U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–229 PDF 2011

EDUCATION IN THE NATION: EXAMINING 

THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

FACING AMERICA’S CLASSROOMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 10, 2011 

Serial No. 112–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

[Vacant] 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 10, 2011 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bennett, Hon. Tony, Ph.D., Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Coulson, Andrew J., director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute ................................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Keegan, Lisa Graham, founder, Education Breakthrough Network ............ 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Mitchell, Ted, president and CEO, Newschools Venture Fund .................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

(1) 

EDUCATION IN THE NATION: EXAMINING 

THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

FACING AMERICA’S CLASSROOMS 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Biggert, Hunter, Roe, 

Thompson, Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, Rokita, Bucshon, Gowdy, 

Barletta, Roby, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, 

Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop, Loebsack, 

and Hirono. 

Also present: Representative Polis. 

Staff present: James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, General Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Daniela Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Jimmy Hopper, Legislative Assistant; Amy 

Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel; Angela Jones, Executive Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Ryan Kearney, Legislative Assistant; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Molly McLaughlin 

Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Mandy Schaumberg, 

Oversight Counsel; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the 

General Counsel; Kate Ahlgren, Minority Detailee, Education; 

Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine, Minority 

General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Senior Education Policy 

Advisor; Sophia Kim, Minority Legislative Fellow, Education; Brian 

Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Megan O’Reilly, Minority 

Labor Counsel; Helen Pajcic, Minority Education Policy Advisor; 

Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Alexandria Ruiz, Minority Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy; 

Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Press Secretary; and Mark 

Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director. 

Chairman KLINE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. Good 

morning, everybody. 

Welcome to our witnesses and to our guests. 

There are few issues more important to the strength of the nation’s economy than education. In most cases, an individual’s suc-
2 

cess in the workforce depends upon his or her success in the classroom. Each month, the national unemployment data reflect this reality. While today 9 percent of the workforce is unemployed, over 

14 percent of adults without a high school diploma are looking for 

a job. 

The numbers are more startling when compared to college graduates, who are currently experiencing an unemployment rate of 

over 4 percent. The challenges brought on by an inadequate education aren’t just reserved for the unemployed. They extend to 

those with a job as well. 

In 2009, workers without a high school diploma earned less than 

$23,000, while workers with a bachelor’s degree earned nearly 3 

times that amount. These statistics remind us of the challenges 

facing workers who do not succeed academically. Without a doubt, 

education is critical to the strength of America’s workforce and 

economy. 

That is why the current state of our nation’s education system 

is so troubling. Only 69 percent of students earn their high school 

diploma. According to the nation’s report card, an eighth grade student has only a 30 percent chance of being able to read at grade 

level. 

Reading and math scores for teens on the verge of graduation remain largely unchanged since 1973. Students who do graduate are 

often unprepared to compete in the workforce. Employers continue 

to express their concerns that new workers too often lack basic 

skills in reading, writing and math. 

As we consider these disturbing trends, we can’t ignore that over 

the last 45 years, the federal government has become increasingly 

involved in the day-to-day operation of our schools. We have all 

heard a teacher or parent describe how rules imposed by Washington often stifle innovative solutions taking place in the classroom or undermine the freedom to choose a school that best fits a 

child’s needs. 

We can no longer accept the status quo that says Washington 

has all the answers and more money will fix a broken education 

system. Since 1980, federal spending on education has increased by 

425 percent, yet student achievement has failed to improve. Clearly, the current system isn’t working. It is time we stop measuring 

our commitment to education solely by the dollars we spend. 

The good news is that the tide is turning. Dedicated reformers, 

concerned citizens and gifted filmmakers have sparked a debate 

that is spreading across the country. Their efforts have awakened 

a desire for a new approach to education in the country. State and 

local communities are moving forward with innovative solutions to 

improve accountability, parental involvement, results-based hiring 

and school choice. 

Washington should not stand in the way of these and other 

meaningful reforms that improve the quality of education for our 

children. That is why we are here today. Congress must understand the challenges facing our education system, hear the concerns of state and local leaders intimately involved with what goes 

on in the classroom and begin to chart a different course that ensures the innovation and accountability being driven now at the 

local level can succeed. 
3 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and will now yield 

to the ranking member, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will 

come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to our witnesses and guests. 

There are few issues more important to the strength of the nation’s economy than 

education. In most cases, an individual’s success in the workforce depends upon his 

or her success in the classroom. 

Each month the national unemployment data reflect this reality. While today 9 

percent of the workforce is unemployed, 14.2 percent of adults without a high school 

diploma are looking for a job. The numbers are more startling when compared to 

college graduates, who are currently experiencing an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. 

The challenges brought on by an inadequate education aren’t just reserved for the 

unemployed; they extend to those with a job as well. In 2009, workers without a 

high school diploma earned less than $23,000, while workers with a bachelor’s degree earned nearly three times that amount. These statistics remind us of the challenges facing workers who do not succeed academically. Without a doubt, education 

is critical to the strength of America’s workforce and economy. 

That is why the current state of our nation’s education system is so troubling. 

Only 69 percent of students earn their high school diploma. According to the Nation’s Report Card, an eighth grade student has only a 30 percent chance of being 

able to read at grade level. Reading and math scores for teens on the verge of graduation remain largely unchanged since 1973. Students who do graduate are often 

unprepared to compete in the workforce. Employers continue to express their concerns that new workers too often lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math. 

As we consider these disturbing trends, we can’t ignore that over the last 45 years 

the federal government has become increasingly involved in the day to day operations of our schools. 

We have all heard a teacher or parent describe how rules imposed by Washington 

often stifle innovative solutions taking place in the classroom or undermine the freedom to choose a school that best fits a child’s needs. 

We can no longer accept the status quo that says Washington has all the answers 

and more money will fix a broken education system. Since 1980, federal spending 

on education has increased by 425 percent yet student achievement has failed to improve. Clearly, the current system isn’t working. It is time we stopped measuring 

our commitment to education by the dollars we spend. 

The good news is that the tide is turning. Dedicated reformers, concerned citizens, 

and gifted filmmakers have sparked a debate that is spreading across the country. 

Their efforts have awakened a desire for a new approach to education in the country. State and local communities are moving forward with innovative solutions to 

improve accountability, parental involvement, results-based hiring, and school 

choice. Washington should not stand in the way of these and other meaningful reforms that improve the quality of education for our children. 

That is why we are here today. Congress must understand the challenges facing 

our education system, hear the concerns of state and local leaders intimately involved with what goes on in the classroom, and begin to chart a different course 

that ensures the innovation and accountability being driven at the local level can 

succeed. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and will now yield to our Senior 

Democratic Member, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for yielding. Our former member of this 

committee, our colleague, Jared Polis, from Colorado, has asked to 

sit with the committee today because of his ongoing interest in education, and I thank you for agreeing to have him sit with the committee. 

Today’s hearing is our first education hearing in this new Congress. And I believe it is a very important one. As we look forward 

to reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it 
4 

is critical that we continue to take a look at where we are nationally and locally in terms of both progress we have made and the 

problems that continue to persist. 

The economic situation we are facing in this country also calls 

for us to take stock of what is going on in the classrooms across 

the nation. The children sitting in our classrooms today are the 

workforce of tomorrow. And we have both good and bad news to report about our public education system. 

The good news is that our focus and support of education over 

the last 10 years has led to real and significant improvements for 

children with academic achievement. We have seen increases in 

both reading and math scores. We have seen achievement gaps 

narrow in our elementary and middle grades between AfricanAmerican and White students and between high and low-poverty 

communities. 

But the gaps still exists. And in some rural and urban communities, the achievement gap is so persistent that many of our children are in grave jeopardy, which many consider a threat to our 

nation and to our economy. This is a threat to our competitiveness 

and even our security. 

Of the 30 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 12th in reading 

literacy, 17th in science and 25th in math. The difference between 

the countries at the top of the international rankings and our country is that the countries at the top have made it a national goal 

to develop the best education system in the world. 

And I want to point out in those countries they have focused on 

all students. While our top 10 percent of students remain competitive with their peers internationally, the U.S. falls flat when it 

comes to educating poor and minority students. It is clear that our 

economy will not be strong if the education of all students is not 

a clear priority. 

Nearly 600,000 students dropped out from the class of 2008, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. If only half of these 

students had graduated together, they would earn some $4.1 billion 

in additional wages in the course of an average year. And their incomes would help grow local revenues by $535 million in an average year. 

The fate of our national economy rests with the combined 

strength of the economies of local communities. These local communities rely on an educated and well-trained workforce. More needs 

to change so that our students will become the next engineers, entrepreneurs and teachers. 

A recent study of the workforce shows that the demand for workers with college education will outpace supply by some 300,000 individuals per year. By 2018, our colleges and universities will have 

produced 3 million fewer graduates than demanded by the workforce. The problems in our education system are even keeping 

young men and women from defending our nation. They don’t have 

the reading, math and science problem-solving abilities to take and 

pass the military enlisted exam. 

So the question really is where do we go from here. This country 

is too great and has too much potential to be a second-tier in education internationally. What our students need to succeed isn’t a 

mystery. 
5 

We took important steps forward with No Child Left Behind, 

calling on communities to be transparent about the achievement of 

all children. But much of that act is now outdated. And now we 

need to take the next steps to give greater flexibility at the local 

level in exchange for setting high goals for all children and less 

prescription at the federal level. 

We need an accountability system that works and refuses to let 

any student—any student—slip through the cracks. We must set 

high goals and achievement for all students, that includes, poor 

and minority students—we know this list well—English learners 

and students with special needs, all students in the United States, 

and provide them with challenging and rigorous learning environments tied to college and career-ready standards. 

They need creative, effective teachers to hold them to high goals 

and standards and that can adjust their teaching strategies as 

needed during the day, during the school year. Ten years after No 

Child Left Behind was enacted, the law is in need of major update. 

I am confident that we will be able to get this done this year. We 

have really no other choice but to do it. 

And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses of what we can 

do to improve our education system and make it easier for our local 

jurisdictions to carry out the intent of the Congress and the hopes 

of this nation. Thank you very much. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for joining us. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is our first education hearing in this new Congress and an important one. As we look forward to reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act, it is critical that 

We continue to take a look at where we are nationally and locally in terms of both 

the progress we have made and the problems that continue to persist. 

The economic situation we are facing in this country also calls for us to take stock 

of what is going on in classrooms across the nation. The children sitting in these 

classrooms today are our workforce of tomorrow. 

We have both good and bad news to report about our public education system. 

The good news is that our focus and support of education over the last ten years 

has lead to real and significant improvements for children academic achievement. 

We have seen increases in both reading and math scores. We’ve seen achievement 

gaps narrow in our elementary and middle grades between African American and 

white students and between high and low poverty communities. 

But the gaps still exist and in some rural and urban communities the achievement gap is so persistent that many of our children are in grave jeopardy—which 

many consider to be a threat to our nation. 

It’s a threat to our competitiveness, our economy and even our security. 

Of 34 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 12th in reading literacy, 17th in 

science and 25th in math. 

The difference between the countries at the top of the international rankings and 

our country is that the countries at the top have made it a national goal to develop 

the best education system in the world. 

And I want to point out that those countries have focused on all students. 

While our top 10 percent of students remain competitive with their peers internationally, the US falls flat when it comes to educating our poor and minority students. 

It is clear that that our economy will not be strong if the education of ALL students is not a clear priority. 

Nearly 600,000 students dropped out from the Class of 2008, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education, 
6 

If only half of these students had graduated, together they would earn $4.1 billion 

in additional wages in the course of average year. 

And their incomes would help grow local revenues by over $535 million in an average year. 

The fate of our national economy rests on the combined strength of economies in 

local communities. 

These local economies rely on an educated and well trained workforce. 

More needs to change so that our students will become the next great engineers, 

entrepreneurs and teachers. 

A recent study on the workforce shows that demand for workers with college educations will outpace supply by 300,000 per year. 

By 2018, our colleges and universities will have produced 3 million fewer graduates than demanded by the workforce. 

The problems in our education system are even keeping young men and women 

from defending our nation. 

They don’t have the reading, math, science and problem solving abilities to take 

and pass the military enlisted exam. 

So the question really is where do we go from here? 

This country is too great to be second tier in education. 

What our students need to succeed isn’t a mystery. 

We took important steps forward with No Child Left Behind calling on communities to be transparent about the achievement of all children. 

And now we need to take the next steps: give greater flexibility at the local level 

in exchange for setting high goals for all children and less prescription at the federal 

level. 

We need an accountability system that works and refuses to let any student slip 

through the cracks. 

We must set high goals for all students and provide them with a challenging and 

rigorous learning environment tied to college and career ready standards. 

They need creative, effective teachers who hold them to high goals and standards 

and can adjust their teaching strategies when needed. 

10 years after No Child Left Behind was enacted the law is need of a major update. 

I am confident we will be able to get this done this year. We have no other choice. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what we can do to improve 

our education system. 

Thank you for joining us. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. This is probably one of 

those occasions where we could just exchange each other’s speeches. It doesn’t happen often. It doesn’t happen often and may not 

happen down the road. But we are united. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. The negativity is so great. [Laughter.] 

Chairman KLINE. All right. Pursuant to committee rule 7C, all 

committee members will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such 

statements and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. And I will go through and introduce each of you and all of 

you together before we start into the testimony. 

Dr. Tony Bennett serves as the Indiana superintendent of public 

instruction, where he has pushed for drastic education reform. 

Prior to his election as superintendent, Dr. Bennett served as principal of Scottsburg Senior High School and spent nine years in the 

classroom as a science teacher. He also is one of the founders of 

the Chiefs for Change, a group of education leaders formed to promote school choice and performance-driven evaluations for teachers 

and principals. 
7 

Ms. Lisa Graham Keegan is the founder of the Education Breakthrough Network, a coalition of organizations and individuals dedicated to promoting school choice. Over the years, she has advocated 

for conservative approaches to education reform, including am emphasis on standardized testing and school choice initiatives such as 

school vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools and open enrollment policies. 

Mr. Andrew J. Coulson is the director of CATO Center for Educational Reform. Previously, he was a senior fellow in education 

policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Mr. Coulson also 

serves on the adviser council of the E.G. West Center for Market 

Solutions in Education at the University of New Castle, United 

Kingdom and has written for several academic journals, including 

the Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, the Journal of 

School Choice and the Education Policy Analysis Archives and for 

newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington 

Post. 

Mr. Ted Mitchell is the president and CEO of NewSchools Venture Fund, a non-profit philanthropic organization that raises private funds from education entrepreneurs to fund innovative K-12 

projects around the country. From 2008 to 2010, he also served as 

president of the California State Board of Education. Prior to taking the helm at NewSchools in 2005, Mr. Mitchell served as president of Occidental College in Los Angeles, as deputy to the president at Stanford University, as vice chancellor and dean of the 

School of Education and Information Studies at the University of 

California, Los Angeles and as professor and chair of the Department of Education at Dartmouth College. 

Welcome to all of you. And it is a very distinguished panel. We 

are very happy to have all of you here. 

Just very briefly, a reminder—I know this was explained, but for 

the benefit of all, including my colleagues, who sometimes turn colorblind on me, you have some little boxes in front of you that will 

have lights. When you start your testimony, a green light will come 

on. And that will be on for 4 minutes. 

It will turn yellow for a minute to give you an indication that it 

is time to start wrapping up your testimony. And then it will turn 

red. And that will indicate that the 5 minutes are up. 

As I promised each of you, I don’t intend to gavel anybody down 

in the middle of a sentence or thought. But, please, take that red 

light as the indication that it is time to wrap that up. And I will 

just take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that we also 

will have the 5-minute rule. We will have 5 minutes in which to 

ask our questions and have them answered. There is some skepticism among my—— 

Mr. MILLER. It went pretty well yesterday. 

Chairman KLINE. Well, it went pretty well yesterday, not exactly 

perfect. 

So we will start, and we will go right down the line. 

And, Dr. Bennett, you are recognized. 
8 

STATEMENT OF TONY BENNETT, INDIANA SUPERINTENDENT 

OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. Thanks for having me today, Chairman Kline. It is an honor to be here. And it is an honor to partake 

in a discussion that, I think, is the most important discussion we 

have going on in our nation. And that is the future of our nation 

through the education of our children. 

When I took office in 2009, we immediately set out a very aggressive plan in Indiana that said the academic achievement and career preparation of all Indiana students would be the best in the 

United States and on par with the most competitive countries 

around the world. And we then had to do something a little different. We had to evaluate the landscape. 

