Tampa, Florida
January 24, 2002

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning. I'm pleased to see such a large crowd assembled for this conference. And it's an honor to be on this stage with Superintendent Lennard, Deputy Commissioner Cox, and the officers of your association.

I'm really happy to be on this stage with Joe Johnson, because of the job he has been doing in assuming a role that, for many years, we so identified with one person. We in the Department still miss Mary Jean, but I think we outdid ourselves in finding such an outstanding successor. If you didn't know it already, I am sure that by the end of this conference you'll understand his commitment to the program and his vision for its future. We could not have had a more seamless transition this past year.

I am so grateful to be asked to give this presentation because Title I is now entering, and all of you as Title I administrators, coordinators, and teachers are entering, a very critical phase in the life of this program. In the afterglow of the Congressional passage of the reauthorization bill in December, and then when the President signed the Act on the 8th of this month, you probably heard on the news, various people calling the bill revolutionary, or that it would dramatically recast the Federal role in elementary and secondary education, or would cause officials and States and school districts across the country to rethink issues of educational achievement and educational accountability in a very significant way. Often in Washington there can be a tendency to overstate these matters, to put a gloss on some of the legislative achievements, especially when both parties and both Houses of Congress and both the Executive and legislative branches have finally come together to complete a bill after three years of work. But while overstatement and hyperbole may be the general practice, I think that in this case they got it right, or at least pretty close to right. I've been through three ESEA reauthorizations and this one, I believe, while it builds on the past, holds the most promise, presents the most challenges, and makes the most dramatic departures.

Let's look at where we've been with the Title I legislation over the past decade and a half. With the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Act, Congress for the first time included in the legislation the notion that schools operating Title I programs should be held accountable by their districts and later by States for their performance in educating disadvantaged children. The '88 bill also made it much easier for high-poverty schools to operate schoolwide Title I programs.

The 1994 Improving America's Schools Act brought in, for the first time, the theme that Title I and other ESEA programs should be vehicles for enabling all children to achieve to high standards. Since '94, States have been required to establish challenging academic standards for all students in at least reading and math, and to put in place assessments that are aligned with those standards. The IASA strengthened the accountability requirements that had been adopted in 1988, introducing the concept that districts and States should implement significant corrective actions to turn around low-performing schools. It lowered the poverty threshold for schoolwide programs, allowing still more schools to take advantage of that option. It called on States to establish support systems under which distinguished educators would provide assistance to struggling schools, helping them to adopt proven instructional methods and management reforms so that they could turn themselves around before more drastic interventions were needed. And it introduced, although in a fairly timid way, the notion that Title I could be a vehicle for enhancing student and parental choice in public education.

All of these concepts—accountability, a focus on turning around low-performing schools, more schoolwide programs, the use of methods and models that work, educational choice—are even more prominent in the new bill. A number of provisions go, I believe, well beyond what we could have imagined only a few years ago. They raise new expectations, provide you with new opportunities, create some new requirements, and leave you with a number of very significant challenges to surmount over the next several years. And that's what I'm going to spend the rest of my time talking to you about this morning.

I'm going to structure my remarks around the major challenges that I see facing Title I administrators under the new law. I don't want to scare you, but I'd like you to leave this session with an understanding of some of the key provisions and the demands that they may place on you as you implement the legislation. As I began to prepare for this talk, it seemed to me that there are somewhere around nine or ten of those major challenges. So, while I can't recall ever putting a title on one of my speeches before, I'm calling this one "9 and ¾ challenges for Title I." As I'm sure you all know, when Harry Potter made his first trip to the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, he left from track 9¾ at Victoria Station. Around the U.S. Department of Education, we have a number of people who follow the adventures of Mr. Potter very avidly. Mitzi Beach, whom many of you know, and who, sadly, will be leaving the Department shortly, is one such person. I think she's been to Hogwarts. And we have many others. The new reauthorization bill doesn't have the vivid character development and finely crafted plot of Harry Potter. With all its complexity, perhaps it's more like Lord of the Rings. But I think it will be quite an adventure for those of you who will be on the front lines of implementation, and I wanted to give you an idea of the challenges—the quiddich games and the three-headed dogs—that lie ahead.

