continued commitment to the
principles of NCLB. He and I don't always agree, but on this issue, I'm
proud to stand beside him, unwavering in our belief that all children
deserve a high quality education. I look forward to working with him
today and in the future as we assess what No Child Left Behind has
meant for our nation's schools and what possibilities lay ahead.
______
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spellings, we appreciate you being here. I
enjoyed sharing a cup of coffee with you this morning.
I was here when we established the Department of Education,
so I have known every secretary since that time. I think it was
a great idea to establish the department, and I want to commend
you in coming aboard and looking at No Child Left Behind.
The bill, as we all know, was written on Capitol Hill, not
Mount Sinai. So there are areas that we may have to go back and
touch, but you have been able to, within the bill, show a
certain sensitivity on finding flexibility, and I think that is
very, very important.
I think you have heard the voice from people out in the
field there, and where you could find flexibility within the
law, you have found that, and I think you have done it in a
very sensitive and positive way, and I look forward to working
with you.
Chairman Boehner. The Hon. Margaret Spellings was confirmed
as our nation's eighth Secretary of Education on January 20th
of this year.
During President George W. Bush's first term, she also
served as assistant to the President for domestic policy, where
she helped craft education policies, including No Child Left
Behind.
Prior to arriving in Washington, Secretary Spellings worked
for six years as Governor Bush's senior advisor with
responsibility for developing and implementing the Governor's
education policy.
She also served as the associate executive director for the
Texas Association of School Boards.
Before the Secretary begins, I want to note that, while
members may have many questions about the administration's
response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the focus of this
hearing this morning is on the implementation of No Child Left
Behind.
We had members together with the secretaries two weeks ago,
and we had a little coffee upstairs for members, and I just
want everyone to try to stay focused on the subject matter here
today, and the Secretary has to leave us at approximately 11:15
this morning, and so, I want to make sure we get through as
many members as possible.
So with that, Madam Secretary, it is all yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Secretary Spellings. You are right, this is my first time
to visit with you all in this setting, and I hope it won't be
my last. I hope you will invite me back.
Thank you very much for having me this morning. I am
grateful to you to be here.
I obviously have had the--during the last few weeks--the
opportunity to visit the Gulf coast several times, and of
course, we have all witnessed terrible destruction and heart-
warming acts of generosity, and if you will indulge me, I want
to say just a few words about that before we talk about No
Child Left Behind.
I am gratified, of course, by the communities and schools
all over the country, now 49 states and the District of
Columbia, that have opened their hearts and their schools to
displaced students, but of course, I'm not surprised--and I
know you are not either--that America's educators are showing
us all what a treasure they are.
After the pictures we have seen on television and the looks
we have seen on children's faces, one thing I know for sure is
that every single one of these children, and all of our
children, deserve a high-quality education, or having what
educators call a teachable moment, which you know is an
opportunity to learn from and act on the moment that we are in,
and Rita and Katrina are reminders to every single one of us
that no child must be left behind.
That includes, of course, hundreds of thousands of children
who are displaced from their homes and schools. Our goal at the
Department of Education is to make sure these students get a
quality education wherever they are. We know that school is a
stabilizing influence for children and families who are working
to rebuild their lives, and we are staying in close contact
with educational leaders throughout the Gulf coast and around
the country.
I am asking the Congress to waive some authority on
statutory and regulatory requirements, except those related to
civil rights or safety, that may slow down our ability to help
students and school systems recover from this disaster.
I can talk a little bit about the waivers I have already
granted.
You all, I know, are interested in flexibility, but there
are areas where I will need additional authorities.
States and school districts are welcoming these students,
and they will face, of course, unexpected costs this year.
To make sure they are adequately compensated, the President
has proposed that Congress provide up to $7,500 per student in
Federal funds over the current school year. Under this
proposal, the department would increase our investment for one
year from about 9 percent to 90 percent of a state's per-pupil
expenditure.
We want to provide equal opportunity for every school that
is welcoming these children, including public and private
schools, and we must ensure that displaced students receive a
quality education, and in many areas, private schools are
enrolling children the public school systems simply cannot
accommodate.
About 25 percent of students in the hardest-hit Louisiana
communities attended private school, compared to roughly 10
percent average nationally, and we must not penalize parents
who had already chosen private schools for their children or
penalize any school of any kind for a commitment to students.
Today, I am announcing two actions that will give
dramatically impacted schools and districts flexibility for one
year only on certain aspects of adequate yearly progress. Let
me stress that, under both options, every displaced student
will be tested, and the results will be made public to ensure
that every child gets the attention he or she needs and
deserves.
Schools must welcome these children with both compassion
and high expectations.
We believe the best way to accomplish this goal will be to
allow those schools and districts to report the results for
hurricane-displaced students as a separate student subgroup or
group of students, as we do throughout No Child Left Behind.
Using their good judgment and criteria I will release
today, states that were seriously affected by this tragedy may
also exercise the delay provisions that currently exist as part
of No Child Left Behind without seeking a waiver from the
department.
These provisions could temporarily delay certain schools
and districts from moving forward in the school improvement
time-line, even if they do not make annual yearly progress, for
this school year only.
As you know, when I came into office, I pledged to
implement No Child Left Behind in a sensible, workable way, but
we must not compromise on what I call the bright line
principles of the law: annual assessment, disaggregation of
data, and closing the achievement gap by 2014.
Thanks to our nation's latest education report card, as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we now have proof that high standards
and accountability are paying off. Scores are at all-time highs
for African-American and Hispanic students, especially in the
early grades. We have made--and I want to linger on this for a
second--more progress in the last five years than the previous
30 years combined on our nation's report card.
This test was created in the early '70s, 1971 and 1973, in
math and reading, and we have seen the same amount of progress
between 1999 and 2004 as we did in the entire previous history
of the report card. Clearly, we are on the right track. The law
is working.
At the same time, I have been listening to the concerns of
parents, educators, and policy makers closest to our students.
As you know and as you said, I have worked in education
policy at the state, local, and now the national level for more
than 20 years, and I have respect for the issues we wrestle
with at each of these levels.
Nobody I know has ever passed a perfect law, except for
you, Mr. Chairman. Implementing public policy, as we all know,
is very much an organic process, and it is right and righteous
for us to learn from our experience as we move forward.
For example, in the 2003-2004 school year, about 2 million
students across the country were eligible for free high-quality
tutoring or supplemental services. Unfortunately, only about 10
to 20 percent of those actually received the services. We
needed a new approach. So the department worked with people on
the front lines to come up with one.
I recently announced a series of pilot agreements that will
make it easier for certain districts, like Chicago, to provide
free tutoring even if they haven't been identified as needing
improvement, as many school districts do.
In return for this flexibility, the districts will ensure
that more children receive the services from the provider their
parents feel comfortable with and families have more choices,
more conveniently located, and more opportunities to enroll and
access those services.
My hope is that increased flexibility will lead to
increased participation in after-school tutoring and increased
achievement for children.
After testing some theories with this pilot, we will have a
better recipe for students' success, and you will have more
information as we had into reauthorization.
The department has also taken a number of steps in response
to the educational community's concerns and policy maker's
concerns across the country, including convening a working
group that explores appropriate and meaningful approaches to
measure the progress of children who have not grown up speaking
English and working with states that want to develop more
appropriate modified tests for students with disabilities who
need additional time and intensive instruction to reach grade
level.
We are also considering the notion of a growth model, where
schools get credit for progress over time, but I must be clear
about that.
To have a sound growth model system, we must have annual
data, and students in every subgroup must be closing the
achievement gap.
No Child Left Behind is provoking a lot of discussion about
how we can best help the most students, particularly our
neediest students. We are learning from our experiences and
from the research as it develops. Our ongoing conversations
about remaining issues are right and appropriate.
If this act had not become law, I am not sure we would be
having these conversations about some of the implementational
issues that are before us. Before No Child Left Behind,
students were too often shuffled from grade to grade without
knowing how to read or do math.
It is right and righteous that the law focused on those two
key areas, and the next step is to take high standards and
accountability, these principles that are working, into our
high schools. If the hurricanes show us anything, they show how
vulnerable we are.
As the international playing field gets flatter, American
students need better education and training to compete.
In our global economy, more than 80 percent of the fastest
growing jobs will require education or training beyond high
school.
Unfortunately, five out of 10 minority students and three
out of 10 overall don't finish high school on time.
The one million students who drop out of high school each
year cost our nation more than $260 billion in lost wages, lost
taxes, and lost productivity over their lifetimes.
In Federal dollars, that will buy you 10 years of research
at the National Institutes of Health.
Business, political, and education leaders are regularly
sounding the alarm.
When we lose a million students a year, it is a tremendous
impact on our economy, but it also represents the American
dream denied for many, many people.
High school reform is not just an education issue. It is an
economic issue, a civic issue, a social issue, and a national
security issue, and of course, it is all of our issue.
America's report card has shown no progress for high school
students in 30 years.
We must focus on more rigor, particularly in reading, math,
and science, to help more of our students reach the finish line
on time and ready for college or work. Progress for older
students begins with high standards and accountability.
With No Child Left Behind, President Bush and, of course,
all of you in the Congress led our national to an historic
commitment to give every child a quality education. We looked
ourselves in the mirror and said we would close the achievement
gap by 2014 across the board. It is our mission and the right
thing to do. Our children and country deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here. I
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Margaret Spellings
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to meet with you. During the last few weeks I've made
several visits to the Gulf Coast. We've all witnessed both terrible
destruction and heart-warming acts of generosity. I am gratified by the
communities and schools that are opening their doors--and their
hearts--to displaced students. But I'm not surprised; educators are
simply showing America once again what a treasure they truly are.
After the pictures we've all seen on television, and the looks on
these children's faces, one thing I know for sure is that these young
people need and deserve a quality education. In fact, we're having what
educators call ``a teachable moment''--an opportunity to learn from * *
* and act on * * * the moment we're in. Katrina and Rita are reminders
to all of us that every single one of our children must be given the
opportunity to learn and the chance to share in the American dream.
That includes hundreds of thousands of children who were displaced
from their homes and schools. Our goal at the Department of Education
is to make sure these students get a quality education wherever they
are. We know that school is a stabilizing influence for both children
and families who are working to rebuild their lives. We are staying in
close contact with educational leaders throughout the Gulf Coast
region, and I have asked Congress for authority to waive statutory or
regulatory requirements--except those related to civil rights or
safety--that may slow down our ability to help students and school
systems recover from this disaster.
The states and school districts that are welcoming these students
will face unexpected costs this year. To make sure they are adequately
compensated, the President has proposed that Congress provide up to
$7,500 per student in federal funds over the current school year. Under
this proposal, the Department would increase our investment from about
9 percent to 90 percent of a state's per-pupil expenditure for one year
only.
We want to provide equal opportunity for every school that is
welcoming these children-including public and private schools. We must
ensure that displaced students receive a quality education, and in many
areas, private schools are enrolling children the public school systems
simple cannot accommodate.
About 25 percent of students in the hardest-hit Louisiana
communities attended private school. That's compared to our national
average of roughly 10 percent. We must not penalize the parents who had
already chosen private schools for their children. And we must not
penalize any school of any kind for its commitment to these students.
Today I am announcing two actions that will give dramatically
impacted schools and districts flexibility for one year only on certain
aspects of adequate yearly progress. Let me stress that under both
options, every displaced student will be tested, and the results will
be made public to ensure that every child gets the attention he or she
needs and deserves. Schools must welcome these children with both
compassion and high expectations.
We believe the best way to accomplish this goal will be to allow
those schools and districts to report the results for hurricane-
displaced students as a separate subgroup, or group of students. Using
their good judgment and criteria I released today, states that were
seriously affected by this tragedy may also exercise the delay
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act without seeking a waiver
from the Department. These provisions would temporarily delay certain
schools and districts from moving forward in the school improvement
timeline, even if they do not make annual yearly progress.
As you know, when I came into office, I pledged to implement No
Child Left Behind in a sensible, workable way. But we must not
compromise on the ``bright line'' principles of the law-annual
assessment, disaggregating data, and closing the achievement gap by
2014. Thanks to our Nation's latest education report card, we now have
proof that high standards and accountability are paying off. Scores are
at all-time highs for African-American and Hispanic students,
especially in the early grades. We've made more progress in the last 5
years than in the previous 30 combined.
Clearly, we are on the right track. The law is working. At the same
time, I have been listening to the concerns of parents, educators, and
policymakers closest to our students. As you may know, I have worked in
education policy at state, local, and now the national level for more
than 20 years, and I have respect for the issues we wrestle with at
each of those levels. Nobody I know has ever passed a perfect law.
Implementing public policy is an organic process.
For example, in the 2003-04 school year, about two million students
across our country were eligible for free, high-quality tutoring.
Unfortunately, only about 10-20 percent of them actually received the
services. We needed a new approach, so the Department worked with
people on the front lines to come up with one.
I recently announced a series of pilot agreements that will make it
easier for certain districts, like Chicago, to provide free tutoring--
even if they have been identified as ``needing improvement,'' as many
school districts are. In return for this flexibility, the districts
will ensure that more children receive services--from the provider
their parents feel most comfortable with. And families will have more
choices, more convenient locations, and more opportunities to enroll.
My hope is that increased flexibility will lead to increased
participation in after-school tutoring and increased achievement for
children. After testing some theories with this pilot, we will have a
better recipe for student success.
The Department has also taken a number of other steps in response
to the educational community's concerns, including:
* convening a special working group that is exploring appropriate
and meaningful approaches to measure the progress of children who have
not grown up speaking English, and
* working with States that want to develop more appropriate
``modified tests'' for students with disabilities who may need
additional time and intensive instruction to reach grade level.
