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

33–757 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–13

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT

REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING NCLB

TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS

U.S. SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 13, 2007

Serial No. 110–9

Printed for the use of the House Committee on Education and Labor

and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

(

Available on the Internet: 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

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 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

KATHERINE BRUNETT MCGUIRE, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on March 13, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 113

Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, insertion 

for the record: 

The Health Report to the American People as included in the Working Group’s Final Recommendations, released September 29, 2006, 

‘‘Health Care That Works for All Americans,’’ Internet URL ............ 117

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, prepared statement of ................................................................. 113

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, prepared statement of ......... 6

Insertion for the record: Letter submitted by Dr. McBride ................... 125

Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 115

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions ................................................................... 5

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 3

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 2

Insertions for the record: 

The prepared statement of Dr. Linda Blumberg ............................. 119

The prepared statement of David Griffith ....................................... 128

The prepared statement of the National Association of Secondary 

School Principals (NASSP) ............................................................ 133

Internet address to ‘‘NASSP Legislative Recommendations for 

High School Reform’’ ...................................................................... 136

Internet address to NASSP Policy Recommendations for Middle 

Level Reform ................................................................................... 136

NASSP NCLB recommendations ...................................................... 136

Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) ........ 141

NSBA Quick Reference Guide ........................................................... 143

Letter from the National Parents and Teachers Association 

(PTA) ................................................................................................ 147

Statement of Witnesses: 

Barnes, Roy, Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind, 

former Governor of Georgia ......................................................................... 9

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

Burmaster, Elizabeth, president, Council of Chief State School Officers .... 82

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 84

Casserly, Michael, Council of Great City Schools .......................................... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Henderson, Wade J., president and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil 

Rights ............................................................................................................. 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

McElroy, Edward J., president, American Federation of Teachers .............. 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46

AFT report, ‘‘Building Minds, Minding Buildings’’ Internet address .... 116

Rothkopf, Arthur J., Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA) 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Rothkopf, Arthur J., Business Coalition for Student Achievement 

(BCSA)—Continued

Recommendations from BCSA ................................................................. 117

Endorsements from BCSA ........................................................................ 118

Weaver, Reg, president, the National Education Association ....................... 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

(1)

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT

REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING NCLB 

TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

Washington, DC

The committees met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor] presiding. 

Present from the Committee on Education and Labor: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews, Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, 

Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis of California, Davis of Illinois, 

Grijalva, Bishop of New York, Sanchez, Sarbanes, Sestak, 

Loebsack, Hirono, Altmire, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Courtney, 

Shea-Porter, McKeon, Petri, Hoekstra, Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, Keller, Kline, McMorris Rodgers, Price, Fortuno, Boustany, Foxx, 

Kuhl, and Walberg. 

Present from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions: Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Brown, Alexander, Burr, 

Isakson, and Murkowski. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); 

Molly Carter, Legal Intern, Education; Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Amy Elverum, Legislative Fellow, Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Michael Gaffin, 

Staff Assistant, Labor; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secretary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Thomas Kiley, 

Communications Director; Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative 

Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief 

Clerk; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel 

Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior 

Disability Policy Advisor; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; James 

Bergeron, Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Legislative 

Assistant; Jessica Gross, Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor Hansen, 

Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Staff Director; Lindsey Mask, 

2

Director of Outreach; Chad Miller, Professional Staff; Susan Ross, 

Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Linda Stevens, 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Sally Stroup, Deputy 

Staff Director; and Brad Thomas, Professional Staff Member. 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. The Committee on Education and 

Labor will come to order for the purposes of conducting a joint 

hearing along with members of the Senate from the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee. 

And I would like to welcome and recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McKeon, the ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and also Senator Kennedy, the chair 

of the Senate committee, and the Senator John Isakson from Georgia will be filling in for Mr. Enzi. Mr. Enzi is detained in Wyoming 

this morning. 

Each of these members will present an opening statement, without objection. All other members may submit their opening statements for the record. 

When the Supreme Court said in its Brown v. Board of Education decision over 50 years ago that segregated schools cannot be 

equal, it affirmed the right of every child to an education on equal 

terms. 

But despite that decision, and although many children have received a first-rate education, many others have not. Far too many 

children still do not have the educational opportunities that they 

deserve. 

Instead, there has been a persistent academic achievement gap 

and a persistent education gap. Our nation has become too complacent about both. For far too long these problems were relegated to 

the backburner here in Washington, despite the harm to our children and our country. 

The No Child Left Behind law brought these gaps to the forefront again, and most supporters and opponents of the law will 

agree that we must make the closing of these gaps a national priority. That is the point of No Child Left Behind. 

At its essence, the law boils down to a very simple goal: making 

sure all children across the country can read and do math and 

science at grade level so they can have the brightest possible future. No child should be denied the same chance as another because of low expectations, systemic neglect, inadequate resources or 

the failure of a vision about what we can do to move all children 

forward. 

In fact, closing these gaps is the least that we should expect from 

our wealthy and powerful nation. It is not too much to ask if we 

are to have any hope of retaining our nation’s position of global 

leadership and our moral credibility. 

While it is critical that we remain faithful to the goals of No 

Child Left Behind, it is equally important that 5 years after its enactment we seek out new and better ideas for how best to achieve 

these goals. 

This hearing is a formal hearing of which will be a bipartisan, 

comprehensive and inclusive process to improve the No Child Left 

Behind law. We will hear a broad range of opinions on which provisions of the law are working well and which are not for our schools 

and for our children. 

3

There will be some disagreement, both today and in the coming 

months, but by listening to each other and hearing a broad range 

of views and concerns, Congress will be better able to help address 

these concerns when we begin re-writing the law later this year. 

The discussion about No Child Left Behind has, at times, been 

heated, but it has also been healthy and much-needed. After all, 

these are the most sweeping education reforms since the 1960s 

when the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 

passed as part of the War on Poverty. 

I am confident that the discussion that formally begins today will 

lead us, in the end, to enact legislation that will be responsive to 

the legitimate concerns that have been raised about the law and 

its implementation. We have a lot of ground to cover, from how we 

best promote and measure student progress to how we attract the 

highest-quality teachers and principals to every school. These and 

other topics will be subjects of future hearings. 

I believe I speak for all of the members of this committee in 

thanking our witnesses and the coalitions and organizations they 

represent for their extraordinary time and thought and care that 

have gone into their recommendations. Your expertise will be enormously helpful today as we move forward with the reauthorization 

process in the months to come. 

Lastly, I want to emphasize that I come to this process with an 

open mind, and I am eager to hear from, and work together with, 

both supporters and critics of the law. There is no question that we 

need to improve the law and properly fund it, but the bottom line 

is that we cannot afford to return to the status quo that existed 

before No Child Left Behind. 

We must remain dedicated to the principle that every child deserves a first-rate education because we know that every child, if 

given the opportunity, can learn and succeed. Helping our nation’s 

children and families is what this committee is all about. I look forward to working with all of you as we intensify our efforts on their 

behalf. 

And I would like now to yield to the senior Republican on the 

Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. McKeon, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

And thank you to our friends from the Senate for joining us this 

morning. 

Today, as we begin the process to reauthorize the No Child Left 

Behind Act, we have an opportunity to reflect back upon some of 

the progress we have made over the past 5 years. Here are just a 

few. 

After nearly 4 decades of seeing it widen, the achievement gap 

in our schools is finally starting to close. The conversation over how 

best to educate every child it taking place, not just in Congress and 

the state houses, but at kitchen tables, boardrooms and schools all 

across America, representing the first time that our nation truly 

has committed to leaving no child behind. 

Federal funding for elementary and secondary schools has 

reached record levels. Consider this chart on the screen, which 

shows that federal funding for elementary and secondary programs 

4

has risen by more than a third since NCLB became law. And Title 

1 funding for the most needy schools has risen even more sharply. 

The Title 1 commitment is particularly noteworthy because, as 

you can see on this second chart, the Title 1 commitment under 

NCLB far exceeds funding for the same programs before the law 

was enacted. 

In short, while we are expecting more, we are also providing 

more resources to schools with the hope that they will deliver. 

And, finally, parents have become empowered with more educational options under NCLB than ever before. For example, the 

law has made it possible for students in underperforming schools 

to transfer to better performing public schools, including charter 

schools, or receive additional educational services, such as private 

tutoring. 

Still, challenges remain. Yes, the achievement gap is closing, but 

it is not closing quickly enough. Yes, there is an ongoing discussion 

about how best to educate every child, but within that discussion 

are some voices in Congress and in the educational establishment 

urging us to back away from holding schools accountable for the 

education they are or are not providing our children. And, yes, parents do have more options when it comes to giving their child the 

best possible education, but there still aren’t enough options available or utilized. 

On this last challenge, in particular, I believe Congress has an 

obligation to act. At its heart, No Child Left Behind is parental 

choice law, and, indeed, if we are truly serious about strengthening 

NCLB, then we must get truly serious about giving parents more 

tools so their children can thrive under it. And that starts by empowering them with more choice. 

That is why today I am introducing the Empowering Parents 

through Choice Act, legislation that would provide expanded choice 

for parents whose children are trapped in schools that have consistently underperformed. 

Specifically, the bill will authorize opportunity scholarships to 

students attending schools in need of restructuring under NCLB. 

In short, if a child’s school underperforms for 5 consecutive years, 

then why any parent should be forced to send him or her there for 

a 6th year? 

Mr. Chairman, I enter the reauthorization process with is single 

goal: Improving No Child Left Behind so it can continue the positive impact in our schools that we are beginning to see that it has 

had for the past few years. And I believe that empowering parents 

with more options, more choices is essential to reaching that goal. 

I remain open-minded about all the potential changes to the 

NCLB that our committee and our colleagues in the Senate may 

consider over the next several months. For example, I believe we 

need to look for new and innovative ways to get the best teachers 

possible into our nation’s classrooms, and I believe we need to work 

together to find the appropriate balance between accountability 

and flexibility, where appropriate. 

At a roundtable in my congressional district several weeks ago, 

this balance was brought up on several occasions by education 

stakeholders in attendance, and their comments placed a particular 

emphasis on English language learners and special education stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
5

dents. I look forward to pursuing these and other matters in this 

hearing, as well as those hearings we will hold over the next several weeks and months. 

Indeed, we have a long road ahead of us, but ending in an agreement to strengthen this law and empower more parents will make 

it all worthwhile. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to their 

testimony. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join in welcoming our witnesses to the joint hearing on the reauthorization of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Our committees 

worked closely together on the No Child Left Behind Act, and we 

look forward to continuing our partnership on this reauthorization. 

Our goal in the No Child Left Behind Act was to set high standards, close achievement gaps, strengthen public schools and enable 

every child to receive a good education. Our priority this year is to 

make the improvements in the act needed to deliver on the commitment made in 2002. Schools obviously need greater help in achieving the act’s goals, and this is no time to retreat. 

The act is based on the fundamental principle that every child 

counts—black or white, native-born or immigrant, disabled or nondisabled. We cannot allow the great hope of Brown v. Board of 

Education to provide a quality education for all children to go unrealized. We cannot allow rampant inequality to undermine the opportunity and progress in our schools. 

The No Child Left Behind Act has already enabled schools 

around the nation to make unprecedented progress toward those 

goals. All 50 states now have standards, assessments and systems 

of accountability to track the achievement of students, based not on 

the performance of its overall student population, but on its 

progress in closing achievement gaps and enabling all students to 

meet specific standards. Schools throughout America now are using 

data from the act to develop better ways to improve instruction and 

meet the needs of individual students. 

Our Senate committee has heard in recent weeks about some of 

these changes. At the Achievable Dream Academy in Newport 

News, Virginia, longer school days and a more rigorous curriculum 

have enabled African-American students to pass the Virginia state 

assessment at rates equal or almost equal to white students. A 

public-private partnership in Boston has improved the recruitment, 

preparation, training and retention of teachers through an intensive, year-long residency program. 

We know, however, that we have only just begun. At this stage 

of the reauthorization, we look forward to hearing a range of ideas 

to build on the initial success of the act and deal with its problems. 

We need more effective ways to measure student growth toward 

standards and to recognize schools for that progress. Our goal is to 

focus on the lowest-performing schools, instead of simply 

classifying so many as failures. 

We can’t just label schools. We must help them improve. Over 

9,000 low-income schools are confronting their weaknesses as they 

develop and implement the improvement plans required by law. 

6

The federal role in assisting these schools may be our greatest 

challenge, and it is a top priority for this reauthorization. 

We must improve the quality of assessments, so that they better 

reflect what is taught in the classroom and are more useful in making decisions about teaching and learning. English language learners and students with disabilities deserve the full benefits of the 

act, and that requires fair, accurate, reliable ways to measure their 

performance. 

We must strengthen the workforce of teachers and close the gap 

in teacher distribution in high-poverty and high-minority schools. 

The best way to close the achievement gap for students is to see 

that they all have good teachers. 

We must give students the support and services they need to 

come to school ready to learn. We must reengage parents and 

whole communities in the process, and make them stronger partners in the education of their children. 

And we must help states develop high standards that are aligned 

to rigorous curriculums, so that students who graduate from school 

are ready to compete in the workforce or do well in college. 

Most of all, we must use this reauthorization to give schools the 

resources they need to implement these essential reforms. We can 

talk about the increase in resources, but we still have to recognize 

what the appropriations committees under Republicans and Democrats have recognized, and that is some 3.2 million children are left 

out and left behind. 

If we shortchange our schools, we are shortchanging America. 

Time and again, I have heard from teachers, principals and administrators desperate for financial help to carry out these reforms, especially in low-performing schools. We know we can do better. All 

we need is the will to do it. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ recommendations and 

ideas on all of these issues. 

I thank this extraordinary panel that we have here today, Mr. 

Chairman, and we here in the Senate thank you very much for 

your invitation to join with you in this important hearing. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

And now I would like to turn to Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member 

McKeon, it is good to be home again. I spent many a long hour in 

this committee room back in 2001 working with you on No Child 

Left Behind, and I am delighted to be here. 

Rather than make the opening statement for Senator Enzi, I 

would like to ask unanimous consent that his written statement be 

submitted for the record. 

Chairman MILLER. So ordered. 

[The statement of Senator Enzi follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael B. Enzi, Ranking Minority Member, 

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller for hosting this 

hearing today. This will allow all of us to start with a common set of recommendations as we begin work on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. 

As we move forward with this important process I want to make it very clear that 

I support the four core principles of the No Child Left Behind Act: all students at 

grade level in reading and math by 2014; annual assessments and disaggregation 

7

of data; qualified teachers in core academic subjects in every classroom; and timely 

information and options for all parents. 

Support of the four core principles does not infer that changes are not needed in 

the No Child Left Behind Act. Rather, I believe that changes need to be made to 

strengthen the law to better sustain these core principles and provide additional 

supports to schools, administrators and teachers to meet the principles. 

As we move forward with this process I will be focused on the impact this law 

has had on rural schools and students. Schools in rural areas face obstacles and 

issues that are unique and very different from other areas. We need to make sure 

that what we do does not have unintended negative consequences on schools where 

there may be only 10 students and one teacher. These schools should not be penalized, when they are working within the law to ensure that all students receive the 

education they need to be successful. No rural school or student should be left behind. 

We heard last week in a roundtable in the HELP Committee that teachers in Wyoming often travel 150 miles or more on a weekend to meet with other teachers to 

learn from them. Just as teachers don’t always have easy access to quality professional development, students don’t have opportunities students in larger cities have. 

Students don’t have access to advanced classes or to early college programs—unless 

they are offered on-line. 

I will also focus on the importance of technology and how it can better be used 

in our classrooms. Every school in Wyoming is wired. This gives students and teachers access to on-line programs and services. However, teachers often need more 

training and professional development so they know how to incorporate technology 

and services available via technology in the classroom. They need to know how to 

match up with teachers across the state, across the country, and across the world 

to enhance their work in the classroom. 

I recently received recommendations from educators in Wyoming that detail the 

changes they would like to see in No Child Left Behind to make it work better for 

Wyoming administrators, teachers, students, and parents. These recommendations 

were compiled from across the state and represent a fair and balanced view of 

changes needed for Wyoming schools. I look forward to working with educators, parents and administrators in Wyoming to ensure that No Child Left Behind works for 

their students. 

To best serve those students we need to begin focusing on school improvement activities to provide help schools and teachers need when their school is designated 

as in need of improvement. It is clear there is no silver bullet to fix schools that 

are falling behind. But, with some assistance and knowledge, schools can be turned 

around and excel. The Department of Education must improve the way it disseminates positive results and best practices—schools need assistance and information 

in order to implement effective school improvement strategies and close the student 

achievement gap. 

I look forward to working with each of you and your members as we move forward 

with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. I believe that we all want the 

same outcome—to make sure that every student is prepared to be successful in the 

global economy. To accomplish this we will need a bipartisan, bicameral approach 

to reauthorization. 

Senator ISAKSON. And then take the liberal license to the introduce the first panelist, if you don’t mind, Chairman Miller. 

Chairman MILLER. That is quite all right. 

Senator ISAKSON. Governor Roy Barnes and I go back a long way. 

We were elected to the legislature in Georgia back in 1970s, Roy 

to the Senate, me to the House. We spent the better part of 2 decades there and then both in 1990 ran for governor and both of us 

got a lesson in humility from Zell Miller, because he won the 

Democratic primary and then beat me in the general election. 

We returned to the legislature and replaced each other. I took his 

Senate-numbered seat, and he took my House-numbered seat. And 

then Roy went on to bigger and better things and became governor 

of Georgia and did a magnificent job. He and his wife, Marie, are 

dear friends with my wife, Diane, and I. 

8

And they have three wonderful children and how many grandchildren, Governor? Four grandchildren. I have you beat by two on 

that so far. 

Governor Barnes, during his tenure as governor, was a remarkable education governor in terms of accountability, in terms of class 

size, in terms of assessment. Roy really pioneered what has laid 

the groundwork for Georgia’s ever-improving educational system. 

I commend him for his effort in his recent report with Governor 

Thompson on NCLB, and I am happy to welcome him today to the 

House-Senate Education Committee hearing. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Governor Barnes, welcome. 

And I want to welcome all of the panelists, and thank you again 

for not just your appearance here this morning but for all of the 

time you have been putting in over the last several years to look 

at No Child Left Behind. 

As was mentioned, Governor Barnes was the co-chair of the 

Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind and was 

chair of the National Board of Professional and Teaching Standards 

and chair of the Institute on Education Leadership. 

Wade Henderson is the president and CEO of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights, one of the nation’s strongest civil rights 

organizations, founded in 1950, to help end discrimination and promote the civil rights movements. Today, nearly 200 national organizations are part of that conference. 

Arthur Rothkopf served as the senior vice president of the Chamber of Commerce since 2005 and has focused on education and 

workforce development issues. Prior to his work with the chamber, 

Mr. Rothkopf was the president of Lafayette College for 12 years 

and before that was deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. He is a member of Secretary Spellings’ Commission 

on the Future of Higher Education. 

Mike Casserly has been the executive director of the Great City 

Schools since 1992 and has worked as director of Legislation and 

Research prior to that time and has been a great resource to this 

committee. 

Ed McElroy is the president of the AFT since 2004, and he started his work on education as a social studies and English teacher 

in Warwick, Rhode Island. Mr. McElroy joined the AFT Executive 

Council in 1974 and served as secretary treasurer for 12 years. 

Reg Weaver is the president of the National Education Association, where he is serving his second term as president. He is a 

member of the board of directors, the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and executive board and the National 

Council on Accreditation and Teaching Education. 

Elizabeth Burmaster is the Wisconsin superintendent of Public 

Construction and current president of the Council of Chief State 

School Officers. She also chairs the council’s Committee on ESEA 

Reauthorization. Ms. Burmaster has worked for 25 years in a public school, teacher and principal, and she is a board member of the 

National Center of Learning and Citizenship and a member of the 

Education Commission of the States and the Board of Advisors of 

the Pre-K Now. 

Welcome to you all of you. 

9

We will proceed in the order in which you were introduced. Governor Barnes, we will begin with you. 

When you start, there will be a green light that will go on and 

then an orange light, which will give you an indication you might 

want to start wrapping up, and then the red light. But we want 

to make sure that you get time to cover those things that you think 

are most important, so we will be a little bit liberal on the lights 

here. 

But, Governor Barnes, thank you again, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROY BARNES, ASPEN INSTITUTE COMMISSION 

ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, FORMER GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARNES. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Chairman Kennedy. We appreciate, on behalf of Tommy Thompson, my good 

friend who is not here today but away on other business, we appreciate the opportunity to come and share with you the recommendations of the No Child Left Behind Commission that was sponsored 

by the Aspen Institute and that we have delivered to you. 

I commend the chairman and ranking minority members for 

their leadership in taking this unusual step of meeting together so 

that we can make sure that this law receives its full consideration 

and the importance that it deserves. 

This is not about whether children learn Shakespeare more or 

better, even though that is important. This is about whether we 

are a competitive nation over the next 50 years and a nation at all 

over the next 150 years. 

Given that charge of making sure that skills and learning are the 

basis of the new economy that we are all engaged in, whether we 

want to be or not, the Commission on No Child Left Behind was 

charged with conducting an analysis of the law and also its implementation. 

Our members were bipartisan. Of course, Secretary Thompson 

and I were governors of different parties but good friends, and still 

are and will remain, and our commission consisted of all of the 

spectrum of Democrats and Republicans and all of the spectrum of 

the different ones that are stakeholders in education. 

They spent the last year traveling the nation, hearing testimony 

from all persons that wanted to talk to us or to give us testimony. 

We heard 86 witnesses, including state officials and superintendents. We received over 5,000 comments through the e-mail of those 

who wanted to comment. 

I will tell you that, as we travel the nation, there is a great concern among our people that we have to improve education and 

raise the standards so that the next generation of Americans have 

a social standing and an income that is at least equal to or greater 

to the present generation, and that is a matter of great concern 

among our people. 

This initial stage of the commission’s work culminated in the release of Beyond No Child Left Behind, which we have filed with the 

committee and we recommended to your consideration. 

Our report contains specific and actual recommendations, about 

75, for improving No Child Left Behind, and I hope that you will 

use them as a blueprint for your reauthorization. 

10

Now, I want to talk about just two of three of these points this 

morning. The most important thing that happens in the learning 

of a child comes from an effective teacher, and I am here to tell 

you that teachers are underpaid, overworked and not given the full 

consideration that they need. But we also know that teacher quality has to be examined from a new viewpoint. 

The commission, therefore, recommends a sea change in No 

Child Left Behind’s teacher quality focus from solely being on credentials to being effective. Instead of being evaluated only by the 

requirements for entry into the teaching profession, such as certification and licensure, teachers should have the opportunity to demonstrate their effectiveness in the classroom. 

We recommend that teachers who produce learning gains and receive a positive principal evaluation or peer review should be recognized as a highly effective teacher. The commission is not recommending that student learning gains be the sole and only determinant of teacher effectiveness; however, we do believe that that 

is part of the equation. 

Now, this grew out of really our consideration of one of the criticisms of No Child Left Behind, and that is that a teacher and a 

classroom and a school could make more than a year’s progress in 

a year and still be labeled as not meeting AYP, or annual yearly 

progress. That is unfair. Those teachers that go the extra mile and 

produce more than a year’s learning in a year’s time should be 

given the break. 

And, in fact, one of the other recommendations we have is that 

we go to a growth model. As long as we have a child on grade level 

within 3 years, that if a child is making more than a year’s 

progress and can make grade level within 3 years, then they should 

be found to be making AYP. This requires a data system, a student 

information system, to see where children are at the beginning of 

the year and where they are at the end of the year. 

One of the byproducts of that system, which we say should be a 

joint federal-state process in building that data system, is that you 

will be able to determine which teachers are making the greatest 

gains. And the question is, are we going to ignore that. 

Now, there are some that criticize this—I am sorry, I am over, 

let me just wrap up on this—there are some that criticize this, and 

I suggest to you that we are not trying to punish any teacher. This 

should be used as a professional development tool to improve education. 

And the last point I will make to you is this: It is time—and we 

heard this as we went around the nation—that we are more concerned about the children and the system of education rather than 

the adults. Let’s do whatever is necessary to improve education and 

give our children the hope of America, the hope that is the next 

generation, rather than saying, we cannot do that because it might 

offend some of the adults. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]

11


barn-1.eps
12


barn-2.eps
13


barn-3.eps
14


barn-4.eps
15


barn-5.eps
16


barn-6.eps
17


barn-7.eps
18


barn-8.eps
19


barn-9.eps
20

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Governor Barnes. 

Mr. Henderson? 

STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, LEADERSHIP 

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

both to you and Chairman Kennedy, to Ranking Member McKeon 


barn-10.eps
21

and Enzi and to all members of both committees for the opportunity to participate in this important and historic hearing. 

I am Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights, the nation’s oldest, largest and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with nearly 200 member organizations working to build an America as good as its ideals. 

The Leadership Conference is issuing a formal letter to the committees today regarding the reauthorization of the No Child Left 

Behind Act that includes both our core principles for education reform and policy recommendations for changes to the current law. 

I would ask that it be included along with the written version of 

my testimony in the hearing record. 

I would like to use the remainder of my time before the committees today, however, to make a larger point regarding the future 

of No Child Left Behind. 

Now, for almost a century now, the civil rights community has 

recognized that the twin pillars of American democracy have been 

the right to vote and securing equal educational opportunity for all 

Americans. In that regard, No Child Left Behind may be one of the 

most important civil rights laws that this Congress will address. 

We urge you to be guided by the following principles as you consider reauthorization. 

First, federal education policy must be designed to raise academic standards. 

Second, those high standards must apply equally to all students, 

of all backgrounds. 

Third, schools should be held accountable for meeting academic 

standards. 

Fourth, there should be high-quality assessments that are linked 

to academic standards. 

And, finally, all children can learn, and federal and state governments must ensure that schools, particularly those in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, have the resources they need to give 

all children the chance to meet those standards. 

Now, by any standard, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, in your 

opening remarks, Brown v. the Board of Education was the most 

important Supreme Court case of the 20th century. In addition to 

ending state-sponsored segregation, in Brown, the court promised 

an equal education to all American children and said of education, 

‘‘It is the very foundation of good citizenship.’’

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to 

provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal 

terms. 

Now, access to a high-quality public education is still a fundamental right upon which all others depend, and yet 50 years later, 

the promise of Brown remains unfulfilled. Inequality is rampant by 

almost every measure. No Child Left Behind test scores paint a 

bleak picture of the achievement gap, with virtually every state’s 

white students passing state exams at a significantly higher rate 

than low-income, minority and language-minority students. 

According to an Urban Institute study, the national graduation 

rate for white students is 75 percent—which is not high enough, 

22

I might add—but it is only 50 percent for African-Americans, 53 

percent for Latinos, and 51 percent for Native Americans. 

But the real crime here is the opportunity gap. For example, minority students are more than twice as likely to have inexperienced 

teachers. High-poverty schools have a 50 percent higher rate of 

low-scoring teachers. 

Low-income, minority and language-minority students attend 

schools with far less funding; they attend larger classes that are 

more likely to be taught by out-of-subject teachers and in worse facilities, and have fewer and older books, as well as less access to 

computers, high-speed Internet, and modern science labs. 

Now, it was John F. Kennedy, who in 1961 challenged Congress 

and the nation to reach the moon within 10 years. We did it in 

about 8.5. What we need is the same kind of national commitment 

to public education that we gave to the space race. 

There are more than 100 public schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress within a couple of miles of this Capitol dome. 

We can accept no excuse for not getting to every single one of them 

too, and every one like them, in every city in America. 

Declining literacy levels, changing demographics and workplace 

restructuring are colliding to greatly expand inequities in wealth, 

opportunity and drive Americans further apart. Tens of millions of 

low-skilled adults will be competing for jobs, not only with one another, but also with workers with equal or better skills in low-wage 

foreign economies. 

Over the next few decades, as older, better-educated workers retire, they will be replaced by younger, less-educated workers with 

fewer skills. If these challenges are not adequately addressed, 

these forces will limit our nation’s economic potential and threaten 

our democratic ideals. 

Now, the scope of this problem, Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up, the 

scope of this problem was recently outlined in a report issued by 

the Educational Testing Service last month entitled, ‘‘America’s 

Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future.’’ And 

it detailed the confluence of three trends: worsening educational inequities, demographic changes and the continuing evolution of the 

economy. And they documented the devastating impact that this 

convergence would have by 2030 if we do not dramatically address 

the problem. 

Obviously, money is necessary. I won’t go into the details of how 

we hope, in addition to a reauthorization, that adequate appropriations are offered to No Child Left Behind to target those districts 

that really have the greatest economic need. 

And we can’t continue to provide the least education to the most 

rapidly growing segments of our society at exactly the moment 

when the economy will need them most. 

And what we would conclude with is the following: The Leadership Conference believes that access to a high-quality public education is a civil right for all children. And in the tradition of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and 2006, 

I might add, when this Congress strengthened the Voting Rights 

Act, the No Child Left Behind Act can play an important role in 

making that right a reality. 

23

We look forward to working with this Congress and with these 

committees as you begin tackling these important issues. 

And thank you for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Wade J. Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights 

Good morning, I am Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil 

and human rights coalition, with nearly 200 member organizations working to build 

an America as good as its ideals. 

I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Miller, Ranking Members Enzi and McKeon, and all of the Members of both the House Education and 

Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee for the opportunity to testify at this important joint hearing today. 

The Leadership Conference is issuing a formal letter to the committees today regarding the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that includes 

both our core principles for education reform and policy recommendations for 

changes to the current law. I would ask that it be included along with the written 

version of my testimony in the hearing record. 

I would like to use the remainder of my time before the committee today, however, to make a larger point regarding the future of NCLB. For almost a century 

now, the civil rights community has recognized that the twin pillars of American 

democracy have been the right to vote and securing equal educational opportunity 

for all Americans. In that regard, NCLB may be one of the most important civil 

rights laws that this Congress will address. For example, at its most basic level, its 

Adequate Yearly Progress requirement gives parents, students, teachers, and school 

administrators information on the progress of their schools, and ultimately seeks to 

break the cycle of failure that has continued to deny some children access to quality 

education. 

We urge you to be guided by the following principles as you consider reauthorization. First, federal policy must be designed to raise academic standards. Second, 

those high standards must apply equally to all students, of all backgrounds. Third, 

schools should be held accountable for meeting academic standards. Fourth, there 

should be high quality assessments that are linked to academic standards. Finally, 

federal and state governments must ensure that schools, particularly those in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, have the resources they need to give all children 

the chance to meet those standards. 

The Brown Standard 

By any standard, Brown v. Board of Education was the most important Supreme 

Court case of the 20th century. In Brown, the Court promised an equal education 

to all American children, and said of education: 

It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument 

in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional 

training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, 

it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is 

denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has 

undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal 

terms. 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 

Access to a high quality public education is still a fundamental right upon which 

all others depend; and yet 50 years later, the promise of Brown remains unfulfilled. 

Inequality is rampant by almost every measure. NCLB’s test scores paint a bleak 

picture of the achievement gap, with virtually every state’s white students passing 

state exams at a significantly higher rate than low income and minority students. 

According to an Urban Institute study, the national graduation rate for white students is 75 percent—which is not high enough—but it is only 50 percent for AfricanAmericans, 53 percent for Latinos, and 51 percent for Native Americans. 

But the real crime is the opportunity gap. According to the National Center for 

Education Statistics, minority students are more than twice as likely to have inexperienced teachers. Research has shown that high poverty schools have a 50 percent 

higher rate of low scoring teachers. Low income and minority students attend 

schools with far less funding; they attend larger classes that are more likely to be 

taught by out-of-subject teachers and in worse facilities; and have fewer and older 

books, as well as less access to computers, high-speed internet, and modern science 

labs. 

24

Education Reform: The New National Challenge 

It was President John F. Kennedy, who in 1961 challenged Congress and the nation to reach the moon within 10 years. We did it in about eight and a half. 

We have only one moon, and at the closest point in its orbit, it is still more than 

200,000 miles from the Capitol dome. But we got there. There are more than 100 

public schools within a couple of miles of the Capitol dome that failed to meet their 

proficiency targets under NCLB. We can accept no excuse for not getting to every 

single one of them, too—and every one like them in every city in America. 

What we need is the same kind of national commitment to education that we gave 

to the space race. President Kennedy did not call the nation to action just to inspire 

us with a lofty goal. He was motivated by a real world challenge posed by a foreign 

policy threat. While we don’t have Sputnik and the Soviet Union to galvanize us 

into action this time, we do have a pending social and economic crisis. 

Declining literacy levels, changing demographics, and workplace restructuring are 

colliding to greatly expand inequities in wealth and opportunity and drive Americans further apart. Tens of millions of low-skilled adults will be competing for jobs, 

not only with one another, but also with workers with equal or better skills in low 

wage foreign economies. Over the next few decades, as older, better educated workers retire, they will be replaced by younger, less educated workers with fewer skills. 

If these challenges are not adequately addressed, these forces will limit our nation’s 

economic potential and threaten our democratic ideals. 

The scope of the problem is staggering and the consequences are only going to 

get worse. In a report issued last month called America’s Perfect Storm: Three 

Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) detailed the confluence of the three trends—worsening educational inequities, demographic changes, and the continuing evolution of the economy—and the devastating 

impact they will have by 2030 if we do not dramatically change course. 

Congress has found that virtually all children can learn at high levels. Everyone 

involved with education—starting this morning with the Members of Congress and 

the advocates at this table and in the seats; as well as teachers, principals, local 

school boards, state boards of education, local and state elected officials, and the 

President—must be held accountable for students reaching their full educational potential. The Leadership Conference will be organizing its coalition members and 

grassroots partners and employing its communications network, including 

www.civilrights.org and www.realizethedream.org, to continue beating the drum for 

education reform. 

Moreover, it is going to take federal, state, and local cooperation. It is also going 

to take a lot of money—money measured by the size of the job to be done, not by 

how much we’ve spent in the past. 

Almost everyone agrees that substantial additional resources are needed and that 

the shortfall has grown significantly since NCLB was passed—some say by as much 

as $70 billion over the last six years. During the same six-year period, congressional 

budgets and appropriations have run up an enormous national debt that our children are going to have to pay off eventually, so those children have a pretty good 

claim that we should be investing a lot more in their education. 

While the federal share of total education spending is only a down payment, federal leadership is crucial. This Congress has the opportunity to use the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to boldly attack the entrenched inequities and failures 

within our educational system and try to head off ETS’s perfect storm. 

We cannot continue to provide the least education to the most rapidly growing 

segments of society at exactly the moment when the economy will need them the 

most. When 21st Century jobs require a science education, for how long will we continue to be the land of opportunity if we tolerate an opportunity gap where racial 

and economic disparities combine to make white students more than four times as 

likely as African-American and Latino students to have access to Advanced Placement science classes? 

LCCR believes that access to a high quality public education is a civil right for 

all children and that in the tradition of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting 

Rights Acts of both 1965 and 2006, the No Child Left Behind Act can play an important role in making that right a reality. We look forward to working with Congress 

to strengthen the law and its implementation. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rothkopf? 

25

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. ROTHKOPF, BUSINESS COALITION 

FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller and members, I am 

pleased and honored to be here today, and I thank you for your invitation. 

I am Arthur Rothkopf, and I am senior vice president and counselor to the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I am also 

here today on behalf of the Business Coalition for Student Achievement, which is spearheaded by the chamber and by the business 

roundtable. This coalition represents over 60 business organizations and companies from sectors across our economy. 

Together, the business community is committed to achieving the 

goals of No Child Left Behind. We urge the Congress to act swiftly 

this year to reauthorize the law and strengthen its core principle 

of accountability to ensure that all high school students graduate 

academically prepared for citizenship, for college and for the 21stcentury workforce. 

A recent survey that we conducted of our affiliated chambers 

around the country asked them what the most important issue was 

to these chambers, and the answer came back, almost uniformly, 

the number-one issue is education and workforce. 

The business community is deeply concerned about what is happening, or not happening, in our school systems. That is because 

it is business that hires the graduates and must rely on the end 

product of these schools. 

And I should say that there are good jobs going begging in this 

country because the candidates do not have the knowledge and the 

skills to fill those jobs, and the situation will only get worse when 

77 million baby boomers start retiring. 

Two weeks ago, the chamber issued a report providing further 

confirmation of the need of the business community to be deeply 

concerned about the state of education in this nation. This report 

was supplied to all members of Congress and to members of these 

committees. 

The research on this report was carried out for us at the chamber by the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, 

and by Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute. 

The study found that K through 12 public education is failing our 

students. Even in Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage 

of 4th and 8th graders scoring at or above proficiency on the NAEP 

reading and math test, less than half of all students met this target. 

Overall, only one-third of 4th and 8th graders in the country are 

proficient in reading and math, and the data is even more disheartening, as was indicated, for academic achievement of low-income 

and minority students. 

Compounding the problem is that each year we have 1.2 million 

youngsters dropping out of high school. 

In light of these statistics, you could ask the question, is No 

Child Left Behind paying off? We would say in the business community, yes. Elementary and middle school skill achievement has 

improved. The latest nation’s report card coming out of the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
26

ment of Education shows improvements in student achievement in 

reading and math and some lessening of the achievement gap. 

But we have a long way to go. Last month, NAEP released its 

report on high schools, and it appears as though only 23 percent 

of our 12th graders are proficient in mathematics and only 35 percent of high school graduates are proficient in reading and math. 

As your committees move forward, the coalition urges you to 

build on the successes achieved so far by No Child Left Behind. 

And we have six areas for you to focus on. Let me just touch on 

them briefly. 

First, all of the analyses of current state standards and tests conclude that they are not aligned with the expectations of college and 

the workforce. The law needs to include incentives for states to 

raise their standards. 

Second, there is a focus on No Child Left Behind on reading, 

which is entirely appropriate, but we also believe that in addition 

to reading, we need to add an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math to keep America competitive. 

Third, the most difficult thing that business leaders have encountered is the absence of good, reliable data. No Child Left Behind 

made a great start. The quality of data has improved over the last 

5 years, but data systems in many states and districts are antiquated and need to be overhauled. 

Fourth, teacher and principal effectiveness. We believe, as the 

NCLB Commission does, that effectiveness ought to be the test, not 

highly qualified. We need highly effective teachers and principals. 

We, the chamber, the coalition and actually the Center for American Progress, believe that starting teacher salaries should be 

raised and that increases should be based on growth in student 

achievement, among other factors. 

We also believe there needs to be a fair and efficient process to 

remove ineffective teachers and principals. 

I won’t go into the final two items, but they include strengthening and refining accountability and investing in school improvement and encouraging innovation. The details of that appear in my 

written statement, which I ask to be made a part of the record. 

Let me conclude by saying, for too long the business community 

has been willing to leave education to others, standing aside and 

making offers of money, support and good will. Not anymore. This 

is a matter of critical national urgency. What is at stake is nothing 

less than the continued success and competitiveness of the American economy and the continued viability of the American dream 

for American workers. 

This concludes my oral remarks. I look forward to your questions. And, again, thank you for inviting me to appear. 

[The statement of Mr. Rothkopf follows:]

Prepared Statement of Arthur J. Rothkopf, Business Coalition for Student 

Achievement 

Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Miller: I am pleased and honored to be here 

today. Thank you for your kind invitation. 

By way of introduction, I am Arthur Rothkopf and I serve as Senior Vice-President and Counselor to the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

I am also testifying today on behalf of the Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA). BCSA is a coalition spearheaded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

and the Business Roundtable. The coalition represents over sixty business leaders 

27

from sectors across our economy. BCSA is led by Co-Chairs Craig Barrett, Chairman 

of the Board of Intel; Arthur F. Ryan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Prudential Financial, Inc; and Edward B. Rust Jr., Chairman and CEO, State Farm Insurance Companies. 