Challenge #1 is the requirement to spend Title I funds on activities that reflect "scientifically based research." This term, which first found its way into ESEA with the passage of the Reading Excellence Act in 1998, is now woven throughout the statute, and particularly in Title I. Schoolwide program plans must reflect reform strategies for strengthening the academic program of a school that are based on scientifically based research. Targeted Assistance programs must also be scientifically based. The improvement plans that schools in school improvement status develop and implement must be based on scientifically based research. The technical assistance that local educational agencies provide to those schools must be based on that research. The school support teams that States create must be composed of individuals knowledgeable about scientifically based research. The teacher professional development funded under Title II must be scientifically based, and so on.

What is "scientifically based research"? Well, the term is defined in the statute, back in the general provisions. You'll want to read it yourself, but very briefly it means research that has been conducted using a systematic, empirical methodology, has produced results that are reliable across multiple observations, has been evaluated using an experimental or quasi-experimental design and using control groups or control conditions, and has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or vetted through a comparably rigorous process. I think that definition could serve as something of a gold standard for research in any field.

But what does this all mean for Title I and other ESEA programs? A colleague back in Washington recently opined that the term "scientifically based research" is used so frequently in the bill that, in the end, everyone may ignore it. Think of the situation you may find yourself in, where a speaker is saying "you know" so often that you find yourself screening out all the "you knows" in order to absorb what's being said. But I don't believe, you know, that that is what the Congress intended, and it isn't how the Department is responding. Look at it this way: you've been told before that Title I programs should reflect "what works" in education. Congress has said it again, but more emphatically, more often in this bill, and with more specificity about the meaning of "what works." This time they really, really mean it, and this time we need to make an extra effort to see that it happens.

So how do you determine which practices and methods are scientifically based? Let me guide you to at least one source. In 2000, the National Reading Panel convened by the National Institute on Child and Human Development presented its final report assessing the scientific research literature on reading and reading instruction. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that every single reading expert accepts this report as gospel, but it does embody a very strong and widespread consensus of the top reading researchers. We believe, the Administration believes, that if schools follow the guidance in this report in teaching reading to young children, much of the "reading deficit" in this country can be erased. Toward that end, we've produced a booklet called Putting Reading First that summarizes, for educators, the National Reading Panel findings in a highly accessible format and also a companion booklet aimed at parents. These materials should be available to you at this conference, and we have many more copies back in Washington if you need them.

OK, you tell me, we can adopt the National Reading Panel report as our template for reading, but now where is a parallel expert report on mathematics, or on other subjects taught in the schools in which we operate schoolwide programs, or on professional development. Here, regrettably, I have less to offer you. Speaking as one who is not a professional researcher, but who tries, in at least a dilettantish way, to keep abreast of the education research, I don't believe that there is as strong a consensus or coalescence around these others issues as there is on reading. And the real experts, back in the Department, agree with that. But that doesn't mean that there is no quality research. Rather than handing you an answer, I have to challenge you to work with your local universities, with your regional education laboratories and other technical assistance providers, to go to directly to the research to determine what works. Look for programs and activities that have a documented track record of success and make sense in the particular context of your school or district. We in the Department, both in my own Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, will make a concerted effort in the next few years to present you with the best information we can on what works, what approaches, activities, and strategies really meet the test of being scientifically based, but, ultimately, meeting this very important requirement of the new law will be in your hands.

Let me go on to the challenge #2, adequate yearly progress. We've had an adequate yearly progress, or "AYP," requirement in the law since 1994. It's been a fairly obscure statutory provision that no one, except the types of people who are in this room, had heard of until all of a sudden it became a major reauthorization issue and burst into the mainstream media last summer. What happened? Basically, a number of observers of Title I became concerned that the AYP definitions adopted by States in recent years would not result in a significant reduction in the "achievement gap" within a reasonable period of time. I think that concern was understandable; some of the definitions I have seen called for such small annual reductions that, even if schools met the standards for decades, there would still be a sizeable number of children who were not achieving to high standards and a large gap between the achievement of poor and non-poor children, and in the achievement of different racial and ethnic groups.