* We are also considering the notion of a growth model, where
schools would get credit for progress over time. But I must be clear--
to have a sound growth model system, you must have annual data, and
students in every subgroup must be closing the achievement gap.
No Child Left Behind is provoking a lot of discussion about how we
can best help the most students. We are learning from our experiences
and from the research as it develops. Our ongoing conversations about
remaining issues are right and appropriate. If this Act had not become
law, I'm not sure we would be having these conversations.
Before No Child Left Behind, students were too often shuffled from
grade to grade without knowing how to read or do math. It's right and
righteous that the law focused on those two key areas. The next step is
to take high standards and accountability into our high schools.
If the hurricanes show us anything, they show how vulnerable we
are. As the international playing field gets flatter, American students
need better education and training to compete. In our global economy,
more than 80 percent of the fastest-growing jobs will require education
or training beyond high school. Unfortunately, 5 out of 10 minority
students--and 3 out of 10 overall--don't even finish high school on
time!
The 1 million students who drop out of high school each year cost
our nation more than $260 billion dollars * * * That's in lost wages,
lost taxes, and lost productivity over their lifetimes. In federal
dollars, that will buy you 10 years of research at the National
Institutes of Health.
Business, political, and education leaders are regularly sounding
the alarm. When we lose a million students every year * * * that's a
tremendous impact on our economy. And it represents the American Dream
* * * denied.
High school reform is not just an ``education issue.'' It's an
economic issue, a civic issue, a social issue, and a national security
issue. And * * * it's everybody's issue.
America's report card has shown no progress for high school
students in 30 years. We must focus on more rigor--particularly in
reading, math, and science--to help more of our students reach the
finish line on time, and ready for college or work. Progress for older
students begins with high standards and accountability.
With No Child Left Behind, President Bush and you in the Congress
led our nation in an historic commitment to give every child a quality
education. We looked ourselves in the mirror and said we would close
the achievement gap by 2014 * * * across the board.
It's our mission, and it's also the right thing to do. Our children
and our country deserve no less.
______
Chairman Boehner. Madam Secretary, thank you for your
testimony, and we really do appreciate the fact that you are
here this morning.
I certainly think that we are on track and moving in the
right direction, and let me illustrate a point that you
mentioned about the needs of our economy in the future, but let
me begin with where we have been.
In 1960, about 20 percent of our workforce needed education
and/or skills. Our economy required that about 20 percent of
our workers needed education and/or skills, and our education
system was good enough.
Today, about 60 percent of our needs in the economy--about
60 percent of our workers need education/skills. Unfortunately,
our education system isn't providing the even 60 percent of the
workforce that is needed today. That is why there are some
three or four million jobs in America that are going begging
today, because American companies can't find people with the
skills and/or education in order to fill those jobs. We are not
very far away from the number the Secretary pointed out.
By 2020, 80 percent of our workers in this country are
going to need an education and/or skills in order to compete in
the worldwide economy that we find ourselves in, and while I am
clearly concerned about our economy, clearly concerns about
making sure that our students and our citizens have the skills
they need, there is something even more important here, and
that is that, as our society, every person ought to have the
ability and the right to grow as much as they can in terms of
growing their own human dignity, and you know, there has been a
lot of talk about rights, and I think you have heard me and Mr.
Miller and others describe education as the new civil right of
the 21st century, and so, I am--as you can tell, I get pretty
wound up about this, and so, while No Child Left Behind is not
perfect, Madam Secretary, one of the most difficult parts of it
is the whole idea of adequate yearly progress and getting to
100-percent proficiency by 2014, and a lot of educators around
the country, parents, others, have stopped me and said, well,
this is just not realistic, and I have told them that clearly
this is our goal.
Well, we can never get to 100 percent. I said, well, what
do you want us to write into law? Ninety-five percent? You can
throw 5 percent of your kids overboard. They don't count.
So one of the most challenging aspects of future
reauthorization is going to be how do we better quantify, how
do we better define what it is we are expecting, and I have
talked to a lot of states about the growth model.
I think there is some merit in the growth model, but it has
got to be pegged to something, and so, showing growth from year
to year, the same kids, clearly makes more sense than comparing
this group of fourth graders to last year's fourth graders, but
pegged to what, and I know that you have been working on this
and you have been talking to educators like we have.
What are your thoughts about AYP and 100-percent
proficiency and how we might deal with this?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I completely agree with you
about both the 100-percent expectation, all children, with very
few exceptions to that with respect to the most severely and
profoundly handicapped students, of course, as well as having
it pegged to some point in time, and I think what is implied
here, then, is the need to accelerate instruction, that we must
make more progress some years than others, or to accelerate our
instruction into that goal.
So I think that is going to take more time on task, as
educators talk about it. This is what supplemental services are
about.
This is what some of the most effective schools and most
effective charter schools do, they work harder, and some
students are going to take longer to get to proficiency levels,
and we need to find ways for more strategic intervention, more
time on task, potentially, as we have done with supplemental
services--that is what that is all about, essentially--so that
we can get to the goal line, but you know, it is one of the
things that I am most concerned about when I hear the press
talk about it, educators.
You know, I hope that the teacher who is standing in front
of my child today believes that she is one of the kids that can
achieve on grade level.
The President says it is not too much to ask students to
achieve on grade level, by state standards, locally determined
and measured, aligned to the curriculum. That really is not too
much to ask of our country and of our children.
Chairman Boehner. If I can make one more comment before my
time is expired, the concern about what is happening in our
high schools--clearly, I and other members and other people
share the concerns about what is happening in our high schools
and the fact that we are losing well over a million students
every year, but I am one of those who believes that we don't
lose them in high school.
We lose them when they don't get early childhood
development. We lose them in grades one through three, when the
fire of learning isn't lit, and we have had some slight
disagreement over how to proceed when it comes to high schools.
All of us want our high schools to improve, but I do
believe that our focus on the early grades, the Head Start
reauthorization we moved through the House last year, and the
fact that these early grade scores in the NAPE test are, in
fact, showing significant results, will certainly help us as we
begin to look at how to address the high school problem, and
while I want more rigor, while I want more time on task, I
don't want to get in the position where we have so overly
burdened our schools so quickly that people just give up and
walk away, and this is a real balancing act that I think that
we are all going to have to continue to deal with in the coming
years, and with that, let me yield to my friend and colleague,
who I said a lot of nice things about earlier, but you weren't
here, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Darn. That is kind of rare. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I was fascinated listening to your comments.
I was pleased to learn, I guess I should say, that the critics
of No Child Left Behind are equal opportunity critics. We are
hearing the same thing on both sides of the aisle.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here, and thank you
for your support of this legislation. I agree with you.
I think we are seeing improvements and benefits to our
children, I think to their families, also, as their children
start to succeed and achieve proficiency that make this all
well worth it.
You raised an awful lot of things in your--topics in your
testimony.
So if I could just touch on a couple, we are coming up
against a deadline on highly qualified teachers, and I have had
some discussions with the department, and I appreciate that. I
think that we have got to handle that right.
I don't know what that means, but I think we have got to do
it right, because I think, clearly, the cornerstone of this
legislation is that we will, at some point, sooner than later,
have a highly qualified teacher in front of all of our
children.
The data suggests that if our children get that opportunity
several years in a row, they perform and get the benefits of
those skilled and talented people teaching them, and we have
got to make sure that the states are doing everything they
possibly can in improving that ability, both for veteran
teachers and for new teachers.
You mentioned the growth model. I have sent you a letter. I
have some concerns.
My state has proposed a growth model. My fear is that you
grow to nowhere, you are always growing, but you never arrive,
and I think it is important that we have a growth model where
children do arrive at proficiency, and I appreciate--and we
have all heard the concerns about teachers who really do quite
remarkable jobs in terms of getting growth out of students who
are behind and moving them along, and I can understand the
desire to get credit, if you will, or have that factored in,
and I appreciate that you have formed a group to look at that,
but it has to be growth with a destination.
If there is no destination--if I look at the California
model, I think there is an opportunity to leave a huge number
of children behind and out of sight. That is where we were
before this legislation, and I do not want to return there.
I am also--you mentioned--and I appreciate your working out
with Chicago--I had an opportunity to go out and meet with them
during the controversy on supplemental services, and I hope
that does work. I think we want to expand this.
This was a calculated decision by the conferees and by the
committees to bring some entrepreneurs into this field to
provide these services.
I also think it is very important--we have got to decide
that there has got to be a fiscal management in place here.
There are a lot of people running around offering supplemental
services.
There is a considerable amount of money available on the
street, and these are very precious dollars, and whether the
state is going to be responsible or the district, somebody has
got to be responsible to make sure that we are, in fact,
purchasing those services that are most likely to help, and I
know, you know, we are supposed to be based in some records of
success, but I have a concern that we undermine supplemental
services by not paying attention to the management, the fiscal
management of those programs.
I appreciate the flexibility you have provided with respect
to disabled students and the concerns that was raised in school
districts.
I also want to echo a concern--I am worried that some
districts are interpreting that as a flat-out exemption, and
therefore, they really don't have an obligation to these
children.
That certainly cannot be the intent of those efforts to try
to help those school districts and better focus the resources
on those children with disabilities. So I hope that we would
take a very close look at that effort.
I would also say that with respect to the flexibility
provided small schools, that I don't want to lose those schools
being accountable for those children and their progress.
I wasn't here in your comments, but my understanding is, if
a special subgroup is created for the hurricane children who
are dislocated, that they will be tested, that they will be
part of that process.
They are not going to be exempted from this process. School
districts aren't going to be able to park these kids and not
pay attention to them.
They are going to be accountable, not necessarily in
meeting--but they will be accountable to those children and to
their families, as I understand what you have put forward here.
Finally, let me just say I continue to be concerned, as I
travel this country and meet with school officials and
individual schools--I am concerned about the funding. I think
it is being better documented on what schools need to do these
things, to do them right, to make these reforms, to put the
talent in place, and I think we really have got to decide to
make the next tranche of investment in this program for these
districts.
I think a lot of these problems would be taken care of if
they had additional resources. I am concerned that we are
starting to see Title 1 schools whose actual funding is now
being reduced both for recalculation and both just because of a
lack of money. I am concerned that the funding for this year is
not even keeping up with inflation. I know we have put a lot of
new money in here, but I think we are starting to see pretty
sound evidence that this is now an important decision for the
administration and for Congress to make. And so, those are some
comments in response to what you said.
I think that we--the commitment to this legislation is
growing.
I think as people start to see the results, we start to see
the results in what we would have said five years ago are the
most difficult schools in some cities and rural areas, these
children do have that opportunity.
I don't know if we are going to have 100-percent proficient
or not, but I have an awful lot of trouble with districts who
have 15 and 16 percent proficient and are worried about 100
percent.
You know, just--why don't we try to get to 25 and 30
percent and then come see me? Come see me when you are at 85
and you have really got a problem, you know, and I don't make
light of that.
The fact of the matter is we are starting to see now models
of acceleration that other schools better start paying
attention to, because many of the excuses are evaporating all
around the country with respect to these children.
One final point, is I would hope that you would look at
legislation that I have introduced on high schools, where we
would match--the Federal Government would match the money put
up by foundations and the governors for their proposals to try
to expand that. I think they have put in place a good set of
standards.
They would build some models, expand some of the models
that are working, and then perhaps we could come in and start
to take a look at that over the next couple of years, so that
we don't just sit down on top of them a model from here that
may not work, and I think that by creating this sort of public-
private partnership with the philanthropic community, insisting
on the quality, so when they invest their money, and the
governors who now, I think, have created a lot of energy among
other governors who were very skeptical of this, perhaps there
is a chance, with a modest investment, to really expand that
proposal.
There is a lot of support among the governors for that
legislation and within the philanthropic community. They
believe that with us being a partner, they would attract many
more private dollars to that effort. So, I would hope that we
could look at that as maybe a bridge to where we want to go,
and make sure that the locals are full partners in this one
this time. Thank you very much.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I join with my colleagues in welcoming you
here, and thank you for being here.
Just a couple of anecdotal comments.
When I was a young man, I had a sales manager that taught
me that the only constant in life is change, and human nature
fights that change.
Years ago, I had a friend who was a high school principal
in the L.A. city school districts, and he said they had just
completed a study, and they found that, from the time that
somebody conceived an idea in the district, until it was fully
implemented throughout the district, took 25 years.
I don't know how many children they lose along the way
waiting to catch up with things in that 25 years, but I think
that human nature is one of the problems we have had with No
Child Left Behind. I think human nature tells us, when somebody
proposes change, the first thing you do is sit back and say are
they really serious. Let's just wait and see. We will wait. You
know, they are going to be gone in four years. We will see what
happens.
The next thing is, after they have decided that they are
really serious about change, then they start saying, well, what
are all the problems with the change. You know, why can't we
make this change?
Then, finally, I think it clicks in, you know, change
probably wouldn't be all bad, maybe we should get with the
change, and I think we have seen all these steps as we have
gone through this process, and I think with your--I think the
previous secretary had the job of making people understand that
we were serious about change, and then I think you have been
able to come in with the idea, well, yeah, now that everybody
understands we are serious about change, we are not going to
drop this, we are going to be somewhat flexible in how we
achieve it, so that--as was stated, all legislation is not
perfect, and we find when we write the legislation, that
regulations get written, and then, finally, everybody starts
conforming with those. We see, well, this is a problem, we can
tweak this here; this is a problem, we can tweak this here; but
we keep the overall goal in mind of no child left behind.
I have a grandson who has a reading problem.
Now, he has two older sisters that are very bright, that
come from the other side of the family. We are not all that
bright on our side, but my son-in-law is very bright, and his
family is, and the two oldest daughters are doing very well in
school. The next boy came along and had a lot of sickness his
first couple of years, and he missed some things, but he kept
getting promoted.