And I think I have a slide that is for your reference that is here 

that I am going to just very—give a quick side comment. Our staff 

kind of tripped me up. I refer to this usually as Indiana’s education 

mess. They didn’t like the name, so they put Indiana’s education 

challenges. They thought you would like it better. 

But this gives all of you an idea of what we were looking at, 

what we have been looking at in Indiana. And I think there are 

some very stark realities here. I think when you evaluate that picture, you are going to see academic achievement issues. You are 

going to see cultural issues. You are going to see structural issues 

that we believe we have to address. 

Now, the reason I bring that to you is when you talk about a system that has academic achievement problems, cultural problems 

and structural problems, something should come to mind. We have 

to have comprehensive reform. 

In education for many years, we have tried to do this thing we 

called reform by doing one thing at a time. And it hasn’t worked. 

It has given us minimal results. So we believe to approach this 
9 

issue and to approach the complexity of these issues, we must do 

this with comprehensive education reform in Indiana. 

And so, if we can go to the next slide, very quickly, you will see 

that in Indiana we will create and promote a state-wide culture of 

academic excellence in which—and we have this actually on a 

scoreboard in the state house atrium and in a scoreboard in my office with our term, ‘‘winding down in days, hours, minutes and seconds,’’ that says 90 percent of our students will pass both the 

English language arts and math portions of the state’s examinations. Twenty-five percent of our graduates will graduate with advanced placement international baccalaureate or dual credit, and 

90 percent of our students will graduate with a meaningful high 

school diploma. 

So we have that, again, on a scoreboard with all our critical statistics leading to that that shows us the sense of urgency with 

which we must address those issues you saw on the first slide. So 

let’s talk for a moment about what we have done about comprehensive education reform. 

First of all, Indiana today—it was announced yesterday—leads 

the nation in access to advanced placement exams with more minority students taking those exams than ever before. We also reformed teacher licensing, making it easier for mid-career changers 

to come into the field of education, giving more flexibility to our 

teachers in terms of professional development leading to relicensure. 

We developed a growth model with the help of Colorado, where 

we are able to show how students grow year-over-year. And we 

have a transparent way of showing school performance growth. 

And in the future, parents will be able to see the growth of the 

teachers their children will have. And today, parents will be able 

to see the growth of their own children year-over-year. 
10 

And finally, sadly, in 2011, at the end of this school year, the 

state will be prepared to potentially intervene with 20 of Indiana’s 

chronically under-performing schools. We have more than 24,000 

Hoosier students in these schools. We have a very aggressive reform agenda where we will put an emphasis on teacher quality. 

We will give schools flexibility and hold them very accountable. 

I believe accountability without flexibility is punishment. And we 

have to give folks flexibility to meet high standards and be competitive. 

And finally, we want to give all children options, options of charter schools, non-government schools to pursue educational opportunities that meet their needs. We also want to cut out the red tape. 

We have a red tape waiver in our legislation right now to remove 

red tape. And we would like to see the federal government do 

something similar. Set some guidelines. Set high expectations. Give 

us the resources. And hold us accountable by taking those resources away if we don’t hit the target. 

And finally, let’s talk about funding because this is a very important piece. There is another slide here. 

Chairman Kline, you mentioned the federal investment in education. This is Indiana state investment. And as you can see, our 

ISTEP, which is our state standardized testing, is flat over the last 

10 years. I think there is a very important 2 points here. In 2009, 

you actually see the line dip when the line for funding goes up. We 

cut our budget by $300 million in 2010, and the red line went up. 

What that tells us is in Indiana, we are answering the question, 

not how you get more money to education, but how you get more 

education for your money. And we are doing that by starting a discussion where we marry fiscal policy and education policy. Far too 

frequently, we have discussions about how to fund education without having discussions about what we expect from education. 
11 

So we believe that, again, we would love to see a situation where 

the federal government allows us to have a set of guidelines, gives 

us incredible flexibility, puts high expectations on us and holds us 

very accountable if we don’t meet those expectations. Thank you 

very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Bennett follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tony Bennett, Ph.D., 

Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction 

When I took office as Indiana’s elected Superintendent of Public Instruction in 

2009, I set out to provide all Hoosier students a world-class education that would 

prepare them for the demands of our competitive, global economy. I realized quickly 

our students had a lot to overcome. The state of education in our state, as in many 

others, is challenged. In Indiana, more than 15,000 third graders can’t pass the 

English/Language Arts portion of our state assessment. One in four students fails 

to graduate high school with a meaningful high school diploma, and of those who 

do graduate, 25 percent require college remediation. Too few of our students take 

the kind of rigorous high-school coursework needed to compete for seats in our top 

universities; only 12 percent are passing Advanced Placement exams. 

My first step upon taking office was to set clear, measureable and high expectations for student achievement. By 2013, 90 percent of Indiana students will pass 

both the English/Language Arts and Math portions of our state’s assessment—the 

ISTEP+. Twenty-five percent of all high school graduates will receive a score of 3, 

4 or 5 on at least one Advanced Placement exam, a 4 or higher on an International 

Baccalaureate exam, or receive the equivalent of three semester hours of college 

credit during their high school years. Finally, 90 percent of Indiana students will 

graduate from high school with a meaningful diploma. Two scoreboards, one in my 

office and one on display for Statehouse visitors, track our progress toward attaining 

these aggressive goals. 

We are forging a bold path to tackle Indiana’s education challenges head-on and 

to achieve our 90-25-90 goals for Indiana students. We start with the principle that 

every decision we make must be focused on doing what is best for our school children, and that has meant engaging in difficult conversations about the long-standing practices that for too long have favored adults over children. Second, we realize 

we didn’t find ourselves in this situation overnight; there was no one policy or event 

responsible for degrading our system of schools. It came as a result of years of complacency, inaction on various complex difficulties, and fear of change. Therefore, our 

plan to address it must be comprehensive. No single solution will give all students 

the high-quality education they deserve. Our approach is to attack all of the problems simultaneously from multiple angles. We know that’s what it will take to 

transform our current system into one that expects and supports excellence for all 

students. 

Our education reform agenda, which is currently before our General Assembly, reflects this comprehensive approach—and it will require an all-hands-on-deck commitment to succeed. We are confident our legislators will take advantage of this historic opportunity to answer the call to help Indiana’s students, and we are encouraged by the bipartisan support we are receiving from state and national leaders. 

The agenda is bolstered by our successful efforts to improve Indiana’s schools over 

the past two years. We have made tremendous gains despite the nation’s trying economic landscape. Indiana leads the nation in access to advanced placement exams 

with more minority students than ever before taking the exams. We have seen more 

students graduate from high school and pass our state assessments. We have also 

revamped the way teachers gain and renew their licenses in Indiana to better reflect 

student needs, ensure content-area expertise and allow highly-qualified career 

changers more pathways to teach in our highest need communities. 

We have rolled out Indiana’s Growth Model, and it is the centerpiece of many of 

our reform efforts. It allows us, for the first time, to measure how much students 

learn over the course of a school year—no matter their achievement level, income, 

race or ZIP code. Perhaps most important, it gives us a more accurate view of which 

teachers are driving the biggest academic gains in the classroom. Often, the most 

remarkable success stories are happening in our most disadvantaged communities. 

Teachers who were never recognized by a system that looked only at test scores are 

standing out with Indiana’s Growth Model for moving kids 1.5 to 2.5 grade levels 

in a single school year. While we understand this new tool won’t solve all our problems, it has been a game-changer in the way we measure academic success in our 

state. 
12 

We are taking the first steps right now to intervene in our chronically low-performing schools, where more than 24,000 Hoosier students are doomed to educational environments that fail to provide them even the most basic skills they will 

need to enter college or the workforce. Currently, 20 schools could face state takeover at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. 

Looking ahead, we believe this is the moment for Indiana to emerge as a leader 

for other states to follow when it comes to innovative and aggressive education initiatives that put student success first—and our three-part ‘‘Putting Students First’’ 

agenda is the type of comprehensive reform plan Indiana’s students need. 

The three pillars of Indiana’s ‘‘Putting Students First’’ education agenda are the 

following: 

1. Indentify and reward great teachers and principals by giving local leaders flexibility to promote excellence. Legislation before our general assembly this session 

would require local corporations to be centers of innovation that develop fair, multifaceted, annual evaluations for teachers and principals that will clearly differentiate 

effectiveness and consider student performance and growth. Once in place, these 

evaluations should be used to determine pay increases, classroom placement and 

professional development requirements. 

2. Enforce accountability but allow local flexibility to turn around our persistently 

low-achieving schools. Our proposed legislation creates a clear roadmap for turning 

around our lowest achieving schools by outlining procedures for state intervention 

and giving school operators at our worst schools the freedom to make the bold 

moves necessary for swift, dramatic improvement. The legislation would also create 

a ‘‘Parent Trigger’’ that would allow a majority of students’ parents in a school to 

petition for early state intervention in a failing school. 

3. Give all families a voice and high-quality educational options for their children. 

Legislation is currently before our General Assembly to enforce stricter accountability for charter schools, create more quality charter authorizers, and create a 

needs-based opportunity scholarship for families to take a percentage of state funding to educate their children in participating non-government schools. The legislation would also create a ‘‘Parent Trigger’’ that would allow a majority of students’ 

parents in a school to petition for conversion to a charter school at any time. 

What’s more, Indiana students deserve an education system that demands academic results and isn’t focused on complying with outdated and unnecessary laws 

and regulations. I believe part of the reason our students are falling behind is a lack 

of appropriate leadership at the state and federal level. We must strike a balance 

between expectations, accountability, flexibility and support. 

As a former teacher, principal and school superintendent, I am a strong believer 

in local control. Indiana’s school leaders are in a better position to know what’s best 

for the students in their communities. They know which programs will work for the 

children they serve. They understand the cultural and economic factors unique to 

their districts, and they are in the best position to drive innovation. My role as state 

superintendent is to set high expectations for student performance and enforce strict 

accountability measures. In between, particularly if we are successful this legislative session, our locals will have full flexibility to act on behalf of their students’ 

best interests. 

We will put guardrails in place to ensure quality and provide support, and then, 

we will get out of the way and let them do their jobs. I tell Indiana’s superintendents to blame me for setting such rigorous goals. I don’t tell them how to reach 

those goals, but I am happy to let them use me as a shield so they can do what 

they need to do for their students. I would love to see the federal government to 

do the same for states. 

Part of this must involve some deregulation. In Indiana, we have heard loud and 

clear from our superintendents too much red tape is in their way. This session, 

we’re doing something about it with deregulation legislation. Earlier this week, Indiana’s House Education Committee debated this legislation that would allow a school 

or school corporation to apply to our State Board of Education for a waiver of one 

or more laws or regulations that stand in their way. Just a handful of laws or rules 

would not be eligible for waiver. Applicants would be required to demonstrate how 

the waiver would help improve student learning. 

As a department, we are also taking a close look at the red tape we place on 

schools. For example, we recently reviewed the more than 120 data collections we 

ask of local school corporations to see whether the data collected is focused on our 

top priority—student achievement—and that the data we collect is actually put to 

good use. With those parameters in mind, we have identified more than 30 collections that can be suspended or consolidated with other collections, thereby reducing 

the burden on local leaders. Now, we are looking to the federal government to cut 
13 

through unnecessary red tape, as well, and we have started discussions with the 

U.S. Department of Education to find ways to do just that. 

The best way the federal government can drive improved student performance is 

by setting high expectations, enforcing strict accountability measures, and allowing 

states the flexibility to work on behalf of their students. In an ideal world, the federal government would simply say, ‘‘Meet goals X, Y and Z. Here are some guidelines, but ultimately, we don’t care how you get there. Figuring out your path to 

success is up to you because you know best what your students need. If you do not 

meet the goals, you will not get federal dollars.’’ This is a new paradigm at the state 

and federal level, and it’s one that keeps the interests of students at heart. 

Speaking of education dollars, that’s another area where we need to change our 

thinking. We must fundamentally change the conversation from ‘‘How do we get 

more money for education?’’ to ‘‘How do we get more education for our money?’’ Decisions we make on education spending cannot be made in a vacuum; they must be 

married with our decisions about education policy. We absolutely must review every 

spending decision through the lens of what will most benefit students in our classrooms. In Indiana, we’re moving in that direction. 

For the first time in our state’s history, school funding formula legislation will 

begin its journey in our House Education Committee, where it can be considered in 

relation to our education reform legislation, before it moves to the Ways and Means 

Committee. It may be a small step, but it sends a clear message that we need to 

think critically about the way we currently pay for education in our state. In tight 

economic circumstances, the time has never been better to have these discussions. 

More money isn’t the answer to our problems. Too often, it’s not a lack of funding 

or resources that keeps individuals, states and nations from achieving their goals; 

it’s a lack of courage. 

And courage is exactly what Indiana is asking from its lawmakers this legislative 

session. It’s also what we ask of our leaders at the federal level. We cannot afford 

to keep doing what we’ve been doing. Indiana’s education challenges aren’t unique; 

our problems reflect a crisis facing our entire country. Our nation’s economic success 

and maintained global position depend upon our ability to gain quickly significant 

ground on the education front. 

As a man who has made educating children his life’s work, I know from experience when you hold children to high expectations, they will rise to the challenge. 

As a school leader in southern Indiana, I set similar high expectations for my teachers and staff. And they never let me down. The same is holding true now, as school 

corporations across our state are innovating and driving incredible gains in student 

achievement. 

I pledge this to you: if you set the bar high for states, put guardrails in place to 

ensure quality, provide support, enforce accountability, give states the flexibility to 

achieve those goals, and then get out of our way, we will not fail America’s school 

children. We will not fail to prepare our nation’s future leaders. But you must act 

now on behalf of all children. We cannot risk leaving another generation of students 

ill-prepared to compete with their international peers. It is a moral imperative for 

all of us to act on behalf of students and leave adult comforts and concerns aside 

to do what is right for them. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Keegan? 

STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, FOUNDER, 

EDUCATION BREAKTHROUGH NETWORK 

Ms. KEEGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. It is an 

honor to be here. What I would like to do is talk a little bit about 

the individuals who are actually creating the transformation in 

education in the country. 

The path or the challenge before us is enormous. And Mr. Miller 

described it well. It has been a long time that we have been focusing on it. And it can feel overwhelming until you look very closely 

at a significant transformation that is underway in the country, 

who is doing it, how they are doing it. And I would suggest that 

following their lead is the best course of action any of us can take 

at this point. 
14 

My organization, Education Breakthrough Network, was actually 

made possible by the past 20 years. And it was made necessary as 

well because there isn’t one thing that is happening. There is not 

just one thing. 

We are moving in all sorts of directions. We are moving in terms 

of school choices for public charter schools, online learning. Technology is driving this in credible ways. We have created tutoring 

programs, scholarship programs. 

Homeschooling has burgeoned in these past 20 years, really a 

phenomenal growth in the transformation of American education. 

And I think it is really important to understand, as you go about 

the business of updating a law that passed 10 years ago, how different the landscape is even in these past 10 years. 

The transformation is marked not by politics, not by a particular 

group of people. One of the things about Breakthrough we like best 

is that, I think, within 30 seconds, anybody in the country could 

see somebody they know and trust on that page: Democrats, Republicans, African-Americans, Latinos, White folks, everybody. It is 

quite a mix, American education transformation. 

What is common to it is a belief that we can and we should have 

our students be leaders academically in the world, no excuses, no 

apology, no other agenda. That has to get done. And these folks 

have been about the business of making it happen. 

The simplest description of what is happening is that states are 

moving away from simple assignment of their kids into schools. 

They are moving away from one school that is going to serve all 

needs, one set of rules that are going to govern all people in the 

school district and moving into specialization, most particularly, allowing educators to take back the leadership role that our nation 

started with, quite frankly. 

Over the past 20 years, we have lost in assignment, we have lost 

the numbers to the point that now over a third of students do not 

attend the school they are assigned to. In Arizona last weekend, we 

had an article about a school district where 75 percent of parents 

are opting out of their assigned high school district. I would say at 

that point, choice has gone mainstream. 

And it has gone mainstream, not just for students, but for teachers, which is as it should be. When we started public education, we 

relied on the teacher, the teacher to start the school, manage the 

school, run the school. The teacher has never been anything but 

the most important factor in any school. That has never changed. 

What has changed is how effective we allowed that teacher to be. 

All sorts of illogical constraints on personnel, on what a teacher 

can do, when she can do it, or he can do it—excuse me, gentlemen—what they can do, with whom, hiring who, how they associate with each other. We assign teachers into schools. We don’t let 

them choose their schools or their specialty. 