Together, we are committed to achieving the goals of No Child Left Behind 

(NCLB). We strongly urge Congress to act swiftly this year to reauthorize this law 

and strengthen its core principle of accountability to ensure that all high school students graduate academically prepared for college, citizenship and the 21st century 

workplace. 

The United States in the 21st century faces unprecedented economic and social 

challenges: global competition, the retirement of 77 million baby boomers, and the 

fact that 90% of the fastest-growing jobs will require some postsecondary education. 

It is for these very reasons that a recent survey of our affiliated chambers from 

around the country rated workforce and education reform as their number one priority. The business community is very much in tune with what is happening—or 

not happening—in our school systems. That’s because it is business that hires the 

graduates and must rely on the end product of those schools. No one is more in 

touch with both the successes and the failures. 

Last week the U.S. Chamber issued a report providing further confirmation of the 

need for the business community to be deeply concerned about the state of education 

in this nation. The research for this report entitled, ‘‘Leaders and Laggards: A Stateby-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness,’’ was carried out on behalf of the 

Chamber by the Center for American Progress and Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute. The report analyzed existing state-by-state data related 

to academic as well as key business metrics such as innovation, flexibility, and fiscal 

prudence. Building upon the research in Leaders and Laggards, the U.S. Chamber 

and the Center for American Progress released A Joint Platform for Education Reform, which echoes the U.S. Chamber’s proposals for a stronger education system. 

These proposals include: better teaching, more innovation, better data, and better 

management. 

The study found that K-12 public education has been an abysmal failure. This 

poor performance threatens the future of our children and America’s competitive position in the world. This is made clear when looking at the academic achievement 

of fourth and eighth grade students based upon the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 

Even in Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of 4th and 8th graders 

scoring at or above the proficient level on NAEP reading and math—less than half 

of all students meet this target. Overall, only about one-third of all 4th and 8th 

graders in the country are proficient in reading and math. 

The data is even more disheartening for the academic achievement of low-income 

and minority students. In our report, we graded states on a curve from A to F. Of 

the nine states which were awarded an ‘‘A’’—not one had an average percentage of 

4th and 8th grade African Americans above 22 percent in math and reading. The 

results for Hispanic students were nearly identical. 

Our report highlighted what has also been a fixture of our current education system—an unacceptable level of student dropouts. Only about two-thirds of all 9th 

graders graduate from high school within four years and only about half of minority 

students. 

Even among those students who do manage to graduate and move on to college, 

at least 40% have to take at least one remedial course when they get there, indicating that high schools are not adequately preparing students for the rigor of a 

postsecondary education curriculum. Businesses report the same dismal results for 

young people that they hire. 

This is directly related to another significant finding of our report—the lack of 

rigor in state academic standards. States were graded on the quality, rigor, and 

specificity of their academic standards. Only four states were given an A for their 

standards. Furthermore, only eight states have aligned their academic standards 

and graduation requirements with college and workplace expectations. 

In light of these statistics, ‘‘is NCLB really paying off?’’ The answer is ‘‘yes.’’

As abysmal as this data is, it represents improvement for elementary and middle 

school students from where this nation was prior to enactment of NCLB. Specifically, according to the US Department of Education, the July 2005 long-term Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) results showed national student achievement in reading 

and math at all-time highs and the achievement gap closing. 

• For America’s nine-year-olds in reading, more progress was made in five years 

than in the previous 28 combined. 

28

• America’s nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and 

math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America’s 13-year-olds earned the 

highest math scores the test ever recorded. 

• Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds 

reached an all-time high. 

• Math scores for African American and Hispanic 13-year-olds reached an all-time 

high. 

• Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American 

nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time 

low. 

The 2005 Nation’s Report Card on state-level data included similar glimmers of 

hope. For example, in the State of Georgia, in 2004-05, more than 70 percent of the 

state’s limited English proficient (LEP) students scored proficient or better in reading, up 23 percent from 2002. Among third-graders with disabilities in Georgia, 81 

percent scored proficient or better in reading, up 26 percentage points. 

But to be clear, our nation has a long way to go, particularly for our high school 

students—an area which receives little attention under NCLB. The 12th grade 

NAEP results released last month demonstrates just how far we must travel. 

The report found that——

• Only 23% of 12th graders are proficient in mathematics. 

• 27% of 12th-grade students lack even basic high school reading skills, up from 

20 percent in 1992. 

• Only 35% of students are proficient in reading, a drop from 40 percent in 1992. 

What is the solution to address these issues? Some have suggested it’s time to 

turn back the clock and go back to a time before NCLB when schools, districts and 

states were not held accountable for reducing education achievement gaps. 

NCLB opponents point to a vast array of rationalizations for their claims. 

• Some groups have argued that NCLB takes away local control. They fail to 

highlight that under NCLB each state determines its own system of accountability, 

its own standards and assessments, as well as what it means for students in the 

state to be ‘‘proficient.’’ Similarly, they fail to point out that each state determines 

how schools in the state will use the federal dollars to improve education—indeed 

a vast majority of funds are used solely to hire teachers. Only when schools are 

identified for improvement do they begin to have increased restrictions on the expenditure of a portion of their federal funding. 

• Some groups claim that NCLB is overly punitive to school systems in which students are not reaching achievement expectations. Let’s not lose sight of the focus 

of this Act. NCLB’s focus is on helping students succeed—it is not about supporting 

a bureaucracy at the expense of helping students learn. NCLB requires states and 

districts to support underperforming schools—that is, schools where students have 

been struggling oftentimes for generations—by requiring schools to develop plans on 

how to help struggling students and by providing tutoring and public school choice 

options to students in struggling schools. 

• Some groups demand that NCLB accountability requirements be suspended in 

anticipation of ‘‘full funding’’ To focus only on funding misses the point. The U.S. 

has the highest spending per student of any nation in the world. The reason NCLB 

is working to increase student achievement is that the Act focuses on transparency, 

accountability and results. 

• The question should be not how much more funding we need to improve student 

achievement, but how well is the money currently available being currently spent. 

In the Chamber’s Report Card, our data showed that money alone does not guarantee academic success, but rather how wisely those dollars are spent. 

There has been a disconcerting lack of attention to ensuring that education dollars are delivering real value. Some states are spending less money and achieving 

real results. Despite steps to increase per pupil spending, decrease student-teacher 

ratios, and recruit a better-prepared teaching force, student test scores have remained stubbornly flat over the past 35 years. By international standards, the U.S. 

spends far more than other nations on education—and has smaller class sizes—yet 

receives far less value in terms of educational outcomes. 

The bottom line is that these and other excuses should be fully examined. The 

burden of any of the NCLB requirements must be weighed against the alternative—

that is, turning our back on the millions of students who are benefiting from its provisions. 

The Business Coalition for Student Achievement remains committed to the tenets 

of the No Child Left Behind Act. As your Committees move forward with reauthorization, the Coalition strongly urges you to build upon the successes of NCLB, particularly in the following areas: 

29

1. FOCUS ON COLLEGE AND WORKPLACE READINESS.—We know that educators are finding it difficult to help students reach today’s standards. However, all 

of the analyses of current State standards and tests conclude that they are not 

aligned with the expectations of college and the workplace. The law needs to include 

incentives for States to raise their standards and avoid lowering them. 

2. EMPHASIZE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH.—

NCLB includes a major focus on reading, which is appropriate. As we move forward, 

the law needs to continue to make early reading a priority while also adding an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math. 

3. ENHANCE DATA-DRIVEN DECISION MAKING.—Perhaps the most difficult 

thing that business leaders have encountered in our efforts to help improve education has been the absence of good, reliable data. It’s impossible to imagine running a company without the use of valid data to inform decisions. The quality of 

the data has improved over the past five years, but the data systems in many States 

and districts are antiquated and need to be overhauled. 

4. INCREASE TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS.—One of the 

areas where the current law did not accomplish its objectives has been in making 

sure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers. The Coalition believes 

that the law needs to expand its focus to effectiveness rather than just compliance 

to ensure that our teachers are not only ‘‘highly qualified’’ but also ‘‘highly effective.’’

5. STRENGTHEN AND REFINE ACCOUNTABILITY.—The law should provide 

guidance on ways that States can differentiate among districts and schools that are 

close to or far from making AYP, and ensure that resources for improvement focus 

on those with the highest concentrations of underperforming students. We also support provisions that would permit States to use rigorous measures of year-to-year 

growth in student academic achievement and other methods verified by the Secretary that are consistent with the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading, math and science. 

6. INVEST IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND ENCOURAGE INNOVATION.—

Our last point brings us full circle to the rationale for the law. It is not to punish 

schools. It is not to make educators look bad. It is about improving schools. It is 

about improving student achievement. It is about investing in what research has 

proven works while also discovering new models and innovations. We want to increase the capacity of States and other entities to better assist schools that need 

help making AYP; target funding, assistance and distribution of effective educators 

to high-need schools; and continue support for innovative models, such as charter 

schools, diverse providers and techniques that effectively integrate technology into 

appropriate aspects of teaching, learning and management. 

For too long the business community has been willing to leave education to the 

politicians and the educators—standing aside and contenting itself with offers of 

money, support, and goodwill. 

Not anymore. This is a matter of critical national urgency. What’s at stake is 

nothing less than the continued success and competitiveness of the American economy—and the continued viability of the American Dream. 

America needs a world-class education system. Students deserve it, parents demand it, and businesses require it to compete and win in the global economy. 

This concludes my prepared written testimony. I look forward to discussing my 

comments in more detail during the question and answer period, but before that, 

I would again like to thank the two Committees for inviting me here today. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Casserly? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CASSERLY, COUNCIL OF THE GREAT 

CITY SCHOOLS 

Mr. CASSERLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. My name is Mike Casserly. I am the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools. I want to thank you 

very much for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

As you may remember, the Council of the Great City Schools 

supported No Child Left Behind when it was heading to the floors 

of the House and Senate for final passage in December of 2001. We 

were the only national education organization to do so, but our 

members wanted to be on record in support of raising student 

30

achievement, closing achievement gaps and being accountable for 

results. 

We think that the law has been helpful to us on a number of 

fronts. It has continued and strengthened the standards movement. 

It has spurred the use of regular assessments. It has elevated the 

priority of reading and math instruction. It is introduced accountability into education, and it has underscored the role of highly 

qualified teachers. 

The council has followed through on its support of the law by 

providing extensive technical assistance on its implementation. We 

have published our annual state test scores, we initiated trial 

urban district assessment of NAEP, we are conducting research on 

the common reforms amongst the fastest improving urban school 

districts in the country, and we have been providing extensive technical assistance to our members on how to raise student achievement. 

We also, however, backed No Child Left Behind knowing that it 

had numerous challenges. Multiple requirements and many poorly 

calibrated provisions. We see many of the problems with the law 

that many of the law’s toughest critics see. We see insufficient 

focus on good instructional practice and too much test prep. We see 

an overemphasis on compliance with non-instructional requirements. 

We see large amounts of money diverted into supplemental services that appear to show limited effects. We see annually cascading 

sanctions that have schools changing strategies before anything 

has had time to work. And we see precious little technical assistance on how to meet the legislation’s grand intent. 

In general, it is clear to us that a school can be in full compliance 

with NCLB and not be raising student achievement. Conversely, it 

is possible to raise student achievement substantially and not be 

in compliance with the law’s requirements. Nonetheless, the nation’s major urban school systems have seen steady academic gains 

over the last several years, and our academic improvements now 

outpace those at the national and state levels on both state tests 

and the NAEP. 

Still, we note that our performance as urban school districts is 

below state and nation averages, and our achievement gaps remain 

wide, although not much wider than the nation’s, suggesting a national problem, not just an urban one. 

These gaps are not inevitable, however. They can be closed, and 

the research is reasonably clear about how to do it. The key is good 

teaching, solid professional development and effective instructional 

programming. Urban school districts that are showing strong gains 

use this research and the accumulating wisdom about what it takes 

to improve urban schools. 

We have borrowed from these lessons that these faster improving 

urban school districts have made to inform the recommendations 

that we are making to Congress about the reauthorization. 

First, we are proposing national standards in reading, math and 

science to close up some of the inequities feeding the gaps that our 

50-state system now exacerbates. We would require that states 

tether their tests to those standards with comparable definitions of 

proficiency. We also think that proposals to allow growth models 

31

make more sense when growth means the same thing state to 

state. 

Second, we would reorient the legislation toward instruction and 

achievement by replacing the current system of annually cascading 

sanctions, school improvement I, school improvement II and corrective action, with a single 3-year intervention and improvement period. There is a chart in the back of our testimony that illustrates 

how that would work. 

During this 3-year period, which would be free of sanctions, we 

would require schools that had not made AYP on the same subgroups and subjects to devote an amount equal to 30 percent of the 

Title 1 allocations to instructional strategies that have proven successful. These would include professional development for principals and teachers, instructional interventions, extended time programs, quarterly assessments, instructional coaching, differentiated 

instruction and effective programming. 

There are multiple ways to use these strategies well, there are 

also ways to do them poorly, but I would rather spend scarce resources on the kinds of activities that hold greater promise for raising student achievement than spending them on many of the procedural requirements that are now in the law. 

However, we would continue to allow students to transfer to 

higher-performing district schools or to select a district supplemental service provider, but we would permit districts to be their 

own providers. 

We would also follow this 3-year instructional period with one of 

two kinds of sanctions depending on how persistent and pervasive 

the school’s failure had been. 

Third, we would require the states to start building data systems 

that would eventually link student achievement with individual 

classrooms and teachers. 

Fourth, we would limit the disproportionate assignment and hiring of underqualified teachers in the lowest-performing schools. 

Finally, we would retain the grade 3 to 8 testing system, but we 

would allow a 3-year window for English-language-learners before 

building them into the accountability system. 

Ultimately, M. Chairman, our goal is to offer practical solutions, 

not loopholes, to problems that have plagued No Child Left Behind 

since its beginning, to retain the purposes and framework of the 

law but to shift it toward raising student achievement and closing 

gaps and make the law more workable. 

We will have a full package of recommendations for the committee next week. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Casserly follows:]

32


cass-1.eps
33


cass-2.eps
34


cass-3.eps
35


cass-4.eps
36


cass-5.eps
37


cass-6.eps
38


cass-7.eps
39


cass-8.eps
40


cass-9.eps
41


cass-10.eps
42


cass-11.eps
43


cass-12.eps
44

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McElroy? 

STATEMENT OF ED MCELROY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 

TEACHERS 

Mr. MCELROY. Well, good morning, Chairman Miller, Chairman 

Kennedy, members of both committees. 

The symbolism of a joint committee on this issue is not lost on 

us, and I want you to know I appreciate the importance that you 

attach to this critical issue. 

I am here today on behalf of more than 1.3 million members and 

3,500 local unions of the American Federation of Teachers, here to 


cass-13.eps
45

discuss what they care most about and that is improving teaching 

and learning in our public schools. That means giving No Child 

Left Behind proper funding, and it also means making appropriate 

and necessary changes during its reauthorization. 

The AFT has been preparing for reauthorization by gathering 

feedback at town hall meetings with our members, and we also established a task force proposed by teacher leaders who studied the 

effects of this law and the ways to get it right. 

We developed a set of recommendations, which we have submitted for the record. You will see that they reflect the real experiences of the educators throughout the United States, the people 

who actually do the work that we are talking about here today. 

Any discussion of No Child Left Behind should begin by addressing the flaws of the adequate yearly progress system. Many schools 

in your congressional districts and states are making meaningful 

academic progress, but the current AYP system does not capture 

these gains. Instead, it misidentifies, as failing, thousands of 

schools that are making real progress. 

Students, parents, teachers and community members know their 

schools are making solid academic improvement, yet they are told 

that their schools are not making the grade; devastating and demoralizing for all of those publics. 

At a recent No Child Left Behind town hall meeting with our 

members in Boston, a 4th grade teacher said, ‘‘The entire reputation of our school hangs on one test. It is not about balanced curriculum, enrichment or learning anymore; it is about avoiding that 

failing school label.’’

We want an accountability system that is fair and accurate. That 

means the AYP system must give schools credit for students’ 

progress. The law must distinguish between schools that need intense multiple interventions and those need only limited help. 

Struggling schools must get help when they need it, and schools 

that are improving should not be penalized. 

On testing, our teachers report that they are required to administer test upon test. This leads to instructional time being replaced 

by testing and drill-and-kill preparation and, importantly, a narrowing of the curriculum to those only subjects being tested. If students are behind, they should be provided intensive math and/or 

reading instruction that integrates other content areas. What students do not need is less time studying other important subjects. 

Members also tell us that standardized assessments often are not 

aligned with the curriculum that they teach. Our recommendation 

is simple: State tests must be aligned with the state standards and 

the curriculum used in the classroom. Makes no sense to judge 

school programs or school progress by test scores which do not test 

what is taught. 

We are also concerned about the interventions included in No 

Child Left Behind, so-called supplementary educational services. 

Basically, many of them are unproven and a drain on the schools’ 

limited resources. These providers are not being held accountable 

for results and for the way they use the tax dollars. 

In Illinois, for example, the Chicago Tribune reported that private tutoring firms are spending just 56 cents of every NCLB dollar 

46

to tutor children who are behind. The other 44 cents goes to profit 

and overhead. 

Too often SES and other NCLB sanctions are punitive, ideological and not evidence based. Too much of that assistance looks like 

punishment to students and to the school community. 

We, the AFT, have a proven track record of collaborating to turn 

around low-performing schools. We know that successful school 

turnarounds occur when schools use dated guide instruction, provide quality professional development, put in place programs with 

a strong research base and tailor the intervention to the needs of 

the school and the community. 

NCLB should require that any entity providing services to students use research-based methods, have demonstrated effectiveness 

and be held accountable for those results. 

At our town hall meetings, members also spoke about the law’s 

highly qualified teacher requirement. Many teachers met the requirement from day one, many have fulfilled the requirement since 

then, and it is a credit to the people who teach in our schools. Five 

years later, proposals are being put forth that would require teachers to jump through an additional hoop to prove they are worthy 

of teaching our nation’s children. 

NCLB, in its current form, is burdensome and demoralizing to 

teachers, and yet they continue to adhere to changing requirements 

so they can continue to teach. It is unacceptable to pose on them 

another unfair accountability measure. 

I want to wrap up by saying, good teachers are central to good 

education, but there are other factors that are essential as well. 

Just to give you one example, consider how the physical condition 

of our school buildings affects education. We addressed that topic 

and I will ask to make part of the record this document that deals 

with building minds, minding buildings, talking about how those 

conditions affect our schools. 

We championed the goals long ago of raising academic standards 

for all and closing the achievement gap. We look forward to working with you on the reauthorization of this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. McElroy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Edward J. McElroy, President, American Federation 

of Teachers 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the education committees of the 

U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. My name is Edward J. McElroy, and 

I am the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). On behalf of the 

more than 1.3 million members of the AFT, I am here today to tell you that the 

number-one concern of AFT members is how to strengthen and improve teaching 

and learning in our public schools. We believe that an important part of accomplishing this is to ensure that appropriate changes are made to the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB) during its reauthorization. 

The AFT has been preparing for the reauthorization of NCLB by gathering feedback from our members on the impact of this law in their classrooms and their 

schools. We established an NCLB task force composed of our teacher leaders from 

across the country to study the effects of this law and to develop recommendations 

to revise NCLB. The other AFT officers and I have held a series of town hall meetings with our teacher and paraprofessional members nationwide to discuss how 

NCLB has affected teaching and learning in their classrooms. 

The attached set of recommendations for the reauthorization of NCLB is comprehensive and reflects the real experiences of educators throughout the United 

States. My testimony today will focus both on key concerns that I hear repeatedly 

47

about the impact of NCLB and on our recommendations for addressing these concerns. No discussion of NCLB can begin without first addressing the flaws of the current 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) system. Senators and representatives, many schools 

in your congressional districts and states are making meaningful academic progress 

with students, but the current AYP system does not capture these gains. Instead, 

it misidentifies as failing thousands of schools that are making real progress. It’s 

demoralizing for students, parents, teachers and communities when they know that 

their schools are making solid academic progress, yet still see them listed in the 

local paper as ‘‘not making the grade.’’

At one recent town hall meeting on NCLB convened by the AFT, the comments 

of a fourth-grade teacher from Boston reflected this demoralization: ‘‘The entire reputation of our school hangs on one test,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s not about balanced curriculum, enrichment or learning anymore. It’s all about avoiding that ’failing school’ 

label.’’

We welcomed the U.S. Department of Education’s pilot program, which allowed 

a small number of states to experiment with growth models as a way to make AYP. 

Unfortunately, we believe that the department’s definition of growth is too narrow. 

States should be permitted to submit and implement a variety of proposals that 

allow those schools serving students who are the furthest behind to receive credit 

for their academic progress. 

The AFT wants an accountability system that is fair and accurate—one which ensures that no group of students is ignored. A sound accountability system must 

serve another important purpose: It should distinguish between schools that need 

intense and multiple interventions and those that need only limited help. This will 

ensure that struggling schools get help when they need it and schools that are improving will not be unfairly penalized. 

Educators also tell us they are required to administer test upon test upon test, 

including school, district and state tests. This layering of tests leads to an excessive 

amount of what should be instructional time being diverted instead to testing and 

drill-and-kill preparation, which results in a narrowing of the curriculum to only 

those subjects being tested. Students should have science, social studies, the arts, 

history—and recess. If students are very far behind, they should be provided opportunities for additional intensive math or reading instruction that is integrated with 

other content areas, rather than stealing time from these subjects. 

Another thing we are hearing from our members and confirmed in a July 2006 

AFT report titled ‘‘Smart Testing’’ is that the standardized assessments teachers 

give to students often are not aligned with the curriculum they teach all year. This 

is not the teachers’ fault. Our report revealed that only 11 states had assessments 

fully aligned with their standards. Our recommendation is simple: State tests must 

be aligned with the state standards and the curriculum being used in classrooms. 

If schools are going to be judged on the basis of test scores, the tests should measure 

what teachers are being asked to teach. 

We also hear from our members that schools which are struggling academically 

don’t get the kind of help they need and don’t get the help when they need it. 

Frankly, NCLB’s choice and supplemental educational services requirements are 

unproven interventions, and they drain resources at the very time these schools 

need them if they are to improve. And under the current system, these private entities are not being held accountable for student achievement. We know that schools 

with difficult teaching and learning conditions need intensive and ongoing support. 

Educators tell me that help only arrives after their schools are identified as not 

making AYP for a number of years. And then that ‘‘help’’ is often in the form of 

unproven reforms like state takeovers of schools or private management interventions that don’t connect to what is happening in classrooms. Any entity that provides services to students must use research-based methods, have a proven record 

of effectiveness and be held accountable for results. 

The AFT has a proven track record of collaborating to turn around truly low-performing schools. From our work in places like the former Chancellor’s District in 

New York City, the Pilot Schools in Boston, Miami-Dade’s Zone Schools and the 

ABC Unified District in Southern California, we can share strategies that we know 

really work. First, the ‘‘assistance’’ should not punish students and their schools; it 

should help them. Too many NCLB sanctions are punitive, ideological, not logically 

sequential, and neither research- nor evidence-based. Second, interventions should 

reflect each school’s unique challenges. One or more of the following interventions 

have increased student achievement in places where some had thought persistent 

low achievement to be intractable: 

• Immediate, intensive reading instruction based on diagnostic tests beginning in 

prekindergarten and/or kindergarten; 

48

• Intensive reading and math instruction and enrichment programs; 

• A rich and sequenced curriculum for all students; 

• Quality assessments that are aligned to the curriculum; 

• Extended school day and summer programs for students who need extra academic help; 

• Reduced class size so that teachers can individualize instruction and meet student learning goals; 

• Early childhood education programs; 

• Research-based professional development; and 

• Enhanced induction and mentoring programs. 

Finally, I want to discuss NCLB’s requirements for teachers. When NCLB was enacted in 2002, it mandated the ‘‘highly qualified teacher requirements’’ for the first 

time. Five years after the law’s enactment, more than 90 percent of teachers have 

met their requirements. This is a tremendous success, and the teachers, along with 

the institutions that support them, deserve to be commended. They were told what 

they needed to do, and because they value their jobs and love teaching children, 

they met the mandated requirements. Let me remind you that when Congress debated enacting the highly qualified teacher requirements, they were heralded as the 

way to ensure that all students received a quality education. Five years later, we 

are hearing proposals that would require teachers to jump through an additional 

hoop to prove they are worthy of teaching our nation’s children. Let me be clear: 

NCLB in its current form is burdensome and demoralizing to teachers, and yet they 

continue to teach and continue to adhere to requirements that allow them to teach 

because they have chosen the teaching of children as a career. But it is unacceptable 

to ask them to meet yet another unproven federal requirement. 

Teachers want to be effective. And schools must be places where teachers feel 

they can be effective. We ask too many teachers to teach and students to learn in 

conditions that frankly are shameful—in dilapidated school buildings, without the 

basic materials they need, and in unsafe conditions that are hardly conducive to 

teaching and learning. 

The AFT believes that NCLB’s stated goal of closing the achievement gap cannot 

be fulfilled without improving conditions in schools. Districts should be held responsible and accountable for ensuring adequate facilities, a safe and orderly school environment, and the instructional supports necessary to help students succeed. Additionally, federal, state and local resources must be marshaled to provide competitive 

compensation and other incentives to attract well-qualified teachers to low-performing schools—and keep them there. Finally, meaningful professional development and strong instructional leadership are essential to meeting the goals of 

NCLB. 

Long before NCLB became law, the AFT championed high academic standards, 

disaggregation of data so that we can close the achievement gap, a qualified teacher 

and well-trained paraprofessional in every classroom, and instructional supports for 

struggling students and the public schools they attend. The No Child Left Behind 

Act is only the latest iteration of the federal commitment to our nation’s students. 

The AFT looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen this commitment 

as NCLB is reauthorized. 

Thank you again for the chance to share teachers’ perspectives on the impact of 

NCLB in our nation’s classrooms. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Weaver? 

STATEMENT OF REG WEAVER, NATIONAL EDUCATION 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WEAVER. Good morning, Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller and members of the committee. I am honored here to be here 

representing 3.2 million members of the National Education Association, and we believe the ESEA reauthorization presents us all 

with a unique opportunity to have a renewed national discussion 

about public education. 

And we hope that this unusual joint hearing is a signal that you 

are willing to engage in a larger conversation about what it will 

truly take to achieve what should be our collective mission as a soVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
49

ciety, that a great public school is a basic right, not a luxury, but 

a basic right for every child in America. 

And I would like to focus my remarks today on the big picture: 

What do we expect from public education, and how do we fashion 

our laws to achieve these goals? 

As in 1965, when ESEA was first passed, the federal government 

must step up to ensure that all children, no matter where they live, 

no matter what their family circumstances, will receive the worldclass public education that they deserve. That is the American 

dream, and that should be our focus as we approach this next reauthorization, striving to build a public education system infused 

with innovation and opportunity for all. 

Yet, NEA members are the first to acknowledge that our public 

schools face many challenges. We have too many children on the 

other side of achievement, skills and opportunity gaps. Too many 

of our neediest students are still being taught by uncertified and 

unprepared teachers. 

We have unacceptable gaps in access to after-school programs 

and extended learning time programs, gaps from preventing students from accessing a rich and broad curriculum and significant 

infrastructure and school environment gaps that hamper learning. 

And even more troubling is the dropout crisis in America, with far 

too many low-income and minority students losing hope and seeing 

no way to bridge the gap. 

These gaps are intolerable, they contradict everything that this 

nation stands for, and they impede our future success. Let’s commit 

ourselves to a richer accountability system, with shared responsibility by stakeholders at all levels. Accountability should never be 

about assigning blame; it should be about improving student learning and identifying and addressing and ultimately eliminating the 

gaps. 

To achieve this, we must improve methods of assessing student 

learning. We should employ multiple measures at assessing both 

individual student learning and overall school effectiveness in improving student learning. States should be permitted to design 

richer, more accurate systems based on a wide variety of factors, 

including growth models, that should be weighed in making determinations about whether or not a school is high-performing. 

What about schools having 21st-century curriculums? Fund 

grants to states to develop 21st-century content and authentic assessments that measure 21st-century skills and knowledge. Reform 

secondary schools so that they encourage students to attend college 

and provide coursework to reduce dramatically the need for remediation in college. Adopt a federal graduation for all proposals, including grants to states that agree to eliminate the concept of dropping out of school or that raise the compulsory attendance age. 

Congress should also think broadly about how to ensure quality 

educators in every classroom. Reward states that set a reasonable 

minimum starting salary for teachers and a living wage for support 

professionals working in school districts that accept federal funds. 

NEA recommends that no teacher in America should make less 

than $40,000, and no public school worker should make less than 

$25,000 or a living wage. 

50

Fund grants to help teachers in high-poverty schools pay the fees 

and assess professional development supports to become national 

board certified teachers. Consider other financial incentives to attract and retain quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools, including 

financial bonuses, college student loan forgiveness and housing 

subsidies. Restore a separate funding stream to help states reduce 

class sizes to no more than 15 students and awarding grants to 

states that conduct surveys of teaching and learning conditions and 

agree to address problem areas that are revealed by these surveys. 

My testimony today has focused primarily on the big picture, the 

ideals and principles that should guide debate on the federal role 

in education and frame the context for ESEA reauthorization. If, 

however, Congress should approach reauthorization by looking to 

make minor adjustments to the law rather than consider broader 

policy changes, I have included in my written statement 10 specific 

changes to the law that are of utmost concern to the NEA. 

I also encourage members of the committee to look at NEA’s 

positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization, attached as an appendix to my written statement. The positive agenda reflects the 

fact that while ESEA’s No Child Left Behind has laudable goals—

closing the achievement gaps, raising student achievement for all—

its overly prescriptive and punitive accountability provisions have 

failed to move our nation closer to those goals. It has had many unintended consequences, such as narrowing the curriculum that has 

actually moved us away from those goals. 

We now have an opportunity through this reauthorization to 

make those goals and more a reality. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Weaver follows:]

Prepared Statement of Reg Weaver, President, the National Education 

Association 

Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller, and Members of the Committees: Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak with you today on these very important issues. I 

am honored to be able to represent the views of the 3.2 million members of the National Education Association at this joint hearing. 

NEA is the largest professional association in the country, representing public 

school educators—teachers and education support professionals, higher education 

faculty, educators teaching in Department of Defense schools, students in colleges 

of teacher education, and retired educators across the country. While our membership is diverse, we have a common mission and values based on our belief that a 

great public school is not a luxury, but a basic right for every child. 

Our members go into education for two reasons—because they love children and 

they appreciate the importance of education in our society. We want all students 

to succeed. Our members show up at school every day to nurture children, to bring 

out their full potential, to be anchors in children’s lives, and to help prepare them 

for the 21st century world that awaits them. It is their passion and dedication that 

informs and guides NEA’s work as we advocate for sound public policy that will help 

our members achieve their goals. 

I am delighted that your committees are interested in a larger discussion about 

the role of accountability in our public schools and what we believe our public 

schools ought to provide and accomplish in our society. NEA and our members view 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as an opportunity for a renewed national discussion about public education. You, as our 

elected officials, have an opportunity to lift up this dialogue, to be bold, to embrace 

not only the call for equity in American education, but the demand for innovation 

as well. We hope that this debate will ultimately unite the nation as we strive to 

fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student for success in a diverse, inter-dependent world. 

51

A meaningful and productive debate must begin with a look backwards—at the 

origins of federal involvement in education. We can then look forward in an open 

dialogue about the impact of our changing work on that federal role. As you know, 

the federal role in education was established during the Presidency of Lyndon 

Baines Johnson, when Congress passed President Johnson’s comprehensive package 

of legislation including Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Adult Education Act of 1966. 

These proposals—part of President Johnson’s ‘‘War on Poverty’’—were vehicles 

through which the federal government sought to address inequities in access, opportunities, and quality of public education for poor and minority communities who 

lacked the power to equalize resources flowing to their communities and schools. 

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to 

name the United States Department of Education headquarters building here in 

Washington, DC the Lyndon Baines Johnson building. Passage of that bill serves 

as an important reminder of the volatile and unstable environment facing our nation in 1965. It was in this climate that Congress passed the first ESEA, to address 

the devastating impact of poverty on a child’s educational opportunities and to ensure that every child, no matter where he or she lived, would have the same opportunities to realize the American dream. 

Today, our nation is once again facing volatile times. We are struggling with how 

to resolve international conflicts, to secure our competitiveness in the world’s economy, to ensure that every child will receive the world-class public education that 

he or she deserves, and to provide all children with the tools and resources necessary to be active, engaged, successful citizens of our democracy. 

It is within this context that I would like to offer our views on the principles we 

believe essential and the direction we believe the federal government should move 

in with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. 

What Do We Want From Public Education and What Role Should the Federal Government Play in Achieving These Goals? 

Public education is the gateway to opportunity. All students have the human and 

civil right to a quality public education and a great public school that develops their 

potential, independence, and character. Public education is vital to building respect 

for the worth, dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society and 

is the cornerstone of our republic. Public education provides individuals with the 

skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our representative democracy. 

We believe that the expertise and judgment of education professionals are critical 

to student success. Partnerships with parents, families, communities, and other 

stakeholders are also essential to quality public education and student success. Individuals are strengthened when they work together for the common good. As education professionals, we improve both our professional status and the quality of public education when we unite and advocate collectively. We maintain the highest professional standards, and we expect the status, compensation, and respect due all 

professionals. 

Obviously, the federal government cannot ensure all of these things alone. However, we believe that it should—at a minimum—address disparities impacting the 

quality of education our children receive and the resulting disparities in outcomes. 

How Should We Use Accountability Systems to Remedy Educational Disparities? 

If we agree that public education serves multiple purposes, then we know there 

must be a richer accountability system with shared responsibility by stakeholders 

at all levels for appropriate school accountability. Such an accountability system 

must marry not only accountability for achievement and learning by students, but 

also shared accountability to remedy other gaps in our education system and flaws 

in the current accountability model. 

Opportunity Gaps 

Before I address achievement and skills gaps, I would like to take a moment to 

discuss the opportunity gaps that hinder so many of our nation’s children. We believe that policy makers at all levels should fulfill their collective responsibility to 

remedy these gaps. 

Too many of our neediest students are taught by uncertified and under-prepared 

teachers. At NEA, we are as troubled by that phenomenon as these committees have 

been. We believe that knowledge of content and demonstrated skills in instructional 

methodology are critically important in ensuring that all students receive the kind 

of instruction they deserve. Improving working conditions and student learning conditions is another vital element to attract and retain qualified teachers to hard-tostaff schools. 

52

Other troubling gaps include access to after school programs and extended learning time programs and curriculum gaps preventing students from accessing a rich 

and broad curriculum. For example, many poor and minority communities as well 

as many rural and urban schools do not have access to arts, advanced placement, 

or physical education courses, nor do they have access to innovative curricula such 

as information literacy, environmental education, and financial literacy. 

We also are concerned about significant infrastructure and school environment 

gaps that hamper learning. Students clearly cannot learn in buildings with leaky 

roofs or in classrooms in which one cannot turn on a computer and the lights without blowing a fuse. I agree with Bill Gates that our schools shouldn’t look like they 

did in the 1950s. For example, science labs should not only have Bunsen burners, 

they should have technology to run experiment simulations. Yet, too many of our 

schools do look the same as they did 50 years ago because President Dwight Eisenhower was the last President to make a major investment in school infrastructure—

$1 billion for school facilities. 

Achievement and Skills Gaps 

Now, let me turn to the subject of achievement and skills gaps. They exist, they 

are intolerable, and they impede our future success as a nation. That is why I have 

made closing achievement and skill gaps a top priority for the NEA. We have dedicated millions of dollars to this effort and will continue to do so. I have included 

in this testimony just a few examples of the work we are doing in this area (attached as Appendix I). 

While one of the primary purposes and goals of NCLB is to close achievement 

gaps, I do not believe that has been the outcome. The respected Civil Rights Project 

at Harvard, in a June 2006 report, found that ‘‘federal accountability rules have little to no impact on racial and poverty gaps. The NCLB Act ends up leaving many 

minority and poor students, even with additional educational support, far behind 

with little opportunity to meet the 2014 target.’’

An accountability system designed to raise student achievement and close 

achievement gaps must include the following elements: 

Improved methods to assess student learning, including improving the quality of 

assessments and giving real meaning to NCLB’s ‘‘multiple measures’’ requirement 

The term ‘‘achievement gaps’’ has become synonymous with differences in scores 

on standardized tests between groups of students. And, given the poor quality of 

tests across the country, those test scores reflect little more than a student’s ability 

to regurgitate facts. If we are truly committed to preparing our children to compete 

in the 21st century economy and world, we need to develop and assess a broader 

set of knowledge and skills. 

As NEA member John Meehan, an elementary school teacher from Alton, Illinois, 

has told NEA: 

‘‘Assessments are critical to help identify the academic needs of students, but not 

all students test well. Many are stressed to the point of simply giving up and not 

trying. Accountability is important, yet giving a test is just one method of measuring student learning and growth. I’ve seen so many good students who are learning and growing academically yet who do not test well. I was one of those students. 

To this day, I don’t take tests well, yet I’m able to learn. We need to help students 

learn, not just teach them to take tests.’’

NEA has been engaged for the last four or five years in a collaborative effort with 

businesses and other education groups to attempt to define ‘‘21st century skills.’’ 

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has issued several reports1 along these 

lines as well as a set of principles for ESEA reauthorization (attached as Appendix 

II). These principles state in part: ‘‘Standardized achievement assessments alone do 

not generate evidence of the skill sets that the business and education communities 

believe are necessary to ensure success in the 21st century.’’

We believe the U. S. Department of Education under the previous Secretary made 

a grave error in allowing states simply to ‘‘augment’’ norm-referenced standardized 

tests with a few additional test items aligned with the state content standards. In 

practice, this means that the tests do not measure higher order thinking, analytical 

problem-solving, or synthesis skills—the very skills businesses want and need from 

the workforce. Thus, the early decision to put test administration ahead of an examination of desirable content and skills has had a terrible impact on the current accountability framework. 

We believe the NCLB ‘‘multiple measures’’ language has two distinct meanings, 

and that both are necessary in an accountability framework. First, the term ‘‘multiple measures’’ means multiple indicators of student learning. The research is clear 

that results of one math test and one reading test are insufficient to determine a 

53

child’s achievement and skill levels. Therefore, we must also employ multiple methods to determine what a student knows and can demonstrate. 

We should employ multiple measures in assessing both individual student learning and overall school effectiveness in improving student learning. For example, we 

believe a richer more accurate system that a state should be permitted to design 

could include statewide assessment results at 50 percent, high school graduation 

rates at 25 percent, and one other factor, such as local assessments, at 25 percent. 

Multiple measures systems would provide the public with a more complete picture 

of their local schools and their states’ ability to provide great public schools for every 

child. 

Systemic supports for schools and individual supports and interventions for students 

An accountability system should ensure that all subgroups of students are being 

served in a manner that will eliminate disparities in educational outcomes. Yet, 

doing so must begin with an explicit understanding that every child is unique and 

that the entire system should be accountable for serving each individual child’s 

needs. The tension between approaches is no better illustrated than by comparing 

NCLB accountability, which is focused on student subgroup outcomes, to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which uses an individualized approach to 

accountability through Individualized Education Plans. 