What those observers called for was a new, more prescriptive AYP definition that set a finite length of time during which all students would be brought up to proficiency, and a definition that also held schools, districts, and States accountable for the education of students in each of the major groups, including racial and ethnic, students from low-income families, students with limited English proficiency, and those with disabilities.

The major problem with their initial proposal was that it would have resulted in the great majority of Title I schools, probably well over 90 percent, being identified as not making AYP, and thus labeled as "low-performing," year after year, and would clearly have over-taxed the ability of districts and States to take appropriate action to help those schools. The label would have been applied both to schools where students in general have low achievement and to those that are successful with most of their students but have one group that is failing, and it would have applied both to schools that fare poorly year after year and to those that experience only a one-year dip in test scores or other indicators. The Congress began to look at alternative definitions that gave States more flexibility, such as the one that passed in the Senate, but these initial alternatives were perceived as relaxing accountability, particularly for the achievement of at-risk groups of students. And the debate continued almost until the day the bill passed.

The final language on AYP of course represents a compromise. What does it do? I don't want to take up too much time on it, but briefly it does the following: first of all, it calls on States to establish a timeline for bringing 100 percent of students up to the proficient level on State assessments. The timeline may be no longer than 12 years from the 2001-2002 school year. Second, it requires the State to establish a starting point for reaching that 100 percent goal. The starting point must be at least the higher of two percentages established in the law, one dealing with the achievement of students in the lowest-performing disaggregated group in the State, and the second measures the proficiency of students who attend the school at the 20th percentile on State assessments. It's a little complicated, and there will be other sessions at this conference where we'll explain these provisions carefully and in all their detail, but for now just remember that the State has to establish a starting point.

Next, the State's timeline will have to call for the percentage of students in each of the specified groups who achieve proficiency to increase incrementally over that timeline of up to 12 years. In other words, if the State's starting point is 40 percent, then the plan might call for 50 and then 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of students in each group to reach proficiency by specific deadlines. Or the percentages might go from 40 to 55 to 70 to 85 and then to 100. There is some flexibility, but the increments between the percentages must be equal. Under the statute, the first increment must be achieved within two years, and the second one in no more than three more years.

A few more things about AYP, and then I should move on. In order to protect against having a single year's assessments, which might produce aberrant scores, drive identification of low-performing schools, you will be permitted to average each year's test scores with those from the two previous years and use that average as your annual indicator, and you will also be able to average scores across grades in a school. In addition, you will be required to set your incremental objectives separately for achievement in reading and math, and to measure progress in those two subjects separately. Also, States will be required to include, in their AYP definitions, measures of school completion and at least one other indicator, applicable to elementary schools, that is not based on assessments. And finally, a school will be considered to have made adequate yearly progress if, in any year, the percentage of students in a group who are not reaching the proficient level declines by 10 percent, even if the group doesn't meet the interim goal.

There's more, but in the interest of time, I'll leave AYP for now. I hope that I've done more to illuminate the subject than to confuse you. I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunity, at this conference and in the coming months, to learn more about the new definition and to share with us your ideas and concerns about how it can be implemented. I urge you to do so. While the statutory definition is prescriptive, it does leave considerable discretion to the States. The Department is considering regulating on AYP, potentially through a negotiated rulemaking process, and if we do so you will want to follow the regulatory process closely. A successful implementation of this new AYP definition, one that is fair to schools, upholds the notion of high expectations for all students, and is part of an overall accountability system that provides adequate support for schools that need help, will clearly be one of the major challenges facing all of us in the next few years.

On to challenge #3 - accountability, by which I mean the consequences for schools that are determined not to be making AYP. This is an issue that you've been dealing with for some years. Under the new law, districts will continue to require low-performing schools to enter into school improvement plans. And they must continue to take corrective actions to improve those schools that don't make AYP after they have implemented a plan. But the new law is intended to make the consequences for failure more certain and more significant. Under the old law, a corrective action could include something as mild as requiring a school to enter into a collaborative agreement with outside agencies that provide health, counseling, and social services. Such an agreement, at least by itself, was not likely to change the operation of a low-performing school, or make a significant difference in educational outcomes for students.