His next sister coming along already reads better than he
does, and you know, problems come from that, and then, he is
starting the fourth grade this year and can't read, and so,
they put him into some special programs, and we spend extra
money on that, and now he is developing behavioral problems.
This is all just within the family here. I can tell you
this, because personally I understand, and I see some serious
problems, and I think what the chairman said about high school
dropouts start at a young age--I see the frustration in this
young boy because he can't read. He sees his younger sister can
read, and he starts thinking I am stupid, I can't learn.
Why is he going to want to sit there all through junior
high and high school and have this reinforced that he is dumb?
We, fortunately, have found some intervention, and he is
now getting some special help, and he is learning to read, and
he will be all caught up to grade within the next few months
because of some very good, caring, understanding teachers and
people that have the ability to help, but I think there is
millions of kids like this, and I think that is why we needed
No Child Left Behind. I think that is why we needed some of the
reforms in IDEA.
That is my little anecdotes.
Now, we have had, as you know, critics of No Child Left
Behind.
How would you respond--what is the department doing to
ensure that the ongoing implementation runs smoothly and we
keep the overall goals in mind of not letting any child--not
leaving them behind?
Secretary Spellings. Well, you know, in this common sense
approach, clearly it is important that we, you know, focus on
results.
Obviously, process is important, no doubt about it,
particularly as we reach trigger dates like Congressman Miller
was flagging with the highly qualified teacher provisions, but
I do think we need to keep our eye on the ball. Are people
making progress and on course to reach proficiency in various
subgroups by 2014?
So I think it is a balancing act of staying true to the
principles, as well as, you know, being reasonable about
various legitimate issues that we can learn from. I mean
obviously I agree with you. I think we have gone through the
phases of No Child Left Behind. We are now into acceptance, if
you will, and I see it around the country.
I see people now think No Child Left Behind can be my
friend, data-driven decision-making, where they know more
precisely and more specifically who needs help.
Your grandson--I mean without accountability and data and
measurement, you know, he might have just been moved through.
He might have been placed in special education, we see that
a lot. And then, you know, sort of forgotten, off the books,
and so on. And so, I think, we have turned the corner on the
merit of data, nothing sells like success.
With these new results that we have gotten on our report
card, I think that has helped a lot, no doubt about it.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you.
Mr. Castle [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. Kildee is recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, again, welcome before the committee.
George Miller, when I first came here, we were talking
about teacher quality and certainly made a convert out of me, a
former teacher.
Teachers right now--their qualifications can be determined
by state certification, by having a B.A. degree or higher, or
demonstrating knowledge in the subject field in which they
teach, and among the alternative methods is a method called
HOUSSE, High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation.
How is your department monitoring these alternative methods,
particularly HOUSSE, in the various states?
Secretary Spellings. Thank you for that question.
First, I want to say, on HQT, we have made progress in
states, no doubt about it.
Nearly every state--I think all but two or three--have the
competency testing that is required as part of No Child Left
Behind to determine subject mastery, and that is in place.
The HOUSSE process was a way to accommodate, deal with,
understand, review current--the current teaching force, and
nearly every state has that provision in place. How are we
going to deal with people who were teaching in a rural area
physics, chemistry, and biology, and yet only certified in
chemistry, for example, I mean all the kind of realities of
that.
As we head into this compliance state of 2005-6, end of the
school year, this will give us an opportunity to review the
quality of those plans, the good actors, if you will, versus
the not so good. One of the things I am really going to look at
is, one of the dirty little secrets in education. As we all
know, is that some of our finest, most experienced, most
effective educators, work their way to the least challenging
educational environments, and conversely, some of our least
experienced teachers are in our most challenging environments.
I think we need to shine a light on that. I think we need to
make sure that highly qualified teachers are first in our most
challenging places.
It is going to be difficult for us to reach these
proficiency standards without, the best personnel in those
environments.
So this is a great time for us to review the HOUSSE
process, as well as the actions that states have taken to
comply with this trigger.
Mr. Kildee. You put your finger correctly on the problem.
In the hearings we have had throughout the country, you had
asked how many of your teachers are not qualified, either by
certification or for other reasons, and they would give a
number. I would ask where are they concentrated? Usually it was
the poorest school districts in the state. That is really sad,
and I know, myself, personally, that very often, under the
pressure of finances, that a superintendent or a principal will
assign a teacher to a class for which that teacher, you know,
is really not trained. It is not the teacher's fault, they are
assigned there, and the principal becomes--has become--we are
improving on that. No Child Left Behind is helping us improve
on that, but very often it was stay three paces ahead of the
kids and catch me if you can, right?
They were not really qualified, and I think that, while we
want to be concerned about teachers who felt they were being
threatened in areas where they really were qualified. Because
they technically did not reach the standards, we also want to
be concerned about the needs of those students. I think, so
far, watching you, you have provided a good balance. But I
think we should continue to monitor, especially, the HOUSSE
provisions.
Secretary Spellings. No doubt about it.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
I will yield to myself. I am next in line, by the way, just
for the record.
I know we aren't supposed to talk about the admonishment of
the chairman not to talk about Katrina. But just one thing I
did want to mention is that I have heard and I have heard
others talk about the numbers down there. The number of school
districts, the number of schools, the number of kids, and
obviously, there are very different circumstances there. Some
of these schools, I am sure, have reopened. Some of those
school districts are probably functioning. Some of them, in
some cases, a hundred percent of the kids may be going to
school now, as happens after a number of storms. But in other
circumstances New Orleans stands out, but others, as well--they
just simply aren't there. The schools may not be there, and the
kids aren't there, or whatever.
I would hope that we can--I would hope that your department
is--and I am sure you are--is keeping a pretty careful eye on
those numbers and making the adjustments as we have to.
We have to make financial decisions here.
We need to make sure these kids are educated or whatever,
and I hope that is a moving target number in what we are doing.
Secretary Spellings. It very much is.
Mr. Castle. With respect to No Child Left Behind, I mean I
thought all the questioning was interesting, and I have some of
the same questions.
I did not ask the staff this. I think our reauthorization
of this is probably going to be in 2007, based on what I know,
so probably two years away, a year-and-a-half away at this
point, and I am interested in what you might be interested in
doing.
For example, with the high school--the addition of the high
school this year--I didn't think that the effort by the
administration--not you but by the administration as a whole--
was particularly strong in terms of really getting that done.
I thought their proposal, which was taking vocational ed
money and TRIO money, etcetera, and doing it was not something
that even they thought would necessarily hold water. Having
said that, I believe that you, particularly, in the
administration now, is quite interested in having high schools
bought into No Child Left Behind. I am and I believe very
strongly you have to do that to complete the record.
We also talk about flexibility, and you and your
predecessor have both been pretty good about changing
flexibility, particularly the learning disabled, and there may
be areas in there which we do need additional flexibility, and
you mentioned here today the growth model, which is, I suppose,
hard to encapsulate, either in legislation or regulation, by I
think it is something we should be looking at, but I am
interested in those areas and how you rank them in terms of
importance or how soon we should get them done as part of No
Child Left Behind or anything else you would have in mind that
we should be looking at as we holistically approach No Child
Left Behind, you know, probably starting next year, we will
start to look at it.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you for that question.
Let me start with the growth model. I do think that is
something where we have to be very sophisticated. I am looking
at some core principles about what are the must-do's on a
growth model, must reach the 2014 target, must have an adequate
data management and data mining system, annual assessment.
I mean this is--these are--this sort of notion is for
experienced actors, not for people who have yet to fully
implement annual assessment.
It is going to be hard to clearly establish growth where
there are no regular benchmarks.
So I will hope to bring that sort of information forward to
you all in the very near term. With respect to high schools, I
do think there is wide agreement.
Congressman Miller talked about the governors. I have been
with lots of them around the country. It is very much a
bipartisan effort. I think they know that the people, the
states with the most effective and competitive workforces are
going to have the jobs. So, I do think it is right for us to
turn our attention there.
Maybe the strategy that the administration offered was not
necessarily the exactly right one, but certainly it is
something that we all agree we need to work on.
I will just say one--quickly about high school. We have a
dearth of information about what the problem is, for whom, what
is the cure, and so on.
We have offered striving readers, the need to continue to
work reading proficiency.
We think students drop out because they lack reading
skills.
We think there is disengagement because people are--you
know--and the need for dual enrollment programs, but we are
doing a lot of guessing about what is wrong in high school and
what the right policy levers to work with are, and we need some
data.
Mr. Castle. Governor Warner--I saw him at a seminar thing
we did together the other day--from Virginia, said that the--I
thought he said that the governors have actually reached a
definition of high school graduation that could be used
universally. That has been, to me, a tremendously troubling
point in education for many, many decades, not just years.
Is that correct? Are we getting to some sort of universal
definition of what--who is really graduating and who is not in
this country?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir, and we at the department
have been a part of that. We are now reporting a new indicator
that essentially is who do you have at the ninth grade that
shows up at the finish line, not who started their senior year
or other various, you know, permutations on what might
constitute a complete-er rate, who is in the pool and so forth.
So, I think we are making progress. We have just seen the
release of--or a description of the before and after picture on
the indicator. I think a truth in advertising is a big part of
getting at attacking this dropout problem, because it has been
hard to get a handle on.
Mr. Castle. I just can't stress how important I think that
is.
It is amazing to me that that has not happened in the past,
and it is amazing to me that states come up with these vastly
different statistics, because they are looking at it
differently in terms of how they approach the statistics, and I
think that is really important.
Secretary Spellings. That is right.
Mr. Castle. Well, my time has expired.
As far as the reauthorization is concerned, and
particularly high schools, I don't think we should necessarily
wait until we start the actual formal process of looking at
reauthorization.
We need to be looking at these things now and getting them
ready. Hopefully we can all work together on that.
Secretary Spellings. Absolutely.
Mr. Castle. Congresswoman Davis is next. Susan Davis is
next.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. It is very
good to have you with us.
Along the lines of how we respond and work with high school
students, I wanted to mention briefly a particular program that
has had such great success, and I am wondering what the
department is doing to try and promote that and to work with
school districts. It's the AVID program, Advancement Via
Individual Determination, and why that--just give a statistic
or two, but I mean these are low-income students, largely,
largely minority students, who select an elective course to
teach study skills, which we know is so critical, study skills,
reading, and writing for critical thinking and collaborative
learning, and over 250,000 students have completed those
courses across the country in about 36 states, 95 percent of
them go on to college, 85 percent of them are still there in
their sophomore year.
So it seems to me, we have a proven program of success. It
is successful partly because it doesn't depend on one dynamic
teacher, what they have done and put in place. It is working
with colleges and universities, with students, and follow-up. I
think learning and, really, oversight of the program is the
success.
What is the department doing to promote those kind of
programs? How can we work with you to do more of that?
There are, I know, programs throughout the country, but
this one, in particular, if we are talking about high schools,
we are talking about lighting those fires--these are kids
whose, you know, fires probably went out, but we do start
catching them in some schools even at middle school level.
Can you share more about how can we work with you, with
that kind of program and others?
Secretary Spellings. Yes.
We are, at the Department of Education, a funder of AVID
programs around the country, as part of our advanced placement
and pre-AP--you know, that pipeline sort of issue, and so, we
recognize that it certainly has some merit, no doubt about it,
and I think No Child Left Behind clearly has built an appetite
for, you know, things that work, no doubt about it.
One of the things that I think the AVID program does well
and clearly is, is to get to this notion of individualization.
I mean that's what the ``I'' is in AVID, as you said, and a
notion that it is about competency-based for the individual, as
opposed to amount of seat time and so forth.
So it does--this accelerated instruction, this work the
problem till you get there sort of philosophy that undergirds
that, that is important, and I think there is a--beginning to
see more of that around the country, and so, we are pleased to
be a partner with AVID programs around the country.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Do you think that those efforts would accelerate, because
this really is closing the achievement gap. What more can be
done?
Secretary Spellings. That is the sort of thing that we have
built an appetite, a hunger in the school community to try
things that do have demonstrated results.
Mrs. Davis of California. All right. Thank you.
I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I
know that the Secretary is going to have to leave, and I will
allow others to take on.
Thank you.
Chairman Boehner [presiding]. I appreciate my colleague
from California's generosity, and hopefully other members will
follow suit.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Did you have to look at me that way when you
said that?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary,
for being here.
I would like to address a couple of questions, looking
forward toward reauthorization, and these may be too complex to
deal with here, but I would certainly appreciate your thinking,
and perhaps a more detailed response later.
Not too surprisingly, my questions are about math/science
education, not because I am a one-dimensional person, but
because Mr. Holt and I are the ones who seem to have been
delegated the responsibility to pursue this.
Two basic issues.
As you are aware, I am a strong supporter of your
department's program on math and science partnership, also the
National Science Foundation program, math/science partnership,
was involved in developing both. They are complementary,
spelled with an ``e'', and really belong together, but they
have not been adequately funded, for a series of reasons over
the years, and the first question relates to how--what you
think, and I will ask both questions so you can answer them
together.
How can we address that in reauthorization? We, in fact,
are spending less on those programs now that we did before No
Child Left Behind was passed. We had the Eisenhower program
before that, and considerably more was being spent on those
areas than there are now, and so, the first question is how can
we adjust that? What ideas do you have to adjust that in
reauthorization so that these programs, which--as you say, 80
percent of the jobs are going to require the training.
How can we assure that they get greater emphasis in teacher
training programs and professional development and so forth?
The second issue is more complex, and that arises--I am
sure you are familiar with the PISA test comparing us to other
nations, the TIMS test comparing us to other nations. We do
quite well in fourth grade math and science, we do less well in
eighth grade, we do very poorly in 12th grade, and when you
look at all the other nations that do well, they have a sense
of uniformity to their programs, they are national programs,
and there is a factor there that is often overlooked, and that
is math and science are sequential, and students must learn
them sequentially, and if they get out of sequence, their
learning is really hampered.