In order to close achievement and skills gaps between groups of children, we must 

acknowledge the need for two simultaneous approaches: changes in the way we provide supports and interventions to the school and changes in the way we provide 

supports and interventions to individual students who need help. NEA’s Positive 

Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization (See Appendix III) sets forth a variety of supports we hope will be included in the next reauthorization of ESEA. 

What Other Roles Can the Federal Government Play in Ensuring a Great Public 

School for Every Child? 

Innovation and graduation for all 

In addition to accountability for student learning, the federal government should 

focus on less tangible, but no less important, differences in the development of students as well-rounded individuals prepared for life after high school graduation. 

Federal policy should support innovative approaches to making students’ educational experience engaging and relevant to them. The world has changed dramatically since enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and 

thus our public schools must also change. Technology has transformed not only our 

economy, but the world’s economy. A wonderful benefit of this transformation is that 

all nations are more globally interdependent. 

Our schools need to reflect the world in which our children live: a world infused 

with a 21st century curriculum. They need to help students become well-rounded 

individuals with skills to compete in a changing world and contribute to the rich, 

diverse societal fabric that makes our country so impressive. Ultimately, an educational experience that is more relevant to a student is going to be more engaging 

and will lead to greater knowledge and skills. A rich, relevant, and challenging experience can help address all students’ needs. It can captivate and challenge our 

gifted students, while also providing a positive influence for students at risk of dropping out or engaging in high-risk behaviors. 

Consider this statement from NEA member Donna Phipps, an art teacher in New 

London, Iowa: 

‘‘I have been an art teacher in three different school districts in the last nine 

years. * * * Arts education and vocational education are the heart and soul of students. They allow students to explore and expand who they are. * * * These programs have been cut to ensure that schools remain off the watch list and the list 

of schools in need of assistance. When art and vocational programs are cut, you 

might as well tell students that the innermost core of who they are no longer matters. * * * Don’t allow NCLB to stifle future artistic exploration and invention.’’

Federal policy should recognize states that have designed a plan to create 21st 

Century Schools using the Framework developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and a plan to advance STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Math) education. We believe the federal government should fund these states 

through grants to develop 21st century content and authentic assessments that 

measure 21st century skills and knowledge. 

In addition, all of our schools, particularly high schools, should encourage as 

many students as possible to attend college and should provide coursework to reduce dramatically the need for remediation in college. At the same time, we also 

must acknowledge the continued need for a major investment in career and technical education programs. And, we need to ensure that high schools take into conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
54

sideration the transition needs of all student populations, not just students with disabilities. In other words, we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that a student’s 

next step after high school will be one he or she takes with the confidence that 

comes from being well-prepared. 

Finally, we urge Congress to adopt a ‘‘graduation for all’’ proposal that combines 

the work of Representative Hinojosa and Senators Bingaman and Murray with 

NEA’s 12-point action plan to address the dropout crisis in America (see Appendix 

IV). For example, we believe Congress should provide funding for grants to states 

that agree to eliminate the concept of ‘‘dropping out’’ of school or that raise the compulsory attendance age. We need graduation centers for 19- and 20-year-olds and 

those who have dropped out of school—a concerted effort to prevent the loss of one 

more child and to help those who already have dropped out. This is not only in 

America’s self-interest to ensure future competitiveness, it is a moral imperative. 

NEA will be providing Congress with more specific recommendations regarding the 

federal role in reinventing our high schools shortly. 

Quality educators in every classroom 

NEA’s Positive Agenda includes a number of proposals to ensure the highest quality educators, many of which were included in Chairman Miller and Chairman Kennedy’s TEACH Act legislation last year. Beyond these proposals, we encourage Congress to think broadly about this important issue. 

For example, we believe Congress should reward states that set a reasonable minimum starting salary for teachers and a living wage for support professionals working in school districts that accept federal funds. We have asked our nation’s educators to take on the most important challenge in ensuring America’s future. Yet, 

we have denied these educators economic security and respect. It is time to end this 

untenable situation. Congress must take a bold step and set that minimum standard. 

NEA would recommend that no teacher in America should make less than 

$40,000 and no public school worker should make less than $25,000 or a living 

wage. According to a recent study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the teaching profession has an average national starting salary of $30,377. 

Meanwhile, computer programmers start at an average of $43,635, public accounting professionals at $44,668, and registered nurses at $45,570.2 Even more shocking 

is that the average salary for full-time paraprofessionals is only $26,313, with a 

wide salary range across job duties. NEA has education support professional members who live in shelters, others who work two and three jobs to get by, and others 

who receive food stamps. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing way to treat 

public servants who educate, nurture, and inspire our children. I would encourage 

you to read their stories.3

We also urge Congress to advance teacher quality at the highest poverty schools 

by providing $10,000 federal salary supplements to National Board Certified Teachers. Congress also should fund grants to help teachers in high poverty schools pay 

the fees and access professional development supports to become National Board 

Certified Teachers. 

In addition, you should consider other financial incentives to attract and retain 

quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools including financial bonuses, college student 

loan forgiveness, and housing subsidies. 

Finally, we believe that the equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers depends not just on decent wages, but more importantly upon the teaching and learning conditions in each school. Therefore, we strongly encourage Congress to restore 

a separate funding stream to help states reduce class sizes. We hope that states accepting such funds would be required to develop a plan to ensure a maximum class 

size of 15 students in every school at every grade level. We understand the challenges inherent in meeting this goal. However, we believe that ensuring the greatest 

possible individualized attention for each student should be as high a priority as ensuring that each student achieves at a certain level. In fact, the two goals are inextricably linked, as research clearly shows the positive impact of small class size on 

student learning. 

In addition to class size reduction, federal policy should award grants to states 

that conduct surveys of teaching and learning conditions across the state and within 

districts and agree to address problem areas revealed by those surveys. North Carolina has been a leader in this effort, and there are initiatives currently underway 

in Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, and South Carolina. We would encourage you to look at the work of the Center for Teaching Quality 

(www.teachingquality.org) with whom the NEA has partnered to expand these initiatives.4

55

Specific Changes to No Child Left Behind 

My testimony today has focused primarily on the big picture—the ideals and principles that should guide debate on the federal role in education and should frame 

the context for NCLB reauthorization. NEA is not alone in highlighting those areas 

that need the most attention. In fact, we have signed onto the Joint Organizational 

Statement on NCLB, which currently has the support of 113 groups representing 

education, civil rights, children’s, disability, religious, and citizens’ organizations. 

The Joint Statement recommends 14 significant, constructive corrections that are 

among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective (See Appendix V). If, however, Congress should approach reauthorization by looking to tweak the law rather 

than consider broader policy changes, we would offer the following suggestions, 

which are of utmost concern to NEA’s members: 

1. Allow states to use a ‘‘growth model’’ as part of the AYP definition (provided 

that state data systems are equipped with individual student identifiers) to track 

and give credit for student growth over time. 

2. Clarify the language about assessments. Tests should be used for diagnostic 

purposes and educators should receive results in a timely manner to inform instructional strategies. Overall, assessment language should require a much more comprehensive look at the quality of assessments for all student populations and their 

true alignment with state content standards. 

3. Encourage 21st century assessment that is web-based and provides timely results useful to teachers, parents, and students. Such assessments should be accessible to all student populations. 

4. Replace current accountability labels (‘‘in need of improvement,’’ ‘‘corrective action,’’ and ‘‘restructuring ’’) with a system that rewards success in closing achievement gaps and focuses on helping schools.5 Semantics and policies should reflect the 

goal of targeting help where it is needed most. Therefore, schools in need of additional supports and interventions should be classified as: priority schools, high priority schools, and highest priority schools. 

5. Mandate multiple measures in the AYP system. Current multiple measure language is not enforced in a way that gives schools and districts credit for success on 

factors other than state standardized assessments, including such measures as 

school district and school assessments, attendance, graduation and drop-out rates, 

and the percent of students who take honors, AP, IB, or other advanced courses. 

6. Extend from one year to a maximum of three years the time for an English 

Language Learner to master English before being tested in English in core content 

areas. This change would be consistent with research findings about the average 

pace for English language acquisition. Students who become proficient in English 

in fewer than three years should be tested in English. However, to expect a nonEnglish speaker to take a math or reading test in a second language prior to achieving proficiency in that language sets that student up for failure. Furthermore, students and schools should not be punished for the failure of the system to make 

available native language assessments. 

7. Include students with disabilities in any accountability system, but allow states 

to use grade level appropriate authentic assessment for special education students 

based on their IEPs. Under IDEA ’04, IEP teams are required to ensure that IEPs 

are aligned with state content standards and state achievement standards. Teams 

are also required to set annual measurable objectives for students with disabilities, 

so that growth in their learning is not only expected, but required. 

8. Provide a separate funding stream for and target public school choice and supplemental services to those students who are not reaching proficiency in reading and 

math. 

9. Improve the quality and oversight of supplemental services to ensure they meet 

the same standards as public schools. 

10. Close two loopholes in the highly qualified teacher definition. NCLB itself exempts some teachers in charter schools from having to be fully licensed or certified. 

The Department of Education’s regulations allow individuals going through alternate route to certification programs to be considered highly qualified for up to three 

years before completing their program. Each of these exemptions should be eliminated. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to 

working closely with your two committees on ESEA reauthorization as we strive to 

ensure every child’s basic right to a great public school. 

APPENDIX I: NEA WORK ON CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAPS

NEA’s work on closing achievement gaps focuses on policy and practice. In the 

policy arena, an NEA grants program funds state affiliates’ efforts to change state 

56

public policy environments to better support members’ efforts to close the gaps. We 

also conduct annual policy summits on the educational status of traditionally underserved student groups. In the practice arena, NEA offers a variety of professional 

development sessions for members, and state and local staff to help them gain the 

knowledge and skills required to close achievement gaps. We also produce a number 

of publications on the achievement of diverse students that serve as training and 

resource documents for affiliates and members. 

State Grants to Close Achievement Gaps 

One of the primary goals of NEA’s work in this area is to secure state-level public 

policies and associated funding to close achievement gaps. Therefore, in 2005-06, we 

initiated a new grants program, NEA Grants to Close Achievement Gaps. 

To date, 22 NEA state affiliates have received grants which they are using to help 

close achievement gaps by: a) securing statewide legislation; b) changing state regulations; c) modifying the scope or content of local contracts/negotiated agreements; 

and/or d) changing state affiliate policy, conducting research, building/enhancing 

coalitions, or conducting member-focused activities to position the affiliate for future 

statewide action to close achievement gaps. Key policy successes using grant funds 

include the following: 

Illinois: Passed two pieces of legislation in 2005-06 that will enhance the skills 

of Illinois educators: A state-of-the-art teacher induction program that will serve 

teachers throughout the state; and a one-year, required coaching experience for new 

school principals. 

Maine: Bargained a contract in the state’s largest local, Portland Public Schools, 

that provides an alternative pay scale based on a professional development ladder 

and incentives for teachers to become more skilled in meeting the needs of the diverse learners. 

Missouri: Embedded language in the state’s professional development guidelines 

that encourages schools to create opportunities for schools to use their examination 

of student work to inform teaching, increase student achievement, and close 

achievement gaps. 

New Mexico: Secured local contract language that requires the ongoing bargaining 

of professional and instructional issues throughout the contract year. 

Nebraska: Passed a constitutional amendment that allows the use of the interest 

from the school lands trust fund, and triggers private endowment money, to pay for 

early childhood programs in public schools. This implements a policy success from 

the 2005-06 legislative session that established an early childhood endowment, 

which will now be funded. 

Ohio: Passed legislation to establish school district committees that will develop 

local strategies for closing achievement gaps. 

Oklahoma: Passed a state law that requires districts to focus professional development activities on closing achievement gaps. 

In addition to these state grants, NEA’s foundation (The National Foundation for 

the Improvement of Education) provides substantial funding to three local affiliates 

(Seattle, Chattanooga, and Milwaukee) to support their work in closing achievement 

gaps. 

Policy Summits on Traditionally Underserved Students 

NEA conducts annual educational summits on the educational status of traditionally underserved student groups. The summits invite practitioners, researchers, and 

community members to share research, examine best practices, and develop recommendations for policy, programs, and practice. NEA distributes summit proceedings and recommendations widely. Summit reports that are currently available 

on www.achievementgaps.org are: • A Report on the Status of Hispanics in Education: Overcoming a History of Neglect • Status of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Education: Beyond the 

‘‘Model Minority’’ Stereotype • The Status of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Education 

Key NEA Publications 

• C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gaps, a resource for classroom 

teachers and other educators, focuses on closing the gaps by examining research on 

working with culturally and linguistically diverse students. The guide looks at the 

research on cultural, language, and economic differences, as well as at unrecognized 

and undeveloped abilities, resilience, and effort and motivation. Copies may be 

downloaded at: www.nea.org/teachexperience/careguide.html 

• Closing Achievement Gaps: An Association Guide, a resource for NEA’s affiliates and leaders, provides them with research and information, tools, ‘‘success stoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
57

ries’’ of state and local affiliates engaged in the work of closing achievement gaps, 

and examples of policy, programs, and practice for closing achievement gaps. Copies 

may be downloaded at: www.achievementgaps.org/nea/Associationguide.pdf 

Training for Leaders, Staff, and Members 

NEA supports state affiliates that are developing teams of trainers who introduce 

members to the research and strategies in C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the 

Achievement Gaps. Nineteen states currently have teams of trainers. 

NEA also provides training and support for public engagement projects in which 

local educators and community stakeholders focus on what they can do to close 

achievement gaps and make sure that all students learn. In addition, NEA offers 

training to educators on how to build family, school, and community partnerships 

to close the achievement gaps. 

APPENDIX II: PARTNERSHP FOR 21ST CENTURY SKILLS

Statement of principles 

21st Century Skills and the Reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA 

The Partnership believes that our organization’s framework for 21st century skills 

is consistent with the metrics and accountability emphasized in the No Child Left 

Behind (NCLB) Act. As congress considers reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), of which NCLB is the current version, we offer 

this set of principles to provide guidance for strengthening the Act in terms of its 

approach to accountability and integrating 21st century skills for today’s students. 

The Case for 21st Century Education: 

The Partnership for 21St Century Skills, representing both business and education, believes success of US education in the 21st century depends upon student 

acquisition of 21st century skills because: 

1. Education is changing. We can no longer claim that the US educational results 

are unparalleled. Students around the world outperform American students on assessments that measure 21st century skills. Today’s teachers need better tools to 

address this growing problem. 

2. Competition is changing internationally. Innovation and creativity no longer set 

U.S. education apart. Innovators around the world rival Americans in breakthroughs that fuel economic competitiveness. 

3. The workplace, jobs, and skill demands are changing. Today every student, 

whether he/she plans to go directly into the workforce or on to a 4-year college or 

trade school, requires 21st century skills to succeed. We need to ensure that all students are qualified to succeed in work and life in this new global economy. 

21st century skills are the skills students need to succeed in work, school, and 

life. They include: 

1. Core subjects (as defined by NCLB) 

2. 21st century content: global awareness; financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and health and wellness awareness 

3. Learning and thinking skills: critical thinking and problem solving skills, communications skills, creativity and innovation skills, collaboration skills, contextual 

learning skills and information and media literacy skills 

4. Information and communications technology (ICT) literacy 

5. Life skills: leadership, ethics, accountability, adaptability, personal productivity, 

personal responsibility, people skills, self-direction, and social responsibility 

Principles Regarding NCLB 

These principles are intended to provide guidance for strengthening NCLB’s approach to accountability and integration of 21st century skills into classrooms. 

Principle 1: Standards 

Standards that reflect content mastery alone do not enable accountability and 

measurement of 21st century skills. And without a comprehensive, valid system of 

measurement, it is impossible to integrate these skills effectively into classroom instruction or monitor whether students have mastered the skills necessary for success in life and work today. The Partnership believes the Act should: 

1. Include language related to the integration of 21st century skills into state 

standards of the three subjects already identified by the Act (math, reading, 

science.) 

2. Incorporate ‘‘21st century skills’’ as part of the definition/description of ‘‘challenging academic content standards.’’

58

3. Funds should be provided to states for development of robust standards that 

incorporate 21st century skills into core subjects, as well as 21st century content 

areas not currently covered by federal testing. 

4. States should be supported in collaborating with other states to develop 21st 

century standards. 

5. States should be supported if they choose to strengthen their standards to improve their students’ abilities to compete in the global economy. 

Principle 2: Assessment 

An expanded approach to assessment, involving measurements that assess 21st 

century skills, is necessary to ensure accountability of schools in the 21st century. 

Most K-12 assessments in widespread use today—whether they be of 21st century 

skills and content or of traditional core subject areas—measure a student’s knowledge of discrete facts, not a student’s ability to apply knowledge in complex situations. Standardized achievement assessments alone do not generate evidence of the 

skill sets that the business and education communities believe are necessary to ensure success in the 21st century. The Partnership recommends the following improvements to ESEA: 

1. The assessment and accountability system should be based on multiple measures of students’ abilities that include 21st century skills. In addition to statewide 

standardized assessments, such measures could include district level assessments, 

local school and classroom formative assessments, and other measures of student 

knowledge. 

1. Assessment of 21st century skills should be listed as an integral part of the 

academic assessments in math, reading, and science. 

2. Reporting requirements should be expanded to include information on whether 

the student is achieving 21st century skills. 

3. Funds should be made available for pilot projects and test beds for the use of 

assessments that measure 21st century skill competencies in high school students. 

4. Funds should be allocated for an international benchmarking project that allows U.S. high school students to be compared to their international peers in terms 

of competencies in 21st century skills. 

Principle 3: Professional Development 

Students cannot master 21st century skills unless their teachers are well trained 

and supported in this type of instruction. The Act should support professional development that prepares teachers and principals to integrate 21st century skills into 

their classrooms and schools. Specifically, the Partnership recommends that: 

1. Funds should be allocated for professional development of 21st century skills 

and establishment of 21st Century Skills Teaching Academies. 

2. Higher education institutions should be supported in identifying and disseminating the best practices for teaching and assessing 21st century skills 

3. Higher education institutions should be encouraged to ensure that all pre-service teachers graduate prepared to employ 21st century teaching and assessment 

strategies in their classrooms. 

Principle 4: Information and communications technology (ICT) literacy 

ICT literacy is the ability to use technology to develop 21st century content, 

knowledge, and skills. Students must be able to use technology to help them learn 

content and skills—so that they know how to learn, think critically, solve problems, 

use information, communicate, innovate, and collaborate. The Partnership recommends that ESEA integrate ICT literacy in the following way: 

1. Maintain and fund the Enhancing Education Through Technology State Grant 

program. 

2. Transition the 8th grade technology literacy requirement into an ICT literacy 

requirement, so that the focus is not on technology competency, but the ability to 

use technology to perform critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, communication and innovation skills. 

Principle 5: Content 

Twenty-first century content areas like global awareness, financial literacy, civic 

literacy, and health awareness are critical to student success in communities and 

workplaces, yet they typically are not emphasized in schools today. The Partnership 

believes the Act should: 

1. Support the teaching of each of these content areas. 

2. For global awareness in particular, support the teaching of multiple languages. 

59

Principle 6: Research & Development 

Targeted, sustained investment in research and development initiatives is required to promote 21st century skills and craft teaching practices and assessment 

approaches that more closely convey and measure what students need to excel in 

the 21st century. Therefore the Partnership recommends: 

1. The Act should provide support for state research and development initiatives, 

within the state university system and/or possibly others, that will identify through 

scientifically-based research the best practices for teaching, attaining and measuring 21st century skills. 

Principle 7: 21st Century Skills Definition 

The Partnership recognizes that the term ‘‘21st century skills’’ is used in a variety 

of contexts. Therefore we recommend: 

1. ESEA should contain a definition of ‘‘21st century skills’’ with a current description of the P21 framework as described earlier in this document. 

APPENDIX III: ESEA—IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE! 

NEA’s Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization: Executive Summary 

This Executive Summary of the Positive Agenda highlights the recommendations 

contained in the full report. The full report, starting on page 8, provides the rationale and additional background for each recommendation. 

Great Public Schools Criteria 

All children have a basic right to a great public school. Our vision of what great 

public schools need and should provide acknowledges that the world is changing and 

public education is changing too. Meeting these Great Public Schools (GPS) criteria 

require not only the continued commitment of all educators, but the concerted efforts of policymakers at all levels of government. We believe these criteria will: 

• Prepare all students for the future with 21st century skills 

• Create enthusiasm for learning and engage all students in the classroom 

• Close achievement gaps and raise achievement for all students 

• Ensure that all educators have the resources and tools they need to get the job 

done 

These criteria form a basis for NEA’s priorities in offering Congress a framework 

for the 2007 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA). The reauthorization process must involve all stakeholders, especially educators. Their knowledge and insights are key to developing sound policies. 

• Quality programs and services that meet the full range of all children’s needs 

so that they come to school every day ready and able to learn. 

Students must have access to programs such as public school pre-K and kindergarten programs; afterschool enrichment and intervention programs; nutrition, including school breakfast and lunch programs; school-based health care and related 

services; counseling and mentoring programs for students and families; safe and efficient transportation; and safe and drug-free schools programs. 

• High expectations and standards with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum 

for all students. 

All students should have access to a rigorous, comprehensive education that includes critical thinking, problem solving, high level communication and literacy 

skills, and a deep understanding of content. Curriculum must be aligned with standards and assessments, and should include more than what can be assessed on a 

paper and pencil multiple choice test. 

• Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning. 

Quality conditions for teaching and learning include smaller class sizes and optimal-sized learning communities; safe, healthy, modern, and orderly schools; up-todate textbooks, technology, media centers, and materials; policies that encourage 

collaboration and shared decisionmaking among staff; and the providing of data in 

a timely manner with staff training in the use of data for decisionmaking. 

• A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce. 

A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce in our schools requires a pool 

of well prepared, highly skilled candidates for all vacancies; quality induction for 

new teachers with mentoring services from trained veteran teachers; opportunities 

for continual improvement and growth for all employees; working conditions in 

which they can be successful; and professional compensation and benefits. 

• Shared responsibility for appropriate school accountability by stakeholders at 

all levels. 

Appropriate accountability means using results to identify policies and programs 

that successfully improve student learning and to provide positive supports, includVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
60

ing resources for improvement and technical assistance to schools needing help. 

Schools, districts, states, and the federal government should be financially accountable to the public, with policymakers accountable to provide the resources needed 

to produce positive results. Accountability systems should be transparent so that 

policies are determined and communicated in an open, consistent, and timely manner. 

• Parental, family, and community involvement and engagement. 

Policies should assist and encourage parents, families, and communities to be actively involved and engaged in their public schools; require professional development 

programs for all educators to include the skills and knowledge needed for effective 

parental and community communication and engagement strategies; provide incentives or require employers to grant a reasonable amount of leave for parents to participate in their children’s school activities. 

• Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding. 

School funding systems must provide adequate, equitable and sustainable funding. Making taxes fair and eliminating inefficient and ineffective business subsidies 

are essential prerequisites to achieving adequacy, equity, and stability in school 

funding. ESEA programs should be fully funded at their authorized levels. 

NEA’s Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization 

A great public school is a basic right of every child. NEA’s priorities for the 2007 

reauthorization of ESEA focus on a broad range of policies to ensure every child access to a great public school. 

The current version of ESEA—the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—is fundamentally flawed. It undermines existing state and school district structures and 

authority, and shifts public dollars to the private sector through supplemental educational services and takeovers of public schools by for-profit companies. 

However, its stated goals—to improve student achievement and help close the 

achievement and skills gaps that exist in our country—are important to NEA and 

our society. We want to retain the positive provisions of ESEA, both those that existed prior to NCLB and those that were added by NCLB, in the 2007 reauthorization. 

Congress must shift from the current focus that labels and punishes schools with 

a flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system and severely underfunded mandates 

to one that includes common-sense flexibility and supports educators in implementing programs that improve student learning, reward success, and provide 

meaningful assistance to schools most in need of help. 

The following five priorities are crucial to realizing the goals of improving student 

achievement, closing the achievement gaps, and providing every child a quality 

teacher. 

• Accountability That Rewards Success and Supports Educators to Help Students 

Learn 

• Accountability should be based upon multiple measures of student learning and 

school success. 

• States should have the flexibility to design systems that produce results, including deciding in which grades to administer annual statewide tests. 

• States should have the flexibility to utilize growth models and other measures 

of progress that assess student achievement over time, and recognize improvement 

on all points of the achievement scale. 

• Growth model results should be used as a guide to revise instructional practices 

and curriculum, to provide individual assistance to students, and to provide appropriate professional development to teachers and other educators. They should not 

be used to penalize schools or teachers. 

• Assessment systems must be appropriate, valid, and reliable for all groups of 

students, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners, and 

provide for common-sense flexibility for assessing these student subgroups. 

• States, school districts, and schools should actively involve teachers and other 

educators in the planning, development, implementation, and refinement of standards, curriculum, assessments, accountability, and improvement plans. 

• Accountability systems and the ensuing use of the results must respect the 

rights of school employees under federal, state, or local law, and collective bargaining agreements. 

• Accountability systems should provide support and assistance, including financial support for improvement and technical assistance to those schools needing help, 

with targeted assistance to those schools and districts most in need of improvement. 

• Assessment and accountability systems should be closely aligned with high 

standards and classroom curricula, provide timely data to help improve student 

61

learning, and be comprehensive and flexible so that they do not result in narrowing 

of the curricula. • A federal grant program should be created to assist schools in ensuring all students access to a comprehensive curriculum. • A comprehensive accountability system must appropriately apply to high 

schools without increasing dropout rates. • Standards and assessments must incorporate the nature of work and civic life 

in the 21st century: high level thinking, learning, and global understanding skills, 

and sophisticated information, communication, and technology literacy competencies. • Schools that fail to close achievement gaps after receiving additional financial 

resources, technical assistance, and other supports should be subject to supportive 

interventions. • If certain elements of the current AYP system are maintained, specific flaws 

must be corrected. These corrections include: providing more than one year to implement improvement plans before subjecting schools or districts to additional sanctions; designating schools or districts as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ only when the 

same subgroup of students fails to make AYP in the same subject for at least two 

consecutive years; targeting school choice and supplemental educational services 

(SES) to the specific subgroups that fail to make AYP; providing SES prior to providing school choice; and ensuring that SES providers serve all eligible students and 

utilize only highly qualified teachers. • Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement • Restore the Class Size Reduction program that existed prior to NCLB to provide 

an optimum class size of 15 students. • Schools should receive federal support—through both direct grants and tax subsidies—for school modernization to accommodate smaller classes. • Quality Educators in Every Classroom and School • Provide states and school districts with the resources and technical assistance 

to create an effective program of professional development and professional accountability for all employees. • Revise the ESEA Title II Teacher Quality State Grant program to ensure alignment of federally funded teacher professional development with the National Staff 

Development Council (NSDC) standards. • Provide federally funded salary enhancements for teachers who achieve National Board Certification, with a smaller salary incentive for teachers who complete 

this rigorous process and receive a score, but do not achieve certification. • Create a grant program that provides additional compensation for teachers with 

specific knowledge and skills who take on new roles to assist their colleagues. • Expand opportunities for education support professionals to broaden and enhance their skills and knowledge, including compensation for taking additional 

courses or doing course work for advanced degrees. 

• Provide federal grants that encourage districts and schools to assist new teachers by pairing them with an experienced mentor teacher in a shared classroom. 

• Provide financial incentives—both direct federal subsidies and tax credits—for 

retention, relocation, and housing for teachers and support professionals who work 

in schools identified as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ or high-poverty schools, and stay 

in such schools for at least five years. 

• Provide hard-to-staff schools with an adequate number of well trained administrators and support professionals, including paraeducators, counselors, social workers, school nurses, psychologists, and clerical support. 

• Provide paraeducators who are involuntarily transferred to a Title I school and 

who have not met the highly qualified standard with adequate time to meet the requirement. 

• Grant reciprocity for paraeducators who meet the highly qualified standard 

when they move to another state or district, with different qualifications. 

• Revise the definition of highly qualified teachers to recognize state licensure/

certification, eliminate nonessential requirements that create unnecessary obstacles, 

and eliminate loopholes in the scope of coverage. 

• Provide teachers who may not meet the highly qualified standard by the current deadlines, due to significant implementation problems, with assistance and additional time to meet the requirement. 

• Students and Schools Supported By Active and Engaged Parents, Families, and 

Communities 

• Provide programs that encourage school-parent compacts, signed by parents, 

that provide a clearly defined list of parental expectations and opportunities. 

• Provide programs and resources to assist in making schools the hub of the community. 

62

• Expand funding for the Parent Information and Resource Centers (PIRC) program in ESEA. • Include as a requirement for professional development programs funded 

through ESEA, training in the skills and knowledge needed for effective parental 

and family communication and engagement strategies. • Provide incentives or require employers to provide parents a reasonable amount 

of leave to participate in their children’s school activities. • Resources to Ensure a Great Public School for Every Child • Fully fund ESEA programs at their authorized levels. • Enforce Sec. 9527(a) of NCLB, which prevents the federal government from requiring states and school districts to spend their own funds—beyond what they receive from the federal government—to implement federal mandates. • Protect essential ESEA programs by: • Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for school improvement programs 

to assist districts and schools • Providing adequate funding to develop and improve assessments that measure 

higher order thinking skills • Establishing a trigger whereby any consequences facing schools falling short of 

the new accountability system are implemented only when Title I is funded at its 

authorized level • Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for supplemental education services 

and school choice, if these mandates remain in the law • Providing adequate funding to develop and improve appropriate assessments for 

students with disabilities and English Language Learner students • Providing technical assistance to schools to help them use money more effectively • Providing adequate funding to assist state and local education agencies in administering assessments, and collecting and interpreting data in a timely manner 

so it can be useful to educators • Important children’s and education programs outside of ESEA, including child 

nutrition, Head Start, IDEA, children’s health, child care, and related programs, 

must be adequately funded. 

NEA’s Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization 

PART ONE: Great Public Schools Criteria 

All children have a basic right to a great public school. Our vision of what great 

public schools need and should provide acknowledges that the world is changing and 

public education is changing too. Fulfilling these Great Public Schools (GPS) criteria 

require not only the continued commitment of all educators, but the concerted efforts of policymakers at all levels of government. We believe these criteria will: • Prepare all students for the future with 21st century skills • Create enthusiasm for learning and engaging all students in the classroom 

• Close achievement gaps and increase achievement for all students 

• Ensure that all educators have the resources and tools they need to get the job 

done 

These criteria form a basis for NEA’s priorities in offering Congress a framework 

for the 2007 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The 

reauthorization process must involve all stakeholders, especially educators. Genuine 

involvement taps a breadth of knowledge, insights, and experiences that form the 

basis of sound educational programs and fosters commitment and success. 

• Quality programs and services that meet the full range of all children’s needs 

so that they come to school every day ready and able to learn. 

• High expectations and standards with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum 

for all students. 

• Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning. 

• A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce. 

• Shared responsibility for appropriate school accountability by stakeholders at 

all levels. 

• Parental, family, and community involvement and engagement. 

• Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding. 

The Details of the Great Public Schools Criteria 

• Quality programs and services that meet the full range of all children’s needs 

so that they come to school every day ready and able to learn. 

Children need a broad array of programs so they are ready to learn every day 

they are in school. Students must have access to programs such as public school preK and kindergarten; afterschool enrichment and intervention; nutrition, including 

school breakfast and lunch; school-based health care and related services; counseling 

63

and mentoring for students and families; safe and efficient transportation; and safe 

and drug-free schools. 

Brief descriptions of each area follow: 

Preschool 

Numerous studies have shown that high quality early care experiences, both 

classroom practices and teacher-child relationship, enhance children’s abilities to 

take advantage of the learning opportunities in school. 

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences notes that much of the 

human brain develops in the first five years of life and a stimulating environment 

during this stage changes the very physiology of the brain. High quality early care 

leads to the development of more advanced learning skills in language and math, 

as well as social skills. 

NEA supports polices and resources for quality, voluntary, universal preschool 

and pre-K programs that provide a safe environment, well prepared teachers, small 

class size, interactive relationships among teachers and children, emphasis in both 

social and learning skills, and that involve parents. 

Kindergarten 

Kindergarten is a year of transition from home and early childhood education programs to formal school programs. At least a half-day of kindergarten is a near-universal experience for American children, with nearly 98 percent of youngsters attending, Some children have access to full-day, half-day, and alternate-day programs 

while others have access to only one of these options. Recent research has shown 

that children who attend full-day kindergarten are better prepared to succeed in the 

first grade and beyond. 

NEA supports policies and resources that provide high quality full-day kindergarten programs for all children. 

Afterschool 

Afterschool hours are the peak time for juvenile crime and risky behaviors such 

as alcohol and drug use. Most experts agree that afterschool programs offer a 

healthy and positive alternative. These programs keep kids safe, improve academic 

achievement and help relieve the stresses on today’s working families. They can 

serve as important youth violence prevention and intervention strategies. Yet, every 

day, at least eight million children and youth are left alone and unsupervised once 

the school bell rings at the end of the school day. 

NEA supports policies and resources to ensure all children and youth access to 

high quality afterschool programs that both provide a safe environment and help 

improve student learning. 

Nutrition 

While the National School Lunch program provides nutritionally balanced, lowcost, or free lunches to more than 28 million children each school day, too many 

schoolchildren still lack access to a hot breakfast or other adequate nutrition. Malnourished children have impaired concentration and greater challenges in learning. 

In addition, improving the nutritional quality of school lunches and other meals can 

promote healthy eating habits in children. 

NEA supports expanding child nutrition programs and enhancing their nutritional quality to ensure that all children have access to healthy, nutritious meals 

at school. 

Health Needs 

In response to a need for student health services, a number of communities have 

established school-based health centers (SBHCs). The more than 1,000 SBHCs nationwide are popular as providers of affordable, convenient, confidential, and comprehensive services at the school. These programs overcome barriers that discourage 

adolescents from utilizing health services (such as lack of confidentiality, inconvenient appointment times, prohibitive costs, and general apprehension about discussing personal health problems). Unfortunately too many children, especially children from low-income families, lack access to such services. 

NEA supports policies and resources that enable communities to expand the number and the quality of school-based health centers so that all children have access 

to medical care, counseling, health education, and preventive services provided in 

a familiar and ‘‘teen-friendly’’ setting on or near school grounds. Such services 

should be provided by health professionals who are experienced and trained to work 

with adolescents. 

64

Counseling 

Counseling programs staffed by professional school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers help all students in the areas of student learning, 

personal/social development and career development, ensuring that students become 

productive, well-adjusted adults. Effective counseling programs are important to the 

school climate and in improving student achievement. Too often, however, these professionals have unreasonable caseloads, but counselors are expected to attend to the 

individual needs of students. In addition, many counselors are serving as testing coordinators, diverting their time away from meeting students’ needs. The American 

School Counselor Association recommends a counselor-to-student ratio of 1:250; the 

National Association of School Psychologists recommends a school psychologist-tostudent ratio of 1:1,000; and the School Social Work Association of America recommends a social worker-to-student ratio of 1:400 for an effective program. 

NEA supports policies and resources to states and school districts enabling them 

to achieve this important goal. 

Mentoring Programs 

Mentoring programs for students are an important resource for students and their 

parents or guardians. Parents are the most important influence on their children’s 

lives. But parents often need help. Mentoring offers parents the support of a caring 

one-to-one relationship that fosters their child’s healthy growth. 

Mentoring programs have been shown to contribute to better attitudes toward 

school, better school attendance, and a better chance of going on to higher education. They also show promise in preventing substance abuse and appear to reduce 

other negative youth behaviors. 

NEA supports policies and resources to expand programs, such as the mentoring 

program in Title IV of ESEA to provide mentoring services to all students who 

would benefit. 

Transportation 

Every school day, millions of parents and their children rely on the ‘‘yellow’’ school 

bus to provide safe and dependable transportation to and from school and schoolrelated activities. In fact, according to the National Safety Council, school buses are 

the safest form of ground transportation—40 times safer than the family car. 

Most states, except for the transportation of students with special needs, have no 

mandate to provide students with transportation to or from school. Even in states 

where transportation of students to and from school is required by law, distances 

set forth in the law fail to take account of hazardous pedestrian crossings, and funding shortfalls create problems in maintaining an adequate school transportation program. 

As a result of budget constraints, many schools are seeking alternative transportation services for students. NEA agrees with the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services that the safest way to transport children 

to and from school and school-related activities is in a school bus. 

NEA supports policies and resources that ensure all students have access to needed transportation in safe and modern school buses, and that all buses be provided 

with radios to ensure communication between drivers, schools, and other authorities 

in case of emergencies. 

School Climate 

A positive school climate encourages positive behaviors with rewards for meeting 

expectations and clear consequences for violating rules. Research shows that schools 

with a positive and welcoming school climate increase the likelihood that students 

succeed academically, while protecting them from engaging in high risk behaviors 

like substance abuse, sexual activities, and violence. 

Most students and teachers report feeling safe in their schools, yet a 2002 study 

of school safety revealed that about one-fourth would avoid a specific place at school 

out of fear that someone might hurt or bully them. More than one-quarter (27%) 

of teachers in middle and high schools reported that the behavior of some students 

kept them from instructional activities during significant amounts of the school day. 

NEA supports policies and resources, including safe and drug-free schools programs, to assist all schools in creating and maintaining safe and disciplined school 

sites. 

• High expectations and standards with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum 

for all students. 

NEA supports policies and resources to ensure all students access to a rigorous, 

comprehensive education. A rigorous curriculum, as defined by NEA, means that 

critical thinking, problem solving, and high level communication and literacy skills 

65

are included, as well as deep understandings of content. Rigor includes life skills 

and dispositions that support lifelong learning, such as persistence and thoroughness. Rigor does not mean simply a certain number of courses, more difficult 

courses, more time in class, or more test preparation. 

NEA is not alone in calling for a broader definition of rigor. The Partnership for 

21st Century Skills, a broad-based coalition of education organizations and major 

businesses states: ‘‘Rigor must reflect all the results that matter for all high school 

graduates today. Today’s graduates need to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and 

effective communicators, who are proficient in both core subjects and new, 21st century content and skills.’’

A comprehensive curriculum includes social skills, arts, health, physical education, a range of content understandings, and opportunities to practice and develop 

creative and divergent thinking. 

The curriculum must be aligned with standards and assessments, and should include more than what can be assessed on a paper and pencil multiple choice test. 

NEA continues to advocate the use of a variety of assessments aligned to the 

standards and appropriate to the purposes for which they are used. Assessment systems should include classroom assessments and multiple measures rather than a 

single standardized test. Increasingly, both educational researchers and the corporate world are concerned that teaching, focused on what is most conveniently tested, limits our students’ ability to succeed in school and life, and threatens our nation’s competitiveness globally. 

Students held to high expectations need access to instructional systems, strategies, and programs that enable them to be successful learners. Teachers need flexibility in programs and a range of materials and tools to support their work in recognizing and addressing the diversity of students, and to enable them to reach all students. 

• Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning. 

Quality conditions of teaching and learning include smaller class sizes; optimalsized learning communities so that students can receive individualized attention; 

safe, healthy, modern, and orderly schools; up-to-date textbooks, technology, media 

centers, and materials; policies that encourage collaboration among staff, with increased planning time and shared decisionmaking; and the providing of data in a 

timely manner, with staff training in the use of data for decisionmaking about student instructional plans, educational programs, and resource allocations. 

Class size has a direct impact on student achievement. The preponderance of research evidence indicates that achievement increases as class size is reduced. Smaller classes allow more time for teaching and more individualized attention for students. Studies have shown that smaller class size provides lasting benefits, especially for minority and low-income students, and for students with exceptional 

needs. Students in smaller classes in the early grades (such as K-3) continue to reap 

academic benefits through middle and high school. 