In 2011, in an age when specialty is everything, that seems illogical to me any more. And it seems illogical to the thousands of 

educators who are bringing innovation to American education. 

Teachers are fighting their way back to the front of this exercise. 

All over the country are organizations: The New Teacher Project, 

New Leaders for New Schools, Teach for America, The American 

Association of Educators, the American Board for Certifying Teach-
15 

er Excellence. These are teacher-led organizations for teachers, 

bringing teachers back into leadership. And it has been critically 

important. 

Every state now is creating a way for teachers to bring their 

skills directly into the education market, for teachers to bring their 

schools to the students that they serve. It is a fundamental difference. 

The one thing I think is very important to talk about is, as you 

go about your business, it is always refreshing to hear that you 

hesitate to get in the way of local control. Unfortunately, where 

education is concerned, local lost out to control a long time ago. 

Local control looks like national organizations whose power far 

outweighs individual school board members, who are often the 

power of the interests of the local communities they are supposed 

to serve. So it is one thing to say we want this to be local. It is 

another not to recognize that local officials are not always free to 

do what they think is the right thing. 

The innovation that has happened is that teachers who have 

started schools, who have brought new technologies, who have seen 

the promise of technology or of these new pathways are what is 

local any more. And we need to make sure we can follow them. We 

asked them what is it that would help you do more of what you 

are doing. We take their advice and try to get out of their way. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Keegan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Lisa Graham Keegan, Founder, 

Education Breakthrough Network 

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak 

with you today. It is an honor. 

I am well aware that this committee needs no introduction to the desperate state 

of affairs in American education. When I had the privilege a few years ago to offer 

insights for a McKinsey report on our achievement gaps, I was struck by their observation that the economic cost of under educating our youth was best represented 

as a permanent two trillion dollar recession. 

And that analysis obviously offers only an economic barometer for a staggering 

loss of human potential. The enormity of our challenge can feel paralyzing, until we 

look very closely at the transformation already underway. 

The reality is that genuine shifts in attitude, policy and practice began twenty 

years ago, and are dramatically reshaping American education. The changes are 

being driven by a vast network of formally and informally connected education leaders; hugely talented, intelligent, creative and relentless. They are using every possible avenue available to them * * * innovative practice, new laws, new technologies, and disciplined recruitment * * * in order to overcome a frankly calcified 

and outdated system. 

This is not about one narrow policy, or a single set of political ideologies. This 

transformation is marked by a basic belief: our students can and should be leaders 

in academic attainment. No equivocation, no apology, no excuses. 

The simplest description of what is going on around the country is that every 

state is moving away from the traditional system of one school assignment and one 

set of policies that govern practice for everyone in a school district. While states 

have not yet created wholesale revisions to assigned public education, they have allowed and encouraged these moves away from it. The key to understanding education in America today is to understand we are already deep in the midst of this 

desperately needed transformation. 

For example, the shift from school assignment to parent choice is fairly radical. 

Nationwide, nearly one third of students no longer attend their ‘‘assigned’’ school. 

Just this week-end, Arizona’s largest newspaper highlighted a school district in 

Phoenix where 75 % of students now opt out of their assigned school into another 

option. Instead of their assigned school, parents are choosing another district school 
16 

out of boundary, a public charter school, a private school, an online school, or simply 

to home school. 

School choice has gone mainstream. As has teacher choice. This entire decades 

long transformation has been led by teachers and educators of every stripe. Finally. 

Again. 

When our nation first envisioned a system of public schools, the quality of the system lay in the hands of the school teacher. He or she was hired to create the school, 

lead the school, and manage the school. The effectiveness of the teacher leader has 

always been the most important determinant of success in any school. 

Over time, however, as systems began to centralize and hundred page contracts 

took the place of leadership, the role of the teacher has not become less important, 

but made less effective by illogical constraints. And it has been teachers who fought 

their way back to the head of this transformation. 

Nearly every state has now created a way for teachers to create and offer their 

schools to students. We now have ‘‘franchises’’ of schools based on a particular learning style or philosophy. Some are private, some are public charter schools, some are 

district schools. Hundreds of thousands of students and teachers are benefiting the 

distribution of these successful school models, be they groups like the KIPP schools, 

Uncommon Schools, or the Noble Network of schools in Chicago, or hundreds of 

other teacher-led schools across the country. 

The schools are marked by a specialization in instructional practice, or perhaps 

a focus on subject areas such as the arts or science and technology. These specialized schools mirror practices begun in magnet schools, and many of the best schools 

nationally are intra-district specialized schools. They are led by master teachers who 

want to lead, and who have the freedom to select their colleagues * * * who also 

choose them. 

States are also welcoming new learning technologies and online schools, with fully 

half the states now offering full time on-line schooling. And online instruction has 

in turn led to the creation of ‘‘hybrid’’ schools, where technology and tradition blend 

to create some of the fastest pace growth in achievement we have seen to date. 

Again, those models were created by teachers who either created or immediately understood the potential of new learning technologies. 

Most importantly, this evolution was not borne of an imposed structure. This 

movement grew, and continues to grow, from the talent, ingenuity, and perseverance of American educators. The biggest shift we see is that educators themselves 

have created pathways that allow them to serve students directly. 

The energy in this movement gives its students and the nation so much more 

than simple achievement gains. The energy feeds on a belief in excellence, in potential, in the power of being able to contribute to your community. The education revolution is immediately identifiable not by a type of school or governance, but by its 

belief in the students it serves. And that makes all the difference. Where they are 

succeeding, we must find every way possible to help. 

And this is a critical moment for our educational transformation. What all of us 

do next will either advance or hinder acceleration in achievement. And while it is 

always refreshing to listen to national leaders espouse affinity for locally controlled 

solutions versus top-down mandates, caution is in order. Where education is concerned, the most successful local action has had to develop outside the traditional 

confines of ‘‘local control’’. 

Because unfortunately, ‘‘local’’ lost out long ago in school districts, and ‘‘control’’ 

took over. School district control is dominated by the interests of national organizations whose power dwarfs that of their individual members or the communities they 

are meant to serve. And that has to be taken seriously. In a world where rapid improvement must be the imperative, the question is how best to break through illogical yet calcified structures. Or more specifically, how to allow those who are willing 

* * * to break through. 

Current school district regulations that prevent individualized personnel arrangements, prevent a school leader from walking in to observe a classroom, prohibit the 

use of student achievement data when assessing teacher performance, or prevent 

dismissal of clearly incapable teachers, are all still hallmarks of ‘‘local control’’. 

And the organizations who support those regulations do not sit silent when their 

colleagues choose to opt out and create something more powerful for students. It has 

been a battle, and the ‘‘on the ground ‘‘realities have shifted. Ironically, true local 

control has moved to schools of choice, and true teacher leadership and potential exists outside the teacher contracts originally intended to empower their work. 

Hopefully what happens now at every level, is that we focus on clearing the way 

for those who seek to excel. Sometimes it takes nothing more than aligning terms. 

About 15 years ago, the Congress took decisive action in support of state initiatives 

to proliferate public charter schools by defining them in federal law as local edu-
17 

cation agencies. That simple action not only put the schools and their students on 

equal footing for federal education grants, it enabled a fledgling movement to withstand the opposition of national organizations. 

As the transformation in schooling occurs nationwide, there will be many such opportunities for support. These initiatives are not top-down, they are entrepreneurial 

in nearly every sense. But they fight traditional regulation in ways we often don’t 

recognize until they explain it to us. There is potential for a serious and effective 

partnership to accelerate excellence here, albeit one that walks a fine balance. 

Where schools and innovative practices are proving successful, and where parents 

are seeking them in numbers that far outweigh available space, there is no time 

to waste. It’s a great place to start. Let’s start with the known cures, and allow 

them to flourish. We have to ask these leaders what it will take, and try to make 

sure they get it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Coulson, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW COULSON, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. COULSON. Chairman Kline, members of the committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

For over half a century, a succession of Congresses and presidents has sought to do 2 things for American elementary and secondary education: raise overall achievement and narrow the gaps 

by income and by minority status. Roughly $2 trillion have been 

spent at the federal level since 1965 in pursuing these ends. In the 

next few minutes, I will summarize the results. 

Congress’ first effort to raise overall achievement was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which focused on mathematics and science, as it was a response to the Soviet launch of the 

satellite Sputnik. As you can see on figure 1, science scores for this 

period we don’t have data for. But math scores declined between 

1955 and 1960. And that decline accelerated after the passage of 

the National Defense Education Act. 
18 

There is a beginning of an uptrend after 1966, which looks promising. But sadly, that uptrend was evanescent. It vanished in the 

coming years, as we can see in figure 2, which charts mathematics, 

science and reading scores from the earliest national trend data we 

have available from the National Assessment of Education 

Progress, along with the change, the percent change, in real federal 

spending per pupil. And that is adjusted for inflation. 

Now, obviously, looking at that chart, it is pretty disappointing. 

Is there a possibility that state and local spending were going down 

at the same time that federal spending was going up? Maybe that 
19 

offset the increased federal investment. To find out, I provided figure 3, which charts total spending—the total cost, actually, of a K12 public education in real dollars, how it is changed over time. 

As you can see, total spending, much like federal spending, has 

increased dramatically over the course of this period. Reading and 

science—sorry, reading and mathematics scores are flat over that 

40-year period for students at the end of high school. In science, 

scores have declined slightly. 

Science is that little purple line at the bottom. It trails up in 

1999. I don’t know if it was because bad news is no news. But we 

stopped testing in that period of science scores at the time. There 

is some other data from a different series of results that also 

shows—it shows a decline in science from 1995 to 2006. 

So what about the other federal goal in education at the elementary and secondary level, compensatory education, closing the 

gaps? We don’t have data for the achievement of kids from different economic backgrounds. But we do have data on the relative 

performance of high school—the children of high school dropouts 

and the children of college graduates, which is a pretty good proxy 

for income. 

Those gaps at the end of high school between the kids of dropouts and the kids of college graduates have not changed in 40 

years. I think there is a 1 percent uptick in one of the 3 subjects. 

And the other 2 are flat. It is really a disappointing result. 

The one area out of all these goals the federal government has 

had that has shown some improvement is some of the minority/ 

White gaps. As you can see from figure 4, the gap in reading, for 

instance, between Black and White students at the end of high 

school has shrunk from its origin in 1969 or thereabouts. 1971, I 

think, is the year. But the timing of the gap closing does not support federal intervention as the likely cause. 
20 

Virtually all of the shrinkage in the gap between Black and 

White students in reading at the end of high school occurred in a 

single eight-year span from 1980 to 1988. Since that time, it has 

increased slightly. And this was a time, If you recall the chart on 

figure 2, during which federal spending had skyrocketed. 

So to sum up, we seem to have gotten very little for the $2 trillion in federal education investments over the past half-century. 

They do not appear to have achieved the goals they were set out 

to achieve. 

There is one notable exception to this very disappointing overall 

pattern. And that is the tiny and recently-maligned Washington, 

D.C. opportunity scholarships program. This program, which allows 

low-income students in Washington, D.C. to attend private schools 

and which costs about $7,000 per pupil on average, produces equal 

or better academic results and substantially better, statistically significantly better graduation rates than are available in the D.C. 

public school. And it does so at a quarter of the cost of D.C. public 

schools. 

Extending and growing that program would be a fantastic example for the nation. And it is something that Congress can do, an 

affirmative thing Congress can do, which would have tremendous 

benefits. 

Now, D.C. is a special case. Congress grants special power to 

Congress over the district. But it delegates to the federal government no national education policy powers, reserving those for the 

states and the people. Now, clearly, that constitutional limit has 

not been observed for generations. But in light of the evidence I 

have just presented, its wisdom is inescapable. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Coulson follows:] 
21 

1 Calculated by the author from Table no. 373 of the 2009 edition (latest available) of the Digest of Education Statistics, linearly interpolating data gaps prior to 1985 and linearly extrapolating the 2010 value from the preceding ten years of data. The resulting figure is: 

$2,070,963,000,000, in constant 2009 dollars. 2 National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2009, (NCES 

2011—451), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2011. http:// 

nationsreportcard.gov/science—2009/ [The ‘‘Nation’s Report Card’’ is a separate set of nationally 

representative tests from the ‘‘Long Term Trends’’ set, but both are part of the ‘‘National Assessment of Educational Progress.’’] 3 Jay R. Campbell, Catherine M. Hombo, and John Mazzeo, NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic 

Progress:Three Decades of Student Performance (Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 

2000), p. 37. 

Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Coulson, Director, 

Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute 

Chairman Kline, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak 

with you today. My name is Andrew Coulson and I direct the Center for Educational 

Freedom at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit, non-partisan public policy research organization. My comments are my own, and do not represent any position of the Institute. 

For over half a century, a succession of Congresses and presidents has sought to 

do two things for American elementary and secondary education: raise overall 

achievement, and narrow the gaps between high- and low-income students as well 

as between minority and white students. The federal government has spent roughly 

$2 trillion on these efforts since 1965, adjusting for inflation.1

In the next few minutes I will summarize the results of these efforts and their 

implications for federal education policy. 

Congress’ first attempt to improve the quality of instruction in the nation’s schools 

was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, a direct response to the Soviet 

launch of the satellite Sputnik. It was intended to raise mathematics and science 

achievement. There are no data on science achievement during this period to my 

knowledge, but we do have nationally representative trend data for mathematics 

performance at the end of high school, which I present in Figure 1. 

As can be seen from the chart, math scores declined slightly during the latter half 

of the 1950s, and this decline accelerated from 1960 to 1966, after the NDEA was 

passed. Scores had still not recovered to their 1955 high point three decades later. 

While the up-trend between 1966 and 1983 looks promising, it was not sustained. 

Figure 2 charts the percent change in Math, Science, and Reading scores from the 

1970s to the present, along with the percent change in real federal education spending per pupil. 

Math and Reading scores at the end of high school are unchanged over the past 

forty years, while Science scores suffered a slight decline through the year 1999, the 

last time that test was administered. Data from another nationally representative 

test series show a continuing decline in 12th grade Science between 1996 and 2005, 

the last year for which we have trend data.2

Presented with stagnant or declining performance in the face of a meteoric rise 

in federal spending per pupil, it is reasonable to ask: what happened to total spending? If state and local expenditures fell to such an extent that they offset federal 

increases, that might explain the profound disconnect revealed in Figure 2. 

To answer that question, I present Figure 3, showing how the total cost of an entire k-through-12 public school education has changed over time. 

We spent over $151,000 per student sending the graduating class of 2009 through 

public schools. That is nearly three times as much as we spent on the graduating 

class of 1970, adjusting for inflation. Despite that massive real spending increase, 

overall achievement has stagnated or declined, depending on the subject. 

But what of the federal government’s other educational goal: narrowing the 

achievement gaps by income and minority status? 

Test score breakdowns by family income are not available, but we do have something close: a breakdown by parents’ level of education. This allows us to compare 

the children of high school dropouts to those of college graduates. In Reading and 

Science, the gap between these students has not narrowed in 40 years. In Math it 

has narrowed by barely one percent of the test score scale (see Figure 4). So, here 

again, federal appropriations and the programs they have funded have failed to 

achieve their goals. 

That leaves us with one last federal policy goal to examine: Shrinking the gaps 

between minority and white students. In science, these gaps, too, are unchanged,3
22 

4 Andrew J. Coulson, ‘‘K-12 Education,’’ chapter in David Boaz (ed.), The Cato Handbook for 

Policymakers, 7th edition (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2009). http://www.cato.org/pubs/ 

handbook/hb111/hb111-20.pdf 5The figures in the range of $15,000 for DC per pupil spending that are commonly reported 

in the press are several years out of date, do not take into account falling DCPS enrollment 

in the face of rising total spending in the years since they were published, and usually exclude 

major expenditure categories such as capital spending. The $28,000 figure is the author’s own 

calculation from the published FY2008-09 budget documents of the District of Columbia, and 

the spreadsheet in which those calculations were conducted, including source citations, is available here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/Coulson-DC-Ed-SpendingFY2009-Budget.xls 

while they have narrowed in Reading and Mathematics. But a key question remains: were federal programs responsible for this isolated gap narrowing? 

If so, the gap narrowing that did occur should track federal legislation and spending: starting gradually and then accelerating rapidly during the past two decades. 

To see if that is indeed the pattern, Figure 4 charts changes in the black/white 

Reading gap (which is one of the larger majority/minority gap reductions, with a 

fairly typical time trend). 