The difficulty is we are a transient nation, and people
constantly transfer from one school district to another, from
one state to another, one city to another.
With the plethora of programs in this nation, it is very
hard for the students to actually get the material presented in
a sequential way. That is not true in California, Texas,
Florida, the major states which have a uniform curricula, but
most states don't have that, and particularly when students, as
we have with Katrina, traveling from one state to another, have
a totally different program, totally different sequence.
I know you and I both share the same philosophy, that it is
not our job as the Federal Government to establish a uniform
curriculum in this nation, but yet, the need is so pressing
here.
What can we do to--at the Federal level--to ensure that
there is this uniformity of sequence, uniformity of program, so
that a student taking fractions in the fourth grade
transferring to another school will continue to study fractions
and will not suddenly be jumped into another topic?
I would appreciate any ideas you have on that that we can
try to apply as we work toward the reauthorization of the bill
and try to address this very difficult problem.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you
for all you have done to promote math and science education
throughout your public service career. It has really been
tremendous, and we need you desperately now. I say sometimes
that we need to do for math what we have done for reading,
which is have an understanding of how we provide human beings
the opportunity to become proficient readers. And I think the
education community has spent a lot of time talking about or we
all have spent a lot of time talking about the tactics of
calculation, proficiency, and skills versus the ability to
think and so on and so forth. I think that is being set aside
because these curriculum issues are acute. As you said, some of
the sequencing issues, levels of rigor, and a better
understanding of mathematics education in our country. I think
it is, I am pleased that the community is coming together and
at least agreeing that we have a problem. I see around the
country and you have mentioned it, sort of, the
disconnectedness, and issues are manifesting themselves as we
look at displaced student issues from state to state and the
gaps in curriculum.
You are right, the Federal Government is not authorized, in
fact, we are expressly prohibited from getting in the
curriculum business, but I do think there is a role for us to
help describe research. We have, as I keep saying over and
over, built an appetite for results. We know, assuming our
grade level proficiency standards are accurate. Which, you
know, obviously varies by state. I think there is a recognition
that we have a problem, and I have convened a math task force
of mathematicians and educators to work through some of these
issues. I think that is obviously the first step.
With respect to funding and resources, I agree. You know,
we, as you know, have asked for additional funding for the
math-science partnership, it is up 51 percent.
I think one of the things that we still lack is
understanding what are the most effective programs. We need to
drill down more effectively in math. We are paying for a lot of
interesting ideas, and I think we still have yet to kind of
crack the code on what the most effective ways to enhance and
accelerate math instruction and math learning really are.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I will be happy to continue to work
with you on that.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
coming, Madam Secretary.
Let me follow on that discussion of science education. It
is true that the math-science partnerships are up maybe 50
percent, which brings them to about a third of what the funding
was for the Eisenhower programs before No Child Left Behind
began.
So it is far, far behind where we were before in teacher
professional development for science teachers, for teachers of
science, not just science teachers.
So I hope we will see a much greater commitment in light of
the need that you just outlined, because at the same time, the
NSF counterpart of this teacher preparation and teacher
professional development has come in with a request every year
for a decrease. So it is--I think it is--this is a very serious
problem that is going to require strong leadership from you if
we are going to address the problems that you just outlined.
On the subject of science, as you know, in this school
year, No Child Left Behind testing and assessment will begin in
science. There is a great deal of uncertainty out there in the
community, ambiguity, they say, in the language, about whether
these tests will be included in the AYP calculations. Can you
give us some clarification on that?
Secretary Spellings. Let me----
Mr. Holt. I should say, you know, Representative Ehlers and
I, who were coauthors of this language, certainly intended that
it would be, and I think the Congress intended that it would be
when we put that language in No Child Left Behind.
Secretary Spellings. Let me first respond to the math-
science partnership funding issue, and I think, obviously,
these issues of resources are always things that are negotiated
and discussed between the administration and you all. One of
the key concepts behind No Child Left Behind was, of course, to
try to provide a focus on results and yet more latitude with
respect to resources, and many of the dollars that are focused
on teacher development flow through Title 2 and are allocated
to states and local districts to meet the needs as they see
fit. We are measuring annually in mathematics and so forth, and
so, rather than be specific about----
Mr. Holt. If I may jump in, so, for example, funds that
used to be restricted for teacher professional development in
science, for example, can now be used for smaller class sizes.
Now, smaller class sizes is certainly a desirable goal, but
it clearly is taking it from such things as teacher
professional development for those who teach science.
Secretary Spellings. Well, you know, the whole--the
philosophy was just sort of the results of a process sort of
notion and to allocate whether--you know, that local school
districts and states would decide, you know, do we need teacher
development----
Mr. Holt. We could turn it over to states, but we need
leadership from Washington that there will be a commitment to
teaching of science in this country, and I am not seeing it,
and I hope you will provide it, in light of what you just said
about the need.
Secretary Spellings. Clearly, it is a place for leadership,
no doubt about it.
With respect to science standards, they are being--science
assessments are being developed now.
As I understand it--and certainly this is the--you know,
what will be at issue in the reauthorization is that the
understanding was that the accountability provisions, per se,
applied to reading and math and not the science, that we are
now developing standards, developing those measurements, in
many cases benchmarking them for the first time, but you know,
with respect to accountability, we are not there yet.
Mr. Holt. So the tests are for no purpose?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think what my experience is,
is that shining the light on the problem, on the issue,
particularly in a disaggregated way, is a great motivator for
all of us, for governors, and for school board members.
Mr. Holt. Does that argument also apply to reading and
math?
Secretary Spellings. Well, obviously----
Mr. Holt. Is the testing alone enough?
Secretary Spellings. I think what, it is not enough?
Mr. Holt. But it is enough for science.
Secretary Spellings. What we knew was, when we created No
Child Left Behind, that we were trying a new way of doing
business, that we were going to hold states accountable, very
much for these two key things that we had never done before.
And that as we work our way into various other subject areas,
we will look at, obviously, the reauthorization chart is before
this body in the fairly near future, whether that and other
subjects ought to be part of the accountability system.
I will tell you from my own experience in Texas, we did. We
added additional subject areas and made schools and school
districts accountable for those subjects, as well.
Mr. Holt. Okay.
Since my time is expired, I will ask in writing if you will
also comment on whether the teaching of intelligent design as
an alternative to science is department policy.
Secretary Spellings. The Department of Education does not
have a curriculum policy on intelligent design or science
standards, generally.
Those are reserved to states and local communities, and we
are expressly prohibited from the Department of Education from
curriculum decisions.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here. I see we are rapidly approaching the
deadline here on the clock.
I would like to follow the example of the--staying in the
green light, but I want to take just a minute to kind of sort
of set the stage before I ask the question.
Despite the near perfection of the Chairman's bill, as we
all know, it wasn't greeted universally with great accolades
and open arms, and in fact, when I was first elected, many
parents and educators had quite a bit of criticism of the bill,
and one of them was that it was too rigid, there wasn't enough
flexibility.
Your predecessor, acting within the law, granted some
flexibility in several areas, including highly qualified
teachers in special ed, and so forth, and as I have continued
to visit with educators in the district, there is less
complaint about the law being too rigid. Nevertheless, there is
still some there.
There are complaints that, with the influx of refugees and
immigrants, for example, that is causing some problems in some
of the disaggregated groups, and my position has consistently
been that we should try to implement this law has hard as we
can, do the very best we can, and where it simply will not
work, there just needs to be more flexibility, either you in
the department or we in this body will look at changes when we
go to reauthorization.
So my question is, from your perspective, looking across
the country, where are you seeing places where you are hearing
or you suspect that it may be, in fact, too hard, where we have
got bumps that we are going to have to change, either through
your own actions or here in this body as we go into
reauthorization?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think we are learning that all
the time, as we get more assessment data and continue to track
progress.
What I hear as major issues around the country that are
vexing for school folks, is special education. Which we have
discussed with respect to understanding fully the range of
abilities. Who should and shouldn't be in the accountability
system, what the appropriate educational prescription is, if
you will, a much more sophisticated understanding of special ed
students, and what role reading plays in the ability to have
students get on grade level and in regular environments, as
opposed to special education designation and the like.
LEP is an area that I hear a lot about. I think we need
more research in that area. We have not cracked the code.
Obviously, this is a place where we will have more and more
challenges as non-native speakers continue to come into our
country, and large urban districts have, you know, dozens of
languages now taught--or spoken in their school environment.
So I think we need to be much smarter about how we do that.
Then the third issue I hear about is, the notion of progress.
This as you know, is it a realistic goal for 2014, for whom,
and so forth. I hear that kind of chatter.
I mean I think those are the things that are most acute as
far as educators are concerned.
Ms. McCollum. Would my colleague from Minnesota yield for a
follow-up?
Mr. Kline. In one second, I will, I would be delighted to.
Let me just say that is very consistent with what I am hearing
and add that the multiple language issue applies not only to
large urban areas, but I can tell you from my own experience
that in suburban schools it is the same.
I am happy to yield.
Ms. McCollum. I am also from Minnesota, Madam Secretary,
and Minnesota, because we had already started our own format of
Leave No Child Behind years early, we had the testing and
everything in place, so we just tweaked it. We came on-board
quick, and so, we are in year three, where other states are not
in year three. So we have been penalized for the earlier years,
where all these adjustments and modifications have been put in.
What are your plans in the department not to hold Minnesota
in a penalty phase for participating earlier and starting in
the testing process that now has us in year three without the
benefit of all the waivers that other schools have had as they
have come on-board?
Secretary Spellings. There are issues about early adapters.
I also come from a state that was an early adapter. I do
think early adapters is part of the reality that we are in. I
would suggest that many of those states who are the earlier
adapters are starting to see accelerated improvement for
subgroups. In particular the states have the results to show
for investing early in some of these core principles.
You know, as we look at state accountability plans, I mean
these are very much, you know, hip-bone, leg-bone kind of
situations with the kind of student population, the sort of
assessments, the types of standards and so forth. So it is a
very comprehensive approach and unique approach that we really
take with each state as we work with them, just as you would
have to do.
It is highly tailored to local policies and state policies
that have been made.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the
record our state auditor's report, which shows, because of the
way that Minnesota came in and the way that the penalties
accrue, almost every single Minnesota school, within the next
10 years, will be failing, no matter what we do.
So I would like to submit that to the record and work with
the Secretary and Mr. Kline on that.
Chairman Boehner. I want to thank the Secretary for coming
today. Other members have questions that they would like the
secretary to answer.
If the secretary doesn't mind, we will ask the members to
submit those questions in writing to the Secretary, and we will
work with the department to make sure that all of your
questions get answered.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, I just want to press a privilege.
Will we have an opportunity to invite the Secretary back?
I know that she has a busy schedule, but----
Chairman Boehner. We will.
Mr. Payne.--our first opportunity--and hour and 15 minutes
is a little difficult to get through our crew.
Chairman Boehner. We will work with the Secretary, and
sometime this fall, before the session is over, try to have
another session. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
[Pause.]
Chairman Boehner. If the committee will come to order, our
second panel this morning is about to begin. I would like to
introduce our two witnesses.
Our first witness this morning on the second panel will be
Dr. Deborah Jewell-Sherman, and she has served as the
superintendent of Richmond Public Schools since 2002. She has
also served as an educational leader in New York, New Jersey,
and Fairfax County, Hampton, and Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Dr. Jewell-Sherman was the recipient of the 2005 United
Negro College Fund Flame Bearer on Education award, and Ms.
Jewell-Sherman, we are glad that you are here.
Then we will hear from Ms. Kati Haycock, who currently
serves as director of The Education Trust, an independent
nonprofit organization focused on ensuring high academic
achievement for all students at all levels and closing the
achievement gap that separates low-income and minority students
from their peers.
Prior to joining The Education Trust, Ms. Haycock served as
executive vice president of the Children's Defense Fund and
president of the Achievement Council, a statewide organization
in California that provides assistance to teachers, principals
in predominantly minority schools and improving student
achievement who has worked with all the members of this
committee, and we appreciate both of you for being here, and
with that, Dr. Jewell-Sherman, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH JEWELL-SHERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT,
RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. Good morning, Chairman Boehner,
Congressman Miller, and members of the committee. I am Deborah
Jewell-Sherman, superintendent in Richmond City, Richmond,
Virginia, and I represent the board, our employees, and 25,000
students.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on No Child Left
Behind and its impact on closing the achievement gap in our
schools.
The goal of Richmond City Public Schools is to provide
students with a world-class education. For that reason, student
achievement is the focus for every initiative program and
partnership undertaken by the board.
Of the 25,000 students enrolled, 90 percent are African-
American, 7 percent are Caucasian, 2.6 percent are Hispanic,
and over 17 percent are students with disabilities.
Additionally, nearly 70 percent of our students qualify for
free and/or reduced lunch. Of important note, a significant
number of our students come from single-parent homes and reside
in low-income housing.
In short, Richmond Public Schools typifies urban school
districts across the nation.
In 1999, the State of Virginia implemented its Standards of
Learning initiative, a high-stakes testing program that
required every local school district to meet achievement
benchmarks in core academic subject areas. To become fully
accredited, 70 percent of a school's student population must
pass the tests.
In year one, only two of Richmond's schools earned full
accreditation. In 2002, that number reached 10.
In 2003, we more than doubled our number of fully
accredited schools, moving from 10 to 23, or 45 percent.
The next year, 23 accredited schools became 39, or 76
percent, and this year, the preliminary data indicate that 43
of our 51 schools, or 84 percent of our schools, will earn full
accreditation.