NEA supports policies and resources to achieve a maximum class size of 15 students in regular programs, and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs, including children with disabilities and English Language Learners. 

• A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce. 

NEA believes all newly hired teachers must have received strong preparation in 

both content and how to teach that content to children. 

A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce in our schools requires a pool 

of well prepared, highly skilled candidates for all vacancies, and high quality opportunities for continual improvement and growth for all employees. 

The federal government should fund programs that provide financial incentives 

for qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession, and for collaboratives between school districts, teacher unions and institutions of higher education for the 

development of programs that would facilitate the recruitment and retention of a 

qualified diverse group of teacher candidates. 

All newly hired teachers should receive quality induction and mentoring services 

from trained veteran teachers, to ensure a successful experience in the first years 

and decrease the turnover of new teachers. 

Veteran classroom teachers must be intimately involved in every phase of the 

training and preparation of teacher candidates. A high quality professional development program, designed by school-based practitioners and supported by higher education faculty, should be a right of all teachers and other educators, including 

paraeducators, pupil support personnel, and administrators. High quality and effective professional development should follow the guidelines and standards of the National Staff Development Council. 

66

Additionally, there should be effective processes in place to identify and train 

teachers as leaders, so they can lead school improvement efforts, create collaborative 

teacher communities, and build momentum for change among their colleagues. 

Peer assistance should be available to help struggling teachers improve professional practice, retain promising teachers, and build professional knowledge to improve student success. 

To attract, retain, and support the highest quality teachers, paraeducators, and 

other school employees, schools must have a healthy environment, supportive climate, and working conditions that support success, and provide professional compensation and benefits. 

Too many teachers leave the profession because of poor working conditions. All 

educators—teachers, paraeducators, and others—should have appropriate workloads/caseloads that enable them to provide the individual attention their students’ 

diverse needs require. Additionally, programs should promote teacher collaboration 

and empowerment, and foster effective principal leadership. • Shared responsibility for appropriate school accountability by stakeholders at 

all levels. 

States and schools are accountable in how they educate children. Flawed accountability systems are destructive. Sound school accountability systems must be effective and fair; ensure high levels of student achievement, excellent teacher practices 

and continual improvement; be based on multiple measures of success; use multiple 

assessment tools and sources of data; reflect growth over time; and be appropriate, 

valid, and reliable for all groups of students, including students with disabilities and 

English Language Learners. 

Accountability results should be used to identify policies and programs that successfully improve student learning; surface and diagnose problem areas; and, provide positive supports, including resources for improvement and technical assistance 

to schools needing help. 

Teachers, other educators, and parents should have an active role in the development, implementation, and evaluation of accountability systems at all levels. Policymaking should incorporate existing processes, including collective bargaining. Improvements in instruction and quality can be better accomplished through bargaining and other forms of collective joint decisionmaking. 

We support financial accountability to the public from schools, districts, states, 

and the federal government, as well as accountability from policymakers to provide 

the resources needed for positive results. 

Finally, we propose a transparent accountability system for policymakers so that 

policies are determined and communicated in a consistent and timely manner. 

Too often, especially at the federal level, how and why decisions affecting states 

and school districts are made is unclear. Critical policy decisions are often not made 

in a timely manner, and once decided are not always made public or readily available. 

• Parental, family, and community involvement and engagement. 

NEA supports policies to assist and encourage parents, families, and communities 

to be actively involved and engaged in their public schools. 

Research demonstrates that family education programs help to enhance the likelihood of parental involvement. For example, programs that illustrate to parents their 

role in helping their children learn to read encourage early and sustained literacy. 

In addition, for parents who are unfamiliar with the educational system in the 

United States, parental education helps to enhance their understanding of what is 

expected of them and their children in our public schools, how to access assistance, 

and how to become engaged in their children’s schools. 

Using schools as a community hub brings together public and private organizations to offer a range of services, assistance, and opportunities that strengthen and 

support schools, communities, families, and students—before, during, and after 

school. 

We support policies and resources to expand and improve such community 

schools. 

Positive relationships between families, communities, and schools are of central 

importance to students’ success. Educators need opportunities to build the skills 

needed to cultivate these relationships. 

NEA supports policies encouraging the building of skills and knowledge needed 

for effective parental and community communication and engagement strategies in 

professional development programs for all educators. 

Time and availability are two obvious challenges to parental involvement. Employers should receive incentives or be required by policymakers to allow parents 

to take a reasonable amount of leave to participate in their children’s school activities. 

67

In addition, many parents have strong needs for leadership, communication, and 

decisionmaking skills. Employer and community-based organizations often have 

skill-building resources that can be tapped to help teach such skills to employees. 

Employers would see that engaged and knowledgeable parents are an asset to public 

education and be reminded that quality public education is an asset to business. • Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding. 

Schools must have the necessary resources to fulfill their broad and growing responsibilities in a changing and increasingly complex society. 

Schools are held accountable for helping students to meet federal and state standards, while also fulfilling myriad other requirements and expectations placed on 

them by policymakers. To ensure that the necessary resources are available when 

and where needed, school funding systems must provide adequate, equitable and 

sustainable funding. 

Adequate funding, at the very minimum, is the level of resources needed to ensure 

that all students have a realistic opportunity to meet federal and state performance 

standards, taking into account the varied needs of different types of students. ‘‘Adequacy’’ requires a determination of the appropriate amount of resources needed to 

meet all students’ needs to obtain a quality education. 

NEA supports fully funding ESEA programs at their authorized levels, to ensure 

that states and schools have adequate funding for the programs and services needed 

to help close achievement gaps and improve student learning for all. 

While less than 10 percent of overall funding for K-12 public education comes 

from the federal government, ESEA funding for urban, rural, and other school districts with concentrated poverty and hard-to-staff schools that rely heavily on these 

supplemental federal funds, is especially crucial. 

School funding that is merely adequate in the aggregate is insufficient. School 

funding formulas must also be equitable for both students and taxpayers. For students, equitable funding means that the quality of their education is not dependent 

on the wealth of the school district where a child lives and attends school. For taxpayers, equity in school funding means that the tax effort across all districts should 

be equal to produce the same level of funding. ESEA’s Title I program has built into 

its funding formulas incentives for states to increase their education funding effort 

and steer funds to where they are needed the most. Adequacy and equity can be 

accomplished with additional incentives to states and districts to reduce financial 

disparities. 

To function efficiently, while also meeting the increased demands being placed on 

them, schools need funding streams that are stable and sustainable. Year-to-year 

fluctuations in available resources and last-minute uncertainties hamper school districts’ efforts to plan, to hire, and to retain highly qualified and experienced educators, to keep class sizes small, and to provide other essential resources, ranging 

from curriculum materials to transportation. 

Making taxes fair and eliminating inefficient and ineffective business subsidies 

are essential prerequisites to achieving adequacy, equity, and stability in school 

funding. 

More than 90 percent of funding for public schools comes from state and local governments. Ultimately the most important questions regarding funding for schools 

are decided at the state and local levels. The best way to maintain America’s competitive edge in this global, knowledge-based economy is to invest in our ability to 

produce and manage knowledge. That means investing in education. Economic models show clearly that, dollar for dollar, investing in public education increases the 

economy more than equal amounts of tax cuts and subsidies. To date, however, too 

many lawmakers and policymakers believe that tax cuts and development subsidies 

are the best way to step-up the economy. Thus we see state tax structures that are 

increasingly regressive and that produce structural deficits. Similarly, state economic development policies too often emphasize inefficient and ineffective corporate 

subsidies. Together, these undermine state and local capacity to invest adequately 

in public education. Should these trends continue, America’s competitive edge in the 

global, knowledge-based economy will continue to erode. 

PART TWO: NEA’s Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization 

A GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOL IS A BASIC RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD

NEA’s priorities for the 2007 reauthorization of ESEA focus on a broad range of 

policies, as articulated in this report, to ensure every child access to a great public 

school. 

ESEA, originally passed on April 9, 1965, was a key component of the ‘‘War on 

Poverty’’ launched by President Lyndon Johnson. Title I provided resources to meet 

the needs of educationally deprived children through compensatory education proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
68

grams for the poor. President Johnson said it would help ‘‘five million children of 

poor families overcome their greatest barrier to progress: poverty.’’

The original ESEA was authorized through 1970. Congress has since rewritten—

or reauthorized—this landmark law eight times. The No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB) of 2001 is the most recent version. Since the law’s inception in 1965, NEA 

has strongly supported ESEA and its programs: Title I; professional development; 

afterschool; safe and drug-free schools; bilingual education; and others. 

The 1994 ESEA reauthorization—called the Improving America’s Schools Act 

(IASA)—shifted the focus of Title I from providing financial support to schools with 

high concentrations of children in poverty, to standards-based reform. (For a more 

detailed history of ESEA see Appendix A.) 

The current version of ESEA—the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—is fundamentally flawed. It undermines existing state and school district structures and 

authority, and shifts public dollars to the private sector through supplemental educational services and takeovers of public schools by for-profit companies. 

However, its stated goals—to improve student achievement and help close the 

achievement and skills gaps which exist in our country—are important to NEA and 

our society. NCLB represents a fundamental shift in ESEA that greatly expanded 

the federal role in education. The 1994 ESEA required all states to develop content 

and performance standards in reading and math and to measure the progress of student achievement in Title I schools through adequate yearly progress reports. 

NCLB, however, expanded the law’s requirements to all schools, regardless of 

whether they received federal funds, and thus affects every public school in America. 

It dictates to states how they measure student achievement and the timelines 

they must use; establishes the requirement that 100 percent of all students be proficient in reading and math by the 2013—14 school year; mandates certain consequences or sanctions for failure to meet AYP; and for the first time, requires that 

both teachers and paraeducators meet a federally defined standard of highly qualified. Under Title I alone, it establishes 588 federal requirements for states and 

schools. 

The law’s principal flaws revolve around its one-size-fits-all system for measuring 

student achievement and school system success, and its rigid definitions of highly 

qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. Further, the law is incomplete because it 

fails to provide the additional tools and supports educators and students need to accomplish the law’s stated goals of improving student achievement and closing the 

achievement gaps. To address the law’s stated goals, Congress must: 1) substantially improve the measurement system for adequate yearly progress to reduce reliance on statewide paper and pencil tests and to recognize growth and progress over 

time; and 2) provide states, schools, and students with programs and resources to 

support their work in improving the level and quality of all students’ skills and 

knowledge. 

We want to retain the positive provisions of ESEA—both those that existed prior 

to NCLB and those that were added by NCLB—in the 2007 reauthorization. These 

positive provisions include: targeting funds in both Title I and other programs to 

schools with the highest concentrations of students in poverty; an increased focus 

on closing achievement gaps through disaggregated student achievement data; 

grants for school improvement; strengthened rights of homeless children to access 

public education; protection of school employees’ rights during school improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring; strengthened parental involvement requirements 

in Title I; requirements for high quality professional development for teachers; help 

for small, high-poverty rural schools; and programs for dropout prevention, mathscience education, safe and drug-free schools, mentoring, school counseling, and 

school libraries. Unfortunately, while written into the law, virtually all of these programs are severely underfunded. 

Congress must shift from the current focus, that labels and punishes schools with 

a flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system and severely underfunded mandates 

to one that includes common-sense flexibility and supports educators in implementing programs that improve student learning, reward success, and provide 

meaningful assistance to schools most in need of help. 

The following five priorities are crucial to realizing the goals of improving student 

achievement, closing the achievement gaps, and providing every child a quality 

teacher. 

• Accountability That Rewards Success And Supports Educators To Help Students Learn 

• Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement 

• Quality Educators In Every Classroom And School 

69

• Students And Schools Supported By Active And Engaged Parents, Families, 

And Communities • Resources To Ensure A Great Public School For Every Child 

A growing chorus of voices is calling for corrections to this law. An alliance of 75 

national organizations—including the NAACP, the Children’s Defense Fund, the 

American Association of School Administrators, the National Council of Churches, 

the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Council for Exceptional Children—representing education, civil rights, special education, various religions, children, and citizens have joined together through the Forum on Educational 

Accountability in proposing 14 specific changes to the law. Other education groups 

that have issued policy proposals for amendments to the law include the National 

School Boards Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National 

Association of Secondary School Principals. 

The National Governors Association (NGA) in March 2006 issued its proposals for 

change. The NGA statement notes that, ‘‘Maximum flexibility in designing state accountability systems, including testing, is critical to preserve the amalgamation of 

federal funding, local control of education, and state responsibility for system-wide 

reform.’’

The National Conference of State Legislatures in February 2005 issued a report 

calling on Congress to make substantial changes to the law. The report states: 

‘‘Administrators at the state, local and school levels are overwhelmed by AYP because it holds schools to overly prescriptive expectations, does not acknowledge differences in individual performance, does not recognize significant academic progress 

because it relies on absolute achievement targets, and inappropriately increases the 

likelihood of failure for diverse schools.’’

I. Accountability That Rewards Success and Supports Educators To Help Students 

Learn 

The current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) model is a fundamentally flawed 

system that fails to accurately measure student learning and school success. Schools 

are held accountable based solely on a one-day snapshot of student performance on 

a standardized reading test and a standardized math test. 

The law’s AYP model uses overly narrow measures and contains unrealistic 

timelines for school improvement. It results in improperly labeling many schools as 

low-performing and imposing punishments on them. AYP holds all schools accountable based solely on how many students reach a specific point on the achievement 

scale on one standardized test in each of two subjects—reading and math. 

It fails to account for a school’s results in improving student achievement over 

time. Instead of measuring each individual student’s growth over time, it compares, 

for example, the snapshot of test scores for this year’s fourth-grade class to the 

snapshot of test scores for last year’s fourth-grade class, a different group of students with different strengths and different weaknesses. 

It fails to recognize that all children can learn, but all children do not learn at 

the same rate. It fails to include fair, valid, and reliable measures for students with 

special needs, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners. 

It fails to differentiate between those schools that are truly struggling to close 

achievement gaps and those that fall short on only one of 37 federally mandated 

criteria. Finally, it fails to include a comprehensive set of measures for school quality and student learning, focusing only on one statewide standardized test in two 

subjects. 

Consequently, it overidentifies thousands of schools as low-performing. Several 

studies project that well over 90 percent of public schools will eventually fail to meet 

federal standards and be subjected to severe sanctions. This overidentification hampers efforts to target limited resources to the neediest schools and students. Further, the focus on overidentification and accompanying sanctions diverts attention 

from assistance to states, districts, and schools that need to develop systemic improvement plans. Finally, NCLB’s mandated sanctions are not research-based, divert money away from classroom services, and generally have not improved student 

achievement. 

NEA supports the following policies that would meet the Great Public Schools criteria for stakeholders at all levels to share appropriate accountability and for high 

expectations and standards with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum for all 

students: 

School accountability should be a measurement beyond just scores on statewide 

assessments. 

Accountability systems should be based upon multiple measures, including: local 

assessments, teacher-designed classroom assessments collected over time, portfolios 

and other measures of student learning, graduation/dropout rates, in-grade retenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
70

tion, percent of students taking honors/advanced classes and Advanced Placement 

exams, and college enrollment rates. States should have the flexibility to design systems that produce results, including deciding in which grades to administer annual 

statewide tests, rather than being subject to a rigid federal one-size-fits-all system. 

An improved accountability system should allow states the flexibility to utilize 

growth models and other measures of progress that assess student learning over 

time, and recognize improvement on all points of the achievement scale. Growth 

models should use measurement results as a guide to revise instructional practices 

and curriculum, to provide individual assistance to students, and to provide appropriate professional development to teachers and other educators. They should not 

be used to penalize teachers or schools. 

NEA is working with the Forum on Educational Accountability and a panel of experts in assessment to develop in greater detail models of effective systems that utilize multiple measures and growth models. 

Assessment systems must be appropriate, valid, and reliable for all groups of students, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners. 

Appropriate systems provide for common-sense flexibility in assessing these student subgroups, including more closely aligning ESEA assessment requirements 

with students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) under IDEA, and eliminating arbitrary federal limits on the number of students who may be given assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards. For ELL students, we 

propose exempting from AYP their scores on reading and math tests not given in 

their native language for at least their first two years in the United States, while 

continuing to require that their progress in reaching English language proficiency 

be measured through annual assessments. 

Policies should ensure that states, school districts, and schools actively involve 

teachers and other educators in the planning, development, implementation, and refinement of standards, curriculum, assessments, accountability, and improvement 

plans. Their training and experience represent a valuable resource in designing programs that work for students. Accountability systems and the use of the ensuing 

results must also respect the rights of school employees under federal, state, or local 

law, and collective bargaining agreements. 

Accountability systems should provide support and assistance, including financial 

support for improvement and technical assistance to schools needing help, target assistance to schools and districts most in need of improvement, and provide realistic 

timelines for making improvements. 

In addition, accountability systems must be sensitive to the specific needs of rural 

and urban schools. 

Assessment and accountability systems should be closely aligned with high standards and classroom curricula, provide timely data to guide teaching strategies and 

help improve student learning, and be comprehensive and flexible so that they do 

not result in narrowing of the curricula. 

As a result of the growing emphasis on achieving AYP and the need to reallocate 

resources toward accomplishing that, many school districts have de-emphasized and 

even eliminated courses in the liberal arts, humanities, and performing arts. We deplore this tendency that limits a child. These subjects create the appropriate context 

to develop the whole child. Redefining the art of teaching so narrowly significantly 

reduces creativity and critical thinking and diminishes a child’s enthusiasm and motivation to explore and to learn. 

NEA advocates the creation of a federal grant program to assist schools in ensuring all students access to a comprehensive curriculum that provides a broad range 

of subjects and deep knowledge in each subject. Students in high-poverty schools 

must not be limited to an instructional program that is narrowly focused on basic 

skills, as is happening too often under NCLB. 

A comprehensive accountability system must appropriately apply to high schools 

without increasing dropout rates. High schools need programs and resources for adolescent literacy, dropout prevention, counseling, smaller learning communities, and 

expansion of AP and IB courses if they are to meet the diverse needs of all of their 

students. In order to measure high school graduation rates meaningfully, all states 

and school districts should report such data on a disaggregated basis, using the definition proposed by the National Governors Association and supported by many 

groups, including NEA. 

Standards and assessments must incorporate the nature of work and civic life in 

the 21st century: high-level thinking, learning, and global understanding skills, as 

well as sophisticated information, communication, and technology literacy competencies. 

Corporate America is telling us that a total focus on the most basic of skills is 

threatening our education system and our economic viability. Meaningfully assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
71

ing 21st century skills will require tests that measure higher-order thinking and 

problem solving, utilizing more than multiple choice questions. Too often we are 

holding students to obsolete standards that don’t reflect contemporary challenges. 

If a school, after receiving additional financial assistance, technical assistance and 

other supports, fails to demonstrate that it is closing the achievement gaps, supportive interventions need to occur. 

The most successful learning strategies are grounded on advice and coaching. 

School improvement teams, which include teachers and other educators from similar 

schools that have been successful, can function as mentors and examples. These 

teams should provide assistance based on the fact that profound, long-term, and 

sustained improvement of schools is the result of efforts that recognize essential 

principles: 

• Incentives are better than mandates in producing change. 

• Increased student achievement should encompass more than just increased test 

scores. It should also reflect deep and broad learning. 

• Teachers must play a central role in school reform efforts because of their firsthand knowledge of their students and how their schools work. 

• Rather than starting from scratch in reinventing schools, it makes most sense 

to graft thoughtful reforms onto what is healthy in the present system. 

NEA is proposing a new and improved system of accountability. If certain elements of the current AYP system are maintained, specific flaws must be corrected. 

Necessary corrections include: providing more than one year to implement improvement plans before subjecting schools or districts to additional sanctions; designating 

schools or districts as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ only when the same subgroup of 

students fails to make AYP in the same subject for at least two consecutive years; 

targeting school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to the specific 

subgroups that fail to make AYP; allowing schools to provide SES prior to providing 

school choice; and improving the quality of supplemental education services, ensuring that SES providers serve all eligible students and utilize only highly qualified 

teachers. 

II. Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement 

Smaller class size is a key element to achieving the Great Public Schools criterion 

of quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning. 

The classroom is the nexus of student learning and class size has a direct impact 

on student achievement. Smaller classes allow more time for teaching and more individualized attention for students. The preponderance of research evidence indicates that learning increases as class size is reduced, especially in the early grades. 

Studies have shown that smaller class size provides lasting benefits for students, 

especially for minority and low-income students, and for students with exceptional 

needs. Even in the upper grades teachers can be more successful in increasing student learning when they can provide more individualized attention. 

NEA recommends an optimum class size of 15 students in regular programs, especially in the early grades, and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs including children with disabilities and English Language Learners. 

Fewer than 15 students is an optimal class size, especially in kindergarten (K) 

and grade 1. Researchers have documented benefits from class size of 15—18 students in K and of fewer than 20 students in grades 1—3. Students in smaller classes 

in the early grades (such as K-3) continue to reap academic benefits through middle 

and high school, especially if they are minority or low-income students. 

NEA supports restoring the Class Size Reduction program that existed prior to 

NCLB. 

Closing the achievement gaps requires that teachers have more opportunities to 

work with students who need greater assistance. ESEA should provide a dedicated 

funding stream to complete the job of hiring 100,000 highly qualified teachers to reduce class size. 

An innovative way to ensure that students receive more individualized assistance 

is pairing two teachers in the same classroom. This strategy is discussed in more 

detail in the next section. 

We support a combination of federal programs—through both direct grants and 

tax subsidies to states and school districts—for school modernization to accommodate smaller classes. 

III. Quality Educators In Every Classroom and School 

A growing body of research confirms what school-based personnel have known—

that the skills and knowledge of teachers and support professionals are the greatest 

72

factor in how well students learn. The credibility of each and every educator is damaged when one of us is unprofessional or unprepared. 

Our proposals would help meet the Great Public Schools criteria of quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning; and a qualified, caring, diverse, and stable 

workforce. 

Our policies are focused on maximizing the knowledge, skills, and abilities of 

school-based personnel, creating the conditions to allow educators to do their best 

work, and making sure that the right people are in the right place to meet the 

needs of all students. In addition to teachers, many other educators and school staff, 

including paraeducators, administrators, counselors, school nurses, librarians and 

media specialists, bus drivers, food service workers, school maintenance staff, security personnel, and secretaries all play an important role in improving student 

learning by meeting the educational and other needs of students. 

Our specific proposals for increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers are focused on professional development and on National Board Certification. Federal policy should be directed toward providing states and school districts with the resources and technical assistance to create an effective program of professional development and professional accountability for all employees. Effective professional development should promote continuing growth. It should create opportunities to acquire new knowledge and apply the best pedagogical practices consistent with the 

school’s goals. 

Specifically, we propose revision of the ESEA Title II—Teacher Quality State 

Grant program—by refining the program criteria and ensuring alignment of federally funded teacher professional development with the National Staff Development 

Council (NSDC) standards. We also propose federally funded salary enhancements 

for teachers who achieve National Board Certification, with a smaller salary incentive for teachers who complete this rigorous process and receive a score, but do not 

achieve certification. 

Our second set of proposals is focused on creating the conditions in which teachers 

and education support professionals can apply their knowledge and skills most effectively to help children learn. 

We propose a grant program to states willing to encourage skills- and knowledgebased staffing arrangements in schools. This program should encourage collaboration between the school administration and the local organization representing 

teachers and other educators, as well as increased collaboration among teachers and 

between teachers and other education staff, to promote innovation in the way teachers’ and support professionals’ roles and responsibilities are defined. The development and implementation of such programs must respect existing collective bargaining agreements. Teachers with specific knowledge and skills should be encouraged to assist their colleagues to become better at what they do, and should receive 

additional compensation for taking on new roles 

However, we remain opposed to pay systems that directly link teacher compensation to student test scores. Such merit pay systems fail to recognize that teaching 

is not an individual, isolated profession. Rather, it is a profession dependent on the 

entire network of teaching professionals, where the foundation for student achievement is built over time from each of the student’s educators. Further merit pay undermines the collegiality and teamwork that create a high-performing learning institution. 

Education support professionals should be afforded every opportunity to broaden 

and enhance their skills and knowledge through training/professional development 

offerings, mentoring, and programs designed to support them as they assist the 

classroom teacher. They should be compensated for taking additional courses or 

doing course work for advanced degrees to assist in the classroom and to support 

student learning. 

We propose federal grants that support innovation in addressing teacher workload 

issues, especially in struggling schools. 

These grants should allow districts and schools to experiment with proposals such 

as assisting new teachers by pairing them in a classroom with an experienced teacher, and compensating the experienced teacher to induct and mentor the new teacher. Co-teaching—two qualified teachers in one classroom—can benefit students by 

effectively reducing the class size per teacher allowing for more individual attention. 

Co-teaching also allows increased mentoring opportunities for teachers, can reduce 

the need for less qualified substitute teachers, and can enhance parental involvement and communication. 

Hard-to-staff schools should be provided with an adequate number of well trained 

administrators and support professionals, including paraeducators, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and clerical support. Teachers and support professionals 

in these schools should have access to targeted professional development focused on 

73

the specific needs of the school and community. These proposals would reduce the 

costly and disruptive turnover common in struggling schools. 

Paraeducators who are involuntarily transferred to a Title I school and who had 

not met the highly qualified standard required under NCLB in Title I schools, 

should be given adequate time to meet the requirement. The school district should 

be responsible for any remuneration required for meeting the standard (i.e., taking 

an assessment or taking continuing or higher education courses). 

The third set of proposals focuses on distribution of the educator workforce—ways 

to ensure that all schools, no matter how challenging, are staffed by high quality 

education professionals. 

We propose that teachers and support professionals who work in schools identified 

as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ or high-poverty schools, and stay in such schools for 

at least five years, be eligible for financial incentives—both direct federal subsidies 

and tax credits—for retention, relocation, and housing. 

We also propose that the definition of ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers be revised to respect state licensure and certification systems, and eliminate nonessential requirements that create unnecessary obstacles for talented and skilled teachers and loopholes in the scope of coverage for some charter school teachers, alternative route 

teachers, and supplemental education service provider instructors. 

Specifically, we propose that all fully licensed special education teachers be designated as highly qualified; that broad-based social studies certification count as 

meeting the highly qualified requirements for any social studies discipline; and that 

additional flexibility be provided for middle school teachers, including accepting an 

academic minor to demonstrate subject matter competence. We also propose expanding the definition of ‘‘rural schools’’ used in the current rural school timeline extension. Finally, we propose that all teachers employed in programs authorized and/

or funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including those in 

charter schools and supplemental education service providers, be required to meet 

the same definition regarding qualifications. 

Due to numerous rules and guidance changes by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), as well as DOE’s recent notification to some states that their definitions were not in compliance, some teachers will have an extremely limited amount 

of time to meet the new definitions imposed upon their state, or may still not know 

the exact rules they must meet. In several states, teachers were told by their state 

that they met the highly qualified rules but now, years after the fact in some cases, 

the federal government is ruling their states’ definitions out of compliance. As a result, tens of thousands of teachers have already been notified they were highly 

qualified and may suddenly find themselves classified as not highly qualified. DOE 

appears to believe that content knowledge trumps all other forms of knowledge and 

skills (including decades of successful teaching). 

Teachers who may not meet the highly qualified standard by the end of the current deadlines due to these significant implementation problems should not be penalized, but instead should be provided with assistance and additional time to meet 

the requirement. 

Additionally, we propose that paraeducators who meet the highly qualified standard be granted reciprocity if they move to another state or district, where assessment scores or qualifications are different. Paraeducators should be able to provide 

documentation that they have met the requirements from a previous state or district to the receiving state or district. Documentation should be provided within 12 

months of their hiring. 

IV. Students and Schools Supported By Active and Engaged Parents, Families, and 

Communities 

NEA supports inclusion of programs in ESEA that help to enhance family and 

community involvement. 

Adult and family literacy programs encourage parents to model reading, which 

promotes early and sustained literacy, and enable parents to be more involved in 

their children’s education, particularly with homework. Parenting classes can explain the significance of adequate sleep, appropriate nutrition, and other factors, so 

that children come to school ready to learn and can help parents understand their 

role as partners in their children’s education. 

An engaged community is a supportive community. Community engagement programs can expand the stakeholders in public education to include community organizations. Parent leaders can bring greater awareness of school issues to review 

boards, panels, oversight committees, and public officials. 

Language barriers serve as an obstacle to school/family partnerships in growing 

numbers of communities. Strategies that have worked well include providing a bilingual teacher or other translator for parent conferences and other parent involveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
74

ment activities, and multilingual school-to-home communications. In addition, for 

parents who are unfamiliar with the U.S. educational system, parent education 

helps to enhance their understanding of what is expected of them and their children 

in their public schools. 

All schools should be encouraged to institute school-parent compacts—signed by 

parents—that provide a clearly defined list of parental expectations and opportunities for involvement. 

NEA supports policies and resources that assist communities in making schools 

the hub of the community. 

Community schools bring together public and private organizations to offer a 

range of services, programs, and opportunities—before, during, and afterschool—

that strengthen and support schools, communities, families, and students. Community schools improve the coordination, delivery, effectiveness, and efficiency of services provided to children and families. These schools and communities develop reciprocal and mutually supportive relationships. In addition to building strong connections between schools and families and enhancing student learning, community 

schools help to make schools and communities safer and more supportive places; 

and they use scarce public, private, and community resources more efficiently. 

As an essential component of a highly qualified workforce, NEA supports including training in the skills and knowledge needed for effective parental and family 

communication and engagement strategies as a requirement for professional development programs funded through ESEA. 

The case for the importance of parent and community engagement in bolstering 

public education is well documented. However, the research base could be strengthened by supporting more research designs that would enable firmer conclusions to 

be drawn about the specific effects of different types of programs. 

Parent and community engagement can also be bolstered by more effective implementation of the parent and community engagement requirements in Title I of 

ESEA. Technical assistance to schools and financial rewards for exemplary involvement or improvement in involvement would help broaden the ethnic, language, and 

racial diversity of those involved in planning parent involvement and would help ensure that the full community is represented. 

We also support expanded funding for the Parent Information and Resource Centers (PIRC) program in ESEA. The PIRC program supports school-based and schoollinked parental information and resource centers that help implement effective parental involvement policies, programs, and activities; develop and strengthen partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel in meeting the educational needs of children; and develop and strengthen the 

relationship between parents and their children’s school. 

Time and availability are two obvious challenges to parental involvement. Employers should receive incentives or be required to provide parents a reasonable 

amount of leave to participate in their children’s school activities. 

V. Resources To Ensure a Great Public School For Every Child 

When NCLB was enacted, Congress promised to provide the resources necessary 

to meet the many mandates contained in the law, provide school improvement funds 

to schools that failed AYP, and provide increased resources especially for Title I and 

Title II Teacher Quality to help close achievement gaps, improve overall student 

achievement, and ensure all students have a quality teacher. NCLB has never been 

funded at the authorized levels. And, after an increase in funding in the first year 

(FY 2002), funding for NCLB programs is on the decline, with most states and 

school districts facing unfunded mandates, real cuts in resources, and no federal 

funds to turn around low-performing schools. Note the following illustration of everdiminishing resources: 

• In the 2005—06 school year, two-thirds of all schools districts are receiving less 

Title I money than they did the previous year. In the 2006—07 school year, an additional 62 percent of school districts will have their Title I funding cut—most for the 

second consecutive year—because Congress reduced overall Title I funding. 

• Up to 20 percent of school districts’ Title I money must be diverted from classroom services to pay for transportation for school choice and supplemental services. 

This mandatory set-aside compounds the impact of continued reductions in funding. 

Thus, many districts are experiencing severe reductions in Title I funds available 

for classroom services to help our neediest students improve their learning, and 

even districts slated for an increase in Title I funding have less money available for 

classroom services after this set-aside. 

• Under the President’s proposed budget for FY 07, 29 states will receive less 

Title I money than they did in FY 06, with some states actually receiving less 

money than they did three, four, or even five years ago. 

75

• NO money has ever been provided for the school improvement state grants program. The only money available for school improvement comes off the top of states’ 

Title I allocations, taking funds from the few school districts that have not yet had 

their Title I funding cut. 

• Funding for teacher quality state grants in FY 06 is less than the level provided 

three years ago. The President’s budget proposes to continue funding in FY 07 at 

this reduced level. 

• Overall, Title I funding proposed for FY 07 is only roughly half of the authorized level promised when NCLB was passed, leaving almost 4.6 million low-income 

students denied Title I services. 

To help meet all the Great Public Schools criteria, and in particular adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding, NEA supports the following: 

• Fully funding ESEA programs at their authorized levels so that states and 

schools have adequate funding for programs, including professional development for 

teachers and paraeducators, needed to help close achievement gaps. 

• Enforcing Sec. 9527(a) of NCLB, which prevents the federal government from 

requiring states and school districts to spend their own funds—beyond what they 

receive from the federal government—to implement federal mandates. NEA is joined 

in this position by school districts, several states, the American Association of 

School Administrators, and other state and local officials. 

• Protecting essential ESEA programs by: 

• Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for school improvement programs 

to assist districts and schools 

• Providing adequate funding to develop and improve assessments that measure 

higher order thinking skills 

• Establishing a trigger whereby any consequences facing schools falling short of 

the new accountability system are implemented only when Title I is funded at its 

authorized level 

• Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for supplemental education services 

and school choice, if these mandates remain in the law 

• Providing adequate funding to develop and improve appropriate assessments for 

students with disabilities and English Language Learners 

• Providing technical assistance to schools to help them use funds more effectively 

• Adequately funding important children’s and education programs outside of 

ESEA, including child nutrition, Head Start, IDEA, children’s health, child care, 

and related programs. Each of these programs makes an important contribution to 

a child’s ability to learn. Further, reduced federal funding for social services programs erodes funding for education by pitting funding for education against health 

care and other needs at the state level, undermining the states’ ability to adequately 

fund their public schools. 

APPENDIX A—THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965: FROM THE

WAR ON POVERTY TO NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

The largest source of federal support for K-12 education is the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Passed in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War 

on Poverty, ESEA has provided federal funding to the neediest students and schools 

for over 40 years. It has been reauthorized eight times—usually every five or six 

years—since 1965. In announcing his plan to construct a ‘‘Great Society,’’ President 

Johnson stated, ‘‘Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an 

escape from poverty.’’ 6 Bolstered by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

elections yielding an increase in the number of Congressmen from northern, more 

urban areas, and his own landslide election victory, Johnson quickly won passage 

of ESEA. Representative John Brademas summarized the congressional sentiment 

behind Johnson’s legislation, stating, ‘‘Many of us in Congress and some presidents 

of both parties perceived that there were indeed genuine needs—in housing, health, 

and education—to which state and city governments were simply not responding. 

It was this inattention by state and local political leaders, therefore, that prompted 

us at the federal level to say, ’We’re going to do something about these problems.’ 

And we did.’’ 7

ESEA created for the first time a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to address part of the larger national agenda of confronting poverty and 

its damaging effects by targeting federal aid to poor students and schools. It also 

was based on a ‘‘grand’’ compromise concerning federal aid to private and parochial 

schools. To avoid directly sending public dollars to parochial schools, ESEA instead 

directed public school districts to use a portion of their Title I funds to provide services to low-income students enrolled in private schools. This provision—known as 

equitable participation—has stood for over 40 years. 

76

Since then, ESEA has evolved in three major phases. From 1965 to 1980, the reauthorizations of ESEA focused on whether Title I (providing the bulk of ESEA 

funds for targeted help to poor students and high-poverty schools) was to be considered truly targeted funding or whether it was cleverly disguised as general aid to 

education (today over 90 percent of school districts receive Title I funding). This period was also marked by evolving lists of ‘‘allowable uses’’ of Title I funds, from 

equipment to professional development to health services.8

The second phase of ESEA—from about 1980 to 1990—saw no significant increases (when adjusted for inflation) in funding for the Act, and President Reagan 

block-granted and consolidated several ESEA programs. Also during this time, A 

Nation at Risk—a Reagan Administration commission report—was released and 

catapulted education onto the national political scene as an important issue to voters. The report clearly linked the state of America’s schools to the nation’s economic 

productivity. In the 1988 reauthorization of ESEA, the first significant shift in the 

distribution of Title I dollars occurred, conditioning the states’ receipt of the funds 

upon some accountability for improved outcomes. Congress allowed Title I funds to 

be used for schoolwide programs (to support systemic improvement in schools where 

75 percent of students were in poverty) as a way to respond to the urgent call for 

more wide-sweeping reform outlined in Nation at Risk. 

Finally, from 1990 to the present, the education debate has been dominated by 

the desire of policymakers to see evidence that federal investments in education programs yield tangible, measurable results in terms of student achievement and success. The two main examples of this approach occurred in 1994 and in 2001, with 

the passage of President Clinton’s Goals 2000 and the Improving America’s Schools 

Act (IASA) and President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 

Not surprisingly, the Clinton reauthorization built upon the standards-based reform initiatives of many governors, including many who in 1989 attended President 

Bush’s first-ever education summit of the nation’s governors to discuss national 

standards or goals. Goals 2000, passed in 1993, required all states to develop challenging standards for all students in reading and math, as well as issue school report cards. IASA went a step further and required states to develop and administer 

statewide assessments to all low-income students at least once in elementary school, 

once in middle school, and once in high school and to develop plans to improve their 

educational outcomes. While this policy movement occurred, congressional Republicans adopted a platform called the ‘‘Contract with America,’’ which called for, 

among other things, the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education. By early 

1999, however, only 36 states issued school report cards, 19 provided assistance to 

low-performing schools, and 16 had the authority to close down persistently low-performing schools.9 Ironically, President Clinton’s Assistant Secretary for Elementary 

and Secondary Education, Tom Payzant, remarked later, ‘‘The underlying policy direction of NCLB is consistent with the 1994 reauthorization, but there’s a level of 

prescriptions with respect to implementation that [Democrats] would have been 

soundly criticized for trying to accomplish, had we done so.’’ 10

In May of 1999, the Clinton Administration forwarded its ESEA reauthorization 

proposal to Congress (a proposal that called for more funding, particularly for class 

size reduction, school modernization, and after school programs). A group of centrist 

Democrats, led by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) developed 

an alternative proposal. At the same time, conservative Republicans authored the 

‘‘Straight A’s’’ plan, which would have block-granted most federal education programs, shifting power and money to the state level. Due to these fractures, ESEA 

was not reauthorized in 1999. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Governor 

George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore both embraced continued emphasis on 

standards-based reform, but it was Bush who grabbed the Lieberman/Bayh blueprint, attached a large voucher proposal to it, and campaigned to ‘‘leave no child 

behind.’’

In February of 2001, shortly after Bush assumed office, Senator Diane Feinstein 

(D-CA) sent a letter on behalf of several centrist Democratic Senators to the President indicating their support for the basic thrust of the Bush accountability proposal. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), knowing that Democrats were not united 

around a common ESEA reauthorization plan, met shortly thereafter with the White 

House to begin negotiating a compromise. Throughout the spring of 2001, Senator 

Kennedy and Representative George Miller (D-CA) had ongoing discussions with the 

White House in which the Administration agreed to abandon quietly the fight for 

its voucher plan (helped tremendously by 5 Republicans voting with all Democrats 

on the House Education and Workforce committee to strike voucher provisions from 

the Committee bill) in exchange for supplemental services and significantly more 

funding. By the summer, however, negotiations had slowed tremendously due to the 

difficulty in crafting an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) definition that did not 

77

over-identify schools. White House advisor Sandy Kress (a Texas Democrat who had 

helped Bush usher in an NCLB-like accountability system in Texas) met with an 

NEA-led task force of several major education groups to discuss the AYP definition. 

