I love coming out to states such as Colorado. It is in the states where education policy is decided, where decisions are made that affect students' learning and, consequently, their lives. My boss Secretary Spellings likes to say, "We don't do school" in Washington, D.C. As a former Arkansas education chief, that's the kind of message I like to hear! If we're going to change how we educate our children, it will be the states leading the way.

That's why we keep emphasizing that NCLB is no mandate – it is a contract, a partnership with states willing to share the struggle.

I know you have read a lot of statistics about how well or poorly our students are doing in a number of comparisons – within and among states, and among other nations. I would like to give you another perspective on how things are going and another tool to remember how important this job of education really is.

As I was leaving Arkansas, Governor Huckabee began to wax nostalgic about my service there. In one of the newspaper articles, he referred to me as a geek or nerd, I can't remember which. He is right.

But is No Child Left Behind working? The answer is "yes." It is helping make sure that, at the end of the high school experience, our schools graduate "calculators" and not "slide rules."

In states across the country, test scores are on the rise and the achievement gap between white and minority students is beginning to close. State education officials are using words like "stunning," "incredible" and "amazing" to describe the progress. The vast majority of states report academic improvements.

The law has set the horizon—all students working at grade level in reading and math by 2014. But states and localities blaze the trail. President Bush has said often that the federal government should do a few things and do them well. I believe few reasonable people would disagree with that statement. And I believe the No Child Left Behind Act fits well within his beliefs.

This law, after all, is as much about what we're willing to do as what we're required to do. While Brown vs. Board of Education guaranteed a seat in the classroom, it did not guarantee a quality education. Are we truly willing to educate every single child? Are we willing to promise a quality education to everyone who walks through the doors of a public school—something that's never been done in this country? Secretary Spellings and I believe we are.

But we must be vigilant. A law is just words on a page – granted, in this case a lot of words on a lot of pages. The true test is how it's implemented. Secretary Spellings believes we need to implement No Child Left Behind in a thorough but sensible and workable way.

Like our kids, we are always learning—better understanding the science that tells us how kids learn and the implications of that science in the classroom, ever-improving our research-based instructional methods that help teachers teach more effectively, improving policies that help states adhere to the spirit of the law.

In three years we've learned a lot about our schools, our states and ourselves. In April, under the magnificent backdrop of George Washington's Mt. Vernon home, Secretary Spellings announced a new policy to allow us to take advantage of this knowledge. It's called "Raising Achievement: A New Path for No Child Left Behind." States that show results and follow the core principles of NCLB will be eligible for new options to help them meet the law's goal of getting every child to learn reading and math.

States must follow the bright lines of the law: assessing all students every year, reporting results by student subgroup so kids aren't ignored; improving teacher quality and removing barriers to qualified teachers; making a good-faith effort to reach out to parents and inform them of their options. And states must show real results, such as test scores rising, the achievement gap closing, graduation rates up, dropout rates down.

We'll be flexible, but some things are nonnegotiable. After all, it's the results that truly matter and why this law was designed in the first place.

In return, we will give states added flexibility. One such example announced at Mt. Vernon dealt with the identification, teaching, and testing of students with disabilities. Scientific research tells us that there are students with disabilities, but not the most significant cognitive disabilities, who may not be able to participate in the regular assessments but who can make substantial progress toward grade-level achievement, given the right combination of focused instruction, time and attention. It is estimated that about 2 percent of all students may fit this description.

So, if a state stands up for those kids, we will stand by the state. If a state provides rigorous research-based training for teachers, improved assessments for students, and collaboration between special and general education, then it will be allowed to provide tailored assessments to those students. This is in addition to the 1 percent of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, already covered by NCLB.

To institute this change, the Department of Education is directing $14 million in immediate funds to organize and corral resources to help states identify and assess these students. Included in these efforts will be a toolkit based on research from the Institute of Education Sciences and the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development. These resources will also include competitive grants providing immediate technical assistance and support to states to help them improve assessments for students with disabilities.

This step wasn't taken to get states off the hook for educating these students. It was taken because, in the long run, it will be better for kids – better teaching, better diagnosis of their instructional needs, and better assessing how well they are achieving the school's academic standards.

What I have just described is for the long-term. In the interim, for the 2004-05 adequate yearly progress determinations only, as a matter of policy in holding states accountable under the law, we are permitting qualified states to exercise additional flexibility in making AYP determinations for the students with disabilities subgroup.