Richmond Public Schools has experienced the same progress
in fulfilling the Federal NCLB benchmarks.
Last year, 27, or 52 percent, of our schools made AYP.
In 2004-05, with 97-percent highly-qualified teachers, 39,
or 76 percent, made AYP, and 29 of those schools are Title 1
schools.
In 2001, the Federal Government's NCLB ushered in stronger
accountability measures.
In 2002, our Governor, Mark Warner, launched the state's
PASS, or Partnership for Achieving Successful Schools,
initiative, which focused on providing resources to low-
performing schools.
Also in 2002, my first year as superintendent, the district
asked the Council of Great City Schools to complete an analysis
of our instructional program from top to bottom.
While NCLB provided a spring board for our school district
to take a bold look at our instructional program, it must also
be noted that Richmond public schools did not shy away from the
challenges that accompanied the implementation of the act.
Instead, we assessed our division from top to bottom to
determine our current status, and then we constructed a strong,
more accountable system where our students received high-
quality instruction that demanded higher levels of academic
achievement.
We developed a plan of action. The first instructional
reform initiative launched was the adoption of a district-wide,
research-based reading instructional program and the
elimination of all supplementary programs that had not
increased student achievement and were not data-driven.
These measures were followed by the implementation of
several standardized programs and processes.
We engaged in a comprehensive curriculum alignment process,
developed a student assessment and data management system,
revised the curriculum guides, created lesson plans,
implemented a district-wide instructional model, devised an
intense accountability system, developed a continuous capacity-
building staff development program, and utilized data analysis
to provide immediate intervention and remediation to staff and
students.
In Richmond Public Schools, the progress of students has
increased and is mirrored in all our subgroup populations. Five
out of six subgroups showed increased performance during the
2004-2005 school year in both English and math. There was a
slight decline of less than 1 percent by our white students in
mathematics. An analysis of the data indicates the gap between
white students and black and Hispanic students is closing.
In English assessments, the gap between black and white
students was reduced by over 2 percent, between Hispanic and
white students by over 11 percent. The data also indicate a
slight increase in the gap between black and Hispanic students.
In mathematics, the gap between black and white students
was reduced by 2 1/2 percent, between Hispanic and white
students by 4 percent.
The data indicate the gap between Hispanic students and
black students has decreased by over 4 percent.
In Richmond City Public Schools, in the incorporation of No
Child Left Behind with state and local reforms focused our
attention on providing the greatest instructional resources to
those students who had the greatest need. School improvement
dollars were used for professional development and training of
teachers and staff, as well as to provide resources such as
educational consultants, tutors, coaches, and instructional
materials.
These funds have been a tremendous support for our schools.
As our schools continue to improve, they exit school
improvement.
This year, six schools were removed from the school
improvement list. This is great news. However, little or no
additional funds are available to support the very initiatives
that helped to increase student achievement. The battle to
increase student achievement does not diminish.
The challenge of providing additional dollars with limited
state and local resources is one that we must address.
An additional challenge for us is implementing school
choice as a function of NCLB.
Currently, school choice is offered prior to supplemental
educational services, but many parents prefer the tutoring and
academic coaching that is provided by SES over school choice.
Last year, we only had 359 applicants for school choice, in
comparison with 1,380 students that received SES.
Currently, a pilot program that offers SES before school
choice is underway in four Virginia school divisions, and we
anxiously await the results.
In conclusion, in Richmond City Public Schools, we embrace
the No Child Left Behind Act as a means for refined and
deepened academic focus for all students.
Our district is committed to high expectations for all, and
we have implemented a new accountability system, the balanced
score card, which is an approach to strategic management that
ensures clarity of vision, strategy, and action. This
initiative is used to ensure the accountability of our school
board, central office administrators, school administrators,
and classroom staff.
The Richmond Public School family is committed to improving
individual student achievement as indicated by national, state,
and local standards, leading to each student's graduation and
ability to pursue future educational opportunities and
meaningful careers.
There are many good school systems across this nation.
However, Richmond Public Schools is not satisfied with just
being good. We seek with firm resolve to move from good to
great. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Deborah Jewell-Sherman
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah Jewell-Sherman, Ed.D, Superintendent,
Richmond Public Schools
Good morning, Chairman Boehner, Congressman Miller, Congressman
Scott and members of the Committee. I am Deborah Jewell-Sherman,
superintendent of Richmond City Public Schools in Richmond, Virginia. I
represent the School Board and 25,000 students. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on No Child Left Behind and its impact on
closing the achievement gap in our schools.
The goal of Richmond City Public Schools is to provide students
with a world-class education. For that reason, student achievement is
the focus for every initiative, program and partnership undertaken by
the Richmond City School Board.
Of the 25,000 students enrolled, 90 percent are African American, 7
percent are Caucasian, 2.6 percent are Hispanic and over 17 percent are
students with disabilities. Additionally, nearly 70 percent of our
students qualify for free and/or reduced lunch. Of important note, a
significant number of our students come from single-parent homes and
reside in low-income housing. In short, Richmond Public Schools
typifies urban school districts across this nation.
In 1999, the state of Virginia implemented its Standards of
Learning initiative, a high-stakes testing program that required every
local school district to meet achievement benchmarks in core academic
subject areas. To become fully accredited, 70 percent of a school's
student population must pass the tests. In year one, only two of
Richmond's schools earned full accreditation. In 2002, that number
reached ten. In 2003, we more than doubled our number of fully
accredited schools, moving from 10 to 23 or 45 percent. The next year,
23 accredited schools became 39 or 76 percent. And this year, the
preliminary data indicate 43 of our 51, or 84 percent, of our schools
will earn full accreditation. Richmond Public Schools has experienced
the same progress in fulfilling the Federal NCLB Benchmarks, last year
27 or 52 percent of our schools made Adequate Yearly Progress. In 2004-
2005, with 97% highly qualified instructors, 39 or 76 percent made
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); 29 of which are Title I schools.
In 2001, the federal government's No Child Left Behind Act ushered
in stronger accountability measures. In 2002, Virginia Governor Mark
Warner launched the state's PASS (Partnership for Achieving Successful
Schools), initiative which focused on providing resources to low-
performing schools. Also, in 2002, my first year as superintendent, the
district asked the Council of Great City Schools to complete an
analysis of our instructional program from top to bottom.
While the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act provided a springboard
for our school district to take a bold look at our instructional
program, it must also be noted that Richmond Public Schools did not shy
away from the challenges that accompanied the implementation of the
NCLB Act. Instead, we assessed our division from top to bottom to
determine our current status, and then we constructed a strong, more
accountable system where our students received high quality instruction
that demanded higher levels of academic achievement. We developed a
plan of action.
The first instructional reform initiative launched was the adoption
of a district-wide, research-based, reading instructional program and
elimination of all supplementary programs that had not increased
student achievement and were not data driven. These measures were
followed by the implementation of several standardized programs and
processes. We engaged in a comprehensive curriculum alignment process,
developed a student assessment and data management system, revised the
curriculum guides, created lesson plans, implemented a district-wide
instructional model, devised an intense accountability system,
developed a continuous capacity building staff development program, and
utilized data analysis to provide immediate intervention and
remediation to staff and students.
In Richmond City Public Schools, the progress of students, overall,
has increased and is mirrored in our subgroup populations. Five out of
six subgroups showed increased performance during the 2004-2005 school
year in both English and Mathematics. There was a slight decline, -.69%
decrease by white students in mathematics. An analysis of the data
indicates the gap between white students and blacks and Hispanics is
closing.
In English assessments, the gap between black and white students
was reduced by over 2%, between Hispanics and whites by over 11%. The
data also indicate a slight 1.8% increase in the gap between black and
Hispanic students.
In mathematics, the gap between black and white students was
reduced by 2.5%, between Hispanics and whites by 4%. The data indicate
the gap between Hispanic students and black students has decreased by
over 4%.
ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES--ENGLISH PERFORMANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student subgroups 03-04 Achievement 03-04 Achievement Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...................................................... 71.36 75.19 +3.83
Black.................................................... 69.98 73.91 +3.93
Hispanic................................................. 66.00 79.73 +13.73
White Students........................................... 89.73 91.55 +1.80
Ltd. Eng. Proficient..................................... 65.38 77.24 +11.86
Disadvantaged............................................ 67.18 73.26 +6.08
Disabilities............................................. 53.97 60.86 +6.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES--MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student subgroups 03-04 Achievement 03-04 Achievement Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...................................................... 75.74 77.33 +1.59
Black.................................................... 74.29 76.15 +1.86
Hispanic................................................. 80.45 83.79 +3.34
White.................................................... 90.60 89.91 -.69
Ltd. Eng. Proficient..................................... 74.79 81.59 +6.80
Disadvantaged............................................ 74.09 77.40 +3.31
Disabilities............................................. 54.56 67.96 +13.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Richmond City Public Schools, the incorporation of NCLB with
state and local reforms focused our attentions on providing the
greatest instructional resources to those students who had the greatest
need. School improvement dollars were used for professional development
and training of teachers and staff, as well as to provide resources
such as educational consultants, tutors, coaches and instructional
materials. These funds have been a tremendous support for our schools.
As our schools continue to improve, they exit School Improvement. This
year six schools were removed from the School Improvement list. This is
great news, however, little or no additional funds are available to
support the very initiatives that helped to increase student
achievement. The battle to increase student achievement does not
diminish. The challenge of providing additional dollars with limited
state and local resources is one that we must address.
An additional challenge for us is implementing school choice as a
function of No Child Left Behind. Currently school choice is offered
prior to supplemental educational services (SES). Many parents prefer
the tutoring and academic coaching that is provided by SES over school
choice. Last year, we only had 359 applicants for school choice, in
comparison with 1380 students that received SES. Currently, a pilot
program that offers SES before school choice is underway in four
Virginia school divisions. Richmond City is anxious awaiting the
results of the pilot program.
In conclusion, in Richmond City Public Schools, we embrace the No
Child Left Behind Act as a means for refined and deepened academic
focus for all students. Our district is committed to high expectations
for all and has implemented a new accountability system, the Balanced
Scorecard, which is an approach to strategic management that ensures
clarity of vision, strategy and action. This initiative is used to
ensure the accountability of our school board, central office
administrators, school administrators and classroom staff.
The Richmond Public Schools family is committed to improving
individual student achievement as indicated by national, state and
local standards, leading to each student's graduation and ability to
pursue future educational opportunities and meaningful careers. There
are many ``good'' school systems across this nation; however, Richmond
Public Schools is not satisfied with ``just being good.'' We seek, with
firm resolve, to move from good to great.
______
Chairman Boehner. Thank you.
Ms. Haycock.
STATEMENT OF MS. KATI HAYCOCK, DIRECTOR, THE EDUCATION TRUST
Ms. Haycock. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, and other
members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify
here this morning.
As director of The Education Trust, I have the incredible
privilege of visiting with educators all around the country who
are working hard to improve the achievement of the kids that
they serve.
In fact, in the last 10 days alone, I have been in
Charlotte, Cincinnati, New York City, Indianapolis, and
Bismarck, North Dakota.
As you might guess, everywhere I go, I hear folks talking
about NCLB, and of course, it is not all positive. Nobody out
there thinks the law is perfect. Almost everybody thinks there
are some things about the law that could be improved, but what
I want to be clear about is there is no question in my mind, as
I visit school systems around the country, that educators are
far more focused than ever before. In every community, there
are educators who tell me that this law has strengthened their
hand as they try to do the important work of improving
achievement, especially among low-income children and children
of color.
I am very much aware that that is not always the message
you hear from local educators in their districts, and many
times you hear a lot of anger. It is important to remember,
though, that in many ways, anger was essentially inevitable.
With any kind of bold assault like this on the status quo, you
have asked folks to confront the longstanding issues of race
and class in our country, and that is never a comfortable thing
for people to do.
So when you add that expectation, that large expectation,
with less than stellar, shall we say, communication and
administration by the U.S. Department of Education, it is not
surprising, in many ways, that there has been so much push-
back.
Despite that, there is no question in my mind that this law
is helping focus much more attention and much more energy on
improving the education of low-income and minority students
than at any time, certainly, more than 20 years that I have
been doing this work. But you know us, we are the data guys. We
are not ever as impressed by energy as we are by results, and
the good news here is that, in the vast majority of our states,
what we are now seeing is improved achievement for all kids and
significant narrowing of the gap.
In Minnesota, for example, the percent of black kids at the
fifth grade level who are proficient in mathematics has
actually doubled in the last five years, and the black-white
achievement gap in Minnesota, once one of the largest in the
country, has declined by 10 points, most of that progress since
the law passed.
In Illinois, achievement, especially in mathematics, among
Latino youngsters, has soared. The Latino-white achievement gap
in Illinois has been cut in half since NCLB was passed.
In Ohio, every one of the six urban school districts in the
state has actually improved at a faster rate than the state as
a whole, narrowing the long and large gap between cities and
suburbs.
In fact, if you want to see something interesting, take a
look at our big city school districts in general. Largely due
to incredible work being done by the Council of Great City
Schools, we are seeing much faster improvements in many of our
big cities than ever before, and as you know, those results are
finally starting to add up nationally. The most recent results
from the National Assessment of Education Progress long-term
trends at the elementary shows record performance in both
reading and math for all groups of kids, and a smaller black-
white and Latino-white achievement gap than we have ever had in
this nation's history. We are finally, in other words,
beginning to turn the ship in a more promising direction.
Now, remember, the law didn't do this, dedicated educators
around the country did, but the important thing to know is that
educators, thousands of them around the country, are stepping
up to the challenge that you gave them.
Let me talk, though, not just so much about progress but
about three areas that are terribly important for us to focus
on.
First is getting more help to the schools that continue to
be low-performing. As I know many of you here, when you talk to
folks in your districts, there are some schools that are
responding to the pressure in not-so-positive ways.
