British Prime Minister Tony Blair once said that his government has three priorities: "education, education, education."

I like that kind of talk.

I'm sure you often feel that education is your top priority, or at least one of your most pressing issues. I know that it takes up a great amount of your time and your legislative session. I know education is a large part of your state budget. Believe me, it is a top domestic priority for President Bush and this Administration, and has been from the beginning.

Two years and two months ago No Child Left Behind was passed by a bipartisan majority of the Congress and signed by the President. There was and continues to be great hope. I firmly believe it was an act of educational emancipation, the logical next step to Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown decision gave all students access by desegregating schools, and NCLB goes one step farther: it adds quality education to that access.

This law was needed to improve our educational system overall—a system that is leaving our children unprepared to compete in a global economy. We face an educational crisis, a two-tiered system that leaves millions—millions—of students unable to perform academically at the most basic levels.

In many school districts and some states, implementation has proceeded right on schedule. There has been fantastic cooperation, candid assessments, shifting of resources, and general satisfaction with the law and its direction. I am pleased with the pace of implementation in those locations. I thank those who have worked so hard to rapidly implement this law.

But there is a different story elsewhere. I am sorry to report that the debate has continued long after the law's passage, clouding education efforts and sometimes standing in the way of implementation. In the past few months there have been audible cries from some school districts and state legislatures. With respect, some of those cries have come from people sitting here in this room.

Believe me, I've heard you. And I have tried to respond to these concerns. My department has been working in an unprecedented partnership with state and local governments. Never before in the 24-year history of the US Department of Education has there been such effort put into listening and working together.

As time passes, and the deadlines approach, many people have forgotten the reason for the law in the face of their own fiscal realities. Believe me, I also understand. I've been there trying to draft a budget and then make scarce resources cover every problem. I know fiscal responsibility is demanding and sometimes unthankful. There are always more needs than money, and more demands than opportunities to solve them. I know that you face immense pressure from your constituents to find the funds for an endless variety of problems, all worthy of attention, and all demanding immediate solutions.

So I am very sympathetic—empathetic—to your situation, because I've been there. I know how much we need to communicate and work together.

And I know there has been much confusion, misinformation, mythology, and tall tales told about the law. This is one of the most misunderstood laws in our nation's history. Its provisions for local control, local flexibility, and state standards have been ignored or given short shrift. There are historic levels of federal funding, yet the money has been dismissed and the law unfairly labeled an "unfunded mandate." And the children themselves seem a sidebar in a struggle when they are the central reason for this effort. It seems as if the law has been translated into a new language, telling a different story, with no reference to our own time and place.

I believe there are three reasons for this confusion. First, there is a genuine misunderstanding of the law. For example, some people say that it requires federal standards for testing or federal standards for student achievement. But the standards are state standards. The states themselves determine the tests, standards, or requirements. For instance, the law does not mandate that a certain test must be used. We leave all of that up to the states. Second, there are some people purposively causing a "dust up" for political gain. They have their own agenda, which isn't always accuracy or helping children. I believe that the American public will see through such tactics. Then there is a third reason, a legitimate concern about state's rights. I share that concern, which is why the law has so much flexibility. You should know, I am often criticized for the existence of so much flexibility in the law. But it is important for each state to have the ability to shift resources to best meet the needs of students.

I believe that we can eliminate this confusion by listening to each other and working together. And I mean that—I need to listen to you, and I hope you will work with me. That is one reason I'm delighted to be here today. I believe that together we can help each other. This is a workable law. It is a good law. It is a necessary law to guarantee a quality education for all children, making the educational system more inclusive, fair, and just. It is a law that will help preserve our country's economic and political leadership throughout the world. Perhaps more than any other law, this one is our best hope for the future of our nation

For example, we share much common ground. Each of us recognizes the need for educational reform and many of your states started that process long ago. We both realize that we cannot simply perpetuate the present system, because it is failing many of our students. We realize that education remains primarily a state and local enterprise, and that local control must be preserved. We want teachers to be qualified in the subjects they teach. We want our money spent wisely and productively. We want taxpayers to believe that education remains a sound investment. We want our schools to be safe environments where children can learn without being afraid. And most of all, we all want our children to receive an education that provides personal growth, develops opportunities for employment and economic security, and encourages life-long learning.

That is the common ground we share. It is a considerable area of agreement. It can be foundational for our work together. I know that you don't want bureaucratic barriers, divisive language, shifting of responsibility, or unreasonable mandates. I understand that, too. Believe me, I share your concern that cooperation become a two-way street that is respectful and helpful to both parties.

So I'll refrain from thinking that I have the solution to every problem, or that Washington has every solution. That is why the No Child Left Behind law requires the states to set their own standards for teacher quality, for testing, for measurements of annual yearly progress, and for many other areas of educational accountability. The actual standards are determined by the states themselves. I know this will be hard for some people to accept, but it is a law that is respectful of state's rights, works within the framework of preserving state's rights, and actually encourages state's rights.

The law itself is a federal law, but it is nothing more than a framework. It is an outgrowth and restructuring of earlier versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which first became law in 1965 as part of the Great Society. In fact, President Johnson wrote in his memoirs that the general view among states was that the state's rights argument was not an issue under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

True, taking the federal funds under No Child Left Behind requires that states actually set standards and enforce them. But that is a reasonable expectation for national taxpayers, and a mechanism for both you and me to find the schools in need of improvement and to target additional resources to students. We must also identify successes. Measurements and new data make education more transparent, allowing for you and I to do a better job in reaching children who are silently invisible, ignored, or passed on and passed out.