To qualify to exercise this flexibility this year, a state must be meeting specific core requirements of NCLB related to students with disabilities. The state must also provide information on actions it has taken to raise achievement for all students with disabilities, as well as address the activities it has taken or will take to ensure that students who need to take a modified assessment are able to make significant progress toward reaching grade-level standards.

So far we have had 42 states apply for this interim flexibility. To date, 28 have been approved, after amending their accountability plans. In a few cases, we're awaiting additional information before we can make a decision. And, yes, we have disapproved some requests as well.

As you may have guessed, this is not the only change states are asking for. We're hearing a lot about growth models and ways to best measure and improve the progress of English language learners.

First, to have a sound growth model system, you've got to have annual data. States that shy away from testing their kids every year will not be able to show growth from year to year. Second, we know that English language learners who come to U.S. schools from other countries can make great progress, but may need time to adjust to the system before taking state assessments for accountability purposes. We're convening working groups with educators and experts to examine both issues in depth and detail, and hope to have policy statements on them near the start of school this September.

Another critique we hear is that NCLB is putting pressure on teachers and principals to narrow the curricula, excluding subjects like the arts. Yes, we do believe that we must start with reading and math. We hear from teachers all over the country that if kids cannot read or compute proficiently, they cannot master social studies, science, foreign languages or the arts. As Secretary Spellings says, "Job one is to do reading right and well." But we believe that forcing a choice between reading and history, or reading and the arts, is a false choice.

That's why we appreciate the launch of your Chairman's Initiative on Arts in Education. It recognizes that No Child Left Behind envisions and works toward a world in which the study of the arts is not restricted to the gifted or the fortunate among us, but is extended to every single child. You understand that the key that opens up these new and exciting worlds is the written word.

As another example of how the Secretary's new flexibility applies to states that are doing a good job of implementing the bright lines of NCLB, I want to share the process of how we in Washington worked with that other Washington, Washington state.

In calculating its Adequate Yearly Progress goals, specifically the other indicator of graduation rates, Washington state has proposed to take into account students who graduate in more than four years with a real and meaningful high school diploma. Both rates—standard and extended graduation—would be publicly reported. But the extended rate would be used for accountability purposes.

When considering this request, we asked a few questions. First, are we able to make the change? Yes. The law permits the secretary of education to approve an alternate definition of "graduation rate" if it "more accurately measures" who graduates with a regular diploma. Is Washington state implementing its accountability provisions? Yes, it is on track to test all students in grades 3–8 and once more before graduation. Has it made a good-faith effort to inform parents? Yes, its school report cards include all the right elements, and the state has placed its approved SES providers, about 50 in all, on the Internet for the public to view. Does Washington state have the technical ability to track students in their fifth and sixth years? The answer is yes. A data infrastructure system is in place and is being adjusted and improved.

Finally, and most importantly, is this change good for the students themselves? We believe the answer is yes. School dropout rates are at crisis levels. We want to see incentives created to encourage dropouts to return to school. This change is a positive step forward.

And speaking of graduation rates:

Education Trust, among others, has been justifiably clamoring for a more accurate, consistent, and transparent method of calculating high school graduation rates. We agree that a more comprehensive and accurate look at how many students graduate from high school is sorely needed.

We can also understand and appreciate that to accurately calculate such information, states will need much more comprehensive and sophisticated data collection systems than the vast majority currently have in place.

So, while states work toward the ultimate goal of gaining such capacity, our Department will publish, alongside states' currently reported graduation rates under NCLB, an interim estimator known as the "Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate."

This figure can be compiled from existing data submitted through the common core of my Department's National Center for Education Statistics. It has been shown to track very closely with true on-time graduation rates. It is the number of high school graduates receiving a regular diploma in a given year divided by the average of the number of students enrolled in eighth grade five years earlier, ninth grade four years earlier, and tenth grade three years earlier.

By comparing this figure with the reported rate, we will have a truer picture of the national trend and can identify which states most need to improve their individual reporting. More importantly, improving how we understand and report these more accurate graduation rates will allow us to better target resources and tailor instruction for kids who might otherwise be invisible until it's too late.

All of which points in the same direction: we have more work to do. No Child Left Behind was not the end, but the beginning: the beginning of a close collaboration between the Department and the states; the beginning of a new rebirth of federalism as states once again lead the way on education; and the beginning of a new era for our children as they enter school with the promise of a quality education, a promise we are beginning to realize.

Secretary Spellings will have more to say here tomorrow. For now, let me just conclude by thanking everyone who has helped make No Child Left Behind a growing success story, a story of how we can truly graduate calculators and not slide rules.

####