They are narrowing the curriculum. They are teaching to the
test. They are doing things that, frankly, are not going to pay
off for kids.
In fact, when I visit high-performing, high-poverty schools
around the country, that is not what I see.
What I see instead are robust, exciting education, lots of
projects, lots of art and music, and the kids are learning that
way, but many struggling school educators don't know that. We
need to provide the more help, and you could actually help by
funding the school improvement grants that you have authorized
but never actually put any money to. So help for schools is one
thing.
Number two is the teacher quality issue that some of you
raised earlier. One of the things that low-performing schools
need most is high-quality teachers.
You knew that well when you crafted the teacher quality
provisions of No Child Left Behind, but the department has not
taken those requirements seriously. The rules are very unclear.
The result of that is very simple.
Number one, states can do anything they want, and here is
the consequence.
States that stepped up and took their responsibilities
seriously ended up looking bad. Those that simply declare any
old teacher as being highly qualified no matter how much
evidence there is to the contrary to look good.
So there is a perverse situation here that is not very
helpful. The second that has happened is you have lots of
unnecessary fear.
When you crafted the highly qualified teacher provisions,
what you said is teachers that do not meet them get help, but
you know what they think? They think they will get fired. There
is nothing like that in the law, but the department has failed
to tell people that, which has created all that unnecessary
fear.
We need to fix that, and we need to take seriously the
requirements in the law that poor kids get their fair share of
high-quality teachers. There has been no attention to that
whatsoever. One final area is one also mentioned by several of
you, and that is SEP services.
You certainly know that, by year three, if schools are not
making progress, their children are supposed to get
supplemental services.
You actually established very specific requirements asking
states to set careful requirements for the quality of those and
to monitor those, but the department ignored those, as well,
with the result that low-income kids are becoming an
experiment, both for private sector and badly organized public
sector programs. I think we need to remind the department this
is hugely important to take this much more seriously. So when
you come back to reauthorization, you actually know, is this
working or not?
Finally, let me just remind you that when you passed this
law, you showed very, very important leadership in charting a
new course in Federal education policy. While there is still a
lot more work to be done, and you certainly all know that, now
is certainly not the time to rest on our laurels. It is very
important for us to recognize, at the same time, that we are on
the right path. Kids are learning more. The initial results are
promising, especially in the elementary grades. We need to stay
the course in saying clearly that all kids in this country
count. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kati Haycock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kati Haycock, Director, the Education Trust
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify this morning.
As Director of the Education Trust, I'm privileged to spend most of
my time with educators who are working hard to boost the achievement of
all of their students. Just this last week, I was in Charlotte, North
Carolina, New York City, Bismarck, North Dakota, and Indianapolis.
Through these travels, I've gained a unique perspective on the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Everywhere I go, you can bet that I hear about NCLB. As you might
guess, it's not all positive, but let me start off this morning by
saying that, despite the shortfalls in funding and the anxiety about
AYP, this law is having a dramatically positive impact on American
education. Nobody thinks the law is perfect. But educators in every
part of this country have told me that this law strengthens the hands
of those who are working to improve overall achievement and close the
achievement gaps that have for too long plagued our schools and our
nation.
I know that this is not always the story you hear and that at times
the complaints have been loud and at times even angry. In part, it was
inevitable that there would be pushback against a law that is such a
bold assault on the status quo. Moreover, NCLB presses hard on the
important issues of class and race and those issues--as critical as
they are for us to face squarely--continue to be hard and uncomfortable
issues for most Americans to confront.
In fact, we've chosen for a very long time not to confront them.
Instead, as a society we've swept issues of inequality in public
schools under the rug. And that's allowed too many schools and
districts to grow complacent about the dead-end trajectories of low-
income and minority students, students with disabilities, and English-
language learners. Before NCLB, state systems of accountability
accommodated, rather than challenged, persistent patterns of school
failure. Meanwhile, education grew more and more important in
determining economic mobility and civic participation as well as our
collective prosperity and security.
While some pushback was inevitable, it is also the case that a lot
of good will has been squandered and momentum undercut by the U.S.
Department of Education's mishandling of the law.
Early Results Are Positive
Despite all the pushback and rancorous rhetoric, NCLB is working to
focus more attention, energy, and resources on improving the education
of poor and minority students than at any time since I started doing
this work more than 20 years ago.
While this new focus is inspiring and altogether positive, it would
not be so significant if it weren't leading to actual gains in student
learning. Again, though, there is some good news, especially at the
elementary grades and in middle school math. Across the country, most
states have made simultaneous progress in raising overall achievement
and closing the gaps.
In Minnesota, for example, the percent of Black fifth-graders
proficient in math has more than doubled in the last five years and the
Black-White achievement gap has shrunk by 10 points, and most of the
progress has come in the last three years-since NCLB's passage. In
Illinois, achievement in math has been consistently rising among Latino
fifth graders and the Latino-White achievement gap has been cut in half
since NCLB was enacted--from 31 to 15 percentage points in three years.
In Ohio, every one of the six largest districts in the state has been
improving at a pace more quickly than the state overall, narrowing the
gaps between cities and suburbs. This is exactly what we all hoped
would come out of NCLB: greater focus that would lead to rising student
achievement overall and accelerated gains for the students and schools
that were farthest behind.
These test score results represent the foundation of better
opportunities and brighter futures for these students. They represent
improvements in classroom instruction and more strategic use of data to
understand and address individual students' needs--but most of all they
represent the tireless efforts and dedication of those in our schools:
teachers, counselors, principals and superintendents. We owe these
educators a debt of gratitude, especially those who are working and
succeeding in our highest poverty schools and proving that it can be
done--that we can teach all students to high standards in our public
schools.
NCLB called on educators to embrace a new challenge--not just
access for all, but achievement for all. Thousands upon thousands are
answering that call. I want to mention just a couple to serve as
illustrations of what is happening around the country.
Centennial Place, Atlanta, Georgia
In Centennial Place Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia,
Principal Cynthia Kuhlman says she hardly thinks about NCLB's
accountability goals. ``AYP is not good enough for us,'' is what she
says. Centennial Place educates more than 500 students, 90 percent of
whom are African-American and two-thirds of whom are from low-income
families and has been one of the top schools in the state in academic
achievement for several years running. Centennial Place students learn
mostly through projects, turning a classroom into a plane for a trip to
Africa in one lesson, building a tundra out of cake and ice cream for
another. ``The best way to do well on the test is to teach the
standards in an exciting way,'' says Principal Kuhlman.
Centennial Place is also very strategic about analyzing test
results and feeding them in to a continuous improvement process. Last
year, they noticed that students with disabilities were lagging,
although still above Georgia's AYP targets. Listen to how Principal
Kuhlman responded: ``We took it to heart. We went through a period
where we didn't acknowledge that our special education students weren't
doing well. No Child Left Behind helped us focus.'' The result? In
2005, 87 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded
standards in math, and 85 percent in reading. Centennial Place is not
just a good school for poor, urban students. It is a good school that
any of us would be lucky to have for our own children.
Granger High School, Yakima Valley, Washington
Another example comes from the rural Yakima Valley in Washington
State. Granger High School educates mostly Latino (82%) and Native
American (6%) students, most of whom (84%) come from low-income
families. In 2001, Granger scores on Washington's test were near the
bottom: 20 percent of students were proficient in reading, 11 percent
in writing, and just 4 percent in math. Principal Richard Esparza has
worked every way he knows how to turn around the culture of low
expectations and serious discipline problems throughout the school.
Every teacher is asked to advise students and every teacher is asked to
make home visits. When teachers don't want to go these extra miles,
Esparza has a practiced speech where he offers to write them
recommendations to find other jobs. But nothing is going to get in the
way of his helping students succeed. The results: In 2005, 61 percent
of students were proficient in reading, 51 percent in writing, and 31
percent in math.
All of this progress was accomplished while the graduation rate has
dramatically increased, and at a time when Washington State tightened
definitions for calculating graduation rates. Still, Granger did not
make AYP last year. Esparza knows why and he's focusing on more
improvements. His feeling about NCLB? ``I love it,'' he says, ``It has
to happen if our nation is going to be competitive.'' While the law
needs to be tweaked, Esparza is emphatic: ``Hold schools accountable.
Don't let schools like mine off the hook.''
These schools--like many others that my colleagues and I know and
work with in every part of the country--aren't grumbling about NCLB,
but instead are thinking deeply about how to make sure their students
learn what they need. This is not easy or simple work, but the
dedicated professionals in these schools know that they are providing
children with the single best way to secure a place in our economic,
civic and cultural mainstream. If you want to understand just how
complex it is, you can read detailed profiles of these and other
successful schools at www.achievementalliance.org.
As important as it is to focus on schools in high-poverty areas,
NCLB has served another equally important purpose. It is shining a
bright light on previously invisible students in our suburbs and small
towns. Students of color and poor students have languished in many
affluent and middle class districts, while success was measured only by
the performance of top students or based solely on overall averages. In
yesterday's New York Times, Samuel Freedman wrote eloquently about the
struggle for equity in Princeton, New Jersey--a highly educated, highly
affluent district that didn't make AYP because of low achievement among
African-American students--an achievement gap that has been
acknowledged but somehow not closed for years. Freedman reports that
Black parents credit NCLB with finally focusing attention on their
struggle, and finally making the school district pay attention to their
children.
What Needs to Happen Next?
There is no question that NCLB has focused teachers and education
leaders all over the country on improving outcomes and closing
achievement gaps. But we are a long way from translating this increased
focus into increased student achievement at all levels and all schools:
Middle school reading achievement nationally has not been improving as
much as mathematics, and overall achievement in high schools has been
stagnant or declining in many states, even as achievement gaps grow
wider. It is clear we need more attention from policymakers, more
resources, and more effective strategies for improving secondary
schools.
Moreover, while there was some good news in lower and middle grades
from the NAEP long-term trend assessment data released earlier this
year, we can not fairly attribute this progress specifically to NCLB.
In about a month or so, the new Main NAEP results will allow us to look
much more precisely at whether the focus from NCLB has actually helped
to improve achievement nationwide.
While we will all hope for more good news when NAEP results are
released, we already know that there's much more work that needs to be
done. One of the most pressing issues is to provide more help to the
schools that are not meeting accountability goals under NCLB. While
there are a lot of schools that are focused on improving, some schools
are struggling with the challenges in ways that are not constructive.
Teaching to Test: Not Inevitable, Not Advisable
Chief among the concerns are that some schools are responding to
the challenges by resorting to rote teaching, obsessive test
preparation, or narrowing of the curriculum. These responses are
neither inevitable nor wise. In fact, in all of my travels and all of
my research, I have never come across a high-performing school that was
inordinately focused on ``drill and kill'' or test-prep strategies.
High-poverty schools where students are excelling tend to be the most
dynamic, creative, engaging learning environments I come across.
Many struggling schools don't have the staff expertise or external
support to raise achievement. That's how they became struggling schools
in the first place! The counter-productive responses to new assessments
and accountability that no one supports are the actions of educators
who desperately want to do better, but simply lack the capacity, know-
how and resources to do what experience tells us works best. And they
don't get the help they need, at least in part because when central
school district offices, state departments, and even the U.S.
Department of Education were established, they were not designed to
assist low-performing schools. We need to build that capacity, and
quickly.
Offering more expert help to the schools that have not made AYP
will cost money. Congress could advance these efforts by funding the
school improvement grants in section 1003(g) of the No Child Left
Behind Act, which are in the statute but have never been funded.
Funding section 1003(g) at authorized levels would double the federal
investment in the school improvement process and would provide critical
help where it is needed the most.
We at the Education Trust work with lots of low-performing schools
that need help to use their resources more effectively, and helping
schools identify ineffective practices and implement more effective
instructional strategies should be a focus of section 1003 (g) funds.
But we also see that many of these schools need more resources. Nowhere
is their need more acute than with respect to teacher quality.
Teacher Quality
Despite knowing the importance of teacher quality, especially for
students with little support for education outside of school, and
despite all of the lofty language and public commitments to closing the
achievement gap, we systematically assign our most vulnerable students
to our least qualified, least experienced teachers. When there are
shortages, poor and minority students get out-of-field teachers; as
teachers accrue valuable experience, they often transfer into--and are
paid more to teach in--the most affluent schools. So high-poverty and
high-minority schools tend to have a harder time recruiting quality
teachers, and then serve as a revolving door for the novice teachers
they help train.
Congress knew very well that teachers are the most important factor
in education, and also recognized the significant problems in teacher
quality and distribution. By including major teacher quality provisions
in NCLB, Congress brought federal policy in-line with what research
documents is the most important issue in raising student achievement
and closing gaps.
The teacher quality provisions in NCLB embody three basic
principles:
<bullet> First, all students are entitled to qualified teachers who
know their subjects.
<bullet> Second, parents deserve information on their children's
teachers and the qualifications of teachers in their schools.
<bullet> Finally, NCLB recognizes that states, school districts and
the national government have a special responsibility to ensure that
poor and minority students get their fair share of qualified,
experienced teachers.
Congress increased funding for teacher quality initiatives by 50
percent (from $2 billion to $3 billion each year), targeted the money
to high-poverty school districts, and gave local officials nearly
unfettered discretion to spend the money in ways that were tailored to
local circumstances. School districts could offer expanded professional
development to teachers who weren't yet highly qualified and offer
bonuses or other incentives in their hardest to staff schools.
What's happened with all the new money and all the new focus on
teacher quality? No one knows.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Education has not actively
implemented the teacher quality provisions. For the first two and half
years after NCLB was enacted, the Department refused to exert any
authority at all over the states' implementation. The Department did
not ask for and did not review state definitions or plans. Guidance
from the Department has been erratic and inconsistent--both across
states and over time.
