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 8^th^ 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 9-3/4 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]{.underline} 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 20^th^ 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 funds -- local,
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 9-3/4 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.

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 ¾ 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.