Kress stated that the White House did not wish to identify as low-performing so 

many schools that it would become impossible to target help to the schools most in 

need. Despite this expressed goal, the White House’s involvement in actual negotiations began to lessen. 

In August, congressional staff had begun conference negotiations on the House 

and Senate bills. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks and the receipt in 

Senator Daschle’s office of an anthrax-laced letter, most congressional buildings 

were locked down for intensive cleaning. As a result, the ‘‘Big Four’’—Senator Judd 

Gregg (R-NH), Senator Kennedy, Representative John Boehner (R-OH), and Representative Miller—began intensive, private negotiations and drafting sessions. By 

the time they concluded, ESEA’s reauthorization, the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act,’’ 

was 1,100 pages long. Members of both parties literally had a few days to review 

all of its contents before votes on the final legislation. In December 2001, the Senate 

voted 87-10 to approve the legislation, and the House approved it by a vote of 381-

41.

THE ESEA IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

Year Public Law No. Title 

2002 107-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) requires annual testing in reading and 

math in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school, requires science standards and assessments in at least three grades, requires that teachers and education support professionals 

meet new quality requirements, and sanctions schools that do not make adequate yearly 

progress. 

1998 105-277 The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, including the FY 99 Budget for the Department of Education. The Reading Excellence Act and legislation authorizing the class size reduction initiative 

were also included. 

1997 105-17 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to reauthorize and make improvements to 

that Act, which is designed to improve access to education for those with disabilities. 

1994 103-382 Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act [ESEA]. Covers Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Eisenhower Professional Development, 

bilingual education, impact aid, charter schools, education technology and many other programs; also reauthorized the National Center for Education Statistics, amended General Education Provisions Act [GEPA] and several other acts. 

1994 103-239 School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994

1993 103-227 GOALS 2000: Educate America Act, also included reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI]). Passed in 1993. 

1993 103-33 To authorize the conduct and development of NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) 

assessments for fiscal year 1994. 

1991 102-119 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1991 (IDEA) 

1990 101-476 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990

1989 President George Bush convened the first education summit of the nation’s governors. This summit led to the creation of the first-ever national goals for education: every child would come to 

kindergarten ‘‘ready to learn,’’ America would have a 90% graduation rate, students would 

master five core subjects before advancing past grades 4, 8, and 12; America’s students would 

lead the world in math and science; all adults would be literate and prepared for the workforce; 

and every school would be safe and drug-free. 

1988 100-297 ESEA Reauthorized as the ‘‘Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement 

Amendments of 1988’’—major change was allowing Title I funds to be used for ‘‘schoolwide’’ 

programs in schools where at least 75% of the students were at or below the poverty level. 

1987 Gallup poll reported that 87% of Americans believed that the federal government should require 

states and localities to meet some minimum national standards with respect to education. 

1984 98-211 Education emerged as a top issue in the Presidential campaign; however, the Administration’s political platform remained opposed to expanding federal involvement in education. ESEA reauthorized with rather technical changes. (Education Amendments of 1984). 

1981 President Reagan’s Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, appointed the commission that issued the 

widely publicized report, ‘‘A Nation at Risk.’’ The report, which characterized America’s public 

schools as mediocre at best, called for increased salaries and professional development for 

teachers, tougher standards and graduation requirements, and a more rigorous curriculum. 

1981 97-35 ESEA reauthorized as the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act—block-granted several 

programs. 

1980 96-88 Department of Education Organization Act, creating the USED. NEA helped author this legislation 

and promoted it as a top organization priority. 

1978 95-561 Education Amendments of 1978

78

THE ESEA IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT—Continued

Year Public Law No. Title 

1975 94-142 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the origin of today’s IDEA. 

1974 93-380 Education Amendments of 1974. Adds the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, also 

often called the Buckley Amendment). 

1972 92-318 Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Prohibits sex discrimination in education. 

1967 90-247 Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967. Title IV of this act is known as the 

General Education Provisions Act [GEPA]. 

1966 89-750 Elementary and Secondary Amendments of 1966. Adult Education Act is Title III. 

1965 89-10; 

89-329

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 

Higher Education Act of 1965

1964 88-352 Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IV covers education. 

APPENDIX IV: NEA’S 12 DROPOUT ACTION STEPS

1. Mandate high school graduation or equivalency as compulsory for everyone 

below the age of 21. Just as we established compulsory attendance to the age of 16 

or 17 in the beginning of the 20th century, it is appropriate and critical to eradicate 

the idea of ‘‘dropping out’’ before achieving a diploma. To compete in the 21st century, all of our citizens, at minimum, need a high school education. 

2. Establish high school graduation centers for students 19-21 years old to provide 

specialized instruction and counseling to all students in this older age group who 

would be more effectively addressed in classes apart from younger students. 

3. Make sure students receive individual attention in safe schools, in smaller 

learning communities within large schools, in small classes (18 or fewer students), 

and in programs during the summer, weekends, and before and after school that 

provide tutoring and build on what students learn during the school day. 

4. Expand students’ graduation options through creative partnerships with community colleges in career and technical fields and with alternative schools so that 

students have another way to earn a high school diploma. For students who are incarcerated, tie their release to high school graduation at the end of their sentences. 

5. Increase career education and workforce readiness programs in schools so that 

students see the connection between school and careers after graduation. To ensure 

that students have the skills they need for these careers, integrate 21st century 

skills into the curriculum and provide all students with access to 21st century technology. 

6. Act early so students do not drop out with high-quality, universal preschool and 

full-day kindergarten; strong elementary programs that ensure students are doing 

grade-level work when they enter middle school; and middle school programs that 

address causes of dropping out that appear in these grades and ensure that students have access to algebra, science, and other courses that serve as the foundation 

for success in high school and beyond. 

7. Involve families in students’ learning at school and at home in new and creative ways so that all families-single-parent families, families in poverty, and families in minority communities-can support their children’s academic achievement, 

help their children engage in healthy behaviors, and stay actively involved in their 

children’s education from preschool through high school graduation. 

8. Monitor students’ academic progress in school through a variety of measures 

during the school year that provide a full picture of students’ learning and help 

teachers make sure students do not fall behind academically. 

9. Monitor, accurately report, and work to reduce dropout rates by gathering accurate data for key student groups (such as racial, ethnic, and economic), establishing 

benchmarks in each state for eliminating dropouts, and adopting the standardized 

reporting method developed by the National Governors Association. 

10. Involve the entire community in dropout prevention through family-friendly 

policies that provide release time for employees to attend parent-teacher conferences; work schedules for high school students that enable them to attend classes 

on time and be ready to learn; ‘‘adopt a school’’ programs that encourage volunteerism and community-led projects in school; and community-based, real-world 

learning experiences for students. 

11. Make sure educators have the training and resources they need to prevent 

students from dropping out including professional development focused on the needs 

of diverse students and students who are at risk of dropping out; up-to-date textbooks and materials, computers, and information technology; and safe modern 

schools. 

79

12. Make high school graduation a federal priority by calling on Congress and the 

president to invest $10 billion over the next 10 years to support dropout prevention 

programs and states who make high school graduation compulsory. 

APPENDIX V: JOINT ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB)

ACT

List of signers updated March 8, 2007

The undersigned education, civil rights, children’s, disability, and citizens’ organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act’s objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that 

the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including 

children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English 

proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy. 

While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and 

effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer 

academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions 

that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in 

order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law’s emphasis 

needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding 

states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement. 

Recommended Changes in NCLB 

Progress Measurement 

1. Replace the law’s arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools. 

2. Allow states to measure progress by using students’ growth in achievement as 

well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency. 

3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and 

the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, 

family, and community capacity to improve student learning. 

4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students’ and schools’ performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests. 

5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that 

better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children 

Assessments 

6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based 

measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning. 

7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must: 

• Be aligned with state content and achievement standards; 

• Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable; 

• Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards; 

• Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act; 

• Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and 

• Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning. 

8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states 

to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and 

high schools. 

Building Capacity 

9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement. 

10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive 

changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, 

families, and communities to support high student achievement. 

80

Sanctions 

11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before 

applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts. 

12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student 

achievement. 

Funding 

13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of 

the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, 

and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs. 

14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served. 

We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization’s proposals.

1. Advancement Project 

2. American Association of School Administrators 

3. American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA) 

4. American Association of University Women 

5. American Baptist Women’s Ministries 

6. American Counseling Association 

7. American Dance Therapy Association 

8. American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA) 

9. American Federation of Teachers 

10. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

11. American Humanist Association 

12. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 

13. Americans for the Arts 

14. Annenberg Institute for School Reform 

15. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 

16. Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) 

17. ASPIRA 

18. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 

19. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) 

20. Association of Education Publishers 

21. Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO) 

22. Big Picture Company 

23. Center for Community Change 

24. Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking 

25. Center for Parent Leadership 

26. Children’s Defense Fund 

27. Church Women United 

28. Citizens for Effective Schools 

29. Coalition for Community Schools 

30. Coalition of Essential Schools 

31. Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism 

32. Communities for Quality Education 

33. Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders 

34. Council for Exceptional Children 

35. Council for Hispanic Ministries of the United Church of Christ 

36. Council for Learning Disabilities 

37. Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. 

38. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform 

39. Disciples Home Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 

40. Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ) 

41. Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children (DLD/

CEC) 

42. Education Action! 

43. Every Child Matters 

44. FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing 

45. Forum for Education and Democracy 

46. Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GPAC) 

47. Hmong National Development 

48. Indigenous Women’s Network 

49. Institute for Language and Education Policy 

81

50. International Reading Association 

51. International Technology Education Association 

52. Japanese American Citizens League 

53. Learning Disabilities Association of America 

54. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) 

55. Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice of the United Church of Christ 

56. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 

57. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF) 

58. National Alliance of Black School Educators 

59. National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education (NAAPAE) 

60. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) 

61. National Association for the Education and Advancement of Cambodian, Laotian 

and Vietnamese Americans (NAFEA) 

62. National Association for the Education of African American Children with 

Learning Disabilities 

63. National Association of Pupil Services Administrators 

64. National Association of School Psychologists 

65. National Association of Social Workers 

66. National Baptist Convention, USA (NBCUSA) 

67. National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development 

68. National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE) 

69. National Conference of Black Mayors 

70. National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP) 

71. National Council for the Social Studies 

72. National Council of Churches 

73. National Council of Jewish Women 

74. National Council of Teachers of English 

75. National Education Association 

76. National Federation of Filipino American Associations 

77. National Indian Education Association 

78. National Indian School Board Association 

79. National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) 

80. National Mental Health Association 

81. National Ministries, American Baptist Churches USA 

82. National Pacific Islander Educator Network 

83. National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) 

84. National Reading Conference 

85. National Rural Education Association 

86. National School Boards Association 

87. National School Supply and Equipment Association 

88. National Superintendents Roundtable 

89. National Urban League 

90. Native Hawaiian Education Association 

91. Network of Spiritual Progressives 

92. Organization of Chinese Americans 

93. People for the American Way 

94. Presbyterian Church (USA) 

95. Progressive National Baptist Convention 

96. Protestants for the Common Good 

97. Public Education Network (PEN) 

98. Rural School and Community Trust 

99. Service Employees International Union 

100. School Social Work Association of America 

101. Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund 

102. Social Action Committee of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations 

103. Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 

104. Stand for Children 

105. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 

106. The Children’s Aid Society 

107. The Episcopal Church 

108. United Black Christians of the United Church of Christ 

109. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries 

110. United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society 

111. USAction 

112. Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church 

113. Women of Reform Judaism 

82

ENDNOTES

1 Reports can be found at: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/. 2 A recent report from the NEA Research Department (Teacher Pay 1940—2000: Losing 

Ground, Losing Status), based on U.S. census data, finds that annual pay for teachers has fallen 

sharply over the past 60 years in relation to the annual pay of other workers with college degrees. The report states: ‘‘Throughout the nation, the average earnings of workers with at least 

four years of college are now over 50 percent higher than the average earnings of a teacher.’’ 

Furthermore, an analysis of weekly wage trends by researchers at the Economic Policy Institute 

(EPI) shows that teachers’ wages have fallen behind those of other workers since 1996, with 

teachers’ inflation-adjusted weekly wages rising just 0.8 percent, far less than the 12 percent 

weekly wage growth of other college graduates and of all workers. Further, a comparison of 

teachers’ weekly wages to those of other workers with similar education and experience shows 

that, since 1993, female teacher wages have fallen behind 13 percent and male teacher wages 

12.5 percent (11.5 percent among all teachers). Since 1979, teacher wages relative to those of 

other similar workers have dropped 18.5 percent among women, 9.3 percent among men, and 

13.1 percent among both combined. 3 ‘‘Why Money Matters,’’ NEA Today, November 2006, http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0611/

feature3.html and http://www.nea.org/pay/index.html. 4For more information about state initiatives, go to http://www.teachingquality.org/twc/

whereweare.htm. 5 NEA member Marjorie Zimmerman, a middle school teacher from Las Vegas, Nevada, tells 

NEA ‘‘My school was a high-performing school one year. Students, for the most part, are interested in learning and they perform well. The next year, because one too few students took the 

test, we were in need of improvement. This demonstrates that the requirements for meeting 

AYP certainly are not indicative of true academic progress by students in the school. Also, given 

the nature of standardized tests and the difficulty of improving as one moves toward the upper 

end of the spectrum, most schools will eventually be in need of improvement.’’ See Voices from 

America’s Classroom, with first-person stories from all 50 states about the impact of NCLB, 

available at: http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/index.html. 6Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office 1965, 

Lyndon B. Johnson, Book I (1963-1964): 704-707. 7 John Brademas, The Politics of Education: Conflict and Consensus on Capitol Hill, Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press (1987), p. 77. 8 Elizabeth DeBray, Politics, Ideology, and Education: Federal Policy During the Clinton and 

Bush Administrations, Teachers College Press (2006), p. 7. 9 Ibid. 

10Frederick Hess and Michael Petrilli, No Child Left Behind, Peter Lang Publishing (2006), 

p. 15. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Burmaster? 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH BURMASTER, COUNCIL OF CHIEF 

STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS 

Ms. BURMASTER. Good morning. 

Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member McKeon, 

Senator Isakson and members of the committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify today on the No Child Left Behind Act. 

My name is Elizabeth Burmaster, and I am the elected Wisconsin state superintendent of public instruction, and I am testifying today in my capacity as the president of the Council of Chief 

State School Officers, the CCSSO. 

As the top education officials in every state, CCSSO’s members 

are immersed daily in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind and have taken the lead in transforming No Child Left Behind from policy to practice over the last 5 years, including leading 

the effort to develop state standards, state accountability systems, 

state assessments, state data systems and state teacher quality requirements, as well as overseeing the public education systems of 

our states. 

Chief state school officers are implementing this law, and we 

want to strengthen it so that it works. 

When Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, 

state education reform efforts were uneven. Five years later, 

83

through strong state and local leadership, No Child Left Behind’s 

core foundational reforms are now widely in place. 

Now, we have to build on those foundations with real innovations 

and new investments to dramatically improve student achievement, close achievement gaps and prepare all students in our nation for success in an interconnected 21st-century world. 

Now, to accomplish that goal, the reauthorized ESEA must 

evolve to fit with the next stage of standards-based reform, shifting 

from the law’s current focus on prescriptive compliance requirements to a dynamic law focused on providing real incentives for innovative state and local models, along with fair and meaningful accountability for results. 

Innovation and rigor must be the foundation of the state and federal partnership if we are to achieve our nation’s education goals. 

Innovation will strengthen this law and make it more effective in 

accomplishing its true intent. 

Congress cannot ask states to continue to drive the education reform process without giving us the authority and the capacity to 

lead. Chief state school officers have been the first to see how rigid 

implementation of the law has worked against the intent of the law 

in so many cases. 

The next generation of No Child Left Behind must ensure that 

state agencies have the ability to improve their education systems 

by building on the strengths and the assets that have proven to be 

successful in their state and at the local level. 

Last year, CCSSO issued an ESEA policy statement announcing 

three principles that must guide the reauthorization process and 

provide the basis for a new state-federal partnership. And this 

partnership must include: greater support and increased focused on 

innovation in building on the foundations of standards-based reform, including standards, assessments and accountability systems; 

building state and local capacity to improve learning opportunities 

for all students and to intervene in consistently low-performing districts and schools; and increased investment at the federal level in 

research, evaluation, technical assistance and collaboration to help 

inform state and local efforts to improve student achievement and 

close achievement gaps. 

In January, CCSSO announced eight recommendations to 

strengthen the law. We believe these recommendations are imperative if ESEA is to reflect the current, not the prior, education landscape and, most importantly, to ensure that all students are prepared in the future for post-secondary education, work and citizenship in the 21st century. 

In the United States, we have long held the belief that the days 

of our children would be better than our own, and a quality education is a civil right. The reauthorization of No Child Left Behind 

holds the potential to make that dream a reality for America’s children. 

The chief state school officers of this country have submitted 

eight recommendations, which we believe will ensure No Child Left 

Behind lives up to its intent and its promise for America’s children, 

and I have submitted those for the record. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Burmaster follows:]

84

Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Burmaster, President, Council of Chief 

State School Officers 

Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member McKeon, and Ranking 

Member Enzi, thank you for this opportunity to testify today about strategies for 

improving the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is Elizabeth Burmaster; I am 

the elected Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and I am testifying today in my capacity as the current President of the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO). 

CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who 

lead departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District 

of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extrastate jurisdictions. Our members are immersed daily in the implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and have taken the lead in transforming NCLB 

from policy to practice over the last five years, including leading the effort to develop state standards, state accountability systems, state assessments, and state 

teacher quality requirements in addition to meeting many other responsibilities. 

When Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, state education 

reform efforts were uneven. Five years later, through strong state and local leadership, NCLB’s core foundational reforms are widely in place. Now, we must build on 

those foundations with real innovations and new investments to dramatically improve student achievement, close achievement gaps, and prepare all students and 

our nation for success in an interconnected, 21st century world. 

To accomplish that goal, the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) must evolve to fit with the next stage of standards-based reform, shifting from the law’s current focus on prescriptive compliance requirements to a dynamic law focused on providing real incentives for innovative state and local models—along with fair and meaningful accountability for results. Innovation and rigor 

must be the foundation of the state and federal partnership if we are to achieve our 

nation’s education goals. Reauthorization of ESEA must support this partnership 

and empower state and local efforts to prepare our children to compete in the 21st 

century. 

Under NCLB, state education agencies implement the law’s education reforms by 

requiring, among other things, state assessments, state accountability systems, 

state interventions, state teacher quality, state standards, and state data systems. 

Congress cannot ask states to continue to drive the education reform process without giving them authority and capacity to lead. The U.S. Department of Education 

strictly enforced the rigid prescription of the current language of the law. Chief 

State School Officers have been the first to see how this rigid prescription has 

worked against the intent of the law in many cases. The intent is to raise student 

achievement and build community support for reform efforts to close the gap in 

achievement that exists throughout our country. The next generation of NCLB must 

ensure state agencies have the ability to improve their education systems by building on the strengths and assets that have proven to be successful in their state at 

the local level. 

Last year CCSSO issued a high level ESEA reauthorization policy statement announcing three principles that must guide the reauthorization process and provide 

the basis for a new state-federal partnership. This partnership must include: (1) 

continued support and increased focus on innovation and autonomy with regard to 

the foundations of standards-based reform, (2) a greater focus on building state and 

local capacity to improve learning opportunities for all students and to intervene in 

consistently low-performing districts and schools, and (3) increased investment in 

research, evaluation, technical assistance, and collaboration to help inform state and 

local efforts to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps. 

In January, CCSSO announced eight recommendations meant to operationalize 

these three core themes within the context of NCLB. We believe these recommendations are necessary to update and improve ESEA to reflect the current—not prior—

education landscape and most importantly to ensure that all students are prepared 

in the future for postsecondary education, work, and citizenship in the 21st century. 

The eight recommendations are as follows: 

INNOVATIVE MODELS and PEER REVIEW: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage, not stifle, innovation, and it should improve the peer review process to 

make it a true state-federal partnership. In that spirit, the law should be amended 

to remove and recast NCLB’s current ‘‘waiver’’ authority to indicate that the Secretary ‘‘shall’’ approve innovative models where states can demonstrate, through a 

revised peer review process, good faith, educationally sound strategies to raise the 

bar for standards-based reform. States must have a role in the selection of qualified 

peers, and we should ensure the process focuses on technical assistance, full transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
85

parency, real communication and dialogue with states, consistency in peer review 

standards and outcomes across states, timeliness of feedback and results, dissemination of promising practices, and more. 

ACCOUNTABILITY: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage use of a variety 

of accountability models focused on individual student achievement that build on 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) to promote more valid, reliable, educationally meaningful accountability determinations. Among other things, the new law should ensure states’ right to use true growth models to complement status measures (to follow the progress of the same students over time at all performance levels). 

DIFFERENTIATE CONSEQUENCES: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage 

a full range of rewards and consequences for districts and schools that differ appropriately in nature and degree, based, for example, on whether schools miss AYP by 

a little versus a lot. In that context, the new law should permit states to exercise 

appropriate judgment and differentiate both accountability determinations and consequences based on sound evidence. 

IMPROVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage, 

though not require, use of a variety of state and local assessment models. CCSSO 

urges Congress to amend NCLB to permit states to promote the use of multiple 

state and local assessments (including assessments that can show growth at all levels) and ensure states’ right to vary the frequency and grade spans of assessments. 

CCSSO also urges Congress to provide continued support for states to strengthen 

assessment systems. 

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessment and accountability systems 

in a manner that is most meaningful for the full range of students with disabilities, 

based on ambitious but educationally sound performance goals and measures. In 

this context, the new law should permit use of alternate assessments measured 

against alternate/modified achievement standards based on individualized growth 

expectations across grade levels as needed for some students. 

ELL STUDENTS: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage inclusion of ELL students in state assessment and accountability systems in a manner that is most 

meaningful for the full range of ELL students, based on ambitious but educationally 

sound performance measures and goals. The new law should permit states to properly include new immigrant ELL students in school accountability based on multiple 

measures for several years, where educationally appropriate. The law should also 

allow the use of a full range of alternate assessments and value individualized 

growth. 

ENHANCE TEACHER QUALITY: The reauthorized ESEA should create incentives for states to create the best teaching force in the world by continuously improving teacher quality, supporting best-in-class professional development, and encouraging use of individual pathways to pedagogical and subject matter expertise. 

The law should incentivize continued improvement in teacher quality in a meaningful manner. Recommended changes include counting newly hired teachers (particularly rural, special education and ELL teachers) as ‘‘highly qualified’’ when they 

meet standards in their primary subject areas and are on a pathway (of no more 

than three years) with regard to additional subjects based on HOUSSE. 

STRENGTHEN RESOURCES: The reauthorized ESEA should retain and provide 

additional funds at the state level that appropriately reflect the increased roles and 

responsibilities placed on states under ESEA. The law should authorize additional, 

long-term, consistent funding for state education agency action and intervention in 

underperforming districts and schools. This includes key areas such as state assessments (particularly including alternate assessments and English proficiency assessments), state data systems, technology, and research and development to inform 

state and district efforts. 

As the leading education officials representing 49 states and five territories, we 

intend to work hand-in-hand to achieve these eight critical ESEA priorities, and we 

look forward to working with Congress and our partners in the education community to implement the next generation of standards-based reforms. 

Moving from NCLB to every child a graduate will require strong state leadership 

and action from all levels of government, and beyond. This includes a new and 

meaningful state-federal partnership—one in which states and districts constantly 

improve and innovate and are supported by federal law. By working as true partners, we believe we can make a major difference in the lives of every student. 

These eight important areas represent our core reauthorization priorities, but we 

acknowledge that other vital issues must be addressed during the reauthorization 

process, and we are open to lending our experiences and expertise to the broader 

debate about how to improve and build upon No Child Left Behind. 

86

Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, thank you very much. 

And thank you to all of the panelists for your testimony. 

We will begin with questions, and we will proceed until noon, 

and we will just start in the order of members of seniority here. 

If I might begin, Mr. Casserly, you talk about the problem of 

schools in need of improvement and the year-to-year cascading 

sanctions, as you called them. And you have suggested that there 

should be a longer window available so that schools can in fact put 

in place a program that the district or school believes is going to 

work and work their way back to AYP—let’s forget the definition 

of AYP for a moment—but that they would work their way back 

into being compliant. 

And also, Ms. Burmaster, you also mentioned about the differentiated sanctions, and I was just wondering if you two might comment. I don’t know if you know one another’s proposal here, but I 

think you are addressing somewhat the same problem and what 

happens to schools when they fail to make AYP. 

Ms. BURMASTER. Certainly. I am pleased that so many groups 

are beginning to understand this problem, because a school that 

misses AYP by a little faces the same as the school that misses 

AYP by a lot. That, essentially, leads to a lack of credibility for the 

law at the local level, and it leads to a misidentification of schools 

in the eyes of the public, and that works against us, when local 

communities begin to question the credibility of this law. 

And so we have made a recommendation for a differentiation of 

consequences under the law so that states could address that, to 

have some innovative ways of dealing and addressing the highestneeds schools. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Casserly? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Yes. Let me not address the issue of overidentification for a second but what might replace this notion of everchanging or cascading sanctions. 

As the committee knows, when No Child Left Behind was passed, 

it put schools in school improvement I where a set of actions are 

required, then school improvement II where another set of actions 

were required, and then corrective action where another set of actions are required, then restructuring. 

We have discovered that one of the problems that at least urban 

schools have, I suspect lots of other kinds of schools as well, is that 

they are chasing an ever-changing set of activities and procedures 

without ever having the time over the course of that year, sometimes they have less than a full school year, to implement the procedures in order to see any effect before they fall into the next set 

of sanctions. 

So what we were proposing was combining school improvement 

I, school improvement II and corrective action into a single 3-year 

phase devoted solely to school improvement and intervention, 

where the school would be required to spend the equivalent of 30 

percent of its Title 1 money on professional development, other 

intervention and instructional systems, benchmark assessments 

87

and other kinds of things that we know that schools that are turning around use. 

At the end of that 3-year period, if you still could not make improvement in at least 2 of the 3 years, one of two things would happen—I guess, one of three things: One, if you did make improvement, you would go back to the beginning, kind of like in current 

law. However, if you didn’t make improvement, we would look at 

the degree of improvement, how persistent or pervasive the failure 

was. 

If you hadn’t made improvement in two of the three core subjects 

and that failure involved half or more of the students in that 

school, then you would fall into a situation where you had to reconstitute that school or close it. 

If the nature of the failure, however, misses—more to Ms. 

Burmaster’s point—if the nature of the failure only involved a subgroup or two but that did not involve the majority of the students 

in that school, then you would be required to do a set of activities 

that related just to the failure of those subgroups or students. 

So we keep the sanctions in the law, but we give the schools time 

to put in place an instructional system to raise student achievement and to bear down on it in a way that the current law doesn’t 

really allow you time to do. 

Ms. BURMASTER. Senator Miller, could I——

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. BURMASTER [continuing]. Comment along those lines? 

What we are hearing from our membership also, the other chiefs, 

is that this would be an example in this area of perhaps less prescription on the part of the federal government and allowing for innovation at the state level. 

For instance, this missing AYP by a little or a lot. You could 

have a school under the law miss AYP because 94 percent test participation, as opposed to 95 percent test participation. And you 

could have another school that missed reading and math proficiency for all students. Those are two very different ways of missing AYP. 

And if the states had the flexibility to really look carefully at the 

real data of those schools and then be able to address intervention 

involving in local school districts parents, the community in the 

kinds of interventions that would perhaps best help that school in 

delivering on AYP, continuing, perhaps, they would want to have 

an extended calendar or offer summer school or——

Chairman MILLER. I am going to cut you off just because of the 

time. We have a lot of members here. But thank you very much. 

I am just concerned that 3 years is a long time in a young child’s 

life, and the question is to get that school to perform. 

Mr. McKeon? 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The more I talk to people about this, the more difficult the task 

I see is before us. We started hearings last year. I think we held 

four here in Washington, we held one in Chicago. And then I have 

done quite a bit of traveling around the country in different congressional districts, meeting with people, pulling together groups of 

parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, board members and 

trying to find from them what we should do to improve the act. 

88

The process here: We pass an act, then we reauthorize the act, 

and that is the opportunity to address things that—we start out 

with an idea and by the time it gets to the end of the road, after 

the regulations and the implementation and all the process is met, 

it might be totally different from what we started out to do. And 

then we find that we have made mistakes or things don’t go exactly 

the way we figured and so we have to come back and readdress 

those. 

We all, I believe, have the same goal, and that is to give every 

single child an opportunity to reach their full potential in realizing 

the American dream. 

In every one of the meetings I held, similar things came up: 

What can we do to have more supplemental services, how could 

that be addressed more, how could that be improved so that everybody knows the opportunities are there? What can we do about improving English-language-learners? 

What can we do with special ed, where you have different columns and maybe one student, even, could either pull you down or 

lift you up in two or three different columns that would have quite 

a bit of change there? If you have a female minority special ed student, it could pull you up or push you down in those different columns. 

Growth models, how that could be used to where you really are 

testing students against themselves instead of a class that is following along behind them. Qualified teachers versus effective 

teachers or both, how do they fit the mix. 

National standards even came up a few times, and you talked 

about it in your testimony today. I think that is a problem, but the 

Constitution spells out what our responsibilities are and what the 

state responsibilities are, and I don’t know that we have the votes 

to change the Constitution nor the will to do so. 

And when we are sitting around talking in groups like this, we 

are all coming from specialized segments. I sat on a local school 

board for 9 years and had lots of frustration. 

I am from California. Our frustration was more with Sacramento 

than it was with Washington. And I found that there is a lot of 

misunderstanding. Some people blame the federal law, when it is 

really the state implementation of it that is in conflict. And then 

you sitting at the state level worry about the federal government, 

the impositions. 

Specifically, I had a meeting this morning with some parents 

from D.C. who are more concerned about parental choice and how 

they can get their students out of some schools and into other 

schools. 

Mr. Henderson, do you believe that the parents of minority students in schools that are identified as in need of improvement are 

receiving adequate and timely information about the supplemental 

education services that they are entitled to under the law? Do you 

believe they are receiving that? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. McKeon, let me answer your question with 

a slightly broader perspective, because I am a native Washingtonian. I am a product of the public school system here, as well as 

graduate and law schools outside of Washington. But I am familiar 

89

with the school system in great detail, and my own children were 

products of the school system. 

Let me say to you that, as someone who grew up with one foot 

in a world of segregated America where apartheid was the law of 

the land and who started school at the time that the Supreme 

Court decided the Brown case, I look back over the last 50 years 

with horror and dismay as I recognize that the promise of Brown 

has not been fulfilled, not only in Washington, D.C. but in school 

districts all around the country. 

The great irony of the United States being the world’s beacon of 

democracy: having a school system which is subpar in its nation’s 

capital, or within a several-mile radius of the Capitol you have over 

100 schools that fail to meet the adequate yearly progress requirement of No Child Left Behind. That is an indictment, which, in my 

view, speaks for itself. 

The issue isn’t so much timely information, although let’s put 

that in the mix of things to be considered. And you have outlined, 

I think, a very complex problem of how you tackle what has been 

a difficult interaction of issues with respect to providing quality 

education. 

But I guess I would say the following: It is important to 

disaggregate the requirements of the law, number one, to recognize 

that there are certain focus efforts which are priority efforts, Title 

1 being an example of that. 

Title 1 was never intended to equalize funding between rich and 

poor school districts. That is a problem to be left to the states. This 

should be providing additional resources that can’t be provided at 

the state level. There has to be a focused recognition that the needs 

of students go beyond what this statute will address. 

For example——

Chairman MILLER. I am going to ask you to wrap up. 

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. The State Child Information 

Health Insurance Program is up for reauthorization, and that 

needs to be a part of the mix. You can’t have kids preparing for 

tests when they can’t get eye exams, when they are uncovered by 

insurance. 

My point is this: It is a more complex issue than your question 

would suggest. It involves many more factors than simply an adequate array of information. 

And I would urge those who are most committed to carrying out 

the requirements of the law that they follow the law, that they follow the law and provide resources where necessary, as the law requires. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just sort of follow along a little bit on what Mr. Henderson mentioned and something also that Reg Weaver mentioned, 

and that is what is happening in terms of the school dropouts, or 

the fact that where you have many, as Mayor Street mentioned 

when the meeting of the mayors—they have 175,000 children go to 

the Philadelphia systems and 80,000 of them—80,000 of them—

90

sometime in the year do not show up in school. We heard 20,000 

in Cleveland, Ohio, these children aren’t attending schools. 

And in my hearings around my own state of Massachusetts, I 

have been absolutely aroused by the fact that so many of the 

schools that are in an impoverished area, the statements and the 

comments of teachers that say the problems of poverty have become more intense than they were 5 years ago, that the parents 

are more played out than they were 5 years ago in being able to 

participate, the schools have deteriorated over the period of 5 years 

ago. 

And whether we are coming down and looking at all of these 

points I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe very deeply, 

how we are really going to begin to get a grip on something which 

is a matter of national importance, a national urgency. We certainly recognized that in the 1960s that we are going to say impoverished children in this country are going to be a matter of national 

urgency and a problem. 

And I am not sure if we do all the things that have been recommended, and it is a remarkable similarity of things that have 

been recommended during this, recognize the complexity that we 

have in getting good teachers in underserved schools and keeping 

them there. With all of the different recommendations that we 

have, we have seen some examples. 

But how worked up should we be on this? I will watch the time, 

but if each of you could take a quick crack at it, recognizing I have 

only got probably a couple more minutes left. 

Governor Barnes? And then maybe we will go down quickly. 

Mr. BARNES. It is a problem that you should be concerned about. 

Forty percent in Georgia never graduate. 

Let me tell you the reason children leave school. The reason they 

leave school is they become frustrated at not being able to do the 

work in high school. Our kids do very well nationally and internationally at the 4th grade level. They fall off the end of the Earth 

at the 8th grade; they drop out at the 9th grade. 

In my view—I want to say this is not in the report, because it 

was not our focus—and there is a lot of attention on high schools 

these days. I think we need to remake middle schools, because 

what happens is children cannot, particularly in math, they can’t 

make the transition, or are having difficulty making the transition, 

from a quantitative system of arithmetic to a qualitative system of 

algebra. And so they become frustrated and they drop out in the 

9th grade. 

We know that if a child completes algebra in the 8th grade, successfully completes algebra in the 8th grade, they have a two-thirds 

chance of graduating from high school. If they are reading on the 

grade level by age 4, they have a 60 percent chance. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I would associate myself with the governor’s remarks. 

I would also add, though, Senator, as you, yourself, pointed out, 

the effects of concentrated poverty today are more serious, significant than they have ever been. 

I mentioned before that there are collateral programs like the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program that needs to be fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
91

ed. Well, I will say to you that the crisis is more severe than I 

think you, even yourself, have identified. 

When you are losing 50 percent of black students, over 50 percent of Latino, Native American students, and when only 75 percent of white students are graduating from high school, you have 

a pending crisis of immense proportion. And 30 years from now, as 

we begin drawing on the workforce of tomorrow, that problem will 

become even more acute. 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Yes. I agree really with the governor and Mr. 

Henderson. 

I think one other thing we might be looking at is increasing, if 

you will, the relevance of high school. Many of the dropouts—and 

we hear this from our chamber members around the country—

many of the dropouts have trouble seeing the relevance of what 

they are doing in high school to, if you will, the job market and 

what they do afterwards. They don’t recognize the need for it. 

So I think we may need to focus somewhat more on career and 

technical education. I am not talking about reducing standards or 

the rigor of those standards, but I think we need to have much 

more of a focus on what happens, at least to those youngsters who 

aren’t thinking about going on to college or post-secondary, as to 

the relevance of what is being learned in high school. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Casserly? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Yes. I would also like to associate myself with Mr. 

Rothkopf’s remarks. I think a lot of this is students just not seeing 

the future for themselves in the work that they are doing or the 

work that they think they might ultimately be doing. And we have 

to do a better job at the high school level of making that connection. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. McElroy? 

Mr. MCELROY. I would concentrate my resources, which are limited, at the other end of the spectrum. I would start with a good, 

quality early childhood education so that the gap that exists when 

these kids come to school from high-poverty areas would be lessened or reduced or eliminated. I would put resources into special 

services to kids who fell behind the first, second, third year of 

school. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Weaver? 

Mr. WEAVER. We need a comprehensive approach. We have a 12-

point dropout plan that I certainly would encourage you to look at, 

a comprehensive approach. We need community engagement, we 

need resources for health care and other areas that impact children’s learning or children dropping out of school. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Burmaster? 

Ms. BURMASTER. It begins with early childhood to minimize the 

adverse effects of poverty, and then by the time a child is 12 and 

they can vote with their feet by attending or not, it gets to student 

engagement. That requires professional development for teachers 

to know how to make sense for the young person as to what they 

are learning in the classroom, how it applies to the real world. 

Chairman MILLER. Senator Isakson? 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

I want to commend Governor Barnes’s response to that last question, and it is a reminder to all of us that we are talking about the 

92

reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. The kids that are in the 

fifth year of No Child Left Behind today, kids that started under 

kindergarten 5 years ago, are in the 4th grade. If we can get it reauthorized, do some of the tweaking and improvements, some of 

the things that are recognized, 4 years from now we will have kids 

leaving middle school, going to high school, under 8 years of No 

Child Left Behind. 

I think that will have a remarkable impact on the dropout rate 

if they are competing at math and reading at grade level. I commend Governor Barnes in his testimony. 

Governor Barnes, you quoted Don Iglesias of San Jose who has 

a great quote, which I want to read: ‘‘Experience in credentials do 

not always equate to a teacher that effectively delivers instruction, 

and the ’highly qualified’ definition has been problematic in No 

Child Left Behind.’’

That quote begs alternative certification as some consideration 

for an effective teacher. What considerations to alternatively certify 

a teacher as effective would you recommend? 

Mr. BARNES. Well, there is no question that alternative certification has to be part of the production of teachers in the future. 

Our problem in teaching is more of a retention problem than it 

is of training. For example, we do have shortages, and we are going 

to have shortages, but 40 percent of the teachers leave in 3 years, 

50 percent of them leave in 5 years. So you have to have a better 

retention, and that goes to work quality and some wages, even 

when you do the summaries and the studies, they say that it is 

working conditions more than anything else. 

Secondly, states like New Jersey, 40 percent of the teachers in 

New Jersey are alternatively qualified. I do think that we have to 

make sure that they are qualified as to subject matter, but we also 

have to—and the byproduct of growth models is being able to use 

and identify teachers that not should be labeled—and I agree with 

Mr. McElroy and Reg Weaver—not that should be labeled in any 

way, but should be helped with professional development. And that 

is part of the retention. 

We have had a very successful alternative. Of course, you were 

chair of the school board and you know we started it when you 

chaired the school board, and then we expanded it when I was governor. There are people that want to teach. The first group that we 

had, we had 4,000 people that applied for 1,500 seats to be alternative certified. Two were physicians, three were engineers, one 

had a Ph.D. in child literature from Oxford University—not the one 

in Oxford, Georgia, but the one over in England. [Laughter.] 

And they wanted to be teachers, but they did not want to go 

through all the pedagogy. 

Now, should they be taught pedagogy? They should, but there 

are more ways to learn it than just simply having to sit in the 

classroom. So I think alternative certification is a thought whose 

time has come. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you for that answer. 