Take the straightforward issue of accountability for the teacher
quality provisions. The consequences of failing to meet the teacher
quality goals are spelled out in section 2141 of the law. Despite the
clarity of these provisions, persistent rumors suggest that teachers
will lose their jobs if they don't meet their state's ``highly
qualified'' definition, and that school districts will lose federal
funds if they do not meet the goals. Nothing in the statute authorizes
or even suggests these Draconian consequences, but the U.S. Department
of Education has not seen fit to dispel these misunderstandings. It is
inexplicable that the Department has not been able to clarify the most
rudimentary issues with respect to the teacher quality provisions.
What we are left with is a bold policy initiative from Congress
that has never seen the light of day. Billions of dollars in new
federal money have been poured into teacher quality initiatives with no
federal oversight. This vacuum of federal action has allowed states to
game the system, making compliant states look bad and conniving states
look good. Most states have taken advantage of the Department's lax
enforcement to report that almost all classes already are taught by
highly qualified teachers, even in the highest poverty schools. This
despite years of research about grave shortages in certain subjects,
such as secondary math and science.
Even more disturbing has been inaction on the inequitable
distribution of teacher talent. Congress required each state to develop
a plan to measure and address the disproportionate assignment of
unqualified, inexperienced, and out-of-field teachers to poor and
minority students. The Department has never issued regulations or
guidance detailing what those plans should include, nor have they ever
asked states to produce such plans, or even reminded states of these
obligations.
These provisions are critically important for closing the
achievement gap and for fulfilling our fundamental obligation of
equality in opportunity. But for all intents and purposes, these
provisions have been interpreted out of the law. Through a grant from
the Joyce Foundation, we are working with three Midwestern states, and
the three biggest cities in these states, to measure and address the
distribution of teacher quality. With the help of researchers at
Illinois Education Research Council, we have recently shared data with
policymakers in Illinois that documents the striking disparities in
access to teacher quality based on poverty and race. We are finding
that we need to initiate a process that Congress required more than
three years ago, but that has been ignored. And the states with whom we
are working may be among those who are dealing most proactively with
the problems of inequitable distribution of teacher quality--in many
other states, they have yet to even acknowledge the disparities in
access, let alone craft a plan to address the problems.
Supplemental Services
NCLB requires schools that miss goals for three or more years to
offer tutoring to low-income students, referred to under the law as
``supplemental services.'' These services are paid for by school
districts with a set-aside of their federal funds equal to as much as
15 percent of the school district's allocation. That means that almost
$2 billion is available this year for low-income parents who choose to
take advantage of these new opportunities.
The law establishes very specific responsibilities for states to
evaluate the quality and effectiveness of supplemental service
providers in section 1116(e). These evaluations are critically
important because supplemental services represent a new and untested
improvement strategy. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Education
has failed to enforce these provisions, relying solely on ``the
market'' to serve as the arbiter of quality in this educational
experiment with students from low-income families.
The low-income parents that have entrusted their children to these
state-licensed providers did not sign up to make their children guinea
pigs for the private sector, or, for that matter, badly organized
public-sector programs. Failure to hold states to their
responsibilities in evaluating supplemental service providers
represents an inappropriate disregard for the interests of low-income
students. It also undermines the knowledge base on which to evaluate
this innovative program's effectiveness.
Congress demanded evidence on which parents could make individual
choices, states could make policy determinations, and on which Congress
itself could act in subsequent authorizations. The Department's lack of
enforcement means that parents are in the dark, and that, with respect
to supplemental services, we may go in to the reauthorization of NCLB
with the same tired debates based on ideology, not evidence.
Conclusion
Almost four years ago, this Committee showed great leadership in
charting a new course in federal education policy. There is much more
work still to do and new challenges continue to emerge. Thanks in large
measure to NCLB, however, the nation is finally getting traction on
correcting the deep inequities that have for so long stunted the growth
of so many of our young people and dishonored our democratic ideals.
Because of NCLB, achievement gaps are no longer simply tolerated; a
culture of achievement is taking hold in our schools, and we are better
poised to confront the new challenges.
Now is no time to rest on our laurels. Decades and even centuries
of neglect and discrimination are not reversed in three years' time.
Now is the time to show resolve and press forward. It will take more of
your attention and more of our combined resources to close the
achievement gap once and for all. None of this will come easily, and it
will demand more of your courage.
First and foremost, however, we need to recognize that we are on
the right path, we are seeing some promising results, and we need to
stay the course on demanding that all students count. Every child
growing up in America deserves a strong education, and NCLB--while
certainly not perfect--has sent that message loud and clear.
I thank you for the honor of testifying before you today and look
forward to answering your questions.
______
Chairman Boehner. Let me thank both of you for your
excellent testimony. Because not all members got a chance to
ask questions in the first round, I would like to recognize the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert, to begin the questioning
in this round.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, I
would like to congratulate Dr. Jewell-Sherman. I think that the
results that you are seeing and the improvement every year is
really an accomplishment, and I think that is exactly what No
Child Left Behind envisioned would happen in schools,
increasing that progress dramatically. You must be doing the
right thing.
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. Thank you.
Ms. Biggert. I would like to ask you because so many people
tell us that there is not enough funding, that we mandated an
unfunded mandate. I don't believe that we mandated an unfunded
mandate with the money.
I think because we have put more money into this, it really
is the highest domestic policy issue. We have put the most
money into it from our discretionary funding, but there still
is the funding for IDEA. I am wondering if people are confusing
the fact that we are funding that at 19 percent.
We have not reached the 40 percent, which we are trying to
do, but have increased the funding so much.
Do you think that the under-funding of IDEA is affecting
the No Child Left Behind program? Is that where the issue is?
Is it because IDEA money can't be used for the programs here?
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. That is not what I have heard. What I
continue to hear, as have you, is that IDEA is under-funded,
but I think it is a separate conversation regarding NCLB.
The expenditures in our district for the reforms run about
$8 million a year, and that does not include the cost for local
transportation for students who exercise the school choice
option.
It does not include the cost for transportation of children
who are utilizing SES, nor does it underwrite the employee in
each one of our schools that we have hired to monitor SES
programs. So it is those kinds of costs that are coming out of
individual districts that I think are causing people to have
that concern.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you.
You talked about the programs, and I know that, in Chicago,
they had a problem or wanted to use tutoring rather than the
students leaving the school and going to another school when
they didn't meet the average yearly progress, and finally
were--there was a waiver that they could--and because of the
numbers--could hire more tutors, not just from the private
companies but have their own program itself, and it has worked.
Because we see in Chicago, the numbers increasing dramatically.
When you talked about having a different timing for the
supplemental programs, did you mean, that by doing the tutoring
before the transfer out of the school?
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. Absolutely. We have found that it works
more effectively.
Parents are interested in keeping their children, if they
can, in their neighborhood schools, and school choice doesn't
provide for that.
Another challenge for us initially was that our receiver
schools had to be high-performing schools, and we started out
with very, very few of those. But I think one of the reasons
that SES is also working effectively in our district is, as I
have said, we have hired a teacher in each one of our buildings
who monitors SES provisions. She links the services between
classroom teachers and private and other providers.
She or he contacts parents to make sure that students are
in attendance, because SES doesn't help if children don't
attend. I think that all of those strategies have worked
effectively in our district to make sure that SES is truly
targeting the weak areas that students have in their learning.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you.
Ms. Haycock, have you found that there is a commonality in
the schools that are really being able to turn around and
really increase dramatically the performance?
Ms. Haycock. That is actually a very good question.
The answer is that no two schools are going about
improvement in quite the same way, but there are four or five
things in common in all of the high-performing schools and
districts.
One is a real clarity about the standards for kids with no
vagueness about what work is good enough.
Two is teachers who really know their subject and who know
how to teach it.
Three is a lot of support for teachers, especially around
curriculum, not leaving them on their own to figure out how to
teach things, and four is extra instructional time for kids who
arrive behind. Through those kinds of practices, we are getting
higher achievements for all kids, frankly.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you both for the job that you are doing.
I yield back.
Ms. Drake [presiding]. Thank you.
Next we will recognize Mrs. Woolsey, the gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
In the next Congress, we are going to----
Thank you for your excellent testimony. We are going to re-
authorize No Child Left Behind.
So I am going to ask you three questions that I think we
have to deal with when we look at the reauthorization and the
fixes that I believe need to be put in place. But I would like
your quick responses, and if we run out of time, I will stay
for another round to hear more from you.
First, if you could make one change to AYP to enable it to
better promote academic progress and to close the achievement
gap, what would it be?
Second, how can we change No Child Left Behind to ensure
that the consequences for schools that are identified as in
need of improvement, in fact help those schools to improve, not
punish them?
Third, how can we, without more testing, ensure that
schools have a broad enough curriculum so that kids are well
rounded, they have social studies, art, science?
Those are my three questions.
Ms. Haycock. Go ahead.
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. The first question, what would I like
to see changed, I would like to have the flexibility to sustain
our academic gains by not having to withdraw additional
resources from previously low-performing schools. The
challenges continue with each cohort of students coming in, and
in a district like Richmond, where we have 40-percent mobility,
the students who we have in eighth grade are not necessarily
students that were with us from kindergarten all the way to
that point, and so, I need to be able to continue to support
the kids of initiatives that we have undertaken in our various
schools.
In terms of what could be done to help, taking into account
some type of growth model would be extremely helpful. With an
84-percent full accreditation and 76-percent AYP, and having
met the performance benchmarks in every area except one, our
school division did not make AYP, and that was because .62
percent of our Hispanic students didn't score highly enough in
English.
The fact that we have improved over, I think, 8 percent
over the course of three years is not factored into that, and
so, some measure of growth where you are actually showing
growth--we are six-tenths of 1 percent away from that 95
percent benchmark in participation. So that would be extremely
helpful. I am sorry. The last question was----
Ms. Drake. Why don't we come back to that on the second
round?
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. Okay.
Ms. Drake. Let's do one and two for you, too, Ms. Haycock.
Ms. Haycock. Well, we certainly do believe that a well-done
growth model addition to AYP could help. I actually would argue
the biggest problem with AYP now is how it treats high schools.
We are not getting traction in our high schools, and part
of the reason for that is it is a one-grade-level assessment,
and it is a high school drop-out figure that, frankly, most
people are lying about.
So we need to do a much more robust look at how to move our
high schools ahead, because we are not getting traction there.
Around your second question, actually, for me, the answers to
number two and three are exactly the same, that is schools that
are not making progress needs lots of very good help.
We are not giving adequate help to them. You are not
funding it adequately, but more important, states need some
help in beefing up their capacity structure.
So we really need to beef up their capacity structure. And
if we do that well, frankly, the third problem you talked
about, which is the kind of narrowing of the curriculum, will
go away. Because, if I wasn't clear earlier, I should have
been, in schools with high academic achievement that serve low-
income kids, we don't see narrowing, we don't see rote
teaching, we don't see teaching the test.
We see, instead, something very different from that, kids
taught to standards, through projects, through high-level
instruction, and teachers in low-performing schools need to see
that.
They need to know that, if they teach narrowly, they are
not actually going to make progress. So if we do number two
well, number three will take care of itself.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Would you like to answer the third
one?
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. I am of two minds. You know, it is very
easy to say, as has been said in my district, that standards of
learning and meeting these benchmarks are not that important.
However, until you meet them, you are under incredible
pressure.
Now that Richmond Public Schools, as an example, has
achieved a great deal of success, we are able to focus a lot of
our energies on ensuring that the SOLs are not our sole target.
We are looking more closely at dual enrollment participation
and SAT scores.
We have implemented things like foreign language programs
at the elementary school, so that, ultimately, all of our
students will graduate at least bilingual, and I would add,
too, that there is a learning curve for teachers, and bringing
them up to the point where they are able to teach using higher
order thinking strategies has been a learning process for us as
a school division, and more and more, our teachers are stepping
up to the plate.
So we are seeing a commensurate effort in improving our
achievement on these kinds of benchmarks, while expanding what
we call a quality education in our school district.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Drake. Thank you.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, and thank you both for being here.
Your testimony has been excellent.
Ms. Haycock, I noted that you referred to the highly
qualified teachers, part of No Child Left Behind, as being
apparently less than what you would like to see. You also
indicated that states can do pretty much whatever they want to
do. The district I represent is very rural and we are having a
lot of problems, because sometimes a teacher may be required to
teach chemistry and physics and math, and in many cases, it is
just not economically feasible for them to be qualified in
every one of those areas. I wondered if, in your travels and in
your observation, what would you recommend that we do in those
kinds of cases. Because we certainly want teachers that are
qualified, but at the same and by the same token, there are
certain realities that we just have to look at.
Ms. Haycock. It is interesting you should ask. One of the
issues that I was in North Dakota to talk about is that very
issue.
They, like you, are an extremely rural state, with lots of
very small schools and districts. There is no question that it
is harder in small schools and rural areas to get teachers who
have a strong grounding in their subject, but here is the
question.
We have essentially two choices about how we can handle
that problem.
We can either just slap a label on the teachers and say,
oh, you are highly qualified, even if we know they actually
don't have the strong grounding. Or we can say, which is what
you said in the law, we need to give those teachers some extra
support and education in the subjects they are teaching but
don't have a strong grounding in. That actually was the intent
behind the law, but the problem is, again, when people just
rush to say, oh, we can never do this, so let's just declare
them highly qualified, instead of saying no. The point here is
to provide them with extra help in learning that subject
matter, so the kids they are teaching actually have teachers
who know their stuff. Unfortunately, a lot of states didn't
step up to that, so they are not spending the $3 billion you
gave them on teacher quality to help those teachers.