I realize that state's rights is an issue near and dear to many of your hearts—again, as it is to mine as a Republican. Of course, elementary and secondary education is the traditional province of state and local governments. Simply mention a federal role and you can get lots of people worked up. There are some who want to raise that banner and attempt to use No Child Left Behind to fight ancient battles against federal participation or even now question the terms for national incorporation more than a century and a half after the fact. But we are a nation. There is a long history of federal requirements to correct overt unfairness or inequality, starting with measures to enforce civil rights and dismantle segregation in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education case—a Supreme Court decision that is now 50 years old—and continuing with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. And there is a compelling national interest in education—20 years ago a shocking report was released on the topic called "A Nation at Risk." It wasn't "A Few States at Risk."

Then there are those who believe we have dumped an "unfunded mandate" on them. Again, this is a passionate issue, and it is easy to stir up controversy with such a charge. I myself am very sensitive to this issue, because we feared this each year as we set the budget for the Houston school district.

The Administration is also sensitive to this charge. That is why we provided the money to implement the law, with historic funding increases larger than any previous administration. For example, in the President's 2005 budget, funding for education would be $57.3 billion, an increase of 36 percent since 2001. I want to stress this point: we pay for the testing, provide more money to each state, and target special efforts, like reading, rural education, special needs, and language acquisition.

Let me show you why this isn't an "unfunded mandate." Simply parse the phrase "unfunded mandate." At more than $50 billion of federal assistance, and much of it directed at No Child Left Behind, there is nothing "unfunded" here. Overall, the United States invested more than $500 billion in education last year. The term "unfunded" is simply inappropriate, clearly wrong. There is no federal "mandate" except this: we have asked that fourth graders read at a fourth grade level, that children read and compute math at grade level, that they should have the skills we expect. Many of the educators I've talked to say that this should be the goal of public education anyway. So if you think our requirement for children having grade level skills is a mandate, then you're right. But that would be the only mandate here. We didn't add a burden that the states did not already have, if they really wanted to provide a quality education for all children.

Look, we need to reach a better common understanding of the law. I know this organization released a report yesterday asserting that No Child Left Behind is underfunded. But several studies have concluded we DID NOT saddle the states with an unfunded mandate, including a study by Massachusetts State School Board Chairman James Peyser and economist Robert Costrell, a GAO study, a study out of New Hampshire, and a study by "Accountability Works." I know that you claim otherwise. With respect to the authors, I simply don't agree with their assumptions and add-ons. I don't agree with the mistaken interpretations of the law. I just don't think that study is right. It surely will encourage further confusion about the law.

But I don't want to assert or speculate. I would be delighted to provide each of you with the exact amount of dollars coming into your state as a result of No Child Left Behind. It would help you to have this information and to determine for yourself if the state is receiving enough to implement this law.

Another area of confusion concerns flexibility under the law. There is much flexibility built into the law. This is not a "one size fits all" law. There are important provisions that allow state and local governments to shift other federal education money to meet their particular needs at the local level. I believe this law is an important opportunity for state and local administrators to better target resources precisely because of the flexibility built into the legislation. When I was a superintendent I would have welcomed this flexibility. I am certain many superintendents feel the same way.

And we have been working on regulatory actions that will help state and local school districts. For example, I recently announced that some special needs students would be exempt from some provisions of the law, thereby allowing states to meet statutory requirements and best serve the needs of these students. States can work with the department to make the special education regulations best fit within their own system. So far only one state has come forward. We are happy to work with others.

In addition, I have announced new provisions for second-language learners. These provisions inject new elements of flexibility into No Child Left Behind. Our new policy provides a much-needed one-year transition for our schools for new second-language students. This change allows schools one more year to prepare these students to learn in English. It benefits both students and schools. And, under the new policy, schools can continue to count these students toward the Adequate Yearly Progress measurement for two additional years after they have become English proficient.

These regulations build upon the nearly 40 areas of flexibility that the Department of Education recently identified in the "Charting the Course" document issued earlier this year. Last week, I announced regulations concerning same-sex classes and schools, making it easier for schools to offer a single-sex environment. It gives students and parents more choices. Not every parent will make this choice, of course, but they need to have the option, just as parents who send their children to private schools sometime make the single-sex choice. If parents believe a single-sex environment will help their children learn, then they should be able to exercise that choice.

And, next week I will announce new regulations about highly qualified teachers that will help clarify any confusion and give even more flexibility to state and local officials. Since I will make this announcement next week, I don't want to say any more. But the provisions will offer even greater flexibility for assessing qualification, which I am sure will please you and your constituents.

This is the time for statesmanship, not partisanship. We need cooperation, not conflict. We must work together. This is a moment to outline our common ground, remember our joint hopes, recognize the educational emergency that drives our efforts, seize an opportunity to make our schools better and more inclusive, and fight for what really matters: the future of our children.

Together, we can make this law work. The law is here to stay and so is the federal Department of Education. The law isn't going to be repealed. It is needed for our children. We must work together for them.

There is an old saying, "To govern is to choose." Let's choose the path that gives our children the most choice. Let's choose to avoid the temptation of partisan politics as we fix our educational system. Let's choose to provide the leadership necessary to complete a powerful, positive revolution in education. And let's choose to do it together, because our cooperation, counsel, and partnership can overcome any difficulty.

Thank you, again, for inviting me to share these thoughts with you.

####

Top