The Congress and the Administration were determined to come up with something more meaningful. So the menu of corrective actions in the new statute lists such options as replacing staff who are responsible for the failure to make AYP, implementing a whole new curriculum in the school, and restructuring the school's internal organization. And the law no longer permits districts to ignore the entire menu of statutory actions and do something different and less significant. Further, a school that is in corrective action status for two years and still fails to make AYP would then go into a new category called "restructuring," where the consequences include such options as replacing all or most of the staff, takeover by the State, or turning over the option of the school to a private company. If, as I believe may happen, the new law causes more schools to be identified as not making AYP and thus landing in the school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring categories, this surely poses major challenges for you as Title I administrators and staff. You will need to work with those schools to develop and implement meaningful, significant, and attainable improvement plans. You will need to ensure that those schools receive the technical assistance they need and that low-performing schools, more than any others, are aware of the high-quality, scientifically based curricula and instructional strategies that they can use to succeed. And you will need to implement these very complex, long fought-over accountability provisions in a way that not only abides by the letter and reflects the spirit of the law, but makes sense and fits in with the accountability programs that you have implemented in your district or State.

And, of course, there's more. My fourth and fifth challenges concern the educational choice and supplemental services provisions that are embedded in these accountability requirements. Number 4 - choice. For the last two years, because of language included in the annual appropriations bills, you have faced requirements to provide public school educational choices to students attending schools that are in school improvement and corrective action status. Under the 2000 appropriation this requirement applied only to schools receiving some special funding and in 2001 it applied to all schools. In both years school districts were able to escape the requirements if they had space constraints or laws or policies that prohibited choice.

My message this morning is that the new law codifies these requirements within ESEA in a manner that makes it clear that children who would otherwise be "trapped" in failing schools must have the option to attend another public school that is not failing. The requirement affects all schools that are in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status. It requires that, beginning on the first day of the school year following a determination that a school is not making AYP, all children in that school be given the option of attending another public school in the district that has not been identified as failing. The only exception occurs if this action is prohibited by State law.

Moreover, the law now requires that the district provide or pay for the student's transportation to the new school. If your district has schools that are in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, your district may use up to 15 percent of its Title I allocation to pay for that transportation, and must use at least 5 percent, unless a lesser amount is needed. If you have exhausted the full 15 percent and still have not met the full cost of transporting students to schools that are higher-performing, you must pay those costs using other funds¾local, State, or Federal.

Clearly the new choice provisions pose some issues and challenges for you. How many choices should be provided to the students in low-performing schools? How do you deal with any capacity constraints at the receiving school? Should the choices be limited to schools in the student's district, or would it be appropriate to enter into partnerships with neighboring districts? How do you implement the transportation requirement efficiently? These questions deal with issues that will arise locally and that should have local solutions. We will try to give you some guidance at the national level, and to provide you with information on how others are implementing the requirements, but you will, in your own States and districts, have to exercise some creativity and ingenuity in working through the issues.

The other new piece of the section 1116 accountability puzzle, and my challenge #5, is supplemental services. As I am sure you have heard by now, one of the major changes in Title I is that, beginning next fall, districts will be required to make available supplemental services to low-income students attending schools in their second year of school improvement status or undergoing corrective action or restructuring. "Supplemental educational services" are defined in the Act as tutoring and other supplemental academic enrichment services that build on the student's regular school program and are designed to increase the achievement of eligible children.

The law includes a number of requirements for supplemental services, some affecting States and others school districts, that you will want to review carefully. State educational agencies will be required to approve providers of supplemental services within the State, based on their demonstrated effectiveness in increasing students' academic proficiency. And they will have to develop and implement procedures for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of those providers and withdraw approval of providers that fail to increase students' academic achievement. Local educational agencies will be required to publicize the availability of supplementary services, select students to receive supplemental services, enter into agreements with service providers that set educational improvement goals for students, and terminate agreements if providers fail to meet those goals.