They, rather, just said they are highly qualified, because
we could never get teachers in the rural area that know this. I
think that has not been good for teachers, and it certainly has
not been good for kids.
Mr. Osborne. Well, I certainly understand what you are
saying, and I guess all of us would like to see very highly
qualified teachers all across the country, and yet, you can
frequently hear the complaint that, well, we are being asked to
do all these things and we are not being given enough funding
to do this. We have got some of the accounting offices saying,
well, yeah, you are giving them enough money, but what you hear
over and over again out in the countryside is we are really not
being given enough money to implement it. And so, therein lies
the rub, you know, because these folks, particularly in some of
the rural areas, where they just don't have much funding, and
they are really stretched, and like the READ money--$20,000 is
a huge deal to these people. They are very frustrated, and I
guess we could just say, well, you know, you have just got to
go train these people, and you have got to get it done. I
understand that desire, but I am just relaying to you some
frustration that I am hearing, and maybe there is nothing more
we can do about it than just say, well, you have to get it
done.
Ms. Haycock. Well, there are more things we can do about
it, and frankly, I think what we haven't done is ask higher ed
to play a more active role here, and that is actually why I was
in North Dakota. It was the university system getting together
and saying how could we support these teachers? How could we
both prepare more teachers to teach in these small rural
communities, but how can we provide, through distance learning,
through other sorts of means, the support that teachers who may
were history majors in college actually need now that they are
teaching science as well.
So I think, through a joint effort of K-12 and higher
education, we can get that done if we don't just slap a label,
highly qualified, on them, and acknowledge they actually need
some help.
Mr. Osborne. Okay. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Boehner [presiding]. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for your
testimony.
Because Minnesota schools were cited, I think sometimes it
is important to understand the history and to know what the
numbers actually mean. I represent St. Paul, Minnesota. I
represented St. Paul, Minnesota, in the Minnesota House. I was
very pleased when Patricia Harvey was hired, but she was hired
seven years ago, not five years ago.
Minnesota started putting reforms in our schools nine years
ago, more dollars into testing to find out what our achievement
gap was, to address it.
So the reforms that we are seeing and the reforms that you
mention are not just due to Leave No Child Behind, and I think
the record has to reflect that and we have to be accurate when
we reflect that we do have an achievement gap in Minnesota. We
are very concerned about the achievement gap. Minnesota ranks,
on college entrance exam, SAT scores, very, very high
nationally. We are always in the top, and I have the numbers
that I am going to submit for the record.
I am not saying that we don't want to work to even make it
better for every single one of our students, especially our
students of color, but overall, white students rank 600 in
math.
The mean score is 536. Black students in Minnesota rank
511. That mean score nationally is 433.
So we want to do better, but I think, when you are citing
states and putting them in there, sometimes people who don't
understand that every state has its own way of reporting
testing results. The states report different averages, and then
try to take the time-frame of Leave No Child Behind in there,
which doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of what is
going on in Minnesota. I understand Mr. Scott has asked me to
yield some time.
Ms. Haycock. Could I respond to that briefly?
Ms. McCollum. Certainly, but I want to be fair to Mr.
Scott, because there is a vote going on.
Ms. Haycock. I think I was pretty clear not to attribute
anything to No Child Left Behind other than putting some wind
behind the sails of educators who are trying to make a
difference. But I will tell you that, in both Minnesota and
many other states, the reform effort began earlier. But if you
look at the numbers, what you will see is little or no progress
in narrowing gaps in the years prior to No Child Left Behind.
In Minnesota, for example, it was a 2-point reduction in the
gap in the years prior, and then you see in the year following
the implementation of the law, you see an immediate change.
Ms. McCollum. The changes were in place. Those are
Minnesota changes, and I have read your article on Dayton's
Bluff. Dayton's Bluff is in my district.
Dayton's Bluff is one of the schools that we targeted with
extra dollars. The extra dollars have all been now cut by the
state legislature, because they have to fund Leave No Child
Behind. And so, we share the same goals, but I think all
politics is local. I think I understand Dayton's Bluff quite
well and what has happened in the St. Paul school district, and
we need to do so much better. I am not saying we are there yet.
I yield to Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
I just want to welcome my superintendent----
Ms. Jewell-Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.--Ms. Jewell-Sherman, who is an undergraduate
from New York University, Master's from Keene College and
Harvard University, and a doctorate from Harvard University.
I know she mentioned a lot of the remarkable progress she
has made, and I think one of the things she did not mention was
the fact that, when she was hired as superintendent of schools,
the Richmond public schools had 10 schools that had been
accredited, and her contract required her to either increase
that to 20 or get fired for cause. She increased it to 23, and
now, last year, it was 39, and preliminary results now, it's up
to 43 of the 51 schools who will receive accreditation, and
that is just remarkable progress.
At the same time, she reduced truancy about 40 percent.
Now, one of the things in No Child Left Behind that we are
having a little trouble with is when you try to determine
whether or not you have made progress, there is a perverse
incentive to let people drop out, because they are dropping out
from the bottom. If you have a real good high dropout rate,
your scores will go up.
So you have got that perverse incentive, and my question
that I know we don't have time for an answer, but I would like
for them to submit for the record what No Child Left Behind
does, and how the regulations encourage dropout prevention
programs rather than encourage dropout prevention. I appreciate
the gentlelady for yielding.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to address one thing before we go. That is, we
have allowed the standards for what states dictate what
students should know, what they will be able to do, and the
rigor by which we apply those standards vary from state to
state.
I am not sure that--you know, that has got a lot of discord
going. I know schools who have set the standards high,
obviously feel very upset that others have set their bar low so
they get a free ride on this thing.
What should we do about that, and how will we go about
doing it?
Ms. Haycock. I mean let's be honest. We have been engaging
in a bit of a charade. We basically have allowed people to say,
hey, math in Mississippi is different than math in Minnesota.
You know, if we are going to head into the 21st century more
competitive, we need to stop doing that.
That said, that is a very tough--it is a very tough act.
You put an important step in place when you required state-
level NAPE assessment, and those reports do, in fact, put
pressure on states that have set their standards quite low.
When people say, whoa, why is it that you are telling us 80
percent of our kids are proficient, and on NAPE, only 20
percent are, but the law itself now provides a bit of a
disincentive for states to raise their standards. One of the
things that you will clearly have to come back to in
reauthorization is how can we provide a strong incentive for
states to raise their standard to something closer to the NAPE
level, so we can actually join the 21st century.
Mr. Tierney. Obviously, we need a competitive strategy. In
your own recent article when you look at the numbers, how they
stack up, to other countries on that, we have got to find a way
to say that everybody in this country, no matter what state you
are from, students are ready to do whatever it is they want to
do when they get out of high school, whether it is go to work
or go to higher education. And the requirements for preparing
students aren't that much different. You need the same skill
set and knowledge to do that. I think you are absolutely right.
We have to do something in this law that no longer lets
people escape through this myth. So, I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, you and I can chat some more about that
later. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. Thank our witnesses for coming today. We
have several votes on the floor, and I want to be polite to our
witnesses and to our guests, and so, I want to thank you again
for your willingness to come, and thank all of our guests, and
this hearing is adjourned.
[Additional submissions for the record:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Nevada
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding today's hearing
on the continuing implementation of the massive education reform, the
No Child Left Behind Act. I would also like to welcome Secretary
Spellings to the committee. Her leadership has allowed for the federal
government to highlight the inherent flexibility in the law, and I am
confident that this aspect of the law will continue to serve our
children and communities, while improving academic success. I would
also like to welcome our second panel of witnesses, whose practical
experiences are absolutely necessary to continue improving federal
education programs.
As the federal government continues to work with state and local
education agencies to close the achievement gap in this country, our
committee must continue to monitor the implementation of the landmark
reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act. As we begin to see the
preliminary results of the supplemental education services provisions
of the 2001 law, it is important that we keep in mind the end result-
the increase in achievement regardless of socio-economic status. By
providing our most vulnerable children with extra academic resources,
we are better able to ensure academic success.
As the representative of the nation's fifth largest school
district, I am all too well aware of the problems faced by large urban
school districts. Additionally, I am cognizant of the need for these
school districts to implement policies and standards that meet the
needs of their students. As the federal government continues to
implement NCLB, it is imperative that this committee be aware of the
challenges faced by school districts and of the need for continued
flexibility during implementation.
We must seek at the federal, state, and local levels for common
sense approaches to educating our children. I applaud Secretary
Spellings for understanding the needs of individual school districts
and hope that this level of accommodation of needs, without loss of
achievement will continue. Congress, and this committee, continues to
face the challenge of closing the achievement gap, while ensuring that
our children are provided with the tools they need for success in the
work place. These goals need to continue through the high school level.
I look forward to bringing the benefits of the No Child Left Behind
reforms to the high school level. We must continue to take what we have
learned and apply it to our future endeavors.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing. I also
appreciate the Secretary's presence and her continued dedication to
education in our nation. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses, and am confident that their insights can aid us in our
continuing pursuit of excellence in education.
______
Additional Responses Submitted by Kati Haycock, Director, the Education
Trust
Question: There are critics of No Child Left Behind who claim that
there are some students who will never be able to achieve at the same
level as other children. How do you respond to those who say there are
some students who simply can't learn?
Response: First, it is important to define what No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) expects, which is that virtually all children will be
taught up to the level of proficiency in reading and math. This does
not mean that all students will be taught up to the same level--some
students will far exceed standards, and there will always be a range in
student achievement. The goal of NCLB is to lift that range, so that
all young people get the fundamental skills that enable them to be
competitive in the world of work and to be active participants in our
democracy.
It is true that there are some students who, even with the most
effective instruction and supports, will not be able to read or do math
with proficiency. We need to make sure that NCLB's accountability
system is sensitive and fair to the exceptional circumstances presented
in teaching and assessing students with significant cognitive
impairments. But we also know that far too many students traditionally
have been categorized inappropriately and then taught to levels much
lower than their actual ability. The challenge is to strike the right
balance between (1) pressuring the system first to minimize
inappropriate identifications and restrictive placements in special
education; (2) having high expectations for the achievement of students
with disabilities; and (3) acknowledging that some students simply are
not going to meet the standards, and accounting for that in school
accountability determinations. The U.S. Department of Education has
allowed states to count up to 3% of all students (close to 30% of
students with disabilities) as proficient when they have met
individualized goals that are set lower than regular grade-level goals.
Some advocates claim the 3% exemption is too small, others too big.
As an organization, we'll be looking hard at progress in the states
before we take a position on that question. By the time of
reauthorization, all of us should have much better data on which to
make decisions about which students should be assessed outside of the
standard system. Yes, some students won't be able to meet standard
under any circumstances-maybe as many as 3%, maybe even more. But, as a
country, we should be making the decision to exclude only with
reluctance because, across the country, students who most people never
dreamed could meet standards are now doing so because their schools
worked very hard to get them there. We ought not to step back from the
over-arching goal of ensuring that almost every student is taught to be
proficient in reading and math. This goal is critically important to
our economic future and to the vitality of our democracy and civic
institutions.
Question: I have heard criticisms of No Child Left Behind from
schools and districts that were rated highly by state accountability
systems that looked at aggregate student data prior to the enactment of
the law. Now that NCLB asks them to disaggregated data and look at
specific subgroups the picture is not as bright. How would you respond
to these schools and districts that complain the law is unfair?
Response: Congress showed great leadership in requiring school
accountability determinations to be based on disaggregated data. Prior
to NCLB, many state accountability systems rated schools highly even
when certain groups of students, sometimes groups that constituted the
majority of students, were not being well educated. Schools could
compensate for under-educating certain groups by showing excellent
results with other groups. This allowed achievement gaps to grow--and
grow they did. Long-term trend data from the National Assessment of
Education Progress indicates that gaps separating Blacks and Latinos
from White students grew over the course of the 1990s
Schools can no longer be considered successful if they are not
educating all groups of students they serve. This has served as a wake-
up call to educators, especially in rapidly diversifying suburbs, where
gaps have not received much attention and where schools have not paid
much attention to accountability in the past. The focus on
disaggregated data for accountability is indeed shining a spotlight on
inequities that had gone unnoticed and unresolved. As one educator put
it, under NCLB ``there are no more invisible students.''
The unfairness is that we let inequality persist for so long, not
that we are confronting it now. This new definition of school success
represents important progress in ensuring equality of opportunity in
America. It is a definition of school success that the American public
supports.
______
Additional Responses Submitted by Deborah Jewell-Sherman, Ed.D,
Superintendent, Richmond Public Schools
Answer to Question #1: The first step in the educational reform
effort was to request assistance from the Council of the Great City
Schools' support team. The Team provided an external evaluation of the
District's instructional department, federal programs, special
education and transportation. The report findings provided a framework
for an action plan that cited the need for reform from the school board
to the classroom. The action plan included revised mission and vision
alignment, review and evaluation of instructional programs, designing
an accountability system, designing an assessment and data management
system, community partnership to effective operations and professional
development.
The second step was intervention that was received from Governor
Warner's PASS Initiative. This intervention focused on processes and
practices to increase student achievement.
Finally, Philip Morris USA sponsored a partnership between Richmond
Public Schools and the University of Richmond (Curry and Darden
schools) to work with the School Board and administrators in creating a
unified vision, team building, collaborative goals and the
implementation of a Balanced Scorecard for management and
accountability.
Answer to Question #2: The focus on subgroup statistics in NCLB has
provided us with the means to target reforms. The ability to focus on
subgroups to identify gaps and to develop concentrated gap reducing
strategies has been essential to the development of instructional
strategies and practice for all children.
The promotion of reforms and implementation thereof is extremely
costly to districts. The funds directed towards the purpose are,
however, reduced as student achievement increases. Funds are necessary
for implementation of reforms and retention of reforms.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
<all>