Comparing Figure 4 with the federal spending per pupil trend shown in Figure 

2, there seems to be little support for the hypothesis that federal efforts have narrowed the black/white reading gap. The gap was essentially unchanged for the first 

15 years after the passage of the ESEA and Head Start. Then, in the absence of 

any dramatic change in federal policy or spending, the gap suddenly narrowed between 1980 and 1988. Since 1988, the gap has actually widened slightly, despite a 

dramatic rise in federal spending over that period. The patterns for both math and 

reading for both black and Hispanic students tell similar stories.4

To sum up, we have little to show for the $2 trillion in federal education spending 

of the past half century. In the face of concerted and unflagging efforts by Congress 

and the states, public schooling has suffered a massive productivity collapse—it now 

costs three times as much to provide essentially the same education as we provided 

in 1970. 

Grim as that picture may seem, it fails to capture the full measure of the problem. 

Because as productivity was falling relentlessly in education, it was rising everywhere else. A pound of grocery store coffee is not merely as affordable as it was in 

1970—it hasn’t just held its ground—it is cheaper in real dollars. Indeed virtually 

every product and service has gotten better, or more affordable, or both over the 

past two generations. 

Seen in that proper context, we would have to be disappointed with our nation’s 

lack of educational improvement even if federal spending had not increased at all. 

The fact that outcomes have remained flat or declined while spending skyrocketed 

is a disaster unparalleled in any other field. The only thing it appears to have accomplished is to apply the brakes to the nation’s economic growth, by taxing trillions of dollars out of the productive sector of the economy and spending it on ineffective programs. 

But amidst this bleak overall record, there is one federal education program that 

has been proven to both improve educational outcomes and dramatically lower costs. 

That is the Washington, DC Opportunity Scholarships Program. Research conducted 

by the Department of Education finds that students attending private schools 

thanks to this program have equal or better academic performance than their peers 

in the local public schools, and have significantly higher graduation rates. This, and 

very high levels of parental satisfaction, come at an average per pupil cost of around 

$7,000. By contrast, per pupil spending on k-12 public education in the nation’s capital was roughly $28,000 during the 2008-09 school year.5

The OSP program is thus producing better results at a quarter the cost. 

DC, of course, is a special case. The federal government is not empowered by the 

Constitution to create such a program on a national level. Indeed the Constitution 

delegates to the federal government no national education policy powers, reserving 

them, under the 10th Amendment, to the states and the people. Clearly, this limit 

has not been observed for generations, but its wisdom is by now inescapable. We 

have decades of evidence of the inability of our national education programs to fulfill 

their worthy intentions. 

Nevertheless, Congress could contribute greatly to the spread of educational excellence around the nation by preserving and growing the Opportunity Scholarships 

Program as an example of what is possible and by phasing out its vast array of ineffective programs. This would ultimately allow for a permanent annual tax cut on 

the order of seventy billion dollars, and would bolster interest in the many state 

level private school choice programs that have also been improving outcomes while 
23 

lowering costs. Any move in this direction would be of lasting value to American 

families and the American economy. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Mitchell, please? 

STATEMENT OF TED MITCHELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NEWSCHOOLS VENTURE FUND 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Chairman Kline. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Congressman Miller, members of the committee, 

fellow witnesses this morning. 

I applaud the bipartisan spirit with which, I think, we are undertaking this discussion today. And I know that I am very honored 

to be a part of it. 

I am here for the same reason that you all are. As Chairman 

Kline and Mr. Miller so eloquently said and as my fellow witnesses 

have testified, we know that we need to improve outcomes for kids 

in America’s schools. But the good news is that the country is filled 

with entrepreneurs, innovators and systems leaders with bold ideas 

that can change children’s lives. And the federal government matters in how many of these ideas come to fruition. 

I have seen this up close at the NewSchools Venture Fund. As 

a non-profit venture philanthropy firm, we seek out social entrepreneurs working to improve public education for low-income kids. 

We help those entrepreneurs grow organizations that achieve 

breakthrough results. And I have seen these same truths in my recent role as president of the California Board of Education. 

Here is an example. Aspire Public Schools was founded a decade 

ago on a college-for-certain philosophy, on attention to data and 

smart management. Today that idea has turned into 30 public 

charter schools serving more than 10,000 largely poor and minority 

students. 

And last year, 100 percent of Aspire graduates were accepted to 

college. And Aspire is today the highest performing school system 

serving low-income kids in California. 

Or take Teacher U, where it set out to transform teacher preparation in New York by focusing on results in the classroom. Last 

summer, Teacher U. graduated its first cohort of teachers with 

something revolutionary: measurable evidence that they had 

helped their students advance a full grade or more in a year. 

We need more Aspires and more Teacher Us. Yet reform remains 

an unnatural act in our school systems, which have their own Newtonian logic. To every good idea, there is well-financed opposition. 

My colleagues in the field need your help in making that fight fairer. That means playing a smart, limited role that helps local leaders and local entrepreneurs do things that are essential, but politically difficult. 

Here are 3 examples of the unique role the federal government 

can and should play. First, government can continue to protect the 

unprotected by focusing on outcomes for low-income, minority and 

special needs students. No Child Left Behind was not a perfect law, 

but the transparency created by requiring states to report student 

achievement by sub-group has been a powerful driver of reform. 

Please stay steadfast in that commitment. 
24 

Second, you can foster innovation through targeted incentives 

that ensure we don’t try to meet 21st century challenges with 19th 

century tools and policies. And innovation isn’t just technology. It 

is new ideas that create better results. 

Innovators disrupt calcified systems. And they prove it is possible 

through results, removing excuses and catalyzing change. 

And we know from experience that funding innovation works. 

Among the 200 plus schools in our own portfolio, 91 percent of its 

graduates enroll in college. 

And as we have learned, targeted incentive funds drive policy innovation disproportionate to their cost and can create cover when 

reform is politically difficult at the local level. Often, parents’ and 

kids’ interests don’t prevail at the local level. Incentives can help 

to combat systemic gridlock caused by entrenched interest groups. 

And finally, you can speed reform through your support of states 

as they transition to the voluntary common standards advanced by 

nearly 40 governors, which will establish a level playing field for 

all players, states, districts, schools and service providers, allowing 

the best innovations to scale beyond state boundaries. Beyond 

these broad strokes, there are a few examples of specific policies 

that will advance innovation and help states and local communities, particularly under-served communities dramatically raise 

outcomes for their students. 

First, please support and fund fully the charter schools program 

to support the growth of high-quality charters and support strong 

charter accountability for those that under-perform. Second, please 

consider using Title II funds to drive the growth of smart and innovative teacher training organizations focused on results and to 

drive the deployment of evaluation and pay systems for teachers 

that recognize performance. Third, help states clear away policies 

such as fixed student/teacher ratios and seat time requirements 

that prevent the spread of effective technologies that are revolutionizing the way students learn and teachers teach. 

There is a smart, limited, vital role for the federal government 

to play in education. I hope that you will embrace it with enthusiasm and move to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thanks again for the privilege of speaking with you 

today. 

[The statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, all, for your testimony. We are 

going to move into a period of questions and answers. In what appears to be a futile effort on my part to set an example, I am going 

to start the clock for my own questioning and stick to that. 

If I keep setting that example, is it going to work, George? 

Maybe not. 

Mr. MILLER. I have always been a slow learner. [Laughter.] 

Chairman KLINE. Dr. Bennett, let me start with you. You are 

doing some pretty tough things in Indiana, some amazing things. 

I have a number of questions here, some, frankly, proposed by the 
31 

staff, some that I have been writing as we went through. So I want 

to touch on a couple of things, if I could. 

Once, you mentioned that you are trying to put in place ways for 

people to make—I think you call it—mid-career changes to teaching. Can you tell me how that is—what you are doing and how that 

is working? 

Mr. BENNETT. What we have done, Chairman, is really, we revamped our entire teacher licensing system under the—we refer to 

it as Indiana professional standards board. The first thing we did 

was say that we were going to emphasize content so that chemistry 

teachers knew chemistry and history teachers knew history. 

But the other thing was to, if you will, provide more flexibility 

within the teacher licensing system to allow, maybe, a chemist 

from Eli Lilly to leave that position and find a way into Indiana 

schools to affect the lives of children. So it was really an opportunity for us to tap the talent in an economy where people may be 

leaving their jobs to come in and provide education to children with 

some different teacher licensing standards. 

Chairman KLINE. So you have made it easier for that chemist 

from Eli Lilly in your example, who has decided they are either retiring from Eli Lilly, to continue the example, or they just have developed an interest in teaching, to get licensed to teach in Indiana? 

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. And we have done that with teachers, principals and superintendents. 

Chairman KLINE. Well, I have always—I have great interest in 

that because I have always thought that we have missed the bet 

in a lot of cases where you have somebody who loves math and has 

spent their life in math and they would like to now take that love 

of math and the skill that they have and teach it and transfer it. 

And too often, we have made that extremely difficult to do. So I am 

always excited when I hear that there are efforts to allow that to 

happen much easier so that people aren’t discouraged. 

I know in many examples when I retired from active duty in the 

Marine Corps and I established my home in Minnesota, I thought, 

‘‘Well, I might want to substitute for a while.’’ It seemed like a good 

thing to do. And I liked to teach. And so, I offered up that I might 

be interested to do that. 

When it was explained to me all the things I had to go through 

in order to be a substitute, it was so discouraging that I started 

farming instead. I don’t know. But it shouldn’t be that way. It 

shouldn’t be that way. So I was—I am excited to hear about that. 

I was also interested in what you are doing to empower parents 

to perhaps have a parent trigger, which we have heard some about. 

Can you talk about how that is working, that you are giving parents more control over what is happening with their schools? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, in our recent charter school bill that just 

passed our house, we have a parent trigger for 51 percent of the 

parents to trigger and bring a plan forward to remove a school 

from a school corporation and bring it in as a charter school or take 

it to a charter school. 

Yesterday we presented a trigger for parents as it pertains to 

school accountability, which says if the school is in year 4 or 5, 

chronically under-performing, under the state standards, D or F 

schools, the parents can then actually go to the state board of edu-
32 

cation and ask for accelerated intervention by the state, which 

gives the state an opportunity to step in and say, the parents are 

not pleased with the education happening here, and the state is 

going to intervene within the law—the state’s accountability law. 

Chairman KLINE. You have a growth model that you have put in 

place, according to my notes here. It looks at student achievement, 

and it allows teachers that are moving students ahead one-and-ahalf, 2 grades, that they be recognized and be highlighted. Two 

things, quickly, because I am running out of time—how do you 

think that is working? And then, fundamentally, for our concerns 

here, what in No Child Left Behind or in federal law is getting in 

your way? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, first, the growth model is a game changer for 

us. It truly is a game changer because we have had educators ask 

for many years, especially in our under-performing schools, let us 

show you that we are moving students. You know, not all children 

walk into sixth grade performing at sixth grade level. So let us 

show you that we are doing that. And the growth model does that. 

It also has been the catalyst for our teacher quality legislation 

that we are rolling out, which enables us to recognize and reward 

Indiana’s great teachers, teachers who are driving growth. And I 

want to say something about our teacher quality bill. It is a locallydriven bill. 

It is not the bill—we got into this thing when we did—when we 

went through our race to the top and we chose not to engage. What 

we learned was the state can’t run all those evaluation systems. So 

our teacher quality bill sets guidelines and guardrails for local 

school corporations to become the centers of innovation in terms of 

teacher evaluation and teacher compensation based on multiple 

measures, one of which should be student growth. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I guess I 

broke my own rule. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Seemed like 5 minutes to me. It is so short. [Laughter.] 

Thank you very much. 

And thank you to the panel. 

Just to raise one point, I think when you look at student performance and you look at money, you want to say that somehow 

there should be some correlation there. I think that is wrong-headed. But I would also make the point I don’t know exactly what was 

going on before because it was so well-hidden. But after No Child 

Left Behind, millions of people were added to the test pool that 

were left out before. 

We know that on test day prior to No Child Left Behind—and 

we know that school districts fought like crazy not to have what 

is now the requirement that 95 percent of your students participate 

in the test—those children were sent on field trips. They were told 

to go to the doctor. They were sent to the library, anywhere except 

in the testing room. Now they are in the pool. 

And so, I think what is more important is how we are doing with 

younger students, how we are doing with eighth graders, how we 

are doing with fourth graders and how that gap is being improved. 

So I just want to say I don’t accept that. 
33 

But more importantly, here, I think, is really for us as we anticipate going forward with the reauthorization—Mr. Mitchell and Dr. 

Bennett, you have both talked about something that I think is 

going to be the most important part of this, is how we balance the 

flexibility, recognizing that in these nine years, local education’s 

changed dramatically, dramatically from the outset of the data we 

were trying to acquire in No Child Left Behind in the accountability. 

Flexibility and balancing that with the accountability we must 

insist on—otherwise, once again, there will be creativity of local 

districts to hide students and to hide their performance. We have 

been whipping the top 10 percent of students the entire history of 

this nation. But we owe an obligation to the 100 percent of those 

students in that district. 

How do we balance that? Because when I tour big, complex districts, those superintendents have to partner with a significant 

number of other people, with the police department, with parks 

and recreation, with health organizations to keep that population 

up and running, if you will, so that they can fully participate in 

the educational opportunity. 

They have to partner with charters. They have to partner with 

teacher organizations. They have to partner with teacher development organizations, with social entrepreneurs. But they are stuck 

with, kind of, money that, for a lot of reasons in the past, we directed directly to a particular school site. Now what we see are 

very transient students, for a whole host of reasons. 

They can be transient if for no other reason than the Internet. 

But they can also be transient because their parents work somewhere else and they have transportation and the opportunity to go 

to a school in a different part of a district. That is a big change 

when we were sending—when I came on this committee—what we 

called radioactive dollars. They either followed that student, or we 

ripped them away from the district. 

That doesn’t work in this very mobile educational forums that we 

want to be able to present and have students take advantage of, 

sometime multiple times during a single day they can move to a 

different platform or a different site. And I just would like you both 

to—on my remaining 5 or 6 minutes here—to comment on that balance of flexibility. [Laughter.] 

Because I just keep encountering the superintendents that are 

really becoming very creative about marrying existing resources— 

I am just talking about existing resources—to providing that better 

educational opportunity. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, let me speak to that directly. First of all, 

what we did in our state board was we started a very quick and 

extensive deregulation. Indiana was the first state in the country 

to define a laptop computer as a textbook. And I think in doing so, 

we opened up a whole new world to, maybe, address what may be 

our society’s next achievement gap. And that is the gap where students who have resources can learn to access technology, and students who don’t have resources cannot. 

And so, we did that. We eliminated seat-time requirements. We 

eliminated a lot of the structures that came to us that superintendents brought to us and said, ‘‘We need you to get this out of our 
34 

way.’’ We also have reviewed over a hundred data collections that 

the state requires. And we found at least 30 that have nothing to 

do with student achievement. 

And the truth is we have to get rid of that stuff. 

Mr. MILLER. I am going to have to ask Mr. Mitchell, because you 

have only got a minute left. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Totally agree. And I think that one of the issues, 

certainly, that we face in California in California’s budget crisis 

was a problem that as dollars were shrinking, the requirements on 

what specifically to spend those dollars were staying firm. And so, 

we were finding schools and districts and the state as a whole 

where categorical programs, siloed programmatic spending were 

preventing the kind of flexible use of funds that are required to do 

the right thing for kids. 

And I think that, as I mentioned in my testimony, that continuing to shine a spotlight on student achievement, particularly 

those kids who have not been a part of the system before, providing 

resources, but flexible resources, whether that is federal resources 

or state resources to the local—or local resources to the school, is 

the key to unlocking the innovative, creative spirit of teachers in 

classrooms, principals at schools and, outside of schools, municipalities as well. And I think that flexibility in funding, high outcome goals that are clear to all is a very, very powerful combination. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Dr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Well, I would just like to say first it is a pleasure 

to have Dr. Bennett here from my home state of Indiana and the 

rest of the panel. Thank you for your testimony. 

I am going to direct my question first to Dr. Bennett then—and 

whoever wants to comment. And I grew up in a small town where 

not everybody valued education. I was at a very small school. But 

my parents did. And so, when I came into—when I started into the 

local school system, I already had in my mind as a student that 

achievement in school was going to give me opportunity. And that 

is why I am here today. 