Unlike the situation with educational choice, supplemental services will not be an entitlement for students in low-performing schools. Only students from low-income families who attend low-performing schools will be eligible and, within that group, the lowest-achieving students will have priority for services. Local educational agencies must use 5 percent of their Title I allocations to pay for supplemental services and can go up to 15 percent (but the total amount that a district will use for choice and supplemental services is set at 20 percent). State educational agencies are authorized to contribute money from the Innovative Programs block grant. But if those sources of funding have been exhausted, a district must use fair and equitable procedures to select children to participate.

I see the supplemental services requirements as posing pretty major challenges for those of you who work on Title I at both the State and local levels. I could perhaps have found 9¾ challenges just in these provisions of the law. Selecting quality providers (and doing so before school starts next fall), monitoring their performance, establishing supplemental services programs at the local level, selecting participants, crafting the agreements, and determining whether the services result in higher achievement for the children will absolutely have to rank near the top of your agendas as you begin implementation of the law.

Let's go on to some additional challenges. Number 6 is the challenge of implementing the new requirements for the education of children with limited English proficiency. Prior to 1994, limited English proficient children were not served under Title I if their educational needs were solely attributable to a lack of English proficiency. This provision called for school districts to make a determination that they were often unable to make, that is, a determination on the extent to which a child's failure to achieve educationally was caused entirely by limited English proficiency or by a combination of limited English proficiency and educational deprivation, and it severely held down the number of limited English proficient students served by the program. The 1994 Act deleted that provision. As you know, it also required you to include LEP children in your assessment systems, so long as those children have been in the schools of a district for one year.

The new Act goes farther, by requiring States to assess annually the English proficiency of all LEP children beginning in 2002-2003 and by generally requiring that all LEP students who have been in US schools for at least 3 years take the State's assessments in English. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, schools and districts will have to demonstrate steady gains in the achievement of their limited English proficient children if they are to make adequate yearly progress. States will be required to include, in their annual "report cards," data on the progress of LEP children and, beginning in school year 2002-03, to report annually to our Department on both the overall achievement of those children and on their progress in learning English. And Title III, the successor to the old Title VII Bilingual Education program, which will now provide expanded funding that will flow by formula to many of your districts, includes provisions similar to those in Title I, calling for States to hold districts accountable for the academic progress of LEP children, both overall and specifically in gaining English proficiency. Districts failing to show that progress will be subject to improvement plans, corrective action measures, and ultimately the loss of Title III funds.

A statute whose message is, over and over again, that there are no excuses for failing to educate any children, certainly leaves you no excuses for failing to educate those who come to your schools speaking very little or no English. I know that these provisions will occupy a great deal of your attention in the next few years.

My seventh and eighth challenges deal with the qualifications of the staff you employ in Title I programs and in your schools more generally. Perhaps in no other area does the new Act attempt to bring about more fundamental changes in the operation of our schools. The Congress looked closely at the phenomenon of many schools, particularly the schools that educate minority, low-income, and limited English proficient children, employing so many unqualified teachers under emergency certifications and so many teachers teaching subjects that they are not qualified to teach. And they declared this situation unacceptable.

Section 1119, which previously had very little to say about teacher qualifications, now requires each State to develop a strategy for ensuring that every teacher teaching the core academic subjects in every school in the State is highly qualified by school year 2005-2006. The definition of a "highly qualified" teacher is lengthy, it differs somewhat for elementary versus secondary school teachers, and you will want to read it yourselves, but briefly it means that all teachers must be have met the requirements for full certification and have demonstrated competency in the each of the subjects that they teach.

Beyond calling for all teachers to be highly qualified three years from now, the Act flatly prohibits you, effective the first day of school year 2002-2003, from hiring any teachers for programs supported with Title I dollars who do not meet the definition of highly qualified. While the Department has not issued an official interpretation of this provision, my initial reading is that if you are supporting the program of a whole school with Title I funds, through the schoolwide programs option, then you may no longer be able to hire new teachers for that school who do not meet the definition. The Act, in Title II, also calls for States to monitor the annual progress of districts in meeting the goal of all teachers being highly qualified and to take action if districts fail to show that progress.