And just one other question, and I think you inferred it. When 

you were talking about the growth model—and I am very intrigued 

by that, because, as Ms. Burmaster said, right now, we have two 

93

alternatives and that is you are good or you are bad, and there is 

nowhere in between on the needs improvement assessment. 

Did I hear you say also that a properly calibrated growth model 

might also help us not to lose teachers who are leaving the system? 

Mr. BARNES. Yes. What happens is the natural byproduct of the 

data system. If you have a growth model, you have to have a data 

system that measures where children are where they start and 

where they end so that you can see if they have made more than 

a year’s progress in a year. That is the whole definition of growth 

model. 

When you do that, one of the natural byproducts of it is that you 

see which teachers are having the greatest learning gains. And 

what we recommend is that you take the 25 percent that are having the least learning gains, we don’t brand them and we don’t say 

that the test is the sole test, but that you concentrate your professional development in the area. And the effectiveness, the growth 

learning, should not be more than 50 percent in determining that. 

Let me say one other thing, too, about growth models, and this 

came up, too, about misidentification. We heard a lot about two 

groups in the disaggregated groups. If we could just do something 

with these two groups, we would make AYP, and all of you know 

what it is: English-language-learners and special-needs kids. 

We looked at that, we examined it in great depth. What we said 

in English-language-learners is we kept the time period of 3 years 

the same but we said that you could average over the 3 years, so 

you didn’t have a new group each year. So it gave some relief on 

AYP. 

On special-needs kids, we adopted basically what DOE has 

adopted: One percent of them could have alternative methods of assessment and another 1 percent could have supplemental assistance in the assessment. 

Now, the reason we did this—and, listen, we heard some horrifying stories from parents too about this, who they thought it was 

unfair to put their child to meeting the assessment—is the danger 

of forgetting these kids again. If we don’t require them to be counted in the disaggregated, we don’t have to worry about them. Then 

these special-needs kids and English-language-learners become invisible children. 

And so they have to remain in the—I suggest to you, and you are 

going to get a lot of pressure on this and a lot of discussion—they 

have to remain in the mix of what is being counted. Yes, give some 

flexibility on the growth, but don’t make them invisible. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Governor. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Congressman Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have always believed that education is a local function, a state 

responsibility, but a very, very important federal concern. It is a 

federal concern for two reasons: where we live in a very mobile society, people move around the nation, and we are competing in a 

global economy, so it has to be a very important federal concern. 

But how can we prod the states and the local education agencies 

to do more? I ask that because I left teaching in Flint, Michigan, 

94

on January 1, 1965, when I was elected to the state legislature. 

That is the same year that ESEA was passed. 

The federal government has increased its involvement, its federal 

concern, has demonstrated its federal concern a great deal in those 

years. But the quality of education in Flint, Michigan—not the 

quality of teaching, the quality of education—in Flint, Michigan, 

has deteriorated since 1965. 

Along with the increased federal concern, what can we do to 

prod, encourage the LEAs, the local education agencies, and the 

state education agencies, or the state to do more to address what 

is happening? We have had some tragedies in Flint, Michigan, 

some real tragedies. 

Governor, I will start with you. 

Mr. BARNES. I should let somebody else talk. 

Well, first, you elect good leaders that understand that education 

is the building block of our future prosperity. I am going to speak 

in common parlance of something down my part of the country. 

Textile mills are never coming back to Georgia, they are gone. And 

the new product of America—leaders have to understand, the new 

product of America must be innovation and skills. The new currency is not dollars and cents; it is knowledge and learning. So, 

first, you have to have leaders that understand that. 

Secondly, you have to have accountability. North Carolina has 

made the greatest progress since 1990 in education of any state in 

the nation. Did they have all the money in the world? No. They 

have had more. They had great leaders like Jim Hunt and Terry 

Sanford and others that saw that education was the building blocks 

of that new economy. But what they did is, the leadership instilled 

the need and then they provided more funds, but they provided accountability—accountability for higher standards. 

Let me just say one last thing about the standards, because I 

think that is part of it too. When I was a kid growing up in 

Mableton, Georgia—I know you would never think I was from the 

South—but when I was a kid growing up in Mableton, Georgia, I 

saw that I was going to compete against kids in Marietta, Georgia, 

or Macon, Georgia. Children now that graduate compete against 

kids in Beijing and New Delhi and Berlin. 

And, yes, I do think that we have to take a look at some national 

standards. Now, they shouldn’t be mandatory—goes back to the 

issue that you have—but in math and science we have gone on the 

international math and science test from 17th to 22nd in the last 

few years. We can’t do that and remain prosperous as a people. 

And what we recommend in the commission in regard to that is 

that NAEP, under the same framework, that we devise tests testing the major subjects of math, science and otherwise that NAEP 

devises. And then if a state adopts those tests that meets the national standards, then it is automatic approval at the DOE that 

they are married. They don’t have to adopt the national standards, 

but there is truth in advertising. 

And I will use my own state as a good example. My own state 

says that on their test they administer, 80 percent of the children 

are proficient. You know what NAEP says at 4th grade in reading? 

Twenty-six percent. My own state says that 80 percent of the chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
95

dren in the 4th grade math are proficient, but NAEP says 30 percent. 

That is not truth in advertising. It does not instill in those parents and voters the wherewithal to go out there and kick their public officials to raise the standards in Flint, Michigan, because they 

are being told everything is okay. 

And so what the new standards would do: If you don’t adopt the 

new standards, you don’t have to, but the DOE is going to print 

every year to 2 years how you compare on the national standards, 

so the parents can become involved and push their elected officials 

to raise the standards and do better. And it can happen. 

I will hush. I could go on, but I will hush. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Casserly, do you have any comments on that? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Well, my first comment is, I am sorry that Flint 

is not part of our group, because I think we might be able to help 

them a little bit. 

Mr. KILDEE. Come visit us. 

Mr. CASSERLY. But one of the things that we are learning from 

other urban school districts about how it is that they are improving 

achievement is pretty consistent from district to district. Now, it 

doesn’t mean we have reached the promised land in terms of student achievement; we haven’t. It is still low, we still have gaps, but 

we are making headway. 

What these faster-improving urban school districts are doing is 

built around a clear, sustained agenda for student improvement, 

clear goals that everybody knows that they are supposed to meet, 

accountability systems, as the governor said, by which the adults 

are held responsible for the achievement of the kids, strong curriculum aligned to very good, high-level state standards or national 

standards, professional development systems on the curriculum 

and good instruction, ways in which instruction is monitored to 

make sure that good academic rigor is sustained in the classrooms, 

good data systems, regular assessments and a clear focus on some 

of your lowest-performing students. 

All of those things locked together systemically is what is really 

producing the achievement progress in a lot of these big city school 

districts, and Flint might want to take a look at some of those. 

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chair, I think also safe and orderly schools, 

qualified and certified teachers, state-of-the-art technology, parental involvement, counselors, smaller class sizes, challenging curriculum—those are the things that we know work in schools. Wherever you find high degrees of success, you will find almost each and 

every one of those things existing. 

And so I would suggest that we look at the conditions that exist 

for 85 percent of the richest parents and their children, which is 

the public school, and implement those same kinds of conditions in 

Flint and every other system, whether it is rural, urban or suburban, and I think that you will have success. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Reggie. You are always welcome back to 

Flint. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BURMASTER. Congressman, could I add also, I would be in 

full agreement with my colleagues, and I would also add quality 

early childhood education to the list. 

96

Mr. ROTHKOPF. If I might just add one factor that hasn’t been 

talked about and that is, we think, a critical one, and that is the 

need for the K through 12 system—and it goes to the standards—

to align itself with higher education and with the business community. 

I think there has been a disconnect between what K through 12 

is teaching and then what is needed to get a good job, a job in your 

community, as you start changing what is going on and the nature 

of your economy, and also focus on the business community as well 

as higher education. 

Those groups need to sit down, and part of our proposal is that 

there be incentives provided to align those interests. We think that 

is a critical nature and a critical element of what has to be done. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I have to add one last point, though, Mr. Kildee, which is that the system you have described——

Chairman MILLER. Do it quickly. 

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. 93 percent funding from the state, 

7 percent from the federal government, moves too slowly to bring 

the kinds of changes that the system requires. And it will only happen once we redefine the nature of the problem. 

This has to be based on rational self-interest, rightly understood 

at the state level. This is about national security, it is about the 

global economy. And we are not going to be able to frame this issue 

exclusively around questions of equity and expect the states to do 

more than they have already done. 

So it has to involve much more of a recharacterization of the nature of the problem and it has got to be federalized in ways that 

thus far feds and states have been unwilling to do. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Hoekstra? 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are heading down a path we are going to have a national curriculum. We have got math and reading. You are arguing for including science; my state is arguing for including history, geography, government, econ and civics. Some are talking about adding 

technology, talking about adding engineering. 

We are going to expand the level of tests. I think there is strong 

encouragement from this panel to add NAEP as well as science 

testing so that we can compare it. We will set the standards. 

I saw in some of the comments here that we have got to have 

national standards but not federal standards. Give me a break. 

How can you have national standards but not federal? And then we 

will put in accountability measures. 

It is amazing to me that we have people like the chamber here 

today talking about federal schools instead of public schools. 

Ms. Burmaster, you are the only one that I see up there that has 

any concept of freedom. If we define education where we are, I 

don’t think anybody in their opening statements, unless I missed 

it, talked about parents. 

Now, we did ‘‘Education at Crossroads,’’ we went across the country, we talked to people at your level, we talked to state administrators, we talked to school administrators. But the person that 

had the most passion for the highest-quality education opportunity 

to their kids were parents. 

97

And in this whole discussion about reauthorizing No Child Left 

Behind, we have made all of you beggars to Washington for more 

rules, more regulation, fix this rule, add this in, tell us what to do, 

because without federal involvement we are not going to do it. 

Again, Ms. Burmaster, at least you were bold enough to say, 

‘‘Give me some more flexibility, because I think I can do this better 

than what—’’

Ms. BURMASTER. Give me some more flexibility, because I think 

I can do this better. 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Absolutely. 

Ms. BURMASTER. I am speaking for the chief state school officers. 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes. And I think if we gave you more flexibility 

and we empowered parents and local school districts, it might be 

amazing what would happen. 

I can only find that if this is the model that our business community is articulating and advocating for federalizing our public 

schools, I can’t wait to see their role for making us competitive in 

the world because they can only ask for more federal guidelines, 

rules to get where we need to go. 

Because, clearly, that is the way that it works for our most important asset in the country, which is our kids, and if we are going 

to delegate the role of educating our kids to the federal government, it would only make sense that we would delegate the role for 

our autonomy to the federal government as well. 

Ms. Burmaster, what do you see parental choice in this process? 

If you want more flexibility, does your organization or does the 

state of Wisconsin see empowering parents in this process at any 

place? 

Ms. BURMASTER. Yes, the organization I want to speak for. 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Right, okay. 

Ms. BURMASTER. The organization saw an opportunity again for 

more parental involvement and the differentiation of consequences. 

In the state of Wisconsin, we held listening sessions throughout the 

state over the course of the years, thousands of citizens, parents, 

educators, business leaders from the state, and it was clear that 

people did understand that this is a local issue. 

We can test all we want, testing the disaggregation of the data, 

the intent of this law, the attention that has been brought to this 

very, very serious issue that our long-term economic security, as a 

state, as community, as a nation, the future of our democracy rests 

on closing this gap. 

People understand that, and this law has gone a long way in creating that sense of urgency. But the work has to be done at the 

local level, and parents must be involved. And parents do have to 

have the option to be determining what will contribute to the success of their children. 

So the chiefs saw that if there could perhaps be, when you are 

looking at a school, that a district might even have a parent advisory board that could be looking at making recommendations for 

what kind of interventions. They have to be involved in the interventions themselves. 

I understand the discussion that we are having here, but I appreciate that you have captured really what is the sense of urgency 

among those of us who are implementing this law and in the 

98

schools on a regular basis, and that is that you have to bring communities to get, and it takes more than the education system working to ensure that we are going to overcome some of the contributors to the achievement gap. 

And poverty is probably one of the main issues. And so we are 

going to have to work in collaboration, community agencies, social 

service agencies. 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you. 

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chair, when he mentioned about not hearing 

in the opening statements any mention of parents, well, you know 

what I did, I started to look through my opening statement to see 

if in fact—and I saw McElroy do the same thing. 

But just because we didn’t mention it doesn’t mean that we don’t 

believe that it is important. We absolutely believe that parental involvement is extremely important. And if you will take a look at 

our positive agenda, you will see that it is up there in terms of importance. 

What I hear from parents and what I see from parents when I 

talk with them, what they want is for their children to be successful. What they want is for their children to go to a school that is 

safe and orderly. What they want for their children is to have a 

qualified and certified teacher. 

And so anything that does not allow them to have those kinds 

of things is wrong. And I think that we should do everything we 

can to make sure that parents in all areas of this country, whether 

it is urban, rural or suburban, have what they need. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank the panel for your insights. 

You know, I sometimes get amused at this question about the 

country being concerned about what is happening throughout our 

nation. When World War II began, we found that, believe it or not, 

most of our young men going into the Army were malnourished, 

and so it started the lunch program in elementary and secondary 

schools. It was a national defense thing. If we left it up to every 

individual town and state, we probably would still have people who 

were malnourished, as we found out in World War II, and we 

couldn’t put an army together. 

When we found out that the Russians had put the Sputnik on 

and they were way ahead in math and science, even though they 

were one of the poorest countries at that time, we turned around 

and started the national defense. We had to put in a war-sounding 

bill, because we said the National Education Act probably wouldn’t 

pass. We called it the National Defense Bill, and we were able to 

get educational loans for kids, minority kids who couldn’t get loans 

to go to college. 

When we looked at Title 1, we found that schools were just ignoring poor kids, and that is why Title 1 began in 1965. 

And so my point is, as my friend who has left has said, we should 

keep the federal government out. Government which governs least 

is best, stays the same. Evidently, we don’t have the authority or 

the will on local levels. We wouldn’t have to have had a Brown v. 

the Board of Education if we had the will throughout our country. 

99

And so I really get amused at people saying, ‘‘Let’s keep away 

from national involvement.’’

Also, the folks that are so interested in parental choice, I see a 

new bill is going to be introduced about vouchers again. The ones 

who are the main proponents, I have never heard them talk about 

vouchers in their districts. It seems like the voucher proposals are 

people who somehow feel that this is the only way we can do it. 

However, their public schools are great. But let’s do it in the urban 

schools. 

I don’t hear people talk about vouchers in my district, which is 

very diverse. The richest community in the United States is in my 

district, and, believe it or not, just about the lowest amount of 

homeownership, 22 percent, is in another part of the district where 

average homeownership in this country is about 75 percent. But 

the people up there in that richest community, they are not talking 

about school choice. They have school choice because they have it 

right there in their own community. 

So there is a lot of hypocrisy that is going on. 

As a former teacher, I decided to start in secondary school and 

taught at now Mount Shabazz High School in Newark; it was 

Southside High School then. Stayed there for 3 or 4 years, decided 

to go into junior high because I wasn’t satisfied at what was coming to the high school. Taught in the so-called middle junior high 

school for 3 or 4 years and then went down to elementary, believe 

it or not, just to see about how it was. 

A few things were the same. One, the attitude of the teachers. 

We would go to a school where teachers felt the kids could learn, 

would put things together, and the kids had a better attitude. We 

would go to other schools where they didn’t care, teachers that 

didn’t care, and the kids didn’t learn. 

Let me just say get quickly before my time runs out, I guess it 

is about out, we have a problem with qualified teachers, period, no 

question about it, substandard schools. 

I just would like—and I want to associate myself with Wade 

Henderson—to talk about a total program. You are not going to 

have a kid who died in Washington, D.C., because of a toothache 

and couldn’t get a doctor to see him because he was on Medicaid 

and couldn’t get a dentist to see the boy is dead. Here in Washington, D.C., in the view of the Capitol of the world’s greatest democracy. Makes no sense. 

So my question is, how can we get—what do you think, maybe 

Reg and the president of AFT and Wade—qualified teachers in the 

hardest-to-handle schools? What can we do to try to get them, since 

we do find that in the toughest places to teach we have, generally 

speaking, teachers who leave to go to other districts when they get 

an opportunity? 

For anyone who would like a stab at that. 

Mr. MCELROY. I will take a shot at that, if I may. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCELROY. Thank you for those comments. 

I think Governor Barnes said earlier, and it is important to remember, that we bring a lot of people into the profession. We lose 

them very quickly. Lose 50 percent of them in 5 years; actually, in 

large urban districts, we lose 50 percent of them in 3 years. 

100

So the issue is, how do you retain those people in urban centers, 

in hard-to-staff schools? 

And the question is, look, professional development, the kind of 

professional development you talk about was done in the 1960s, 

frankly, under the National Science Foundation Act, and there 

were grants for teachers to work during the summer to go through 

those programs. We should reinstitute that, it would seem to me, 

or we should look at that. 

The second thing is, you have to provide incentives to people to 

work in those schools. 

The third thing is that you have to create the environment that 

we were talking about originally around the school. What happens 

when the kid comes there? Are there provisions for medical care? 

Are there provisions for a decent, not only medical care, but nutrition programs? 

And we are phonies in a lot of ways about what we think about 

school. We say to the kid, ‘‘Look, it is the most important thing you 

do in your life,’’ and then not too far from this building, there are 

some of the most decrepit schools in the country. You can’t say to 

a kid that education is the most important thing you do and then 

have them walk into a building where he knows it isn’t. 

So there are a lot of factors here. 

Mr. WEAVER. In addition to what Ed said, mentoring and induction programs. You know, sometimes we are very cruel to new 

teachers coming into the system. We put them into a system with 

overcrowded classrooms, no help and then expect them to be successful. It is not going to work like that. 

Also, give them the respect, the support, make sure they have an 

atmosphere that is safe and orderly and give them some pay, and 

you will be able to get people coming into these areas that we typically don’t have them coming into now. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Castle? 

Mr. CASTLE. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an excellent panel with a diversity of opinions and views 

but coming out, in my judgment, with the same conclusion, and 

that is that No Child Left Behind is fundamentally very good for 

education but may need some changes or shifts, and for that we are 

very appreciative. 

I think we, as Democrats and Republicans up here, feel the same 

way, that we do need to continue to move in this direction. 

Let me ask a question. I am not sure if any of you are really experts on this or not, but one of the areas that has been suggested 

that we are now trying, through the Department of Education, is 

this so-called growth model, that instead of having just adequate 

yearly progress, having a growth model for schools in which adequate yearly progress may be too much of a reach in 1 year. 

I would think it is very likely this may be included in whatever 

we end up doing in No Child Left Behind this year. But I wonder 

if any of you have any comments on the various pilots that are 

going on right now or any other thoughts about what should or 

should not be included in some sort of a growth model for measuring school improvement from the beginning of the year to the 

end of the year. 

101

Mr. BARNES. We do recommend a growth model. The DOE is, of 

course, doing the pilots, as you set forth, and, really, in talking to 

Secretary Spellings and how they chose the pilots, remember you 

have got to have a data system. Growth models don’t work unless 

you have a data system. So what limited her from granting more 

waivers was lack of a data system. It is not inexpensive. We recommend $400 million over the next 4 years, $100 million a year, and of course that is only going to be 

a portion of it. In Georgia, it costs us about $70 million to get the 

data system, because every child has to have a unique identifier. 

Now, the growth models shouldn’t hide how you are really making 

progress. 

And what we recommend is that you have to be on grade level 

within 5 years. In other words, you have to be making—you just 

don’t put a growth model out there and say, ‘‘Well, they made a little progress over’’—that you have to make more than a year’s 

progress in a year and that within 3 years you have to be on grade 

level. 

We believe, and we talked much about it, and the two school officers were very much in favor of it also when we heard testimony 

from them. We think this will soften some of the AYP harshness 

that you have been hearing about, that it will not misclassify and 

demoralize a school that is making good progress and probably 

going to make it in a little while but didn’t make it this year. 

So we are very much in favor of growth models. 

Mr. HENDERSON. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights sees 

growth models as potentially having useful and important contribution to be made, but I think the pilots that are currently under way 

within the department we have not fully assessed. We do have 

some concerns. 

We think you can measure subgroups, cohorts in a way that can 

be very effective, but we are concerned, for example, about how you 

measure English language learners who make rapid progress over 

a short period of time and then have to be factored into a larger 

model. 

I guess what we are waiting to see is how the department conducts its pilot programs. We would like to evaluate them before we 

issue a definitive view. 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Congressman, I think our view of growth models 

is, yes, they ought to be tried, they are being tried. 

Our concern would be that if there is an effort to move away 

from a rigorous group of standards and also to try and move away 

from that 2014 deadline. No one has mentioned that this morning. 

We think it is critical to stay with the requirements of 2014. As we 

know in the business communities and many parts of our economy, 

if you set a standard, you have got to stick with it and try and 

meet it and not slip from that. 

So growth models, if they are applied in a rigorous, systematic 

way, with the right kind of data, fine, but if they are a way to get 

around the statute and find ways to not meet the important goal 

that you all set 5 years ago, then we would not favor it. 

Mr. CASSERLY. Just one point very quickly: I suspect the Department of Education growth models aren’t going to really tell this 

committee very much, in part, because they have only been apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
102

proved on a couple of states, and they are growth models that are 

automatically tagged to the 2013-2014 deadline. 

So I would urge the committee to look a little more broadly, not 

necessarily to get rid of the 2013-2014 deadline, I agree with Mr. 

Rothkopf’s point, but let’s look a little more broadly at the various 

possibilities of models here and not lock ourselves in just to the 

ones that the U.S. Department of Education is testing. 

The Delaware model, by the way, I think is particularly promising. 

Mr. MCELROY. I would agree with that. I also agree that it is 

principally data-driven, and so you need to have the data in order 

to do this. 

I would also say that the current pilot programs are not flexible 

enough. In other words, there has to be some understanding that 

there could be a variety of different ways to assess and measure 

growth. 

Mr. WEAVER. We support the growth model as well. It is just a 

matter of coming together to determine what kind of growth model 

are you talking about, what it is going to take to have something 

incorporated as law that everybody can pass. 

Ms. BURMASTER. The first recommendation of the chief state 

school officers is that they be able to submit status and growth 

models upon peer review, to be found statistically valid and reliable 

so that we could indeed address this very important area of really 

being able to look at individualized student growth over time, 

which is the key to closing the gap in achievement. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, panel. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the panel. 

Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago when we started discussing the first 

draft of No Child Left Behind, there was an argument about 

whether accountability standards should be linked to Title 1 

money. I think it is a measure of progress that today’s discussion 

is about how they should be linked to Title 1 money. I think that 

is more than just a rhetorical achievement. 

I want to ask a question about how AYP is calculated and invite 

any of the panel to answer it. 

Today, in my school district, the 8th graders are taking the New 

Jersey standardized test, the math section of it. And when the results come in, their performance will be measured against last 

year’s 8th graders, this year’s 9th graders. 

It is entirely conceivable that because this year’s 8th graders are 

a very high-achievement class, my daughter is in the class, and 

last year’s 8th graders may not have been as adept, but the school 

will be measured as going backwards in 8th grade math. 

Wouldn’t it make more sense to do longitudinal testing and 

measure this year’s 8th grader against their performance last year 

in the 7th grade and the year before that in the 6th grade? And 

if not, why not? 

Mr. BARNES. Yes, it makes sense, and that is part of the growth 

model that you have. But what makes more sense is what should 

103

an 8th grade student know in math to be on track to be competitive 

as a worker, as a student elsewhere. And so that is the part of the 

NAEP. 

NAEP comes in and measures your state criterion test against 

that, and one of the things that we recommend here is that—and 

I am sorry that my distinguished brother left—we are all part of 

the United States, so there is a national standard. We tried that 

a few years ago, and it didn’t work down south. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, Governor, if I may, because my time is limited, do you or do you not favor longitudinal testing? That is what 

I am asking. 

Mr. BARNES. I do in the context of a growth model but not as to 

take the place of NAEP. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Okay. 

And how about the other panelists? 

Dr. Rothkopf? President Rothkopf? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Yes, Congressman, I think the key goes back to 

a point about data, and I think your question really goes to what 

is the quality of the data, the longitudinal data. 

We did the report I referred to where we evaluated each state, 

and one of the subjects was data quality, and there is something 

called the data quality——

Mr. ANDREWS. I don’t mean to interrupt you but I am limited. 

Do you or do you not favor longitudinal testing? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. What was that? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you or do you not favor longitudinal testing? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. I think it is fine. I think it is good, but I think 

you have got to have the data, and I think it is very important that 

states, including New Jersey, which has not really gone as far as 

a——

Mr. ANDREWS. But if I may, this really isn’t a data problem. If 

you have a school with 50 8th graders and 90 percent of them 

passed the test last year and only 80 percent of them pass the test 

this year, that school is going to be, as I understand it, categorized 

as not making adequate yearly progress for this year. And you are 

not measuring the same kids. You are measuring last year’s kids 

against this year’s. 

That is not a data problem; that is an interpretation problem. 

Who else has an opinion on that? 

Ms. BURMASTER. That is one of the biggest complaints about 

AYP. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you favor longitudinal testing? 

Ms. BURMASTER. Yes, or growth models. Longitudinal testing 

would be one form of growth models or part of a growth model. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Weaver, what do you think? 

Mr. WEAVER. When you say longitudinal testing, are you using 

it synonymously with growth model? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, of course, growth model means a lot of different things. Here is what I mean. I mean that I don’t believe that 

a school should be held accountable based upon a negative assessment that one group of children slipped back when it was a different group of children. Let me unpack that. 

I think that if this year’s 8th graders don’t do as well as last 

year’s 8th graders, that doesn’t necessarily say anything about the 

104

school; it may say more about last year’s 8th graders. That is what 

I am talking about. So we are comparing the same children to the 

same children and their growth. 

So I guess, yes, I do mean the same as growth models in that 

respect. 

Mr. WEAVER. Okay. Well, oftentimes, we get caught up in labels, 

and so that is the reason why I was asking were you using synonymously longitudinal and growth models. But rather than use a 

label, I just want to look at what the issue is and try to work to 

solve and resolve the issue without attaching a term to it. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. McElroy, did you have anything? 

Mr. MCELROY. I agree that that is one of the biggest problems 

with AYP currently, that you are measuring one cohort of kids 

against a different cohort of kids the next year. So I would agree 

with you. How you do that, whether you use one kind of growth 

model or another is the issue that is the jump ball. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Casserly. You win the prize. [Laughter.] 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We hear, at least I have roundtables throughout my district to 

talk to business groups, to talk to the administrators, to talk to 

teachers, whoever wants to come in and talk about No Child Left 

Behind, and so many times it is said that there is so much pressure on meeting AYP that the focus of the curriculum is teaching 

to the test. 

And I know, Mr. Rothkopf, you talked about how we need to 

place emphasis on science, engineering in order to ensure that we 

are able to compete globally, and I think that that is really true. 

So are we limiting the curriculum too much? 

I just have a couple of things. 

The other thing is that the administration zeroed out the Perkins 

Fund and so we went back, I think, and put that back in. In talking to other groups, there are students who do not intend to go to 

college, and those are the ones that when they get to high school 

start to want to drop out. 

Going out to the vocational schools in my district, I met with 

some great success stories that kids had wanted to drop out, there 

happened to be a great teacher that got them interested. They 

wanted to work on cars. Well, they got to work on cars but they 

also then had to take those courses in math and reading to be 

able—or if they were going into construction, to have those skills. 

And the business community said, ‘‘These are the kids that we 

need in our workforce that are not getting the training because 

they drop out of school.’’

So I think that how are we going to balance that type of student 

that is really necessary unless we can engage them and have the 

time to do that and not just think of it as teaching to the test? 

Mr. Rothkopf? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Yes. I think you have put your finger on what 

is, I think, one of the critical issues we face in this whole dropout 

issue. 

The difficulty is that—let’s take the job of being what we used 

to call an auto mechanic. It was a pretty simple kind of thing. You 

105

change the oil, you fix the carburetor, do the plugs. That is not it 

anymore; you have got to be a technician. You go in and see what 

is wrong with your car. You need to be able to deal with computers 

and problem-solving and manuals. You have to have an awful lot 

of schools to take a job which used to be considered a semi-unskilled job, which now requires a fair number of skills. 

I think what we need to be looking at is a track, not one that 

sort of treats those youngsters who want to go into vocational fields 

as a lesser track, but one which really focuses on technical and career skills and gives them a reason to stay in school because there 

is an end game there, and it is not learning some things which are 

not relevant. 

The truth is, they need to have the knowledge, they need to have 

the skills, and we need to make sure they have them. But we need 

to clearly have an approach that keeps them in those schools by 

making things more attractive to them and showing them what is 

at the end of the day. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And then just one other issue that has come up, 

and there has been some talk here about the need for physical education and perhaps bringing that in to NCLB. Illinois happens to 

be the only state that mandates physical education every day, and 

I know there has been some—whether it is called recess sometimes 

now—but there has also been some studies that without the physical education, the kids don’t learn as well, don’t learn fast. 

Has there been anybody who can say anything about that? Is 

physical education getting lost because of the pressure of the academia? 

This really is something that, to me, little boys, when they are 

in 3rd and 4th grade, if they had just that half an hour to run off 

that energy and then come back, that the learning takes place in 

a much greater way right after recess. 

Anybody have comments on that? 

Mr. WEAVER. I think many parts of the curriculum have been cut 

back as a result of No Child Left Behind. And, in many instances, 

many children may not be receiving the well-rounded education 

that we would like to have, which is inclusive of phys ed, simply 

because many people are focusing on reading and math. 

So, hopefully, there should continue to be room for the inclusion 

of civics education, physical education, arts and other areas of the 

curriculum, if in fact we want our children to be well-rounded in 

terms of their education. 

Mr. CASSERLY. I don’t have anything specifically on physical education, although I agree with your underlying point. 

But one of the things that might help correct some of the unintended side effects of the provisions in No Child Left Behind would 

be to reorient some of the law around instruction and some of these 

other areas that people are concerned about rather than quite so 

many procedural things that sometimes have us chasing our tails 

a little bit. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of our witnesses. 

106

Mr. Henderson, you mentioned as one of your five standards the 

appropriate resources, and you talk about the promise of Brown. Is 

funding equity necessary to achieve the promise of Brown? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Scott, I think funding equity is a critical 

component in achieving the fulfillment of Brown. 

And as I pointed out in my remarks, first of all, Title 1 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act was not intended to 

equalize funding between rich and poor school districts within the 

same state. That was really intended to be a state function. 

I am sorry that Mr. Hoekstra left, because he talked about the 

willingness of states to carry out their mandates to their citizens. 

And I think there is ample evidence to suggest that states not only 

have ignored that responsibility but, in many instances, worked 

against it. 

So, truly, there does need to be a recognition of the reality we 

confront, and Title 1 is certainly there to supplement what states 

have failed to do in their equity efforts. 

But having said that, state equity initiatives have been woefully 

underfunded; they are not being funded fully now. I think we are 

still dealing with the effects of that. 

No Child Left Behind is certainly providing us with a new federal standard that is moving us in the right direction, but, again, 

the dichotomy between states that provide 93 percent of their resources for public education and only 7 percent coming from the 

federal government, it does seem to show the imbalance that can 

only be rectified by having the feds continue to prod in the direction. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy mentioned the School of Newport News had 

done extremely well. Part of that is we put extra funding into that 

school, and it makes a difference. 

Ms. Burmaster, you mentioned—and several mentioned—sanctions and what is appropriate. And some of the sanctions would be 

totally inappropriate. If a school isn’t teaching, giving the students 

supplemental educational services seems a bizarre reaction. And if 

limited English proficiency students aren’t learning, letting other 

students get out the backdoor and go to another school doesn’t address the problem. 

Is there something in No Child Left Behind, or does there need 

to be, when a school fails to make AYP, an assessment of what the 

problem is? 

Ms. BURMASTER. Yes, and in our proposal——

Mr. SCOTT. Is that in the bill now or does it need to be in the 

bill? 

Ms. BURMASTER. It needs to be in the bill. And our proposal, 

through our innovative models and then based on peer review, 

whether it was a valid model or not, could incorporate those very 

types of things. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. We talked around about the dropout rate. 

Dropouts are correlated with unemployment, underemployment, 

welfare and crime, and, obviously, if you let kids drop out, they are 

dropping out from the bottom, your testing average will go up if 

you let people drop out. 

107

We thought we had addressed this in the original No Child Left 

Behind by punishing systems with high dropout rates. I guess my 

question is, are we counting the number of dropouts accurately, 

and are we punishing schools sufficiently to discourage letting students drop out? 

Whoever? 

Ms. BURMASTER. Do you want to go? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Mr. Scott, I don’t know whether we are counting 

dropout rates exactly accurately. There are a number of different 

methodologies that one could use to make this calculation. I think 

by any of the methods that are currently being discussed, at least 

many urban schools and urban school districts and many poor 

rural ones have dropout rates that are way too high no matter 

what the methodology is. 

And I think we have got just a huge national problem that we 

need to address on this front and also involving the reform of our 

high schools. 

Mr. SCOTT. I wanted to get in another quick question before my 

time runs out, and that is the perverse incentive that may occur 

when you are focusing your attention just on those students right 

above and below the cutoff rate. If somebody goes from zero all the 

way up to 50, you get no credit because they still failed. 

Does the growth model address this problem where you would in 

fact get credit for bringing people almost up to passing but not 

quite? 

Ms. BURMASTER. It is important that we don’t just start using 

the term, ‘‘the growth model,’’ as though there is some sort of 

agreement as to what that is, but, certainly, a growth model could 

address that. 

And if I could add——

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, could I get—Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, could 

I get the witnesses to address that question in writing? Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. If you would, please. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Only if they provide the correct answer to 

what that growth model will provide. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. May I put the same restriction on my question? It 

is no secret that I have been a strong proponent of math and 

science education over the years, but it is not just because I think 

students should learn math and science and it is not just because 

I think since I know it everyone should know it. 

The main point is years ago I saw what was going to develop 

internationally if we didn’t improve our math-science education, because I saw what China and India and other countries were doing. 

And now it has happened, and we are losing ground competitively. 

And so it is all, at this point, a good deal that is about competitiveness. 

In spite of that, we have actually gone backward on math-science 

education and teacher training with No Child Left Behind. Originally, as it left this House, it was a good bill. It did provide for adequate funding for that, but before we passed No Child Left Behind, 

108

we provided $485 million per year in funding for the Eisenhower 

Professional Development Program. 

What passed this House was a program, which I put in, that 

would require states to set aside at least 15 and up to 20 percent 

of their Title 2 teacher quality grants for the Math/Science Partnership program. Unfortunately, that was dropped during conference. 

Since then, we have spent considerably less than we did before 

on the Eisenhower Program, and I certainly hope in this version 

of No Child Left Behind we will go back to the higher level, because we are not doing our nation any good and not doing our kids 

any good if we don’t provide teacher development funding in math 

and science. It is the one area they probably need it the most. 

Many science teachers, for example, have reported they have little, if any, funds available for professional development activities 

at this point, and I think having properly trained teachers in math 

and science is the best way to tackle the problem. It is not new 

textbooks, not new curricula but properly trained teachers. 

I would appreciate if the witnesses would comment in the time 

available on the level of development they have seen available for 

math and science teacher professional development and any other 

thoughts you might have on the appropriate way to create a setaside for that. 

And I would like to start with Ms. Burmaster, since she is right 

on the front lines there. 

Ms. BURMASTER. I am in absolute agreement with you. And I believe that the recruitment of math-and science-trained individuals 

are—the governor had spoken about alternative certification. Being 

able to recruit from industry and commerce is an important component of this as well. But there is not currently enough done on professional development around math and science or recruitment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Let’s just go down the line. 

Mr. WEAVER. I would agree, but I also would certainly like to see 

more opportunities presented to minority students who have not 

typically had the opportunity to participate in such programs, such 

that they can become part of America’s future in terms of science 

and math. 

Mr. EHLERS. That is crucial. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCELROY. I agree with your contention and your premise. 

There are several opportunities for professional development, and 

one of them a teacher sent us. As a matter of fact, Chairman Miller 

and Chairman Kennedy introduced a bill on that, and we would be 

very supportive of that concept. 

Another one of these summer institutes that I mentioned four 

teachers, which we used to do many years ago, congressman, and 

we have dropped back and don’t do. And then in an organization 

like mine, we have our own professional development program 

called, Educational Research and Dissemination where we go out 

and actually train people, and math is included in that program. 

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just comment. Twice I taught NSF professional development summer institutes, and they were invaluable to 

the teachers. 

Mr. CASSERLY. Mr. Ehlers, I am in accord with your general emphasis on math and science and professional development. 

109

First of all, let me just congratulate you on your national standards bill. 

One of the things that we have learned from the data that we 

have been collecting on our urban school districts is that the area 

where we have got the fewest highly qualified teachers are in the 

area of math and science. So in addition to professional development, we need a much greater emphasis not only recruiting but retaining and supporting math and science teachers, as well as the 

professional development. 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. If I might, we, in the business community, believe that innovation is the key to American competitiveness. Math 

and science is critical, so I commend you on your approach. 

A couple things I would note——

Chairman MILLER. No, no, no, you don’t get a couple things. 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. No, one thing. Can I give you one thing? And I 

would just make one point, and that is in the time to train these 

new teachers, I think we need to consider the possibility of bringing in teachers from, for example, industry to support, to teach the 

math and science and have qualified teachers. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Henderson and Mr. Barnes, quickly. 

Mr. HENDERSON. We completely agree with your analysis and 

support it wholeheartedly. 

Mr. BARNES. I agree, and I think that math and science teachers 

deserve to earn more than others that are in shortage areas. 

Mr. EHLERS. I agree, but I have had a little trouble selling that. 

Mr. BARNES. I can imagine. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If the panel would be so kind as to, on a scale of one to five, with 

one being the most urgent and five being not very urgent, tell me 

what you think about a universal preschool program and its impact 

on the K through 12 population and whether that is something we 

ought to be starting with and focusing on. 

Governor? 

Mr. BARNES. Georgia is the only state in the nation that has a 

4-year universal pre-K program. It is very important. It has helped 

us close the achievement gap. 

If I had it to do—this is speaking beyond No Child Left Behind 

Commission—if I had it to do over again, if I were redoing public 

education, I would do away with the 12th grade and make it optional if you don’t need the extra time and take all the money from 

the 12th grade and put it into early childhood. Now, you will never 

do that because of football, but that is what ought to happen. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well-said. 

Mr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I think clearly childhood development is critically important. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I am sorry, sir. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I am sorry. I think that early childhood development is critically important. On a scale of one to five, I would, 

sort of, put it somewhere around a 1.5 or 2 at the very latest. 

110

I do think, however, that it has to be augmented with the other 

things that children need that would not be a part of early childhood education. So, again, health care, food programs——

Mr. TIERNEY. So you are thinking of, sort of, an early Head Start. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, early Head Start but much more broadly, 

and I think you are on the right track, so we completely agree with 

that. 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. We think it is important. I am not sure I can put 

it on a numerical scale. It is an important feature to have the kids 

go to school qualify to really start learning. 

Mr. TIERNEY. If I could just stay with you for a second, Mr. 

Rothkopf. So you don’t think it is that important that you can’t put 

it on the scale and you wouldn’t say it is one end of the scale or 

the other, sort of in the middle about it? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. We think it is important. We haven’t really—I 

would have to say we are focusing more on some of these other 

issues and, frankly, haven’t really addressed pre-school as a subject. 

So I think it is important. I can’t say it is as important as some 

of the other subjects that we talk about. 