I continue to believe that we have a lot of students that when 

they come into school, they don’t have expectations of themselves 

because of where they have grown up. Can we—is there a way that 

we can do a better job, I guess, with our society in general, to help 

people recognize the importance of education so that when kids 

enter our school system and we are doing all these things to teach 

them, they already have the mindset that, look, if I don’t get my 

education, this is where I will be in life, if I do, this is what I may 

achieve? 

So, Dr. Bennett? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think, first, Dr. Bucshon, I think we have 

to recognize first—and I—this pains me to say this. But the one 

thing I know I can’t control is the home that that child comes from. 

And that is sad. I mean, I think we all wish that every child came 

from a home that afforded that child with a great opportunity. 

But we have a school corporation on the East side of Indianapolis, Warren Township Schools. Their superintendent basically tells 
35 

their staff, ‘‘Every year, there will be no excuses. These are the expectations. And our students will meet those expectations.’’ 

They use an incredible continuous improvement model. They 

drive student growth. And then we have Charles Tindley Accelerated School in Indianapolis that literally has painted on the wall 

in the most disadvantaged community in Indianapolis, ‘‘Go to college, or die.’’ 

We have to set those expectations from the top. And we have to 

make sure that instruction is driven with those expectations because we can overcome what happens in the house. 

Ms. KEEGAN. If I could add also, there have been 3 very powerful 

films out in the past year. The first was called, ‘‘The Cartel,’’ then, 

‘‘The Lottery,’’ then, ‘‘Waiting for Superman.’’ And it kind of puts 

it back on us. These families are desperately trying to get their 

children into schools that work for them. And I am afraid what we 

have done in urban America and too many places, sometimes in 

very rural America, is we have created generational lack of expectation. And it was the schools’ fault. 

If you talk to Jeffrey Canada about this and what happened in 

Harlem, he blames that on education. If you repeatedly do not educate your family, then what you get is predictable. But it is not 

true and I have never experienced in my opportunities in spending 

time with leadership in urban communities who are trying to work 

with families, I have never experienced families that didn’t want 

this for their kids. 

I have certainly experienced the fact that doors were slammed in 

their face. And I think we have to take that pretty seriously. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I agree. And I think that where we sit, the overwhelming demand from parents for high-quality schools is the challenge to which we all need to respond. That said, I think it is true 

that there are schools that have low expectations. And there is no 

place in this debate for those schools. There is no place in that debate for leaders with low expectations for kids. 

If you were to ask me what is the single defining characteristic 

of all of the high-performing schools that we support, it is a culture 

of high expectation. And, as Dr. Bennett said, philosophy of no excuses. Kids come where they come from. It is our responsibility to 

move them to places that can address their dreams. 

Mr. COULSON. I would just add very briefly that good schools, 

truly good schools can and do have a positive impact on students’ 

and families’ attitudes about learning and their expectations for 

what is possible. I have seen it, and it is truly amazing what is 

possible. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I give back the rest of my time. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mitchell, how can we modify the system that measures 

school performance to broaden out our method of determining 

progress? And how can we address the fact that a sub-group may 

keep a school from achieving AYP without neglecting our responsibilities to that sub-group? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Great question, sir. My sense—and we have 

talked about it a couple of times already—is that the broad adop-
36 

tion of growth models enables us to have a very different discussion 

about progress and a very different discussion about intervention. 

Growth model analysis holds schools and districts and states to 

high bars, but also allows us to identify and help provide support 

for addressing the needs of particular sub-groups. 

Below that, I think that assessment tools and technologies—and 

I am not thinking about the end of the year summative tests. But 

I am thinking about the formative tests that are now coming along 

associated with everything from formal textbooks to digital learning materials are helping teachers in classrooms improve their 

practice, adjust what they are doing with kids on a daily basis. And 

I believe that that is going to revolutionize the way we approach 

this. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Bennett, I come from nearby Michigan and was a teacher 

there for 10 years in Michigan. How do you hold in your growth 

model into the other measurements for AYP? How do you merge 

them or meld them? 

Mr. BENNETT. Actually, we are taking that in a different direction, sir. We are actually looking to remove AYP from our state’s 

accountability system. We just recently—or we are in the rulemaking process to grade all Indiana schools A-F as opposed to the 

fuzzy descriptors that we have. 

And that A-F grade is based on first the achievement of the students in the school then the growth of the students in the school 

and finally, the growth of the lowest 25 percent of the students in 

the school, because the growth of the lowest 25 percent is your 

achievement gap. And every school has an achievement gap, from 

the most advantaged school corporation in the state to the most 

disadvantaged school corporation in the state. 

And I believe that is a much more fair process because a student 

only counts once. A disadvantaged student who is in the lowest 25 

percent counts once as opposed to counting in what could be up to 

21 different sub-groups against a school in a pass/do not pass system. 

Mr. KILDEE. There are students who belong to more than subgroup. When right now under the present system, you measure, 

say, fourth graders at the end of the fourth grade. And next year, 

you measure fourth graders, but they are different people, so you 

actually measure no growth at all under that system. Is that not 

the case? 

Mr. BENNETT. In our growth model, you are measuring the children year-over-year. So you are measuring apples-to-apples comparisons. 

Mr. KILDEE. Good. That is one of the efficiencies of what we 

wrote. I was part of that a few years ago because these are different children we are measuring. 

Mr. BENNETT. Right. 

Mr. KILDEE. But if you can show the growth in that child, that 

would be a more valid measurement of how much progress has 

been made because you are measuring different fourth graders 

each year, rather than the same students in their growth. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you can actually get on—we have a Web site 

called the learning connection. You can look at every school cor-
37 

poration and every school in the state and see how their students 

grow. And that is a very powerful tool for parents. It is a very powerful tool for our educators. And, frankly, again, we think it is 

going to be a game changer in Indiana. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Gowdy, you are recognized. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to, hopefully, 

ask 4 questions. So I will try to be concise with my questions in 

hopes with an expectation of an equally concise answer. 

Mr. Mitchell, I will start with you. I wrote this down. Feds can 

provide cover for local authorities. Cover from whom? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think Ms. Keegan and I are on the same page 

on this. In too many local decisions, entrenched interests, institutionalized interests—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Such as? 

Mr. MITCHELL [continuing]. gridlock the system. Well, I am a 

great example. I think that I am currently a defendant in a number of lawsuits that include everybody from the Administrators Association to the California School Board’s Association to the Teachers Union to Cafeteria Workers. So I think that there are substantial interests from across the board. And there are some—plenty of 

responsibility to share. 

Mr. GOWDY. Fair enough. 

Ms. Keegan, I went to the worst school in South Carolina last 

week. And I was curious to see what it looked like. And I walked 

in, and there are kids in wheelchairs and helmets, and there are 

teachers trying to teach them to avert their eyes to express a preference. And yet, they are tested in geography just like my children 

would be. And they fail. And the school is given a failing grade. 

And the property values go down. And the school gets a bad reputation. What words of encouragement can I take from Washington 

to the teachers who work so hard there that there is going to be 

relief and change from Washington in how we grade success in 

schools? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, sir, I would advise that we 

find the school in the country that is doing the best job with that 

group of kids or with that mixture of kids and find out what is 

going on, first of all. First and foremost, you want to make sure 

that we are doing everything we can for kids at every need level. 

But that we are not—whatever it is we do in terms of assessing 

kids, we don’t artificially penalize a school when it is doing the best 

it can and getting a result. And as Dr. Bennett and the panel has 

been talking about, growth allows you to look at where you start 

and where you end up. 

What we can’t do is leave kids invisible. It is a very fine line. If 

we don’t test them, they are invisible, and then we don’t have to 

do anything with them. 

Mr. GOWDY. But you would agree with me it is sheer lunacy to 

test children who cannot avert their eyes to show a preference on 

the geography of the regions of the state of South Carolina? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I am surprised, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Gowdy. I am 

surprised that those students are included. There is an exception 
38 

at 1 percent for severe students. I am very surprised that that student would be tested if, really, their only communicative motility 

is aversion of eyes. I mean, I am a speech pathologist when I had 

a real life. And I don’t see that that would—that should be the 

case. So maybe we just need to talk to the school. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Coulson, I heard parental control. I heard parental choice. 

The one phrase I have not heard is parental responsibility. And 

perhaps I am a minority of one, but I think it is fundamentally my 

responsibility to produce educated children to society. Am I wrong? 

And aside from prosecuting educational neglect cases, which I have 

done for 16 years, what can be done so we shift the paradigm from 

it being our responsibility to produce educated children to parental 

responsibility to produce educated children? 

Mr. COULSON. Not only is parental responsibility paramount, but 

it is affected by the structure of the school system. When parents 

have no authority to control the nature of their children’s education, who teaches their child, what they are taught, when they 

go to school, where they go to school, parents are naturally 

disenfranchised. They have no power, so they disconnect from the 

system. 

You have many cases of young parents who had young children 

starting out in elementary school who think that they have some 

sort of input and they burn out within the first few years of school 

when they realize that the system does not need to respond to 

them. What changes that is when parents are in the driver’s seat. 

When parents, either with their own money or through a scholarship, are paying for their own children’s education, it is absolutely 

unavoidable for the school to respond to them and to heed their 

wishes because it is in the financial and professional interest of the 

school to heed those wishes. 

When parents are empowered in that way, they become more involved. It is like exercise. You know? When you have responsibility—having responsibilities breeds responsibility. So we need to 

increase the amount of responsibility parents have in their children’s education. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I see the caution light. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. You are to be commended. Thank you for yielding back. It is probably my fine example. 

Mr. Andrews, you are recognized. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for calling this hearing, which I think is very instructive in addressing very important problem. We appreciate that. 

And thank you to the 4 witnesses. Really outstanding. I am 

thinking this morning about a girl who is in seventh grade who 

shows amazing potential in mathematics. And she might be able to 

start to do high school-level work or even eventually college-level 

work in mathematics. But she lives in a town that couldn’t afford 

to bring in a math teacher who could help her do that, or she is 

in a class of 25 or 30 peers who couldn’t possibly keep up with that. 

So she is standing still. 

And, Ms. Keegan, one of the ideas that you touched on—and I 

know Dr. Bennett touched on—is the use of online learning as a 

way to address the needs of that young woman. 
39 

I am familiar, Mr. Mitchell, of what Stanford University has 

done with its EPGY program in this regard. You open up these horizons for children in very exciting ways. 

And I wanted, Ms. Keegan, in particular, if you could give us 

some recommendations as to what you think we should do with online learning options in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Well, I appreciate the question because there are 

a number of places where we don’t even realize that they are going 

to run into a wall. So the number one thing I would suggest is to 

keep a very open dialogue with organizations like IMAKOL and 

others that represent online learning in America because we have 

got 4 million kids going to school online. 

Half the states right now offer full-time online learning for their 

students, which is something you probably know. And I think we 

are at 45 at least who are offering at least some course work. 

Mr. ANDREWS. May I ask you a specific question? And I agree 

with those suggestions. As you know, under the present iteration 

No Child Left Behind, if a school doesn’t make what we now call 

Adequate Yearly Progress, there is a menu of options among which 

it must choose. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Right. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you think that we should include an online 

learning alternative as one of those options that schools should 

have to look at? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I do. An interesting thing about the recommendations is that parents can choose a different governance system. And 

what is happening out there is that governance is sort of blending. 

Online schools are sometimes private, sometimes charter, so I 

think we need to be aware. You don’t want to accidentally not give 

people options. So I would absolutely think that is a fabulous idea. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Mitchell, would you give us some recommendations in this area? 

Mr. MITCHELL. You bet. So I think a couple things—and I want 

to applaud Indiana and several other states who have cleared away 

their seat-time requirements and their fixed student/teacher ratio 

requirements. I think the next block to fall is, just as you suggest, 

competency-based credit to allow students to move along at their 

own pace. 

As we speak, there is a terrific experiment going on in—near 

Stanford with Conn Academy, an online group that we help support. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And in a fifth grade class that has been using 

Conn Academy only since the fall, the spread of kids is enormous. 

And there are kids in that fifth grade class who are doing algebra 

today. 

Mr. ANDREWS. One of the problems, frankly, is cash flow to support this. You know, some parents have the wherewithal to make 

these resources available to their sons or daughters. Many do not. 

What would you think about the idea of freeing up Pell dollars 

to be used by these kind of students for early college courses, you 

know, that are offered by some? And what if they are really talented—this young woman, by the time she is a junior in high 
40 

school, could do college-level math. What do you think of the idea 

of letting her use part of the Pell grant early so she could do such 

a course online? 

Ms. KEEGAN. She is taking college coursework, I mean, I don’t 

want to speak for you, Ted, but I think we would probably agree 

that what we are trying to do is do away with barriers that are 

artificial. It is an artificial barrier to say you have to be in high 

school for 4 years. 

Mr. ANDREWS. One of the barriers—— 

Ms. KEEGAN. So the point at which—— 

Mr. ANDREWS [continuing]. I worry about that I have heard from 

colleagues at Stanford is that they wanted a person to teach an economics course who had run a hedge fund, a successful one back 

when you used to have successful hedge funds. And he was not eligible to teach the course in economics because he was not a highlyqualified teacher under California law. Might we suggest a way to 

fix that problem? 

Ms. KEEGAN. That is up to Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. So that is an enormous barrier. And 

it is not only a barrier for people who are highly qualified in their 

intellectual domain, but it is also a barrier across states, across 

state lines because credentials are not automatically transferable 

across state lines. And both of those issues, I think, are ripe for 

this committee and this Congress to take up. 

I think that online learning is a powerful tool. Hybrid, blended 

schools that combine—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Dr. Bennett, I have less than a minute, but you 

can use all of it. 

Mr. BENNETT. I—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Every last second of it. 

Mr. BENNETT. My question would be more why are we talking 

about highly qualified as opposed to highly effective. Okay? Highly 

qualified means there are inputs, and you are judging the professional by their inputs. And we do that in an antiquated system 

that we have today where we say we pay teachers on years of experiences and degrees held, and you get these things by, you know, 

how many education courses you take or what have you. 

Let’s put these decisions in the local hands. Let’s have data-driven evaluations that identify teachers as highly effective because we 

know highly effective influence the lives of children. Highly-effective teachers influence the lives of children more than just simply 

highly-qualified teachers. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my carefully conscripted 5 minutes. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Barletta, you are recognized. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Bennett, we touched on something here. As you know, no factor under school control affects student achievement more than the 

quality for the teachers in the classroom. Poor teacher quality, especially in the early grades, can affect the student’s education for 

a lifetime. 

Since you took office in January of 2009, you have proposed to 

eliminate teacher tenure. Now, you talked about rewarding teach-
41 

ers through the teacher quality bill. Can you please shed light on 

this initiative and others like it that aim to place quality teachers 

in the classroom? 

Mr. BENNETT. First, thank you for asking. This is part of our 

putting students first education reform agenda. And it, again, goes 

to this issue of teacher effectiveness in that our new teachers coming into the system would have to have 3 out of 5 years effective 

or above evaluations to achieve what is called professional status. 

Until that time, they are probationary teachers. 

And then if they get an ineffective evaluation, they go back to 

probationary. So it is earned in, earned out. And a second ineffective evaluation makes that teacher eligible for dismissal by the 

local school corporation. And we also would like to tie the teachers’ 

professional development to those ineffective evaluations. 

So the principal says you were ineffective. We are going to target 

professional development. And then we will also, in essence, reward the teacher by saying you can use that professional development to improve your ineffectiveness to renew your license. So it 

becomes a situation where we are targeting teacher effectiveness 

for the benefit of student performance. 

Mr. BARLETTA. My district is home to a multitude of higher education institutions, community colleges, public and private universities and for-profit schools. In your expert opinion, what are the 

benefits of partnerships between the universities and the K-12 

school system? And how has the state of Indiana embarked on such 

initiatives? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, we have a number of initiatives going on to 

promote higher ed attainment in high school. And I think going 

back to the slide I showed where we want 25 percent of our students graduating with advanced placement, international, baccalaureate or dual credit. So we are really—we have a dual credit advisory committee that our commissioner for higher education, Teresa Lubbers, and I co-chair, where we are trying to clear out pathways so that students can attain dual credit in high school. 

We have a high school in Northwest Indiana, Crown Point, 

where the principal there is doing phenomenal work. And he has 

done it by making the dual credit opportunities accessible by price 

point. What we know is that students and parents will engage in 

dual credit opportunities if they are affordable. And he has made 

this available through a partnership with Indiana University 

Northwest and Purdue Calumet by offering dual credit opportunity 

to $25 a credit hour. 