This morning I urge you to pay careful attention to these new provisions, which I'm calling challenge #7, and to think creatively about how to meet them, because I believe that a great deal of creativity will be needed if the goals of these provisions are to be attained. You should look at different mechanisms for alternative paths to certification, at pay and employment practices that can draw additional talented people into the teaching profession and then keep them there, and at professional development strategies that will enable more teachers to achieve and demonstrate a high level of competence in their subject areas. We in the Department will also try to be creative and proactive, for instance in informing you about successful practices in professional development, recruitment, teacher mentoring, and retention. But most of the burden rests with you.

Challenge #8 concerns paraprofessionals. The Department's most recent National Assessment of Title I, released a couple years ago, found that almost 77,000 paraprofessional aides are employed in Title I programs, more than the total number of teachers. It found that paraprofessionals are more likely to be used in high-poverty schools, and that in many schools a frequent mode of program delivery is an aide instructing the Title I kids, often while the non-Title I children are in another room with a fully qualified teacher. Many of the aides do not have strong educational credentials. Many have very little postsecondary education. As with the unqualified teachers, Congress declared this unacceptable.

The new Act requires that any paraprofessionals hired to work in Title I programs as of the date of enactment, that is, as of a few weeks ago, have at least two years of higher education, or an associate's degree, or meet a rigorous standard of quality and knowledge in reading, writing, and math. All existing paraprofessionals will be required to meet this standard within four years. The new Act also more clearly limits the duties that paraprofessionals can carry out in Title I programs. There are some exceptions, for aides who mainly work on translating materials from other languages or on parental involvement, but the clear thrust of these requirements is, I believe, that the role of paraprofessionals in Title I programs be much more carefully limited and that a teacher aide never take the place of a regular, fully qualified teacher in teaching reading, math, and the other subjects to disadvantaged students. As with the teacher qualification provisions, please think carefully and creatively about how you can meet these new requirements. I realize that they will cause changes in some of your programs. They are meant to.

Challenge #8 concerns paraprofessionals. The Department's most recent National Assessment of Title I, released a couple years ago, found that almost 77,000 paraprofessional aides are employed in Title I programs, more than the total number of teachers. It found that paraprofessionals are more likely to be used in high-poverty schools, and that in many schools a frequent mode of program delivery is an aide instructing the Title I kids, often while the non-Title I children are in another room with a fully qualified teacher. Many of the aides do not have strong educational credentials. Many have very little postsecondary education. As with the unqualified teachers, Congress declared this unacceptable.

My 9^th challenge deals with an interesting new opportunity that the new law provides. One of the themes of the No Child Left Behind Act is greater flexibility. With all of the added accountability being demanded of you, I hope that you will welcome this new flexibility. It could have a fairly profound impact on your programs.

For instance, the new transferability authority allows districts to transfer up to half of the money they receive for Teacher Quality, Technology, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and Innovative Programs into any of those programs or into Title I. In other words, you cannot transfer money out of Title I but you can move up to half your funding from four other programs, which could be a substantial amount, into Title I. No special application is required. You merely have to notify your State agency 30 days in advance.

The Rural Education Achievement authority, with which you may have had some experience, since it was actually enacted a year ago, gives small, rural LEAs a similar, but broader authority. They can move up to 100 percent of their money across several program areas or into Title I.

There are also the State and local flexibility demonstration authorities. The Act will give up to 7 States and up to 80 districts the opportunity to consolidate funds from a broad range of programs and use them for any activity authorized under ESEA. The individual requirements of each program would no longer apply. States and districts interesting in receiving this flexibility will be selected competitively by our Department. Up to 150 districts nationally may participate, either as part of a State flexibility demonstration or through a direct agreement with the Department. The measure of success for these agreements will be adequate yearly progress.

The reauthorization, through these new provisions, gives your State or district much more flexibility in using Federal funds for Title I or other purposes, and is designed to test the notion that the categorical structure of Federal programs can inhibit State reforms, that it interferes with State and local creativity in designing programs and strategies responsive to particular State and local needs and problems, and that without all the categories and categorical requirements, you will do better. Now that we finally have these authorities—which were debated in Washington for several years before the new Act put them in place—the challenge to you is to exercise that creativity, to come forward with compelling plans for meshing Federal funds in support of reforms that will really show results.