Mr. TIERNEY. That is interesting. 

Mr. CASSERLY. As long as this isn’t an either/or, I give this one 

a one. 

Mr. MCELROY. I would give it a one as well. 

Mr. WEAVER. One. 

Ms. BURMASTER. Research confirms, and every parent agrees, the 

first years of life lay the foundation for all future learning. I would 

give it a one. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Our last questioner will be Mr. Keller. Mr. Keller is recognized. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be quick 

here since we have limited time. 

A somewhat controversial issue under No Child Left Behind is 

President Bush’s proposal to expand testing to each and every year 

in high school. 

Starting with Ms. Burmaster, do you support or oppose this proposed expansion of testing? 

Ms. BURMASTER. Our organization does not support that. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. 

Mr. Weaver? 

Mr. WEAVER. We do not support it. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. McElroy? 

Mr. MCELROY. Not until we get what we are doing now right. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Casserly? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Oppose. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Rothkopf? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Not every year, but we ought to have some expansion of No Child Left Behind to high school. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. We don’t support it. 

Mr. KELLER. Governor? 

111

Mr. BARNES. No. The administration does not count that toward 

accountability. We do recommend that you have a 12th grade test 

in addition to the 10th grade that is linked to accountability. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. 

My final question: The single biggest complaint I get about No 

Child Left Behind is the inconsistency between the state and federal accounting systems. 

To give you an example, in my state, we use one single test, 

called the FCAT, in Florida, for both the state’s A-plus program 

and the federal government’s No Child Left Behind Act. Approximately, 90 percent of schools get a passing grade from the state’s 

A-plus plan, and approximately 90 percent of schools fail to meet 

the federal AYP standard. It sends a pretty confusing message to 

parents who are moving into neighborhoods and ask, ‘‘Is this a 

good school?’’

I understand the reason for the confusion, but it is not easily articulated to parents. You have seven different subgroups, under 

each subgroup you ask two questions: Did you test 95 percent of 

the students, and did they make a passing score? 

So you could have an excellent school, which receives an A-plus 

on the state level, and they pass 13 out of the 14 subcategories, but 

because they only tested 94 percent of the Down’s Syndrome students in a special-needs class, they are considered a failing school 

under the federal government. 

My question is, should the states and the federal government 

better align these dual accountability systems to ensure that parents are given clear and consistent information on their children’s 

schools? And if so, how? 

Let me start with Mr. McElroy. 

Mr. MCELROY. My answer would be, yes, to the question, and I 

want you to know it isn’t only in Florida that that is a problem. 

We hear about that throughout the country. 

If you modify the AYP measuring system or accountability system with several of the other kinds of growth models, you could 

clear that problem up. 

Mr. KELLER. Ms. Burmaster, let me go to you. 

Ms. BURMASTER. I think that we hear of that problem as well in 

our organization, and I think you could do it through the innovative model proposal that we have submitted. 

Mr. KELLER. What if you have something, instead of just saying 

yes or no, let’s say that you meet 90 percent of the criteria, that 

is excellent, and if you meet 80 percent, that is good, and if you 

meet 70 percent, that is average, something where you have a sliding scale of evaluation. 

Mr. Weaver, what do you think of that approach? 

Mr. WEAVER. I don’t know. I don’t know. But in response to the 

question that you just asked previously——

Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEAVER [continuing]. Multiple measures is something that 

I do believe would aid and assist what you have suggested as a 

problem. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. 

112

Mr. Casserly, what do you think about should we do a better job 

of bringing these dual accountability systems into line? And if so, 

do you have some ideas about that? 

Mr. CASSERLY. Yes, I think we should do a better job, and I agree 

with you, it does cause a lot of confusion in the public. 

We don’t have a set of proposals about how to do that, but I am 

happy to think some of those through and see if can get some for 

you. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Rothkopf, your thoughts? 

Mr. ROTHKOPF. Absolutely ought to be more alignment between 

the two systems. Too much confusion and that weakens the sense 

of commitment on the public side for accountability. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. And I think greater alignment certainly makes 

sense, although with respect to your proposal about categories of 

excellence, I am not sure that I could really speak to that. It 

sounds as if you are weakening standards inadvertently by creating these general categories of accountability, which seem to be 

weaker than the current standard. 

So while I think there needs to be alignment, I am not sure that 

I could go——

Mr. KELLER. Governor, I want to close by you addressing those 

questions, and as your chief competitor, University of Florida being 

the reigning national champions of football and basketball, if you 

want to comment on——

Mr. BARNES. So we have heard 6,000 times. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KELLER. Go ahead, Governor. 

Mr. BARNES. Yes, they should be better aligned. And this goes 

back to this issue—I wish Mr. Ehlers was here. Don’t we know 

what an 8th grader should be learning in math? We do because the 

National Foundation of Science tells us. 

So we tell NAEP, ‘‘Devise a test.’’ All right. We test the child and 

either they pass or they don’t or they rank in the proficiency basic 

or whatever, and then if your state standard does not comply with 

that, tell the parent and tell the policy-makers, ‘‘You have got a 

bunch of weak standards, and they are not meeting the national 

test.’’

Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. On that coalescing note——

[Laughter.] 

Let me certainly thank the panel for your time this morning, for 

your answers to the questions and for your contributions. 

And, again, I want to recognize that it wasn’t just about appearing at this panel. You have all been working and your organizations have been working very hard over the last several years to 

improve No Child Left Behind. 

I would like to recognize also that we received written testimony 

from the PTA, the American Association of School Administrators, 

National Association of State School Boards, the National Association of Secondary School Principals and other organizations will be 

submitting testimony for this hearing. 

Again, thank you. 

113

And I want to thank all of my colleagues in both the House and 

the Senate committees for their attendance this morning. Thank 

you very much. 

And with that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. It is a privilege to be joined by our colleagues 

from the Senate as we begin to discuss how to improve elementary and secondary 

education in the United States, and ensure our children are provided with the skills 

necessary to be successful and productive in the global economy. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to today’s witnesses. I appreciate all of 

you for taking the time to be here and look forward to hearing from you. 

No one can disagree with the goals of NCLB. We must ensure that all children 

can read and perform math at grade level by the 2013—2014 school year. However, 

what means are used to achieve this goal and how this goal is measured are critically important. 

While there has been some success since NCLB became law in 2002, there are 

clearly areas where reform is needed. Some problems with NCLB can be attributed 

to insufficient federal funding for mandates the law placed on states. However, it 

is important we do not use the lack of funding as an excuse to overlook other shortcomings in the law. 

Among other issues, we must examine whether current tests accurately gauge 

student knowledge, if the results of these tests are being used to fairly judge which 

schools are making adequate yearly progress, and whether the interventions for failing schools in NCLB are effective and what other interventions may be more effective. 

I am anxious to hear the ideas of the witnesses here today. I believe that working 

together we can dramatically improve NCLB and, as a result, greatly improve the 

education of millions of children. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Michigan 

Chairman Miller, Senior Republican Member McKeon, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi, I thank you for holding this very important bicameral hearing 

on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act today. 

I support the No Child Left Behind Act, but recognize that we need to fix some 

things. In particular, we need to strengthen NCLB’s focus on math and science education and create equity among states. 

High quality math and science education at the K-12 levels is extremely important to ensure that our future workforce is ready to compete in the global economy. 

I have been so concerned about the quality of math and science education in this 

country, and the limited number of young people who are pursuing math and 

science-related degrees, that I founded the House STEM Education Caucus with my 

Democratic colleague Mark Udall of Colorado in 2004. As you probably know, STEM 

stands for ‘‘Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.’’ The STEM Education Caucus has helped to inform our colleagues about the growing demand for 

science and math training in the workforce and the needs of our future economy, 

and more than 100 Members of Congress have joined this caucus. 

To improve our math and science education content standards, Senator Chris 

Dodd and I introduced the Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for All 

Kids (SPEAK) Act (H.R. 325), which creates, adopts and recommends rigorous voluntary American education content standards in math and science in grades K-12. 

NCLB has made important strides toward strengthening standards-based education 

and holding states and schools accountable for ensuring that our students are learning. However, with more than 50 different sets of academic standards, state assessments and definitions of proficiency, there is tremendous variability across our nation in the subject matter our students are learning. The bill tasks the National Assessment Governing Board, in consultation with relevant organizations, to review 

114

existing standards and to review the issue of course sequencing as it relates to student achievement. 

I might add that there is considerable variation across states and even school districts in the sequencing of math and science courses, which is problematic for our 

increasingly mobile student population. Our students could lack instruction in certain basic science or math concepts if they transfer between schools with completely 

different sequences of courses. 

The SPEAK Act authorizes the American Standards Incentive Fund to incentivize 

states to adopt excellent math and science standards. It offers an ‘‘If You Build It, 

They Will Come Approach.’’ Let me emphasize that this bill does not establish a national curriculum or required national standards. Participation by states is strictly 

voluntary. I have always felt that the ‘‘carrot’’ is more effective than the ‘‘stick’’ in 

leading reform. It is my hope that all states will feel the overwhelming responsibility to bolster their state standards in science and math and will step up to the 

plate. 

I also introduced another bill, the Science Accountability Act (H.R. 35), which 

holds states and schools accountable for ensuring that K-12 students learn science. 

It amends the federal NCLB to require that the science assessments, which will 

begin in the 2007-08 school year, be included in the state’s accountability system 

beginning in the 2008-09 school year. It also gradually phases in annual assessments in science in grades 3-8, matching the existing requirements for reading and 

math assessments. 

I applaud President Bush and the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left 

Behind for recommending that student performance in science become part of the 

school’s adequate yearly progress calculation. Science, technology, engineering and 

math (STEM) subjects are directly tied to our national economy and we must do all 

we can to ensure that all our students are equipped with at least a basic understanding of STEM subjects. If you question this, just look at the evidence. Business 

owners, particularly manufacturers, have noticed a disturbing trend: They are unable to find qualified skilled workers in our nation. Of the 800 U.S. manufacturers 

surveyed in the 2005 Skills Gap report, 80 percent reported a shortage of qualified 

workers overall, with 65 percent reporting a shortage of engineers and scientists. 

To prepare the workers of the future, we need to give our kids a chance by providing 

them teachers who are trained to teach math and science properly and understandably. It is critical for our children’s and our nation’s future. 

Funding levels are another key issue to address in the NCLB reauthorization. I 

would like to comment specifically on funding for math and science professional development. In fiscal year 2001, before the passage of NCLB, Congress provided $485 

million in funding for the Eisenhower Professional Development program, which focused on math and science. When we wrote the NCLB Act, I fought to set aside 

dedicated funding for math and science professional development. You may recall 

that the House bill required states to set aside at least 15 and up to 20 percent 

of their Title II Teacher Quality grants for the Math and Science Partnership program. Unfortunately, this dedicated funding was dropped during conference. The 

law provided an authorization of $450 million for the Math and Science Partnerships, but, to date, the most we have appropriated is $182 million. While Title II 

A funds may be used for professional development as well, a GAO report found that 

the majority of districts use these funds for class size reduction. Many science teachers report, little, if any, funds available for professional development activities. 

A resounding bipartisan chorus of business leaders, educators, Nobel laureates 

and other luminaries has called for improvements in teacher professional development. Most recently, on March 7, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates testified in the 

Senate regarding the importance of math and science education, and stated, ‘‘If we 

are going to demand more from our students and teachers, then it is our obligation 

to provide them with the support they need to meet the challenge. All students—

regardless of age, grade level, gender, or race—do better when they are supported 

by a good teacher.’’ The Math and Science Partnerships provide necessary professional development enabling effective math and science teaching and strengthening 

our students’ math and science skills. We must set aside dedicated funding for math 

and science professional development in the reauthorization bill. 

There have been some implementation problems and other issues with the NCLB 

Act. For example, schools with large numbers of English language learners or students with disabilities have been identified as ‘‘needing improvement’’ when the majority of the students at the school are showing progress academically. Additionally, 

the U.S. Department of Education appears to hold some states to a higher standard 

than other states. Clearly, both of these issues have led to concerns in Michigan, 

and should be addressed in the reauthorization legislation. 

115

I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle and Capitol 

on improving the No Child Left Behind Act. It is imperative that we hold our 

schools and states to high standards so that our children are prepared for their future and our nation’s future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hare follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Phil Hare, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Illinois 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling up this important hearing. Thanks also to 

our friends from the Senate for joining us today to discuss No Child Left Behind 

(NCLB) and how it relates to the achievement gap. It is critical at this time, now 

6 years after the enactment of the law, that we review its successes, failures and 

effectiveness. I appreciate all the witnesses for sharing their testimony and for playing a critical role in this discussion. 

Honoring NCLB’s goals and being realistic. The ultimate question in every discussion about NCLB is how do we honor the goals of the law while reforming it in a 

way we can realistically implement it? I think we can all agree that the goals of 

the law are good and we have seen some promising strides since it was first enacted 

in 2001, especially in increasing state accountability for and involvement in k-12 

education. However, the law’s strict and punitive nature has discouraged new teachers from entering the field and has made it difficult to retain quality teachers with 

advanced degrees. Additionally, the focus on testing has been a great disservice to 

our children and populations of students are being left behind. 

Growth Models. One idea is to look at how we measure progress. We are seeing 

instances where entire subgroups are not even tested out of fear that they will bring 

down the district’s AYP score. Is the law so strict that we are willing to leave groups 

of students behind in order to comply with it? It is important to look at where student subgroups are starting from and where they end up at the end of the year. 

In situations of tremendous progress, schools should be rewarded, or at least permitted to factor this measurable progress in the school’s overall score even if they 

still fall short of their annual measurable objective. The important point here is that 

progress is being made. Another idea is to fully fund NCLB. 

Challenges regarding low-income schools. Arthur Rothkopf, our witness from the 

US Chamber of Commerce, states in his written testimony that the problems we 

have with our education system cannot be solved by increasing funding. However, 

he does not address low-income communities. In Illinois, our public schools are funded by property taxes. This works well in Chicago and other bustling cities where 

employment is strong and incomes high. However, down state in the rural parts of 

my district, there is extreme poverty and drastically lower incomes. The cost of 

property in these areas is much lower than in Chicago and the schools reflect that, 

yet many of the schools serve large geographical areas and therefore have decent 

sized populations. 

Schools like Lewiston Community High School in Canton have leaky roofs, equipment in their shop class from the pre-World War II ear, and a hand-drawn Periodic 

Table of Elements in the science lab. There is not even funding for a chart of the 

elements! How can children be expected to learn, yet improve in an environment 

like that? Funding is not the entire answer but it is part of it, especially when a 

community’s industry base is manufacturing and subject to offshoring/outsourcing 

like in Galesburg, another town in my district that lost its Maytag plant to Senora 

Mexico. When the jobs leave, so do the residents, resulting in fewer property taxes 

and little support for the schools. We must establish a more equitable system. 

Additionally, since Congress has not fully funded the NCLB mandate, states’ resources have been solely devoted to K-12 education at the expense of the states’ institutions of higher education, social programs and basic infrastructure. If we expect 

schools to meet stringent requirements and high standards, while not bankrupting 

the states, Congress must provide adequate funding. 

Questions for the Panel 

Edward McElroy, American Federation of Teachers; Governor Roy Barnes, Aspen 

Institute: From your hearings and discussions with teachers, officials, superintendents, and parents across the country, have you found that schools, especially ones 

struggling to meet benchmarks after year 1 or 2, have had the resources they needed to provide extra help to students who required it, such as tutors or after-hours 

instruction? Did you find that teachers, especially first-year teachers, had the menVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
116

toring and support they needed? What can Congress do to guarantee schools, instructors, and students have the necessary resources, tools, and support? 

Governor Roy Barnes, Aspen Institute: I have heard from many of my constituents—teachers, parents, administrators—who have concerns regarding your Highly 

Qualified and Effective Teacher proposal (HQET). Do you think that teachers that 

are evaluated as highly effective in higher income schools would get the same rating 

if they were teaching in low-income schools? And if not, is it fair to make these 

teachers compete against each other for the highly qualified rating? Could this serve 

as a disincentive for teachers to teach in high poverty schools? 

Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Do you have any suggestions on how to more equitably direct resources to schools with high poverty 

rates to achieve the goals of NCLB? 

Arthur Rothkopf, US Chamber of Commerce: 

• Would you please speak further about the particular skills in which American 

students have fallen behind in terms of college and workplace readiness, in particular at the k-12 level? My district has lost many of its manufacturing base but 

we are on the verge of a huge breakthrough in the emerging biofuel industry. How 

can business and education leaders come together to ensure high standards of basic 

education while also educating a workforce for evolving industry? 

• You state in your written testimony that our problems with our public education system cannot be solved by increased funding. Yet, low-income and rural 

communities cannot afford to update their equipment and materials, or to fix leaky 

roofs and dilapidated buildings. In these communities there are not the jobs or industry to support adequate funding for the schools. Can you address this further 

in terms of your written testimony? 

Mike Casserly, Council of Great City Schools: What do you consider to be key elements of any growth model? Can you comment on the Administration’s implementation of the growth model pilot project and do you have ideas for alternative growth 

models? 

Edward J. McElroy, American Federation of Teachers: 

• What do you think are the most effective school improvement interventions and 

how should they be incorporated in the law? How can we wane away from basing 

our entire education system on tests, that are expensive and take funding away 

from key educational programs like PE, music and art? 

• How do you recommend teachers play a greater role in developing school and 

district reforms? 

• How do you respond to the Aspen Commission’s highly qualified and effective 

teacher proposal and what do you think are the most important steps we can take 

in order to attract well qualified teachers to high-poverty or rural schools? 

Elizabeth Burmaster, Council of Chief State School Officers: 

• Can you elaborate on what sorts of innovations you would like to implement 

that have been prohibited under current law, and can you explain how such innovations would help in our shared goal of closing the achievement gap for all of NCLB’s 

subgroups? 

I would again like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and participation 

in today’s discussion with us. I believe many key issues were presented which will 

continue to come up as we move forward in the reauthorization process. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues to address the problems with the 2001 

bill and hopefully come up with something that will keep standards high but also 

set our schools and teachers on the track for success. Thank you. 

[The American Federation of Teachers report, ‘‘Building Minds, 

Minding Buildings,’’ can be accessed at the following Internet 

URL:]

http://www.aft.org/topics/building-conditions/downloads/minding-bldgs.pdf 

[The Health Report to the American People as included in the 

Working Group’s Final Recommendations, released September 29, 

2006, ‘‘Health Care That Works for All Americans,’’ can be accessed 

at the following Internet URL:]

117

http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/recommendations/healthreport3.pdf

[Recommendations from the Business Coalition for Student 

Achievement (BCSA) follows:]

Framework for Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: 

Recommendations to Improve and Strengthen the Law 

The Business Coalition for Student Achievement—representing business leaders 

from every sector of the economy—believes that improving the performance of the 

K-12 education system in the United States is necessary to provide a strong foundation for both U.S. competitiveness and for individuals to succeed in our rapidly 

changing world. We are committed to working with all stakeholders on this essential task. 

The coalition views the No Child Left Behind Act as one of the critical tools needed to transform U.S. education so that all students graduate academically prepared 

for college, citizenship and the 21st century workplace. NCLB and related federal, 

state and local policies and resources must be aligned to ensure that all students 

are challenged by a rigorous, well-rounded core curriculum in safe and engaging 

learning environments. It also must be supported by policies that bolster U.S. scientific and technological leadership. 

We call on Congress to strengthen and improve NCLB provisions and funding, 

while respecting the fundamental features of this historic education law that are designed to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps: 

• All students proficient in reading and math by 2014; 

• Accountability for all groups of students reaching proficiency on annual assessments; 

• Public report cards that include data on the performance of each student group; 

• Highly qualified teachers in every classroom; 

• Options for students in persistently low-performing schools; and 

• Identification and intervention in schools that need improvement. 

Focus on college and workplace readiness 

• Provide incentives for states to raise academic standards and improve assessments to align them with college and workplace expectations. These incentives 

should enable states to: 

• Improve state standards and assessments regularly, with input from business 

and higher education, so that students graduate from high school having demonstrated proficiency on assessments of the core knowledge, advanced problem-solving skills and critical thinking capacities needed to succeed in both postsecondary 

education and the workplace. 

• Develop state consortia to collaborate on the development of standards and assessments benchmarked to the best in the world. 

• Reform secondary schools and hold them accountable for increasing the graduation rate, using the common definition adopted by the nation’s governors, and graduating students who are ready for college and work. 

• Increase opportunities for high school students to participate in Advanced 

Placement, International Baccalaureate, honors and appropriate industry-recognized 

certification courses. 

Emphasize science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) 

• Increase and align STEM funding with the goals of NCLB and require rigorous 

program evaluation. 

• Focus funding on scaling up programs to improve teaching and learning, such 

as Math Now and Math and Science Partnerships. 

• Add science to the adequate yearly progress (AYP) accountability system and 

support state participation in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

science assessments. 

Enhance data-driven decision making 

• Based on commitments from states, provide resources to develop statewide data 

systems that offer timely and accurate collection, analysis and use of high quality 

longitudinal data that align to district systems to inform decision making and ultimately to improve teacher effectiveness and student achievement. 

• Provide educator training on the use of data to differentiate instruction for students, especially for those who are not yet proficient and those who are more advanced. 

118

Increase teacher and principal effectiveness 

• Shift current definition of ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ to a focus on ‘‘highly effective teachers.’’ • Focus resources on supporting and rewarding both teacher and principal effectiveness at improving student achievement by funding programs that: • Align preparation, recruitment, induction, retention and professional development with the knowledge and skills needed to improve student performance and to 

enable all students to graduate from high school ready for postsecondary education 

and the workplace. 

• Require the institutions and other entities that receive funding for these purposes to evaluate their impact on increased educator effectiveness. 

• Institute performance- and market-based pay programs that: reward educators 

whose performance contributes to substantial growth in student achievement, attract and retain effective math and science teachers and adjunct faculty, and draw 

effective teachers and leaders to high-need schools. 

• Develop evaluation systems based principally on improved student performance. 

• Implement policies and practices to quickly and fairly remove ineffective educators. 

Strengthen and refine accountability 

• Amend the NCLB accountability system to: 

• Provide guidance on ways that States can differentiate among districts and 

schools that are close to or far from making adequate yearly progress, and ensure 

that resources for improvement focus on those with the highest concentrations of 

underperforming students. 

• Permit states to use rigorous measures of year-to-year growth in student academic achievement and other methods verified by the Secretary that are consistent 

with the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading, math and science. 

• Close loopholes that allow states to use statistical means to ‘‘game’’ the accountability system and undermine the intent of school restructuring. 

• Require districts to provide parents with timely and easily understood information on their options and allow them to choose either supplemental education services or moving to a higher performing public school. 

• Fund development of better assessments for special education students and 

English language learners. 

Invest in school improvement and encourage innovation 

• Increase capacity of states and other entities to better assist schools that need 

help making AYP and that are facing corrective action and/or restructuring. 

• Target funding, assistance and distribution of effective educators to high-need 

schools. 

• Continue support for innovation, such as charter schools, diverse provider models and techniques that effectively integrate technology into appropriate aspects of 

teaching, learning and management. 

• Fund R&D on promising ways to improve school and student performance. 

[Endorsements from the Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA) follows:]

Coalition Members as of March 2, 2007

Accenture 

AeA 

A.O. Smith Corporation 

Eli Broad, Philanthropist/Businessman 

Business Coalition for Education Excellence (NJ) 

The Business-Higher Education Forum 

Business Roundtable 

California Business for Education Excellence 

Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead 

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association 

Con-Way 

Corporate Voices for Working Families 

Eastman Chemical Company 

EDS 

Education Industry Association 

Educational Options, Inc. 

119

EMC 

Ernst & Young 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce 

The Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce 

Hewlett-Packard 

IBM 

Illinois Business Roundtable 

Indiana Chamber of Commerce 

Intel 

Jefferson Parish Workforce Business Center 

Kalispell Area Chamber of Commerce 

Kaplan K-12 Learning Services 

The McGraw Hill Companies 

MetroWest Chamber of Commerce 

Micron Technology, Inc. 

Microsoft 

Minnesota Business Partnership 

Minority Business RoundTable 

Montana Chamber of Commerce 

Motorola 

Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce 

National Association of Manufacturers 

National Center for Educational Accountability 

National Defense Industrial Association 

National Roofing Contractors Association 

Nationwide 

Nevada Manufacturers Association 

New Jersey Chamber of Commerce 

New Mexico Business Roundtable 

Ohio Business Roundtable 

Oklahoma Business Education Coalition 

Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation 

Prudential Financial, Inc. 

Rhode Island Education Partnership 

SAS 

ScienceCompanion 

Semiconductor Industry Association 

Siemens Foundation 

Software & Information Industry Association 

State Farm 

TechNet 

Texas Instruments 

Union Pacific 

Unisys Corporation 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Blumberg follows:]

Prepared Statement of Linda J. Blumberg, Ph.D., Principal Research 

Associate, the Urban Institute 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kline, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to talk with you today about the problems faced by those 

without health insurance, and to share my thoughts on strategies for expanding coverage to them. I appreciate the fact that this Committee is considering this important issue. While I am an employee of the Urban Institute, this testimony reflects 

my views alone, and does not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its 

funders, or its Board of Trustees. 

The problems associated with being uninsured are now widely known. There is 

a substantial body of literature showing that the uninsured have reduced access to 

medical care, with many researchers concluding that the uninsured often have inferior medical outcomes when an injury or illness occurs. Urban Institute researcher 

Jack Hadley reviewed 25 years of research and found strong evidence that the uninsured receive fewer preventive and diagnostic services, tend to be more severely ill 

when diagnosed, and receive less therapeutic care.1 Studies found that mortality 

rates for the uninsured within given time periods were from 4 to 25 percent higher 

120

than would have been the case had the individuals been insured. Other research 

also indicated that improving health status from ‘‘fair’’ or ‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘very good’’ or 

‘‘excellent’’ would increase an individual’s work effort and annual earnings by as 

much as 20 percent. 

But while the negative ramifications of being without health insurance are clear, 

the number of uninsured continues to grow. According to an analysis by my colleagues John Holahan and Allison Cook, the number of nonelderly people without 

health insurance climbed by 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005, bringing the rate 

of uninsurance to just under 18 percent of this population.2 The vast majority of this 

increase, 85 percent, was among those with incomes below 200 percent of the federal 

poverty level. About 77 percent of the increase in the uninsured was attributable 

to adults. In recent years, the share of the population with employer-sponsored insurance has fallen, while the share of those with public insurance coverage has 

risen, but by smaller amounts. This pattern has persisted since 2000. 

Why is the rate of employer-sponsored insurance falling, causing the number of 

uninsured to climb in recent years? First and foremost is increasing premium costs 

that have outstripped wage and income growth.3 But additionally, overall employment has been shifting away from firms with traditionally high rates of employerbased insurance coverage, moving workers into the types of firms that are significantly less likely to offer coverage to their workers.4 For example, employment in 

medium size and large firms has fallen, and growth has occurred among the selfemployed and small firms. Employment has shifted from manufacturing, finance, 

and government to services, construction, and agriculture. There also has been a 

population shift toward the South and the West, regions with lower rates of employer-based coverage and higher uninsurance. 

The good news is that policymakers at both the federal and state levels are talking about the need to expand health insurance coverage again, and some states are 

already taking action. While proposals are being developed in a number of states 

and at the federal level as well, I will focus my attention here on two of the most 

notable state designs, that of Massachusetts and California. I chose both states as 

they delineate potential avenues for bipartisan compromise on this issue. In addition, Massachusetts is the only state that has already passed legislation, enacting 

far-reaching health care reform, and California is, of course, the largest state, and 

hence what it can accomplish has significant implications for the country as a 

whole. I treat these two approaches as case studies in policy design and use them 

to highlight the types of features required to achieve significant coverage expansions 

as well as the policy challenges faced by such an undertaking. 

Massachusetts 

There are four main components to the landmark health care reform legislation 

enacted in Massachusetts in April 2006: 5

• A mandate that all adults in the state have health insurance if affordable coverage is available (an individual mandate); 

• A small assessment on employers that do not provide coverage to their workers; 

• A purchasing arrangement—the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector 

(the Connector)—designed to make affordable insurance available to individuals and 

small businesses and to provide subsidized insurance coverage to qualifying individuals/families; and 

• Premium subsidies to make coverage affordable. 

Theoretically, these components of reform could move the state to near-universal 

coverage; however, many practical issues remain to be resolved. 

For example, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance will not be enforced unless affordable products are available. The definition of ‘‘affordability’’ and 

how it will vary with family economic circumstance was not provided in the legislation, and is left up to the board of the Connector. This definitional issue is clearly 

critical to the success of the Massachusetts reform and any other policy approach 

to expanding health insurance coverage. Ideally, each family would be subsidized to 

an extent that would allow them to purchase coverage within the standard set. Setting the affordability standard at a high level (for example, individuals being expected to spend up to 15 percent of income on medical care) would mean that the 

individual mandate would have a broad reach and thus increase coverage a great 

deal. This would be true because individuals and families would be expected to pay 

a considerable amount toward their insurance coverage, more insurance policies 

would be considered ‘‘affordable’’ by this standard, and thus the individual mandate 

would apply to more people. But setting the standard at such a level would also 

place a heavy financial burden on some families and might be considered unreasonable. Setting a low affordability standard (for example, expecting individuals to 

spend only up to 6 percent of their income on health care) would ease the financial 

121

burden of the mandate on families, but would increase the per capita government 

subsidy required to ensure that individuals could meet such a standard. To the extent the revenues dedicated to the program were not sufficient as a consequence, 

either further revenue sources would be required or enrollment in the subsidized 

plans would have to be capped, and some would have to be excluded from the requirement to purchase coverage. 

Under the Massachusetts plan compromise, each employer of more than 10 workers that does not make a ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ contribution to their workers’ insurance coverage (with ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ yet to be defined) will be required to pay 

a per worker, per year assessment not to exceed $295 (this amount would be prorated for part-time and seasonal workers). This very modest employer payment requirement was the product of a compromise between those concerned about a potential decline in employer involvement in the financing of health care and strong resistance from the business community (especially small businesses) to potentially 

burdensome employer payroll tax assessments. The assessment decided upon had 

widespread support in the business community and was acceptable to consumer advocates as well. This broad-based support was critical for passage of the legislation 

and continues to prove pivotal in garnering continued support through various implementation challenges. 

All employers are also required to set up Section 125 plans for their workers, so 

that workers can pay their health insurance premiums with pretax dollars, even if 

their employers do not contribute toward their coverage. Those employers who do 

not establish Section 125 plans may be required to pay a portion of the care their 

employees receive through the state’s Uncompensated Care Pool, which provides 

hospital care to low-income uninsured persons. 

Ideally, the reform would not cause significant disruption to existing insurance arrangements between employers and their workers. As currently designed, most employers, particularly large employers already offering group coverage, likely will continue to offer coverage. The benefits of risk pooling, control over benefit design, and 

lower administrative costs associated with purchasing through a large employer will 

not change under this reform. The situation for small employers is likely to be somewhat different, however. 

By allowing workers to purchase coverage on a pre-tax basis through Section 125 

plans, the Massachusetts reform reduces the incentive for small employers to offer 

coverage to their workers independently. The current law tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance is an important motivator for small employers to offer 

insurance coverage today, and the Connector combined with Section 125 plans 

would level the tax playing field between employer provision and individual purchase. This is a more important issue for small firms than for large firms because 

small firms face significantly higher administrative costs, do not receive the risk 

pooling benefits of large firms, and are more frequently on the cusp between offering 

and not offering coverage. Decisions small firms make under the reform will, however, be quite dependent upon the particular plan offerings in the Connector, how 

attractive they are, and whether negotiating power in the Connector will be sufficient to generate true premium savings. 

The attractiveness of the benefits offered in the Connector, and its size as a consequence, will have important implications for its negotiating power—the higher the 

enrollment, the greater the Connector’s ability to be a tough price negotiator and 

to create savings in the system. This economic reality of purchasing pools may be 

somewhat at odds with those who would like to see organized public purchasers 

playing a small role in relation to private insurance providers. Thus, there is a tension for those that would like to have plans that are offered in such a purchasing 

pool be low cost/high cost sharing/limited provider network plans, as such plans 

have not proved popular with most purchasers. Therefore, if a purchasing pool limits its offerings to such plans, it may be unable to reach a critical mass for negotiating purposes. 

At this time, the Connector will require each insurer to offer four different benefit 

packages of defined levels of actuarial value. In another context, offering such variety in benefit generosity could lead to adverse selection, with the healthy attracted 

to the high cost sharing/limited benefit plans and premiums in the comprehensive 

plans spiraling upwards. However, in order to protect the viability of more comprehensive plans and thus to better meet the needs of those with serious medical 

care needs, the Connector board has instituted a policy designed to counteract such 

a harmful dynamic. Premiums for each benefit plan will be set as if the enrollees 

in all of the insurer’s plan options were enrolled in that plan. In this way, the premium for a particular plan is not a function of the actual health care risks of those 

people who voluntarily enroll in it. This is clearly an important first step to ensuring broader sharing of high health care risks. It may also be necessary for further 

122

risk adjustment across insurers, but that remains to be seen, and modifications 

within the Connector can be made if appropriate. 

In addition to selling unsubsidized health insurance to individual and small employer purchasers, the Connector will also operate the Commonwealth Care Health 

Insurance Plan (CCHIP), which will provide subsidized coverage for those with 

household incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). CCHIP has 

no deductibles, has cost-sharing requirements that increase with income, and does 

not charge premiums for those individuals with incomes below 100 percent of FPL. 

Premiums on a sliding scale are charged for those between 100 and 300 percent of 

FPL. 

It is widely accepted that those with incomes below 100 percent of FPL have virtually no ability to finance their own health care needs, and that those of modest 

incomes require significant assistance as well. Deductibles and substantial costsharing responsibilities are likely to prevent the low-income population from accessing medical care when necessary; hence, the benefit package offered through CCHIP 

is considerably more comprehensive than that typically offered in the private insurance market. These policies are available only to those who have not had access to 

employer-based insurance in the past six months, with the hope of reducing the displacement of private employer spending by public spending. 

California 

The health care reform proposal Governor Schwarzenegger developed is an ambitious one. Many of its general components are similar to those implemented in Massachusetts, but the details are quite different and illustrate the types of choices that 

policymakers can make, and the very significant implications that these details can 

have. The components of the California proposal are the following: 

• an individual mandate that all Californians have at least a minimum level of 

health insurance coverage; 

• a ‘‘pay or play’’ employer mandate requiring that all firms with 10 or more 

workers pay a 4 percent payroll tax, a liability which can be offset by employers’ 

contributions to health insurance for their workers and their dependents; 

• a purchasing arrangement that would provide a guaranteed source of insurance 

coverage for individuals to purchase the minimum level of benefits required to satisfy the mandate and that also would provide subsidized insurance to eligible individuals; 

• income-related subsidies to make premiums affordable for those with incomes 

up to 250 percent of FPL. 

The minimum health insurance coverage required to satisfy the individual mandate under the California proposal is a $5,000 deductible plan with a maximum outof-pocket limit of $7,500 per person and $10,000 per family. This is a package that 

would require substantially more cost sharing than is typical of private insurance 

today, and thus can be expected to be made available at premium levels significantly below typical employer-sponsored insurance premiums. 

This minimum plan would be made available on a guaranteed issue basis through 

a new purchasing pool that the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB) 

would run. MRMIB is a government agency and currently runs the Healthy Family’s Program (California’s SCHIP program) and the state’s high-risk pool. In the 

past, the agency also ran a small employer health insurance purchasing pool. It is 

an agency experienced in health insurance purchasing, contracting, enrollment, and 

eligibility determination and has a structure for all the administrative tasks necessary for these roles; thus, it is an excellent choice for basing a new purchasing 

pool under a broad reform. 

However, the policy that would be offered is likely to be unattractive to workers 

with modest incomes, in particular to those over 250 percent of FPL who would be 

ineligible for subsidized coverage and often could not afford to pay such a high deductible. Such a family would still be severely limited in their financial access to 

medical services, even with the guaranteed issue policy. Those that do not buy policies in the new pool, do not have employer insurance offers, and are not eligible for 

subsidized coverage would be required to purchase a policy in the existing private 

non-group market, and would face all the shortcomings inherent in that market. 

This would be a particularly difficult option for older workers and workers with significant health care needs, many of whom may not be able to obtain a policy at all 

in that market. Even those lucky enough to be offered a policy would likely be unable to obtain an affordable policy with more comprehensive benefits and effective 

access to needed medical care. 

The ‘‘pay or play’’ mechanism is a tool for financing the new low-income subsidies 

proposed under the plan. This 4 percent payroll tax liability creates a significantly 

higher employer financial responsibility than does Massachusetts’s employer assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
123

ment. Employers with fewer than 10 workers are exempt from the tax. Consequently, the reform should not impact the smallest employers at all but will provide new subsidies and a source for buying coverage for their low-income workers.6

And because the vast majority of large firms already provide health insurance coverage to their workers (98 percent of firms with 100 or more workers offered health 

insurance nationally, as of 2004 7), the biggest impact of this reform would be on 

the employers and workers in firms of 10 to 100 workers. 

The proposal provides some competing incentives that make it uncertain whether 

workers in currently non-offering small firms (of 10 or more workers) would prefer 

to have their employers begin to offer coverage or would prefer to purchase coverage 

on their own and have their employers pay the payroll tax. First, small firms do 

not tend to be efficient purchasers of health insurance. The administrative loads associated with small group insurance can be quite high and might be significantly 

higher than those in the new purchasing pool. This imbalance, combined with the 

inability of small groups to spread their health care risks broadly, implies a significant incentive for workers to prefer enrolling in pool-based coverage. This incentive 

would be particularly strong for lower-wage workers in small firms, who could enroll 

in a subsidized comprehensive health insurance product through the purchasing 

pool. 

However, the payroll tax assessment works in the reverse direction of these incentives. Economists believe that the burden of employer-paid payroll taxes made on 

behalf of workers are effectively passed back to workers through lower wages paid 

over time. In the case of the California proposal, this would mean that workers 

whose employers opt to pay the tax would experience declines in their incomes relative to what their incomes would have been without the reform, and would then 

be required to purchase health insurance directly. In essence, they would be paying 

twice—once for the payroll tax and once for the insurance policy; they would get no 

credit toward the purchase of health insurance to account for the fact that their employers (and indirectly the employees themselves) were paying the payroll tax. 

While workers eligible for generous subsidies on a comprehensive health insurance package might still be better off this way than having their employer offer insurance, the same is unlikely to be true for unsubsidized workers. The only unsubsidized product available in the new purchasing pool would be the very high deductible policies. As noted, these policies may be very unattractive to modest-income 

workers with incomes over 250 percent of FPL, who would be ineligible for subsidized coverage. Given also the substantial shortcomings of the current nongroup 

market, these issues taken together might create significant incentives for workers 

to ask their employers to begin offering health insurance in exchange for wage reductions commensurate with their employers’ contributions. 

The proposal also would make all children (including undocumented residents) in 

families with incomes up to 300 percent of FPL eligible for state subsidized health 

insurance, all legal adult residents with incomes up to 100 percent of FPL eligible 

for Medicaid at no cost, and those between 100 and 250 percent of FPL eligible for 

subsidized coverage through the new state purchasing pool. These expansions would 

cover quite comprehensive health insurance plans and would, on their own, lead to 

significant expansions of coverage in the state. These policies also would have important implications for employees of small firms in California, since over half of 

California’s uninsured workers are employed by firms with fewer than 25 workers, 

and approximately two-thirds of the uninsured workers employed in these small 

firms have incomes that would make them eligible for subsidized insurance.8 The 

lower-income workers in these small firms therefore account for over a third of all 

uninsured workers in California. 