That is a very accessible amount. The other thing is to make 

teachers accessible. You know, we have teachers in our state that 

could teach dual credit courses. And many of our teachers are not 

allowed to teach dual credit because of some barrier the universities put up. But yet, that same teacher can go to the university 

after-hours and teach adults. 

Now, that doesn’t make sense. So we need to remove those barriers so that our students have access to the professionals and have 

a cost-effective access to dual credit in high schools. We are also 

offering a—proposing legislation to allow students to leave high 

school after their eleventh grade and use some of the tuition support to go to college early. 
42 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Coulson, I don’t have much time. But the literature is mixed 

in regards to a direct correlation between education spending and 

student academic achievement. However, I think we can all agree 

that how the money is being spent is the most important factor in 

this debate. What specific education programs, besides the D.C. opportunity scholarship program, which you touched on, do you think 

we should continue funding at the federal level? 

Mr. COULSON. I think I could just yield back my time by not answering that question. I am not aware of any other federal program 

that is proven to be both effective and efficient with anywhere near 

the quality of research that supports the opportunity scholarships 

program. 

If I found that there was such a program, then I would be very 

much in favor of a constitutional amendment to make it possible 

to grow such a program. But indeed, I find that apart from the district program, there is really nothing that the federal government 

has done that has been proven to increase achievement. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Very interesting. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER [presiding]. Mr. Scott, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Coulson, could you provide the research that documents what you just said? Because the findings I have heard 

about the D.C. voucher program suggest that some schools are good 

and some are bad and that on balance, they are no better than the 

public schools. So could you provide the research? 

Mr. COULSON. Yes, Congressman. The study I am referring to is 

the most recent of the studies commissioned by the Department of 

Education and completed by Dr. Wolff and his colleagues. It finds 

that student academic achievement is as good or better than that 

of students in other schools. The difference is not statistically significant in academic achievement. However, the difference in—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You said good or better? And assuming you could say 

the same as good or worse. 

Mr. COULSON. No, you couldn’t, actually. The effect is positive. It 

is just not large enough to be statistically significant. And as for 

the effect on graduation rates, it is both positive and statistically 

significant. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does that count for selection bias? 

Mr. COULSON. Actually, there is very little selection bias in this 

kind of study because it is a randomized control trial. It is like a 

medical experiment in which you randomly assign students to the 

control group. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could provide that research, because we 

get a lot of researchers come up to a different conclusion. 

I would like to ask the panelists just a general question because 

whether you do something in a charter school or a private school 

or public school or flexibility or no flexibility, when the dust settles, 

you want what is going on in the—and you assume it is going to 

be a classroom—what you need to provide a quality education. And 

do we know? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Sir, I will start, and maybe we can just kind of 

run down the line. I think one of the things that Dr. Bennett said 

at the outset that is critical to this discussion is that it is the most 

important thing to understand is that it is no one thing, that it is 
43 

a collection of very complicated, inter-dependent effects that need 

to be managed carefully and that they need to be managed best at 

the place where students and teachers come together, at the school 

and the local community. 

And strong culture, high expectations, a strong reliance on data 

to provide continuing feedback on how kids are doing and how the 

adults in the system are doing, accountability for results. That is 

for kids, it is for parents, and it is for teachers and absolutely 

transparency about how money is being spent, how resources are 

being used and the outcomes that those resources are yielding. 

That would be my recipe, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me ask a specific follow-up question on the 

effect of teachers versus the qualified teachers because this is 

something we have been trying to grapple with. Can we effectively 

measure when we have an effective teacher and when we don’t? 

Some of the measurements that are presently being used, I understand, aren’t much better than random as to who is effective and 

who isn’t. 

And is there evidence that a teaching background actually helps? 

You need a subject matter background, but the teaching background, I would think, would help, too. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I would first say that the issue in regard to 

evaluation instruments, I think, that is a huge issue that we are 

tackling today across all states. I think what we know is what we 

are doing doesn’t work. Indiana is no different than the rest of the 

nation. Indiana has 99 percent of its teachers are rated effective or 

above. 

Now, I think we all know that in a state where you have 60 or 

70,000 people, that is statistically impossible. So I think what we 

are saying is that you should have 4 categories. And I do like the 

4 categories: highly effective, effective, improvement needed and ineffective. 

And I do not ascribe to a bell-shaped curve distribution or a set 

percentage distribution. But I think here is a good indicator, Congressman. I think you have to take a look at school performance 

and human capital performance. You have to marry those 2 things. 

And that is why we are going A-F schools. 

You know, can a D school or an F school have 99 percent of its 

professionals be effective or above? And you have to have a transparent way and an easy way to marry school accountability and 

professional accountability. 

Mr. SCOTT. I want to get in one more question before my time 

is expired. And that is we have—everybody has shown charts about 

achievement gaps. And we have shown that everybody can learn. 

And I just wanted to ask if you could comment on the civil rights 

implications of educating one racial group to the ninth grade and 

other racial groups to the twelfth grade. 

Ms. KEEGAN. I don’t think there is any way to say it is anything 

but abysmal. We can predict by, unfortunately, wealth and by race 

in this country what achievement is going to look like. And that is 

poisonous for us. There is no question. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does that constitute a civil rights violation? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I believe the violation is that we assign families 

into failure. And that, I think, is a violation, when we know there 
44 

are schools—we have a cure. And somehow we can’t make that 

cure available to students. Instead, we assign them to schools we 

know have been failing for years. I believe that is the violation. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Dr. Des Jarlais is recognized. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to wander down just a little different path than we 

have so far here this morning. 

And, Dr. Bennett, because you were so kind to have the Indiana’s 

education challenges slide for us, on one of the topics there, you 

said that only 58 cents of every education dollar goes to Indiana 

classrooms. I have a pretty good guess, but can you tell the committee where the majority of the other 42 percent goes? 

Mr. BENNETT. Everywhere but classrooms. You know, I think we 

also include capital costs, other costs associated with transportation, but also a lot of central office administration. And that is 

not a condemnation. But I do want to say this, sir. 

I mentioned Warren Township schools, which is about 11,000 

schools of students in the school corporation. If you go around metropolitan Indianapolis, you will frequently hear every one of their 

administrators say, ‘‘We have the best central office in metropolitan Indianapolis. It is also the leanest.’’ 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I think I have heard different numbers and different statistics. And you call can correct me. But I think roughly 

about $8,000 per student per year is an average for our public 

school systems. 

And I have also heard a statistic—and you didn’t give me the answer I hoped, so I will give it back to you. You know, roughly about 

40 percent of our dollars go to bussing in this country. And when 

you look at the $8,000 per student, that is a large piece of the pie. 

Do you happen to know what percentage in Indiana it is? 

Mr. BENNETT. It is not that high. I don’t have the exact amount, 

but I will get that for you. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Does anybody else on the panel have any 

thoughts on that? You know, we hadn’t talked about bussing in a 

while in education. And I don’t know if we perfected the system. 

But there was also a study done—and I am not sure if it was Iowa 

or Michigan. But there was a bussing strike. 

And it was interesting that during that strike, it was long 

enough that there was actually a noticeable increase in academic 

achievement in the schools. And so, they studied that. 

And the reason behind that would be that the 20 minutes a day 

that the parents had their students captive in the car to and from 

school, they were more in touch with their life, what was going on, 

you know, not only academically, but in their personal lives. And 

that did have a direct correlation with the increase. So I would just 

propose—and if anyone wants to comment on what we might be 

able to do to look into the bussing costs and see whether there are 

situations where parents can get more involved in the transportation process. 

Ms. KEEGAN. The way that we fund it is usually it is separate, 

as you know, Congressman. So it is mileage routes, or whatever it 

is. And it is held out into its own budget. It is very high. And it 

would be worth looking at. 
45 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. If there are no other comments, I will yield 

back my time. 

Chairman KLINE [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. Excellent examples being set. 

Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. I think we have spoken quite 

a bit about teacher effectiveness. And I want to go a little bit further in the teacher evaluation. 

Actually, Mr. Polis and myself have introduced a bill dealing 

with teacher evaluations that we hope will be part of the reauthorization as we move forward. But I think one of the challenges that 

we know is when we talk about teacher evaluation, somehow we 

want there to be the most optimum learning environment for children in that setting. 

And when you don’t have good data, when you don’t have a good 

growth model, when you don’t have principals who know how to 

provide good evaluations, all those things make it, I think, difficult 

for teachers to buy into what we are trying to do. And I think what 

we are all talking about is a collaborative process so that teachers 

are the winners in that and kids, of course, are at the center of 

that. 

How do you get there? Where do you get that buy-in? And do you 

think that absent the policy that is supported at the top of leadership, whether it is among principals or among teachers that we can 

move forward with that? What would you suggest that we do to 

bring that together? 

And I think, Dr. Bennett, you have certainly spoken to it as well 

as Mr. Mitchell and others. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, first, let me start by saying I don’t know of 

a professional that doesn’t want to be evaluated annually. And our 

teacher quality bill proposes that. And it is getting great push-back 

from our teacher unions. 

We have to cite a newspaper article, I met with the superintendent of Indianapolis public schools last year about 6 of his 

under-performing schools. He identified with teacher union representatives present that 60 percent of the teachers in those 

schools were ineffective. 

Yet, we have far too many labor contracts in Indiana that don’t 

allow these teachers to be annually evaluated. I spoke to a principal just this week who said after 5 years of service, he cannot 

evaluate a teacher unless they are really bad. 

And so, I think we have to first and foremost say evaluations 

should be annual. I think we do have good data. I think student 

engagement—you know, the Gates Foundation did a phenomenal 

study on what teachers believe is effective in evaluations. And I 

think we do have good data, and we should tap into that. 

But I would also say I think when we talk about this evaluation 

piece, we should be tapping our local school corporations to help us 

develop those tools because I don’t think 50 states can do it all by 

themselves. We have to have the centers of innovation at the local 

level. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you just follow up just briefly? When you talk 

about the local corporations, what is it specifically that they are? 
46 

Mr. BENNETT. Our school districts in Indiana we call them corporations. I am sorry. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. 

Mr. MITCHELL. (OFF MIKE) [Laughter.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am very sorry. You know, it is Indiana-speak. 

Mrs. DAVIS. So the school boards themselves are developing? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, school districts. 

Mrs. DAVIS. With collaboration between the different institutions 

or kind of on their own? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, yes, I would—I assume that will be the case. 

Again, this is an issue again, in many of our labor contracts, the 

teacher evaluation tool, the teacher evaluation process are embedded in the labor contract. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Right. 

Mr. BENNETT. So I think once again it is an issue where we must 

demand that professionals be evaluated annually and rigorously 

and that the feedback they get is meaningful. And I think there is 

good data for that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And it is not—I think we need to move beyond 

the rhetorical, full-stop about using evaluation to get rid of bad 

teachers. This is about creating a talent management system that 

helps the best teach the next best and helps build up the profession 

and helps teachers grow in areas where they need growth. So I 

fully support where Dr. Bennett is leading, which is that we need 

to experiment. 

We need to encourage local communities to develop different 

tools, different techniques. We need to learn from those. We also 

need to include organizations that are less constrained by collective 

bargaining agreements that would include Catholic schools, independent schools and public—many, many public charter schools. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Can I—because I don’t have much more time. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. 

Mrs. DAVIS. In the reauthorization, do you all see that there is 

a carrot and stick approach to this so that this is, I guess one 

would call it a mandate—over a period of time where you give people, you know, a lot of help and a lot of support in developing 

those? But that at the end of the day, that we want to see that this 

is a process that all schools have. Because if we don’t have the 

scalability throughout the country, we are not going to get there essentially. 

Ms. KEEGAN. I don’t know why you would want to do that at the 

federal level. I think what you want to do is get rid of the prohibitions. So let’s just empty the big elephant in the room. 

Let’s not have contracts that say you can’t walk in a classroom 

and evaluate a teacher whenever you want, that you can’t relate 

a teacher’s assessment data to her performance, that you can’t hire 

and fire teachers on the basis of their performance. That is in almost every contract in American schools. 

So the best thing to do would be to lift that up and be transparent about it, find out who is—there are great evaluative processes. They are different all over the place. But what they have in 

common is the liberty to act. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 
47 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hunter, you are recognized. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question—and 

set me straight here. You have about just under 100,000 K-12 

schools in the U.S. And from what I understand—correct me if I 

am wrong—about 2,000 of those schools are responsible for about 

50 percent of our dropouts. 

So my question is when you talk about the OSP or you talk 

about competitive grants, those 2,000 schools that are responsible 

for the majority of our dropouts—as you break those down into 

urban, suburban or rural schools, how do you see OSP or competitive grants being more effective in which area? And my question 

goes to everybody. Thank you. 

Mr. COULSON. Well, I think that by encouraging the OSP at the 

federal level, you will encourage states to make similar programs 

around the country. There already are similar programs around the 

country. And those programs are helping kids in all kinds of different districts. And as virtual learning progresses, they will be 

able to reach into even remote rural areas, as we discussed earlier. 

So just increasing the amount of choice and providing a model 

for the states on how to increase the amount of choice is going to 

help raise graduation rates, lower the dropout rate, based on the 

evidence we have to date. So, I think, set the model, and it will be 

followed. And it will be effective. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Hunter, I would add that, first of all, obviously, strong accountability is number one. You know, we can’t 

allow those schools to operate if they are not serving children. That 

is number one. 

But we did something a little different. When we got to the department in 2009, we trimmed our staff by about 25 percent. And 

we took the savings from that and with part of that savings, we 

actually offered our schools across the state a graduation rate incentive program. 

So the top 10 schools in the state that had the highest percentage of non-waivered graduations, we are going to give those schools 

$20,000 to distribute to the critical personnel who made that happen. 

So I think we have to get a little innovative. We have to think 

a little differently. We have to offer incentives for what works. We 

have to set high expectations. And again, I can’t emphasize enough 

that when schools don’t perform and kids don’t graduate, we have 

to hold the school accountable. 

Mr. HUNTER. How much time did you gauge that improvement 

over? 

Mr. BENNETT. That was a one-year. 

Mr. HUNTER. And it was improvement, not total graduation numbers, but the improvement in graduation? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And we have seen examples across the country— 

Mastery public schools in Philadelphia—that have achieved dramatic turnaround in one and 2-year periods, turning around those 

lowest performing schools, those dropout factories. It can be done. 

Mr. HUNTER. Doing what, sir? 
48 

Mr. MITCHELL. So in this case, the public charter school environment, so very different rules and regulations regarding the deployment of human capital and talent. But the creation of—as we have 

talked about before—extremely high expectations, no excuses for 

adults or kids, the development of a strong program with rigorous 

assessment and continuous feedback. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Just a comment, Mr. Hunter, about those schools, 

the Mastery schools in Philadelphia. When you interview the students and you listen to them, that is probably the most illustrative 

thing you can do is to talk to a set of kids who didn’t change, who 

stayed in place and all the adults changed. And their life changed. 

And it is a lovely, lovely story that is going on there in Philadelphia. And that is just one example. There is thousands of those 

across the country. But that one is really—that is a great example. 

Mr. HUNTER. And you have all named different programs that 

you have used or seen used to bring schools out of that funk, 

whether it is public charter schools or the incentivized program to 

have a higher graduation percentage. So do you—when you look at 

OSP or you look at competitive grants, do you see either of those 

working better in certain areas? Or is it one of those things where 

you suggest leave it to the local school districts? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let the states and the school district choose which 

one of those things would work better for them. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. And to that, those tools, the open enrollment 

and parent choice for alternatives to be created for the kids in 

those schools. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. I don’t think I have 

ever seen a simultaneous nod by all the panelists quite like that 

one. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to this panel. Far too many of our nation’s children 

go to school hungry or without proper medical care. Some come 

from unsafe homes, have to walk through unsafe neighborhoods. 

Many students don’t have someone to help them with their homework at home or a place to go after school, actually. 

I believe that schools and communities need to be able to offer 

support services to children and their families so that children are 

ready to learn—and that is the operative word here—when they 

enter the classroom. Otherwise, how can a teacher be effective if 

their student body is not ready to learn? 

And so, my question is—and we will start with you, Mr. Mitchell. 

What are your views about the relationship between academic 

achievement and ensuring that children are healthy, well-fed and 

safe, in other words, ready to learn when they enter the classroom? 

And should we strive for a common standard, possibly a federal 

standard, to provide these services, but regardless of what school 

a child attends? 