We will be rolling out, in the next few months, the application packages for the competitive flexibility authorities. I encourage you to begin thinking, as soon as possible, about how you might respond, and also about how you might implement the transferability and rural flexibility options, which are not competitive and will not require a separate application.

That takes us through nine challenges, with just ¾ of one to go. The additional, partial one that I'm going to leave you with is what I'll call "putting it all together." The new law provides, as I've noted, a great deal more flexibility than we've ever had in the past. But there are still a large number of separate programs, and the challenge to you will be to integrate them into a comprehensive and effective overall strategy. As I'm sure you know, the 2002 appropriation includes $900 million for the new Reading First program, more than three times what we've had for Reading Excellence. More of your districts will be able to benefit from the opportunity to work systematically on implementing scientifically based reading instruction under this new program. But scientifically based reading instruction is, of course, what you should be providing under Title I as well. Please don't pigeon-hole Reading First as something separate from Title I. Think of them, and implement them, as part of a single strategy for ensuring that all children learn to read effectively by the third grade.

Similarly, the appropriation includes more money for the Comprehensive School Reform program, which we sometimes call Obey-Porter. That money is for implementing comprehensive educational reforms at the school level. Some people ask me, "Isn't that what Title I should be doing, at least in the schoolwide programs"? They're right. It is what Title I should be doing. Title I and CSRD need to be part of a single, coherent strategy.

That strategy should also encompass the Title II Teacher Quality program. As I discussed, the requirements for ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified are in Title I, but many of the resources for making that happen will flow through Title II. And your strategy should include Title III, the money for serving limited English proficient children. Should there be any difference between a Title I program for meeting the needs of LEP kids and a Title III program for those kids? No, there shouldn't. If you make them separate you will fragment your efforts and increase bureaucracy. And think as well about how the Perkins Vocational Education money, and the money from the other programs across ESEA, and IDEA, fit into your overall effort. None of the children we serve fit neatly into individual program categories. They are all complex individuals with complex abilities and needs. We need to design and carry out programs that reflect that fact.

So, there you have it. Nine and three quarters challenges: a requirement to implement activities that reflect scientifically based research. A more precise and prescriptive definition of adequate yearly progress. Tighter accountability requirements. Stronger requirements for making more choices available to children in low-performing schools. A new requirement for tutoring or other supplemental services in those schools. More attention to the outcomes for limited English proficient students. A focus on the qualifications of teachers and paraprofessionals. Opportunities created by new flexibility provisions. And the challenge of meshing Title I with other programs.

And there are other issues that I could have touched on as well: the requirement for testing of all students in grades 3 through 8 by 2005-2006 (you've probably heard plenty about that already); the requirement for State and district report cards; or the changes in the private school participation requirements. But 9 and three quarters challenges was about enough for Harry Potter and ought to be enough to start off the morning.

I hope that my analysis of the new legislation, and of what lies ahead, will be helpful to you as you proceed through this conference and with your implementation of the law. We at the Department, in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, will be severely challenged to do our part quickly and effectively. But most of the burden, as I've said repeatedly, falls on your shoulders.

And please remember this. The Congress did not create these challenges in order to place speed bumps in your path as you implement Title I. Each of these provisions is part of a comprehensive vision for ensuring that, across this country, no child really is left behind. Think about it: each of these program elements that will create new challenges—better teachers in our classrooms, using curriculum and instructional strategies that have demonstrated solid results, establishing accountability systems to ensure that the most vulnerable students are not ignored, providing better options for children who are trapped in failing schools and have no current options—each can be part of a coherent, comprehensive national effort for making major improvements in our schools and in the education of all our children.

I look around this room and I know that this is an audience deeply committed to the idea that all children can be educated to high standards, that our children who are poor or foreign born or minority or homeless or anything else cannot be left behind. That may be a radical idea in some quarters, but I believe that it is what you are all about. With that commitment, I think you can meet those challenges. You can do it.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you.

Note: Use this link for downloadable MS Word version of speech (61K)

Top