Mr. MITCHELL. So clearly, a child who comes to school hungry 

and with aching teeth and serious family problems is going to be 
49 

less able to attend to the academic enterprise than the student who 

comes well-fed, cheery and well-scrubbed. There is no question. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And we need to address that. And I think that 

Mr. Miller spoke eloquently about it a while ago. I think that a 

part of the issue that those kids face is a multiplicity of social service agencies, that are not at all connected to each other, to create 

the environment in which kids are ready to learn. So I would say 

that the first imperative is to work across the silos of public service 

to help those kids. 

The second thing—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Can I ask you a question while you are there? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Please. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. How do you see bringing those services to the 

school site where parents and children, everybody—it becomes a 

common ground? Do you see that a logical place to provide these 

services? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do. I think that that is one option. I think that 

the theme that I think we are all pushing is that that is not a silver bullet. I think that that is one approach, communities in which 

the social service agencies work together in their own areas, but 

use a common data system, for example, well-protected to protect 

students’ rights, but to be able to create a case map of kids. 

In the schools where we work, it is no surprise that extending 

the school day and providing some of those kinds of supports, but 

also the extended safe period for kids, has become one of the trends 

that no one prescribed, but it has just grown up over time. And the 

research on extended learning time that is growing, first out of 

Massachusetts and now in other states, is quite compelling, that 

extended learning time can go a long way to addressing many of 

those needs. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So other thoughts—— 

Mr. COULSON. Yes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. On being ready to learn when you 

enter the classroom? 

Mr. COULSON. As you may have guessed from all the charts in 

my presentation, I am an engineer. My first career was in software 

engineering. But I am going to break with tradition here and tell 

you an anecdote, which may get me kicked out of my geek clubs. 

But I have a friend I have grown to really love over the years 

who turned around a charter school in California. His name is Ben 

Chaves. And he now has 3 charter schools that he runs. And there 

are 2 others that follow the same model. 

In his charter schools, about 90 percent of kids qualify for free 

and reduced-price lunches. He doesn’t have a lunchroom. He 

doesn’t participate in the Title I program because he doesn’t serve 

lunch. 

And some children will come to him at the beginning of the 

school year, and they will say, well, you know, I can’t bring a 

lunch. And so, he tells them, ‘‘Well, you can either bring a lunch, 

or there is a restaurant just 2 blocks from the school that will 

make a lunch for you every morning if you just go there and work 

for a couple hours washing dishes on Saturday morning.’’ He has 

never had a child take him up on that. 
50 

All of his kids do bring lunches. And now, this sounds Draconian. 

I know it sounds Draconian. And the only reason I think he was 

able to do it was that he grew up an often shoeless child of sharecroppers among a community of Native American Indians in North 

Carolina in absolute poverty. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, how old are these children that have to 

go—— 

Mr. COULSON. This is a middle school. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, how old are they? 

Mr. COULSON. This is a middle school. And let me just finish the 

anecdote—just to say this is the highest performing middle school 

in the entire state of California. It went from the worst school in 

Oakland in 2001 to the highest performing middle school in the entire state by 2007 and is still ranked near the top. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Woolsey, if I may—and I am going to kind of 

go with, kind of, what Andrew—I will get kicked out of the hard 

and tough club on this one. But, you know, I want to—first, we 

have some school corporations in our state that have actually put 

health clinics, they have partnered with hospitals, immediate care 

centers, different social service organizations to provide these services for children. 

And what this comes down to, in my opinion, are courageous 

leaders who say, what is our core mission, and how are we going 

to drive resources to that core mission. So, you know, we have to 

make tough decisions. This goes to that statement about marrying 

fiscal policy and education policy. 

We have to put our money into the things that are going to drive 

results. And these school corporations that have done this around 

the state of Indiana have had to make tough fiscal decisions to provide these services for children, but they have made a difference in 

the lives of those children. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Well, Dr. Bennett, welcome back. And thanks to this 

great panel. You all have been fantastic. 

And there is not anybody—and, Mr. Coulson, I want to point out 

that line that you showed that was going—I did not contribute to 

that. [Laughter.] 

And everyone in this room on both sides of the aisle—I mean, 

there is not anyone sitting in this room that doesn’t want the best 

for our students and our kids. And we want that. And we need that 

as a nation. 

And, Ms. Keegan, I am going to ask you and Dr. Bennett—you 

all hit on it—and anybody can answer, if they want to—about how 

do we retain our quality teachers. I am a product of the public 

school system. The first school I went to had 2 rooms, 6 grades, 2 

rooms and one teacher, a phenomenal teacher, Ms. Clark. I still remember her to this day. 

And I absolutely believe that is a centerpiece, and you said that. 

And we have now got as many clipboard carriers as we do classroom teachers, almost, in our schools any more. 

So 50 percent of the young people that enter—that are going to 

be teachers never become teachers. And 50 percent of them, after 

5 years, quit. How do we retain these folks? 
51 

Ms. KEEGAN. I think, first and foremost, we recruit from the top 

of universities for our teachers. I mean, teachers always loved 

schools. I mean, you have got to seek the geek. They love academics. They loved school. They had their hand up in the classroom. They wanted to be there. 

What we know about achievement is the one thing we can relate 

it to is the SAT score of a teacher. And so, it is important that we 

do that. But I think, secondly and most importantly, we give them 

the liberty to leave. Because when you recruit from the top like 

that, you are recruiting people who have always sought to be the 

very best. 

And when they go into environments where they don’t have the 

liberty to work the hours that it takes to come up with programs 

they would like to install, to take leadership because of what they 

do that is effective and not because they just lived long enough, 

they get thwarted, our best. And fortunately, right now what happens is they go around and they end-run. And we have given them 

the opportunity to do that. And they usually go start a school. 

But we have to make sure that we leave teachers at the center 

of this enterprise. And, as Mr. Mitchell said, there is no place in 

this system for somebody who doesn’t want to work the hours that 

it takes in this day and age when we have a huge problem, we 

need all of that incredible passion that comes to bear in great 

teaching. And we just can’t keep thwarting them with regulations 

that are calcified and just wear them out. 

Mr. ROE. I have a lot of patients as teachers and had an opportunity—my wife taught in an inner city school in Memphis when 

I was there in medical school. And then we moved to a community 

where every child’s parent had a college education. Well, those all 

looked like good teachers because all the kids did well, because, 

guess what? The parents insisted on the fact that their kids learn. 

They read to them. They did all those things. So I see teachers, 

good teachers in schools where they don’t get to—you know, they 

don’t get to pick who their students are. For instance, I—to me, the 

most distressing piece of testimony I have heard since I have been 

in this Congress is that 3 out of 4 kids dropped out of school in 

Detroit, Michigan. That is heartbreaking when you hear that. That 

is a failed city. And that is a failure we can’t live with as a nation. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Roe, if I may, I think it is a very—I have a 

lot of passion about this because now I am going to go back to my 

hard and tough position. We have situations in our state—and I 

am just going to tell you a very quick clause of a union contract 

that exists in Indiana. 

If you and I were hired on the same day to teach fifth grade in 

this school corporation in Indiana and we had to reduce the budget 

and they had to make a decision which one of us leaves, they add 

up the last 4 digits of our Social Security number. And the person 

with the highest sum gets to stay. That is why we are recommending, as part of our legislative package, that teacher contracts 

be limited to wages and wage-related fringe benefits so that we can 

start recognizing and rewarding our greatest teachers. 

I think the saddest thing about education is the happiest financial day in an educator’s life is the day they walk out the door. And 
52 

that is wrong. So we have to build a structure that allows us to 

recognize and reward the greatest teachers that we have. 

Today is my triplets’ 25th birthday. I called them this morning 

and wished them Happy Birthday, told them where I was going 

and what I was doing. And I said, ‘‘What would you say?’’ And they 

said, Dad—you know, my son said, Ms. Barley was the greatest 

teacher I ever had. Trish said, you know, Dad, Ms. Beaton was the 

greatest teacher I ever had. And you know, what? 

Those 2 teachers should have made $100,000. And it is a shame 

we have a situation where collective bargaining agreements are 

there for the benefits of adults and not to upheld the learning of 

children. 

Mr. ROE. I hope you called your wife this morning, too. 

Mr. BENNETT. She was fourth. 

Mr. ROE. And just one last question, very quickly, to Mr. Mitchell. And I have heard this bantered around. I don’t know whether 

it is true or not, that in California, there are as many administrators as there are classroom teachers in the education system. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I don’t know the answer to that. But I would be 

happy to find out. 

Mr. ROE. I hope it is not true. 

But thank you, panel. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I will find out—just school board staff. That is 

the—— 

Chairman KLINE. All right. 

Ms. Hirono? 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we focus on evidence-based educational reform, there are 2 

areas where there is a lot of evidence that these are the areas that 

truly will make a change in a student’s ability to succeed in school 

and in life. One of these areas is quality early education. And there 

is a lot of evidence to say that every dollar we spend on quality 

early education will not only enable that student to succeed in 

school and in life, but it really gives back to us many times fold 

in terms of dollars. 

So, Dr. Bennett, you did not mention early education, the quality 

early education as important. Do you consider it to be a 

foundational aspect of a child’s education? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I do. And I would tell you, sadly, that Indiana 

ranks fairly low in terms of our full-day kindergarten and preschool early childhood education. 

I do think that it is very important, though—two things I think 

I need to say. First, it is very important that we don’t see that as 

a silver bullet. You know? Because again, I think we have gotten 

into this thing that we have to keep pushing down the responsibility of when kids get ready. And I don’t think that just pre-school 

or early childhood education is going to fix the current system we 

have. 

Ms. HIRONO. I completely agree with you because there is no silver bullet to anything. We have to do a range of things. But this 

is one that there is a lot of evidence to show that it is important. 

So if the federal government were to provide, for example, grants— 

because every state is in a different place in terms of support of 
53 

quality early education. If the federal government were to provide 

grants to encourage states to move toward providing quality early 

education, would you consider that to be a helpful thing for the federal government to do? 

Mr. BENNETT. Depending on how it was structured, yes. 

Ms. HIRONO. Well, leaving it to the local entities, by the way, not 

for the federal government to prescribe what quality early education should be, except in the more—in the most general ways. 

You would find that helpful? 

Mr. BENNETT. I could see that as positive. 

Ms. HIRONO. Dr. Mitchell, would you agree that quality education should be something that the federal government should 

provide some support for? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think that that support would be helpful. But 

I think that the word that is complicated in that is quality. Because I think at the—just at the time when we are beginning to 

develop real transparency around the outcomes that we want and 

then giving local agencies and organizations the freedom to pursue 

those outcomes—I would hate us to then move into an early education environment without a clear set of outcomes. 

Ms. HIRONO. I agree with you. Just as we are wrestling with 

what makes for an effective teacher, that there should be some 

kind of, you know—— 

Mr. MITCHELL. Right. 

Ms. HIRONO [continuing]. Quantitative way to do that, to ensure 

quality. So that gets me to the other area where evidence shows 

that the teacher standing in front of that classroom is the single 

most important person affecting student learning. So the effectiveness of that teacher is really important. And as we struggle with 

what makes for an effective teacher, there is not a lot of science 

behind what makes for an effective teacher. 

And so, I wanted to ask Dr. Bennett, you seem to already have 

moved toward doing an assessment of your teachers based on effectiveness. And I wanted to ask you, what exactly goes into whether 

or not a teacher—where that teacher ranks on the effective/ineffective scale. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, first, we have a model that we took a great 

deal of national research—Charlotte Danielson, a number of others, 

you know, education experts in the field of teacher evaluation—and 

we have developed a model. But I want to be clear that the state 

is not going to prescribe that. 

You know, we are going to set some guidelines and guardrails: 

student engagement, student growth. You can use growth on—you 

may use other standardized tests: ACT, SAT. And then there will 

be a number of subjective: the principal evaluation. 

It could be peer review. It could be parent survey, student survey. So we are going to—we would like, at the state level, to offer 

our local school corporations, school districts a menu of guidelines 

and guardrails to build their evaluation systems so that, again, we 

can take those and spread those best practices statewide. 

Ms. HIRONO. So have any of your school corporations implemented your—any part of your model for effectiveness ranking? 

Mr. BENNETT. We are on, like, the ninth iteration, ma’am, of the 

model where we have gotten input from educators. We have a cou-
54 

ple of school corporations who are piloting this. We don’t have any 

data back yet. But again, this is all in proposed legislation right 

now. So we are hoping to have that in the years to come out of the 

legislative agenda. 

Ms. HIRONO. I think the effectiveness evaluation—we have to get 

that right also. And so, I commend you for your efforts. 

Part of the effectiveness of teachers, though, is preparation. And, 

Dr. Mitchell, I think your testimony alluded to the importance of 

teacher preparation. So can you talk a little bit more about what 

should go into teacher preparation? Because, you know, I think one 

of the criticisms is that a lot of the education—the teacher schools, 

I guess, teacher training schools, are really back in the 20th century. So—— 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

And I am afraid that answer might be a little bit long. 

Mr. Rokita, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the witnesses’ time today. You all seem—as I read 

your testimony and heard you answer questions, I am inspired. I 

am motivated. I am appreciative that you are in the education system helping our nation’s children. 

I especially want to recognize my friend from Indiana, Tony Bennett. In previous service, I was Indiana’s secretary of state. So I 

had an opportunity to work a lot with Tony. 

I also want to say thank you to Tony on behalf of my kids, 

Teddy, who is 3, Ryan, who is 1—as a result of your and others’ 

efforts, you know, my kids, have a chance to go to a public school. 

And the money that Kathy and I are currently saving, otherwise 

we might be able to use for something else. I thank you as well. 

Tony, you and I have talked about this fact. We both talk about 

it everywhere we go in the state, that schools should be for the 

kids, that not necessarily—they shouldn’t necessarily be for the 

janitors, the janitor’s union or even the teachers union. They have 

got to be for the kids if we are going to be competitive in the 21st 

century. 

Having said all that, I would still argue that education is this 

country’s and our state’s second biggest problem. And you all alluded to that a little bit earlier when you talked about what kids 

needed in schools. 

As secretary of state, we adopted school 54, an Indianapolis public school. And I would send our attorneys, and I would—we would 

go to read and participate in after-school events with them. And 

what I learned there was that it is very hard for a teacher, it is 

very hard for a school system to do their job when a lot of the children have no structure at home. They barely have a home. 

They might fall asleep on the couch watching TV at 2 in the 

morning. They may then have to go to school without a coat the 

next day. And we expect the system, and we expect these teachers 

to then educate. 

And some of the answers I heard you say earlier to this, kind of, 

problem were multiplicity and social services and breaking down 

the silo, longer school hours. And I would like each of you, maybe 

starting with Tony, to tell me if there is a way for us to use the 

school system, remembering that it is for the kids first, to help 
55 

build the family, to help maintain the family or rebuild the family, 

rather than trying to supplant the family or take up the vacuum 

where the family should be, because I think disintegration of our 

families is actually this country’s biggest problem. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Rokita, first, thanks for your service to 

the state of Indiana. It was wonderful to serve with you. And you 

were a beacon of leadership in our state. 

But I also want to say something that Dr. Mitchell talked about. 

Good schools, great schools have positive feedback loops. That is 

something I think, we all see in schools where we work and serve. 

When schools operate at a culture of very high expectations, the 

adults in the schools accept no excuses—and, again, we—I worked 

with a very talented principal by the name of Sheila Rohr in a very 

impoverished school in New Albany, Indiana, who got in her car 

and went to pick up parents to come to parent/teacher conferences. 

Okay? She says you must attend. We need you. 

Now, those are very difficult things to do. But you know what? 

Those schools generate a positive feedback loop. The students succeed. The parents want to be involved. The parents want to be involved. The students succeed more. 

But I think, again, it starts with us as state leaders developing 

a culture that every school in the state must attain at the highest 

level. And we have to do whatever it takes to make that happen. 

So I think that is how you support the family, is by having great 

schools that accept nothing but the best from their students, who 

will then go home and influence the family to be involved. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Okay, it is such a great question. And I would really encourage—we should give you as many examples as we can. 

There are so many schools that have figured that problem out. And 

it isn’t easy, but they do it over and over and over again. There 

are brands of schools, uncommon schools, the KIPP schools. There 

are little private—— 

Mr. ROKITA. KIPP Schools—I was going to mention. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. They have a tripartite contract of some sort that 

brings the parents in. 

Ms. KEEGAN. They do. They do. And that is a feature of almost 

all of these schools. Because where kids and families have not had 

the kind of structure that comes so naturally to families who have 

had it for generations, it is not that they can’t get it or don’t want 

it. I have seen in urban communities little, tiny private schools 

where families are actually paying, like, $3,000 a year, and they 

get together around a church, and they learn how to do that. 

So the schools themselves—it is all about the leaders in that 

school. And, as Dr. Bennett says, a commitment to get it right. And 

what I hope we do is inspire people to believe it can happen. Because you only do what you think is possible. And teachers in a 

classroom sometimes get to feeling like they are oppressed by this 

system and it can’t be done. It can be done. 

And so, contact one of us and just ask us where it is getting done 

if you find a school that is not doing it. And we will find a peer 

to them, I guarantee you, same constituent students, same 

socioeconomics, whatever it is, and we can match them with a 

school that is just knocking it out of the park. 
56 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Miller has a second question he would like to ask. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I think there may be a question, but 

just a couple of comments on this panel because I started out with 

a very broad question. 

But first of all, I want to say this to Dr. Bennett. When you mentioned that you got your data system from Colorado, I want to say 

thank you because I understand that is also a huge savings in 

money that you didn’t think you had to do it from the beginning, 

that you could build on what they had done—I know they have 

made that offer to my state. 

I don’t know if they accepted it or not. But they made an offer 

to a lot of states that they had a system that was—that others 

could use. So thank you. Nice to see 2 states working together. 

[Laughter.] 

I asked the question in the beginning about flexibility and accountability. And it seems to me, when I listen to the comments 

and the answers to the questions and the questions by the members, that a lot of this becomes very possible if, in fact, we do have 

a growth model—that we do have an accountability system that is 

real, that has real measurable goals and purposes to it, that it is 

not growth to nowhere, as my state tried for a couple years a while 

ago, and that it is inclusive, obviously, of the entire student body, 

that it is inclusive of all of the students that we have a responsibility to. 

At that point, if it is a performance-driven system, then I think 

there is some comfort level at the federal level that we are meeting 

our mandate under this, what is considered, obviously, a basic civil 

rights law in the ESEA. I was saying the question of choice that 

is clearly very prevalent now that wasn’t prevalent then. And it is 

in many different forms, many, many different forms, as I said, 

from the Internet to private or a charter school, if you will. 

I don’t know what the level of intensity is. But we have to be cognizant that these are big—that these are very mixed districts and 

states, as Senator Enzi will remind us over and over. There is no 

real other choice in rural Wyoming. 

But there are options for rural Wyoming—and that we not start 

getting on our high horse about one or the other and suggest that 

the federal government should pick those, but understanding that 

this student population should move across the range of options, 

and parents and others have that available to them. 

I also think it is becoming clear, listening to conversation over 

the last couple of years, that it would be hard to think that you 

are going to have an ESEA bill that doesn’t have something about 

evaluations in it. But I also think it is going to have to be evaluations that evolve. 

I think it has to be about evaluations that are inclusive, that 

have partners, that have skin in the game, we like to say. The entrepreneurs—this is about skin in the game, where teachers have 

got to have skin in the game. They have to have say in the game. 

They have to have stakes and outcomes. 

So we already see some large districts that have headed down 

that road and put these in place, whether it is in Connecticut or 
57 

Colorado or elsewhere or Illinois. But I think at the federal level, 

again, we have to be prepared that this is on a continuous improvement model. It is not all going to happen the first year. It is not 

all going to happen the second year. 

As you point out, you are on your ninth iteration of this. And I 

assume that means that you have to acknowledge, again, the buyin, the participation, the commitment, the skin, the stakes by all 

of the parties, certainly, within the district. But I would say at that 

site. 

Because I go back to as I started this question, I look at some 

of these large—and I am from a more or less urban/suburban population. I look at the partnerships and the options that have to be 

created. 

You mentioned the health—it is critical in some of these neighborhoods. There is no other access, except a real long ride to the 

hospital. But the county health systems and the public health systems believe they are getting a huge advantage by partnering with 

these schools—so those kinds of options. 

So I think this panel has been very helpful, Mr. Chairman. And 

I want to thank you for the hearing. 

These are big, tough issues. A lot of them have really long tails 

in the Congress of the United States. But I also think that there 

are a lot of pathways that have been developed over the lifespan 

of No Child Left Behind. But, again, as I started out, it is clearly 

time to move on. And it is clearly time to take that data and see 

what we can do to help empower states and districts to take advantage of it. 

Because the examples of success with the exact population that 

we lament, and we express our concerns for, are so compelling now 

and numerous. Not enough—you know, this is a huge nation. And 

we are talking about 1 percent of the students who are involved in 

many of these options. 

But they tell us what is possible. And we have to be about enabling what is possible with this. But I will always go back to the 

idea that is based on the foundation of accountability because I sat 

on this committee for 20 years where those outcomes were hidden. 

We changed tests at the state level every 2 or 3 years. We 

changed superintendents every 2 or 3 years. We changed—you 

know? And parents were at sea. The minute they were published 

in the newspaper for the first time, parents got an idea of what the 

hell was going on. And they started becoming interested in this. 

So thank you very much for participating with the committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this panel together. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would associate 

my comments with previous chairman, Mr. Miller, on this. This is 

an exceptional, exceptional hearing. 

And, frankly, it is worth all the work in coming back after my 

involuntary layoff, coming back to this committee to hear what is 

going on here. Because, frankly, nothing gets my excitement juices 

flowing more than hearing excitement about educating our young 

people. 
58 

Being a parent who had the opportunity, but because I took it, 

to use all sorts of approaches in educating my own 3 children. 

Whether it was public school, private school, homeschool, vocational school, I saw the benefits of having teachers and administrators who were committed to my kids, meeting them where they 

were at and educating them to their fullest potential, to see my 

daughter, who academically was not as gifted. And she would 

admit that—as her two brothers, but has gone beyond them in academic achievement in her field, even into graduate studies, because 

teachers had the opportunity to do what they do best in educating 

my child. 

So I would like to ask a question. And that is in light, as well, 

Mr. Coulson, of you just making me angry when you showed this 

chart, to think of what has been lost in educating young people 

over those years, with huge expenditures that, frankly, have been 

wasted, if these statistics are right. More than wasted, they have 

been abused, to our regret and our expense and our kids’ future 

and advancement of this country. 

But let me ask this question. And any and all could jump in. But 

I ask Mr. Coulson, you first. And, keeping in mind an underlying 

concern that I want you to color your answer with, if you would, 

please. What is the most effective place for the federal government 

in education? And I am willing to hear, ‘‘Stay out,’’ if that is what 

you are feeling. 

You mentioned that we have spent $151,000 per student for a 

graduating class of 2009, which is nearly 3 times that of what we 

spent for those in 1970. This increase resulted, if statistics are accurate, in decreased student achievement. 

Is there any other issue area where we see these alarming numbers as well? And what would you recommend we could do to 

change this trend? 

Mr. COULSON. My answer on what the federal government can 

do is, obviously, constrained somewhat by my view of the constitutional limits of its role. But really, in practice, it is not. We have 

seen $2 trillion worth of federal programs produce essentially no 

result in either gap narrowing or overall achievement. And so, another federal program is not likely to do any better than this 45- 

year history, with the striking exception of the opportunity scholarships program. 

And this is a really interesting situation because around the 

country, there is growing bipartisanship in support for school 

choice programs just like the opportunity scholarships program. 

But there is still some considerable resistance to these programs, 

some political resistance, some entrenched opposition. 

If Congress can get together and in a bipartisan way extend that 

program and grow that program, the impact that it would have on 

the ability of state legislators to produce similar programs, similar 

legislation would be enormous. So for Congress to show that it so 

values this program and what it is achieving, despite the partisan 

differences that may exist over it, for obvious reasons, I think that 

would be a beacon to the nation that would have a lasting and dramatic effect improving education in this country. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Walberg, if I may, I would say—I would suggest that, again, we do live in a national and an international soci-
59 

ety. So to just say that, you know, states are—have done a good 

job of setting their own standards to help kids be competitive in a 

global economy—it is folks like me that haven’t held up their end 

of the bargain. We haven’t held schools accountable. 

But I want to answer your question directly. I would like to see 

the federal government work with states as we want to work with 

our local school corporations. Set the bar high. Set incredibly high 

expectations. Put guardrails in place to ensure quality. Enforce 

strict accountability. If we don’t do the job, don’t give us money. 

Give states the flexibility, just like we want to give the locals the 

flexibility, to achieve the goals. And then the last thing is please 

get out of our way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. So let me build on that. I agree. High bar, transparency, especially around kids who have traditionally been failed 

by the systems, resources that are tied to results, but are flexible 

to states and from states to local districts. 

And what I would add would be support innovation because innovation is a brave act, whether it is political innovation or creating 

new ideas and new enterprises that help kids. It is a brave act that 

needs to be supported politically and financially. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I am sorry, Ms. Keegan. 

Mr. Thompson, you are recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the panel for your expertise on this very important 

issue we are looking at today. 

You know, as I look at the competitiveness of this nation, the key 

factor of our succeeding in the future is the competitive workforce. 

It is a qualified workforce. It is about preparing our youth to take 

those roles—and whatever walk of life where they are—wherever 

they are led and wherever they go. And so, this is such an important topic today. 

Dr. Bennett, in your testimony, you highlight Indiana’s education 

agenda, putting students first. How do the 3 colors of the state’s 

agenda work towards improving student access in either college or 

the workforce? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, first, the first issue is obviously, teacher and 

principal quality, the ability to make sure that the folks who are 

leading our schools and teaching our kids are of the highest quality 

and delivering the best quality instruction based on standards that 

make them college or career-ready. Two, it is to give the local 

school corporations the flexibility they need to innovate, as Mr.— 

as Dr. Mitchell mentioned, but holding them accountable so that 

kids from Gary get equal educational opportunities that kids in 

Evansville get. 

And finally, to give all children options. You have heard this. 

This has been a theme among this panel: charter options, private 

school options. We are big—and I think Indiana has proven this in 

the last 2 years in tough budget times. We have increased our 

state’s standardized test scores, increased graduation rate and increased A.P. participation and success. Okay? 

So I only say that because competition in the system and accountability in the system and freedom in the system have worked. 

And that is how we are going to drive more success among our chil-
60 

dren, is to put those 3 factors into an education system and make 

it work. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I certainly agree with you. I think those 

are principles that have worked in every industry in terms of success, ultimately. You had mentioned about equality, an issue I look 

at very closely. I represent a very rural district. And Indiana, I 

think, demographically is a lot like Pennsylvania, very similar. 

I was just interested in your observation of this. There is a tremendous discrepancy in terms of the amount of dollars that comes 

in for students in different school districts. And I see discrepancies 

between, certainly, rural schools and urban schools, but even between different urban schools. 

And some of the issues I have kind of come up against—I served 

a number of years on a school board. Education was very important 

to me, even with competitive grants, that rural school districts 

don’t tend to have the resources to have the grant writers. And so, 

I liked anything with the word competition in it. But competitive 

grants don’t tend to be competitive because they tend to be slanted 

towards larger districts with resources. 

The people are dedicated to pursuing and chasing those dollars. 

Even formula funding is—I find, is biased towards large schools, 

not necessarily large schools that have a high percentages of these 

children and significant discrepancies in dollars. And I am not talking about spending more money. I am talking about how the money 

is distributed currently. Any observations in that area? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, first, I am going to go back to the comment 

I made earlier. And I think this is something we have failed at the 

federal level. And I think, probably if you asked 50 state leaders, 

they would say we failed at the state level. 

And that—you know—and I will use Indiana. On April 29th at 

the eleventh hour, when our general assembly is about to end, as 

I sometimes say, the smoke will come out of the chimney, and 12 

people will emerge from the fourth floor office and say, ‘‘We know 

how to fund education.’’ 

And during this same time, we have had 12 people in another 

room talking about education policy. And they don’t ever put those 

2 things together. We have never married fiscal policy and education policy. And I think when we afford rural schools the opportunity to build collaborative so that they are not applying by themselves, they compete. 

And I think we have to start looking at education. Whether it is 

school choice, whether it is evaluation pay, we have to have the 

courage to marry fiscal policy and education policy. And we haven’t 

done that because we always try to minimize the losers. And we 

have to say in a system that competes, sometimes people will fall 

short. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Well, I think my time is about done, 

so I will yield back the few seconds remaining. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Biggert, you are recognized. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am sorry I missed all of your testimony. I also have a 

markup in another committee. But I did want to come and at least 

hear some of your expertise. 
61 

I was wondering about the Race to the Top and how—maybe, Dr. 

Bennett, particularly you. I understand that you turned it down. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. BENNETT. We chose not to participate in round 2. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Right. And I am from Illinois. And so, we had participated in both the round one and round 2 and did not receive it. 

But there were—and I don’t think that this committee really had 

the opportunity to really have hearings on this or before this program came from the Department of Education and from the top 

down. And we never really had anything to do with it before it 

came into effect. 

I would like to know, maybe, why you turned it down or—because we are always hearing, well, this Race to the Top is, kind of, 

now the template for the reauthorization of the K-12. How does 

that fit into this program? Have any of you worked with it? Or how 

effective is it going to be to help with our reauthorization? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I will speak very quickly to why we did not 

participate. And I don’t want to be—I don’t want to sound boastful. 

But I do believe that at the end of this thing, Indiana will be a 

state that will get to the top without accepting the Race to the Top 

money and the strings that were attached. 

For Indiana, it was a decision that it is much easier for me as 

a state leader to work with our general assembly, our courageous 

governor to initiate the type of reforms that, frankly, Race to the 

Top talked about than it was to prove to the federal government 

we could implement those reforms. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Anybody else have any comments? 

Mr. COULSON. Yes, I would just like to make a very brief comment, which is that the idea behind Race to the Top, one of the 

core ideas of it, is excellent, which is having competition in order 

to satisfy a customer. And there being financial rewards for people 

who do a good job of satisfying the customer and no financial reward for those who aren’t good. The only problem with Race to the 

Top is that the customer is the administration of the federal government instead of families. 

A system in which families are the customer and schools are 

competing to serve them is well-proven by research, both domestically and internationally, as a great system for improving educational outcomes and efficiency. Having states compete to serve 

the federal government is not a proven way of improving education. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Can I dive in? Because I want to express solidarity as a 2-time loser ourselves in Race to the Top. [Laughter.] 

And I want to juxtapose 3 of us. I want to juxtapose Dr. Bennett’s experience with ours in California. And Ms. Keegan and I 

both talked while you were off at the markup—talked about one of 

the important roles the federal government can play is in providing 

the kinds of incentives that make the politics different. 

Indiana is a wonderful example of a state in which, thanks to Dr. 

Bennett’s leadership and the leadership of others, the reforms that 

he has been talking about today could move forward on their own. 

I am sorry to say that California was not one of those states. 

And yet, the leverage of Race to the Top, the creating the competition with some guardrails around it broke open some of the 
62 

most extraordinary reform policies in the last 25 years in the state: 

the original parent trigger legislation allowing parents to charter 

schools, open enrollment in failing schools, the ability for the first 

time to connect the teacher database with the student performance 

database. 

Those would not have happened in our state without the federal 

government’s incentive for us to move in that direction. It is that 

kind of political cover that I was talking about earlier that at times 

unlocks the gridlock that ultimately hurts kids. 

Ms. KEEGAN. It does, I think, have to do with the politics of the 

local state. And I would say that what happened in Race to the Top 

is that there were a lot more changes before dollar one was ever 

spent because there was a lot of shovel-ready policies sitting 

around that couldn’t get shoveled through because of the national 

organization opposition to it. And all of a sudden, it got pushed 

through. 

Now, whether at the end of the day, that continues to be a great 

idea or, you know, should government always be in this role at the 

federal government is—I think that is going to play out over time 

as those dollars actually get spent. But there is no question that 

dangling it out there pushed through a lot of great ideas that 

couldn’t otherwise go through. Hopefully, states will do them anyway. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mrs. Biggert, I would also add, if I could, the one 

thing that—I would applaud the concept of Race to the Top is it 

was a great example of marrying a fiscal policy decision and an 

education policy decision. There were 4 big policy issues in Race to 

the Top. And there was money to those 4 policy issues. 

So I think it was a great example of that. It was just, as Ms. 

Keegan mentioned, the politics of our state afforded us the opportunity to move without it. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

I thank the witnesses. It has been an extraordinary panel and 

a fantastic hearing. Every once in a while, I just luck into one. But 

this has been absolutely terrific. 

I yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he might have. 

Mr. MILLER. Just thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay. 

Again, extending my thanks to everybody in the room and to my 

colleagues, but particularly to the extraordinary panel. I thank you 

very much. There being no further business, the committee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