Conclusions 

A number of states are already developing comprehensive health insurance reform 

plans. However, many more states will not be able to accomplish significant reforms 

on their own due to financial and political constraints. Indeed, it is not feasible for 

any state to finance any of the plans and proposals currently on the table without 

accessing at least some federal matching funds. As a consequence, federal legislators 

are now engaged in discussions and policy development of their own. Federal involvement will be necessary to spread further the early successes some states are 

seeing. 

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to delineate what I consider to 

be the most critical components for the effective development of universal or near 

universal health insurance coverage within a private insurance-based system. 

The first component is a comprehensive, subsidized set of insurance benefits for 

the low- and modest-income population. Subsidies should be directed to individuals 

(as opposed to employers), should increase with increasing need, and should be suffiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
124

cient to ensure that adequate benefits are made available to meet health care needs 

at an affordable price. While a high deductible plan may be perfectly adequate coverage for a high-income person, it will not be adequate to meet the needs of someone 

with more modest means, and meaningful reform must take that into account. 

The second component is a guaranteed source of insurance coverage for all potential purchasers. The current nongroup insurance markets are simply inadequate to 

do the job. The guaranteed source of coverage will most likely need to take the form 

of an organized purchasing entity, such as newly established health insurance purchasing pools, or it may also be developed using existing organized purchasers, such 

as government employee benefits plans, state high risk pools, or State Children’s 

Health Insurance Programs. 

The third component is a mechanism for broadly spreading the costs associated 

with those who have the greatest need for health care services. Importantly, the 

health care risks of those that enroll in a guaranteed accessible insurance plan 

should not determine the premiums charged to individuals in that plan. Instead, the 

premiums should be based on what the premiums would be if a broader population 

enrolled. In this way, choice of varied benefit packages can be maintained, and the 

needs of the most vulnerable Americans can be met. 

The fourth component is either an individual mandate or an individual mandate 

combined with a ‘‘light’’ employer mandate. Absent automatic enrollment in a fully 

government-funded insurance system, an individual mandate is necessary to achieve 

universal coverage. Many advocate combining an employer mandate of some type 

with an individual mandate to ensure continued employer responsibility in health 

care. Such employer mandates raise a number of difficult political, distributional, 

and legal issues. But Massachusetts, for example, was able to enact a non-burdensome employer mandate that should be considered a model of political compromise. 

Designing such a reform, complex as it may sound at first, is actually the easy 

part. The most difficult truth is that financial resources are necessary for ensuring 

accessible, affordable, and adequate insurance for all Americans. If the political and 

public will strengthens sufficiently in this regard, there are many options for identifying the necessary funding. If asked for my personal favorite, I would suggest we 

turn to a redistribution of the existing tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance, providing those with the greatest needs the greatest assistance, as opposed to 

the opposite, which is true today. The current level of this tax expenditure is sufficient to finance comprehensive health care reform and is already dedicated to subsidizing health care insurance. The current spending is not particularly effective in 

expanding coverage, however, since it subsidizes most those who are most likely to 

purchase coverage even in the absence of any subsidy. And while the notion of restructure the current tax subsidy has been somewhat politically taboo in the past, 

the president himself has recently opened the political conversation regarding how 

best to spend that that money. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my thoughts on these important issues. 

ENDNOTES

1 J. Hadley. 2003. ‘‘Sicker and Poorer—The Consequences of Being Uninsured: A Review of 

the Research on the Relationship between Health Insurance, Medical Care Use, Health, Work, 

and Income,’’ Medical Care Research and Review 60(2): 3S-75S. 2 J. Holahan and A. Cook. 2006. ‘‘Why Did the Number of Uninsured Continue to Increase 

in 2005?’’ Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured Issue Paper. http://www.kff.org. 3M. Chernew, D. Cutler, and P. Kennan. 2005. ‘‘Increasing Health Insurance Costs and the 

Decline in Insurance Coverage,’’ Health Services Research 40(4): 1021-39; T. Gilmer and R. 

Kronick. 2005. ‘‘It’s the Premiums, Stupid: Projections of the Uninsured through 2013,’’ Health 

Affairs Web Exclusive (April 5): w5-143-w5-151; J. Hadley. 2006. ‘‘The Effects of Recent Employment Changes and Premium Increases on Adults’ Insurance Coverage,’’ Medical Care Research 

and Review 63(4): 447-76. 4 J. Holahan and A. Cook. 2006. ‘‘Why Did the Number of Uninsured Continue to Increase 

in 2005?’’ Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured Issue Paper. http://www.kff.org. 5 J. Holahan and L. Blumberg. 2006. ‘‘Massachusetts Health Care Reform: A Look at the 

Issues,’’ Health Affairs Web Exclusive, September 14: w432-43. 6 It should be noted that this ‘‘carve-out’’ of employers with fewer than 10 workers may provide incentives for the smallest employers to stay small and may also create incentives for somewhat larger employers to break up into smaller pieces. 7 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance 

Component 2004, calculations based on published tables, tables available at http://

www.meps.ahcpr.gov/. 8 Author’s estimates from the 2004/2005 March Current Population Survey. 

[Letter submitted by Dr. McBride follows:]

125

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

Cheyenne, WY, March 2, 2007. 

Hon. MICHAEL ENZI, 

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ENZI: I appreciate this opportunity to provide you with Wyoming’s 

collective inputs for the reauthorization of public law 107-10 (NCLB). This is a vital 

piece of legislation that greatly affects Wyoming’s schools and students, and we appreciate the occasion to comment. 

The Wyoming Department of Education has worked for over six months with educators, parents, and community members to identify areas of improvement for the 

reauthorization. 

You and I have discussed the reauthorization of NCLB on several occasions. In 

early December 2006, I asked all Wyoming districts to provide their recommendations on what changes or adjustments should be made to NCLB. 

We have discussed the unique nature of some of our western states and, in particular, Wyoming. The key to many of our western state’s success will be the allowance for maximum financial and academic flexibility. As you know, one-third of our 

districts have 300 or less students and these ‘‘frontier schools’’ are generally located 

in small, isolated communities. 

Choice is often difficult, if not an impossible option for these schools to offer. In 

addition, Wyoming has three approved supplemental service providers, each of 

which provides its services online. None of these have shown real promise in addressing the needs of our struggling districts. The solution in these areas will likely 

come from aggressive staff development activities, community support and technical 

assistance visits from my office. 

The Wyoming Department of Education has structured its comments in the following six areas and has included, where appropriate, what our staff considers a 

‘‘proposed solution’’ for each concern: 

1. SEA Capacity Building 

2. Highly Qualified Teachers 

3. Assessment 

4. Accountability Systems 

5. Subgroup Issues 

6. Funding 

I appreciate your support on these issues and look forward to having an opportunity to discuss the future of No Child Left Behind with you. 

Sincerely, 

JIM MCBRIDE, ED.D., 

Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Wyoming is a rural state that serves 48 districts and 362 schools. The issue of 

adequate state capacity to serve districts and schools is limited due to small population and the lack of federal and state resources. The lack of resources to provide 

technical assistance in rural states impacts the following areas: 

a) Hiring and retaining highly qualified department staff, 

b) Availability of research based products and services, 

c) Implementing quality data systems in all districts and 

d) Adequate technical assistance budget. 

The escalating nature of the costs of technical assistance provided by the state 

is increasing as schools and districts work toward achieving the rigorous requirements of NCLB. 

Proposed Solution: In order to overcome the resource problems, we recommend 

that the NCLB reauthorization include an increase in federal administration and 

technical assistance funds. We also recommend that these funds have greater flexibility so that they can be combined in support of state and district improvement initiatives. 

Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) 

The following concerns address specific teaching disciplines. While these concerns 

present the greatest operational obstacles posed by NCLB regarding HQT, the conceptual framework of NCLB and HQT recognizes that ‘‘knowledge in a specific content’’ (quality instruction) is the greatest, single indication of student achievement. 

The federal guideline for HQT limits our ability to develop and teach integrated and 

diverse classes. 

For example, teachers in Wyoming’s small rural schools are often assigned to 

teach in more than one endorsement area; this is especially true for Social Studies, 

Middle School, and Special Education. NCLB requires that a certified Social Studies 

126

teacher be highly qualified in Geography, History, Economics, Civics and Government. In many cases, this requirement is extraordinarily difficult to meet in Wyoming. 

Additionally, most middle and secondary Social Studies classes are offered via an 

integrated standards-based curriculum which includes all four areas; subsequently, 

a teacher prep program that trains teachers to instruct integrated content, such as 

a Social Studies Composite major, is much more supportive of small, rural ‘‘frontier’’ 

schools. These majors could be developed by our university, but must be recognized 

as highly qualified by PTSB, NCLB and the U.S. Department of Education. 

Proposed Solution: Recognize teachers with a content major in Social Studies as 

highly qualified in History, Geography, Economics, and Civics and Government. 

Integrated, cooperative teaching, the mainstay of the middle school concept, is 

hindered by the HQT requirements of NCLB. If we could overcome this issue, integrated instruction would probably expand to our high schools. Without relief, it will 

continue to be difficult for Wyoming districts to recruit teachers who have all of the 

required NCLB endorsements. 

Proposed Solution: Recognize the importance of integrated, cooperative teaching 

at all levels. 

In rural high schools, one special education teacher is assigned to work with students in all content areas—and depending on the academic needs of the student(s)—

the least restrictive placement may be one in which the SPED teacher is the teacher 

of record. The needs and number of students in special education change throughout 

the school year; consequently, the role of the special education teacher needs to be 

flexible enough to serve students as needed. 

Special educators, more than any other teaching major, are specifically trained to 

provide instruction to meet the individual learning needs and styles of each student. 

Proposed Solution: Special education (SPED) teachers need to be acknowledged as 

highly qualified if they are the teacher of record, consult, or co-teach based upon 

the needs of the students they serve. (Recognizing the teacher of record concept 

would also support integrated instruction) 

Wyoming’s rural small schools do not fit into the ‘‘one size fits all’’ plan mandated 

by NCLB. In addition, Wyoming’s teaching certification requirements occasionally 

do not match the HQT mandate; consequently, at times, we may have teachers who 

are highly qualified but do not meet the requirements for Wyoming certification. 

Proposed Solution: On the surface, this seems like a problem unique to Wyoming 

since the Professional Teaching Standards Board (PTSB) is a separate organization 

from the Wyoming Department of Education. However, if Wyoming’s PTSB and Department of Education agree on HQT standard, we would ask that the U.S. Department of Education and NCLB recognize and grant HQT approval to our definitions 

Assessment 

Testing must reflect multiple measures, aggregated by highest score and stability. 

Individual student learning will be obtained by: 

a) Measures over time, 

b) Focus upon growth and learning; and 

c) Provision of accuracy in the system to measure growth and learning. 

By demonstrating proficiency through a growth model assessment design, a school 

can better track a student’s needs, strengths and weaknesses from year-to-year. By 

developing a growth model format for assessment, all student sub-groups receive the 

focus they need and teachers are better prepared for grade transitions of students. 

Wyoming is in its second year of a new, state assessment. After the 2006-07 academic year, growth model development would be possible. 

We could continue to require proficiency of state standards, but track a student’s 

positive progress based on his/her skills. This would also allow gifted and remedial 

students to receive differentiated instruction, guidance and attention for growth although their skills are at different levels. 

The reporting of data must be available in a timely manner to impact learning 

and be readily understandable for educators and parents. 

Proposed Solution: Develop a growth model format for assessment that tracks student achievement based on skills yet uses state standards to demonstrate proficiency. 

Accountability Systems 

Currently, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requires accountability systems 

throughout the country to look at a single snapshot to determine the achievement 

level of groups of students. This does not offer schools/LEAs the opportunity to show 

how they reach individual students. 

127

Student achievement should reflect the gains in achievement of individual students over time (growth models). Growth models would give schools credit for student improvement over time by tracking individual student achievement year to 

year. 

Proposed Solution: Accountability systems need to move beyond a status model of 

achievement and look at how ‘‘individual student achievement’’ grows over time. 

Schools and LEAs are each unique—with different students, staffs, and cultures. 

Therefore, schools/LEAs must take the time and effort to identify true needs while 

implementing required sanctions. 

For instance, a school missing Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in several subgroups tends to have very different needs from a school missing AYP in only one 

subgroup. Under these circumstances, it may be better for the students to have 

teachers receive high quality professional development to meet the needs of their 

student population rather than offering additional tutoring services from outside 

provider. 

It is absolutely imperative that schools and LEAs show: 

a) Documentation of their needs 

b) Why their selected corrective strategy will increase their capacity to meet those 

needs 

c) Continuous documentation of the progress toward meeting the defined goals 

d) Evaluation of the success the school 

e) How it met the need and building capacity 

f) That it included intense levels of technical assistance from LEA and SEA to address true needs. 

Also, the sanctions on a school/LEA must focus on the students who missed AYP. 

Sanctions of Supplemental Education Services (SES) for schools in Year Two of 

School Improvement make it possible for the students eligible for the service to be 

completely different than the subgroup that missed AYP. The primary benefactors 

of SES should be students who did not achieve proficiency, not just any student in 

a school that did not meet AYP. 

Proposed Solution: The needs of schools/local education agencies (LEA) vary. Sanctions need ‘‘flexibility and staff capacity building’’ to ensure that the needs of students are met. 

Subgroup Issues 

Subgroup progress should be included as part of an accountability system. 

English Language Learners: The ELL subgroup continues to be a complex issue 

because of the length of time it takes for students to achieve English proficiency in 

the use of academic language. 

The scores of students in this subgroup should not be included in AYP calculations until the students have reached proficiency as established by our state English 

Language Proficiency assessment (WELLA). 

We should exempt ELL students from taking the Language Arts content sections 

of PAWS and have them take the WELLA as a substitute to show growth for their 

first three years in the country or until they have reached English Proficiency, 

whichever comes first. Currently the exemption is for one year in the country. 

Students with Disabilities: All materials support retaining the 100% proficiency 

goal for Students with Disabilities, (SWD subgroup), but focus on individual student 

growth (growth model). The student’s IEP academic focus should be considered to 

determine student growth in this model. 

Proposed Solution: The federal government should invest in research and funding 

of NCLB considering the high level of data (student level data), subgroup tracking, 

and costs of assessments such as the ELP assessment and modified or alternate assessments. 

Funding 

Wyoming believes funding of NCLB, a guaranteed, stable, dedicated threshold 

should be granted to all states with a significant degree of flexibility within the 

state for disbursement to LEAs. 

One area of concern is schools in ‘‘improvement year 4 or 5.’’ The required development and implementation of a ‘‘restructuring plan’’ will probably be prohibitively 

expensive and may meet the definition of an ‘‘unfunded mandate.’’ We would strongly suggest special funding to address ‘‘restructuring implementation.’’

Additionally, some districts may require more funding for English Language 

Learners (ELL) and others may have little or no need for funding in that particular 

area. Furthermore, when funding has been appropriately disbursed at the local and 

state levels, unspent funds could be re-directed in ways that would seem to improve 

student success, i.e., technical assistance. With the exception of restructuring, the 

128

Wyoming Department of Education does not subscribe to the belief of some that 

NCLB is an unfunded mandate. Rather, funding is perceived to be adequate, especially if funding and transfer options were less restrictive but remain accountable. 

Proposed Solution: A flexible, yet defensible accounting of state funding would 

allow for the diverse circumstances found within Wyoming. Additional funds will 

likely be needed for restructuring implementation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Griffith, National Association of State Boards 

of Education 

Minding the Gaps 

Thank you Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller, Senator Enzi, Congressman 

McKeon, and distinguished members of the Senate and House Education Committees for the opportunity to provide testimony to the bicameral hearing on how to 

improve the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap. 

As you know, the core components of the No Child Left Behind Act—standards, 

assessments, accountability, and teacher quality—are fundamental to the work and 

authority of state boards of education. As their professional membership organization, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) is pleased to 

provide you with the perspective of our members, their first-hand experiences in developing state policies and implementing NCLB, and our organizational research 

about the most effective strategies to close the achievement gap. 

Today, as states, districts, and schools move forward in fulfilling the requirements 

and the vision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), this nation is being confronted more explicitly than ever by the wide gaps in academic achievement that 

exist between successful students (preponderantly middle and upper income whites 

and Asians) and those students who are far from achieving to their potential (generally low-income students of every race and ethnic group, students in special education, and students attending low-performing schools). And while large numbers of 

students from all backgrounds can be found in the under-achieving groups, the situation for minorities, particularly African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, 

is especially alarming. All too frequently these students carry multiple burdens, as 

they are stuck in poverty, stuck in special education, and stuck in low-performing 

schools. 

But performance gaps don’t just exist in terms of test scores. There are also significant gaps among groups of students in terms of dropout rates, placement in advanced classes, who gets good teachers, and who goes to college. 

At the same time, other gaps appear when it comes to system performance. In 

this case, states themselves can differ markedly not only in terms of student 

achievement, but in terms of the financial and other support they offer their neediest districts. And significant gaps in performance exist between school districts and 

between individual schools, even when they are provided with equal resources and 

serve families and students with roughly the same characteristics. 

It is frequently noted that achievement gaps among different racial and ethnic 

groups, as measured by results from the National Assessment of Education Progress 

(NAEP), narrowed somewhat in the 1970s and 1980s, only to stagnate or even 

widen during the 1990s. Into the 21st Century, the most recent NAEP exams and 

other indicators portray a stark picture of education gaps in America today. 

What is perhaps most notable about this data is that the gap between poor and 

not poor students (using eligibility for free or reduced lunch as the qualifier for 

being ‘‘poor ’’) is nearly identical to the gaps between other groups. 

The same is true in terms of the percentage of poor students scoring below basic. 

For example, nationally 54 percent of poor students scored below basic on the 2005 

4th grade reading exam and 43 percent of poor students scored below basic on the 

2005 8th grade math exam, compared with 23 percent and 19 percent respectively 

for students who are not poor. 

Poor students comprise every racial and ethnic group, but the majority of poor 

students are white. Indeed, in a number of states that have small minority populations, the vast majority of poor students are white—and yet the poor versus nonpoor achievement gaps are still very large. So while African-Americans, Latinos, and 

Native Americans are disproportionately affected by poverty, policymakers seeking 

to improve the achievement of all students should not think only in terms of minorities 

129

There is no doubt that gaps, both in terms of opportunity to learn and achievement, show up very early, well before children get to school. As demographer Harold 

Hodgkinson concludes in his 2003 report, Leaving Too Many Children Behind: 

Long before children knock on the kindergarten door—during the crucial period 

from birth to age five when humans learn more than during any other five-year period—forces have already been put in place that encourage some children to ‘‘shine’’ 

and fulfill their potential in school and life while other forces stunt the growth and 

development of children who have just as much potential. The cost to the nation 

in terms of talent unfulfilled and lives of promise wasted is enormous. 

It is also clear that most of the negative ‘‘forces’’ on children are related to poverty 

and the educational attainment of parents. Census and achievement data highlight 

these early gaps: • In 2000, about 17 percent of all children in the United States lived in poverty 

(up from 15 percent in 1971), a figure higher than for any other industrialized country. • In 1999, about one-third of all births were to single mothers. Statistically, children raised by single parents are two to three times more likely to live in poverty 

than those raised by both parents. • Math and reading achievement data show that even at the beginning of kindergarten, children from the lowest socio-economic status (SES) quintile are already 

substantially behind their better-off peers • A study of California children found that almost percent of the white—Latino 

mathematics gap observed on the 2003 NAEP 8th grade test is already apparent 

at entry to kindergarten. 

Some educators are concerned that when confronted with higher expectations and 

high-stakes exit exams, many struggling students will simply choose to drop out, especially if there is a lack of support. Evidence of an increase in dropout rates in 

the face of higher standards is mixed, but without question school systems already 

face a huge problem with dropout and lack-of-completion rates—and again it mirrors the achievement data in terms of which students are most affected. 

Finally, we should acknowledge that there are also serious gaps among states. On 

the 2003 NAEP 4th grade reading exam, for example, the top eight states in the 

nation had an average score of 226, while the lowest-scoring eight states had average scores below 210. Looking at the data in another way, for the lowest 12 performing states, this meant that nearly half of all students scored below basic, while 

for the highest 12 performing states, on average 29 percent of students scored below 

basic. 

On the 2003 8th grade math test, there were even greater gaps, with the highest 

state average at 291 and the lowest at 261. Discouragingly, this meant that for the 

poorest performing state, the average state score was below the Basic level. 

And yet, despite the litany of achievement and other gaps with which the committee members are surely familiar, there is an abundance of the positive research 

on teaching, learning, and school leaders, the emergence of data and evaluation systems that can help educators pinpoint problems and improve practice, and the number of success stories that can be found at the state, district, and school levels. 

At the state level, Latinos in Virginia regularly score higher than Latinos in other 

states on the NAEP 8th grade reading exam, and on the 2003 exam outscored white 

8th graders in eight other states. All this despite an influx of immigrants that more 

than doubled the state’s Latino population since 1990. 

At the school level, there are literally hundreds of schools that have made great 

gains in achievement levels in recent years despite having many students from challenging backgrounds. A typical example of such schools is Samuel Tucker Elementary in Alexandria, Virginia, which has a student population that is 25 percent 

Latino, 43 percent African-American, and 17 percent white, with 56 percent receiving free or reduced-price lunch. Students in every subgroup beat the state average 

in terms of percentage passing state math and language arts tests, but even more 

impressively, the subgroup passing rates at the school nearly equal or exceed the 

passing rates for whites statewide. 

Despite the uneven record, state board of education members are optimistic and 

convinced that there are many actions national and state policymakers can take to 

close achievement gaps. But the first task for education leaders is to do an inventory 

of what has been done to raise achievement and close gaps. Simply put, we must 

ask ourselves a series of tough questions about the steps that should be taken, answer them forthrightly, and then be willing to take action where needed. 

Nevertheless, there are a lot of questions, many with far-ranging implications—

and we don’t presume that our recommendations are inclusive. No one should fool 

themselves that the task ahead is not enormous. There are many different but coordinated, focused, and sustained steps and actions to be taken. 

130

There are four key areas federal and state leaders must address if they are to 

bring isolated examples of success to scale statewide. The critical steps we have 

identified are areas in which a reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act can help 

states systemically raise achievement levels for all and close gap. 

1. Bolster the States’ technical infrastructure needed to collect, disaggregate, and 

report data at the school, district, and state levels to understand achievement patterns. States need to collect and analyze this information in order to target low student achievement and the corollary factors that may contribute to poor performance. 

In addition, the data should enable states to identify those districts and schools that 

have successfully produced high performance (particularly in areas where low-income and diverse ethnic and racial student groups predominate). 

In short, NCLB must go beyond using data merely to identify problems or schools 

‘‘in need of improvement.’’ NCLB’s exclusive focus on state assessments and failure 

to make ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ (AYP) fails to take account of the fundamental 

systemic and capacity issues within schools, districts, and states that perpetuate low 

achievement. This narrow view also misses out on valuable information that could 

and should be used to help improve the design and implementation of academic and 

support programs. 

2. Ensure that States’ pre-service and professional development programs provide 

educators with the knowledge and skills to continually monitor students’ achievement and to intervene quickly when students are not progressing sufficiently. Policies on certification, professional development, school improvement planning, and 

intervention must go beyond the simplistic determination of whether a teacher is 

‘‘highly-qualified’’ or not and have the power to make a meaningful difference in student performance. It is not a mystery. A substantial body of research supports particular practices in teaching, assessment, classroom organization, and curriculum. 

3. Maintain the sharp focus on student achievement but apply research-proven 

strategies and monitor their implementation and impact. The research literature is 

replete with practices and strategies that can significantly accelerate students’ rates 

of progress. Unfortunately, these strategies and practices remain under-utilized. 

One result, for example, is that despite extensive research on early reading development, scores from the 2005 NAEP 4th grade reading assessment show that more 

than one out of every three students reads below basic (36 percent). Students who 

reach 3rd or 4th grade significantly below grade level will never catch up with their 

peers because of the lack of systematic interventions to accelerate their progress 

rate. 

The importance of implementing strategies that focus on small but immediate improvements and monitoring their impact cannot be overstated. For example, utilizing goal setting, teamwork, and monitoring of performance data, Colorado’s Weld 

County School District 6 successfully raised overall student achievement while at 

the same time reducing disparities between high- and low-income students. Teachers introduced multiple interventions in reading, mathematics, and writing and 

monitored student performance monthly and quarterly. 

New flexibility needs to be incorporated into NCLB so that States can use successful local districts and schools as laboratories for experimenting with alternate solutions and institute computerized feedback systems to examine not only data on outcomes, but on those elements that may or may not correlate with outcomes (e.g., 

resource allocations and staffing patterns). 

4. Implement evaluation strategies to determine impact and unintended consequences. Because closing achievement gaps and raising performance levels for all 

students is such a complex undertaking, policymakers at every level must steadfastly ask about the effectiveness of their policies and constantly be aware that wellintentioned initiatives or directives in one area can have unfortunate consequences 

in another. This, as experience has shown, has been especially true of the No Child 

Left Behind Act. 

Opportunities to Learn 

More broadly, there is a close relationship between closing achievement gaps and 

providing all students with a real opportunity to learn. Below are a number of recommendations to ensure an opportunity to learn for all students for lawmakers to 

consider as they develop NCLB reauthorization priorities. 

1. Establish a process to assess disparities in the degree to which different groups 

have access to educational opportunities. Many minority and low-income students 

are disproportionately excluded from schools, college preparatory programs, and various school activities. It is essential to collect disaggregated data on the numbers 

of students by subgroup on suspensions and expulsions, dropouts, special education 

placements, as well as the numbers assigned to gifted programs, advanced placement courses, and those who cannot participate in school activities due to social/ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
131

nomic barriers (i.e., finances, transportation). For instance, the North Carolina Advisory Commission on Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps found that during a 

three-year period, more than half of the long-term suspended students were AfricanAmerican or multi-racial, even though the African-American student population was 

only 33 percent of the public school population. 

2. Align clear standards and curricular frameworks to ensure that every school 

uses a rigorous curriculum. The research is clear—students who complete a strong 

college preparatory sequence perform much higher on NAEP and are more likely to 

graduate from college. School-based factors are those largely under the school’s control, and hence responsive to formal and informal policy decisions (e.g., accreditation, certification, school improvement planning, state intervention). Based on hundreds of studies, the noted education research Robert Marzano identified implementation of a guaranteed and viable curriculum as the most important factor in student success. 

One key aspect of delivering a rigorous curriculum is ‘‘time.’’ As David Berliner 

notes, academic learning time is a complex measure of ‘‘that part of allocated time 

in a subject-matter area in which a student is engaged successfully in the activities 

or with the materials to which he or she is exposed, and in which those activities 

and materials are related to educational outcomes that are valued.’’ Researchers 

have found that extensive academic engagement is a primary factor in high-performing classrooms and schools. For example, eight out of 10 high-poverty, high-performing schools included in the Education Trust’s Dispelling the Myth study increased instructional time in reading and math to improve student achievement. 

3. Resolve the conflicting imperatives that ask schools both to sort students according to ability and to develop high achievement among all students. States must 

provide clear and public standards of what all students should learn at benchmark 

grade levels. Unfortunately, too many States’ standards lack clarity, alignment, and 

consistency. In addition, longstanding policies maintain the sorting mechanisms 

that work at cross-purposes with state efforts to bring every student to high standards. In particular, low-income and minority students who fall behind their peers 

during the early years often continue to be sorted into slower-paced remedial classes 

that compound their low achievement over time. 

Students in high-poverty areas generally report on the lack of educational rigor 

in their schools. Young people talk about teachers who often do not know the subjects that they are teaching, counselors who consistently underestimate their potential and place them in lower-level courses, and a curriculum and set of expectations 

so miserably low that they bore the students right out the school door. 

Unfortunately, engaging curricula that ask students to think and discuss their 

ideas are implemented in schools in inequitable ways; while only 15 percent of white 

12th graders are exposed to a curriculum that asks them to complete daily ditto 

worksheets, nearly one-quarter of Latino and African-American 12th graders are. 

4. Facilitate equitable distribution of academic and other resources such as quality staffing, facilities, and instructional materials. In areas of high poverty, schools 

are often operating at two and three times their intended student capacity, which 

reduces the availability of important academic resources such as libraries and computer labs. African-American students are four times as likely as white eighth-grade 

students to have science classes with no access to running water. Such basic inadequacies are coupled with less emphasis on developing hands-on lab skills and minimal requirements for synthesizing data and writing lab reports. Districts and 

schools vary widely in how much support they provide teachers (i.e., curriculum 

frameworks, bridge documents, diagnostic instruments, instructional technology, 

and support personnel). The lack of resources leads to reduction in the amount of 

active student engagement in learning course content. 

5. Encourage States to design policies consistent with the research on instruction 

that promotes high levels of academic engagement in order to improve student 

achievement. Researchers have identified an extensive number of successful instructional strategies, and have even demonstrated their relative effectiveness with highly diverse student populations—yet these findings remain consistently underutilized, particularly with students in high-need areas. 

States must ensure that all policies are designed to capitalize on the rich knowledge base on effective teaching practices. There is much room for improvement in 

this area. According to one set of researchers, ‘‘Of the 20 or more most powerful 

teaching strategies that cross subject areas and have a historical track record of 

high payoff in terms of student effects, we speculate that fewer than 10 percent of 

us—kindergarten through university level—regularly employ more than one of these 

strategies.’’

6. Standards and curriculum frameworks should emphasize literacy and writing 

skills at all levels and across all curricula. Reading is the basis on which all acaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
132

demic successes are built, more than income, age, ethnicity, or level of parental education. 

Decades of research tell us that reading readiness is the best predictor of 4th 

grade performance in both reading and math and that students are less likely to 

graduate from high school if they do not read moderately well by the end of grade 

3. It is now widely accepted that through carefully planned instruction and extended 

opportunities to read and write, children can achieve success despite differences in 

their home environment. During the early years, teachers must provide the instructional scaffolding that systematically builds children’s phonological awareness, 

phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, reading fluency, and writing. 

In fact, when students and teachers increase the frequency of their informative 

writing assessments, student scores increase not only on state and district writing 

assessments, but also in mathematics, science, social studies, and reading. Moreover, school improvement goals that emphasize core areas—reading, writing, and 

math—do not implicitly preclude substantial attention to science, social studies, 

music, art, and physical education. Rather, there is a clarion call to integrate core 

areas across all domains and avoid the curriculum fragmentation that prevails, particularly in middle and high schools. 

Funding 

Volumes have been written about school finance, and we cannot hope to do full 

justice to the topic here. However, education funding—both the amount of money 

and how that money is distributed and used—is such a key element of creating an 

opportunity to learn for all students and for closing achievement gaps that we feel 

compelled to make several points in this area. 

First, it is important to understand that education funding is in a watershed era. 

For much of the last 30 years, finance equity, and the lawsuits on the part of poorer 

school districts claiming that they do not receive their fair share of state funding, 

have dominated discourse in state capitols and courtrooms. 

Over the last decade, however, policymakers, educators, and judges have been 

more likely to talk about adequacy: that is, what level of funding is needed to ensure that every student receives an adequate education. It is no accident that adequacy has emerged at roughly the same time as the standards-based reform movement. And now that the No Child Left Behind Act demands that students meet certain proficiency goals, the question has naturally arisen as to whether schools and 

districts have the resources necessary to bring students to these levels. This is precisely what judges across the country have been—and are likely to continue to be—

asking. As the national Committee on Education Finance said in its 1999 report, 

Making Money Matter, the concept of adequacy is particularly useful ‘‘because it 

shifts the focus of finance policy from revenue inputs to spending and educational 

outcomes and forces discussion of how much money is needed to achieve what ends.’’

For closing achievement gaps, the difference between equal and adequate is critical, which can clearly be seen in New York City’s lawsuit against the state’s funding system. As a Standard and Poor’s report points out, while the City receives a 

share of state aid roughly equal to its share of the state’s student population, this 

is ‘‘not necessarily an * * * adequate share, because the City enrolls a disproportionate percentage of educationally disadvantaged students who typically cost more 

to educate.’’ Indeed, the S&P study found that while the City ‘‘enrolls 37.7 percent 

of the State’s students, it enrolls 62.6 percent of the State’s economically disadvantaged students, and 73.9 percent of its limited English proficient students. * * * 

Both groups of students typically need additional educational resources.’’

Just how much more money disadvantaged students cost remains an open question, but estimates commonly range from 20 percent to 40 percent more per student. 

But it should also be noted that such ‘‘adequacy’’ court decisions are not always just 

about money, but how the money is used and distributed. Indeed, in what is widely 

regarded as the first of the adequacy decisions, the Kentucky Supreme Court in the 

1989 Rose case found the entire system of school governance and finance to be unconstitutional and essentially said that equal outcomes for students are as important as equitable funding. 

In short, adequacy, especially when applied to disadvantaged students, is likely 

to involve both more funding and strategically thought-out targeting of the money. 

And even the best achievement gap strategies must be accompanied by the resources to turn effective policies into successful practice. We appreciate the ambitious authorization levels included in the No Child Left Behind Act. But we hope 

during this reauthorization that lawmakers appreciate the funding requirements for 

what they are demanding and that actual appropriations more closely match authorized levels. 

133

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on ways in which the No Child 

Left Behind Act can be improved upon to better close the achievement gap. 

[The prepared statement of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) follows:]

Prepared Statement of the National Association of Secondary School 

Principals (NASSP) 

In existence since 1916, the National Association of Secondary School Principals 

(NASSP) is the preeminent organization of and national voice for middle level and 

high school principals, assistant principals, and aspiring school leaders from across 

the United States and more than 45 countries around the world. The mission of 

NASSP is to promote excellence in middle level and high school leadership. 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 

In October 2004, NASSP formed a 12-member practitioner-based task force made 

up of principals and post-secondary educators representing all parts of the country 

to study the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) as they applied to 

school leaders and the nation’s diverse education structure. Principals can no longer 

just speak to narrowing the achievement gap. They must be able to make decisions 

that will improve teaching and learning for all students. Closing the achievement 

gaps and increasing student achievement are certainly among the highest educational priorities of secondary school principals, and our members accept accountability for results. We have seen gains in student achievement that can be directly 

related to the law and to the emerging conversations about improved student 

achievement. 

Concerns remain with the fairness, consistency and flexibility with which the law 

has been implemented as well as the law’s provisions to help schools build or enhance capacity among teachers and leaders to meet student achievement mandates. 

The recommendations released by the task force in June 2005 address the disconnect that exists between policy created in Washington, D.C. and the realities 

that affect teaching and learning at the school building level. NASSP strongly believes that these recommendations reflect the real world, common sense perspective 

that will help to bridge that gap and clear some of the obstacles that affect principals and teachers as they work toward improving student achievement and overall 

school quality. 

Fairness—Growth Models 

NASSP recommends that states be allowed to measure adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) for each student subgroup on the basis of state-developed growth formulas 

that calculate growth in individual student achievement from year to year. Not only 

would an accountability system based on growth models be fairer to schools, but it 

makes more sense for measuring student achievement for all subgroups. 

Using a single score to measure whether a student is making progress ignores 

many issues, but primarily the academic growth of each student. Any student may 

be proficient from year to year. However, proficiency does not necessarily translate 

into individual progress. Our members have reported variances in their students’ 

progress as they have moved from elementary to middle to high school. A lot of this 

can be correlated to both developmental and curriculum changes, and though these 

students may continue to be proficient year after year, the law requires that principals focus on individual grade-level growth as opposed to individual student 

growth. 

Achievement, or improvement, models allow schools and districts to chart performance for different groups of students each year. For example, we compare this 

year’s seventh-grade scores to last year’s seventh-grade scores. Such systems do not 

take into account the differences in the groups of students and do not tell us whether we really made any improvement in our instruction or in the yearly outcomes 

for individual students. 

In addition, focusing on that cut score encourages schools to focus only on those 

students who are close to meeting that goal and not on the educational needs of 

those students who may have the greatest need. Individual student growth, reported 

over time from year to year, gives teachers and administrators the best possible information about whether the instructional needs of every student are being met. 

NASSP was encouraged when the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced 

a pilot program in December 2005 that would allow up to ten states to develop and 

implement growth model accountability systems. North Carolina and Tennessee 

134

were the only states approved to implement their systems during the 2005-2006 

school year, but we believe this breakthrough will show that schools need this information to provide the best possible opportunity for the improvement of student academic achievement for every child. 

The growth model appropriately recognizes achievement gains of students with 

disabilities and those who are English language learners. We would like to see additional flexibility granted in the law for growth models beyond the current safe harbor provision, which does not track individual student growth. 

Consistency—Multiple Assessments 

The NASSP NCLB Legislative Recommendations also state that AYP should not 

be based on the results of one test, but should be based on the results of multiple 

assessments and multiple opportunities to take the test. We strongly recommend 

that students be tested on a regular, consistent basis to analyze what they have or 

have not learned, and that schools be measured based on these multiple assessments. Teachers can use the data from these assessments to develop effective strategies to address individual student academic weaknesses and to build upon student 

strengths diagnosed by the assessments. 

Assessment practices that use diagnostic data, and not the ‘‘score,’’ give educators 

an impetus to prepare, plan, and focus on student success—individually, student by 

student. To view testing narrowly, as simply a measurement of a school’s success 

or failure, misses the broader point. Simply stated, the purpose of testing is to inform instruction and improve learning. High-quality assessments that are diagnostic 

in nature are the key to improving instruction and thus student achievement. Hold 

educators accountable, but ensure that they have the resources, the preparation, the 

training, a strong curriculum, and useful assessment data to get the job done. If we 

can do that, then our students will achieve, and our schools will have truly passed 

the test. 

Many of our members have also expressed concern regarding the requirement 

that 95% of a school’s students must be in attendance for testing. Depending on the 

subgroup size designated in a particular state and a school’s average daily attendance, that single requirement could mean not making AYP. Other factors such as 

mobility rates during certain times of the year, migrant movement between states 

and outside the country, and student delinquency may also play a role in school participation rates. 

For schools with astounding mobility rates—as much as a third of the student 

population—participation rates pose an even greater concern. While every effort is 

being made to reach the 95% participation rate, individual schools with improving 

attendance rates should not be penalized in AYP calculation. 

Flexibility—Graduation Definition 

NASSP advocates that the graduation rate be extended to at least five years of 

entering high school. Currently, NCLB requires states to graduate students within 

the ‘‘regular’’ time. Most often, this has been determined to mean within four years; 

although, the U.S. Department of Education has allowed some states to extend beyond this traditional timeline. 

NASSP wholeheartedly believes that designating a four-year timeframe within 

which students must exit and graduate from high school goes against what we know 

about student learning and timelines designated by the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. In fact, we should be moving in the opposite direction, allowing students additional time to graduate if they require it, or less time if they have reached 

proficiency without penalizing the school. 

Students that graduate in fewer than four years should be rewarded. This would 

be an area in the law to actually encourage excellence. The recognition of high-performing students could help schools that are nearing the target of 100% proficiency. 

Student performance should be measured by mastery of subject competency rather 

than by seat time currently imposed by NCLB. States that have implemented endof-course assessments are on the right track and should be encouraged to continue 

these efforts. This feature would promote moving beyond the minimum requirements mandated by the law. 

Ultimately, individualized and personalized instruction for each student should be 

our goal. NASSP has been a leader in advocating for such positive reform strategies 

through its practitioner-focused publications Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School Reform(tm) and Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle School Reform. 

Capacity Building—Funding 

NASSP believes that full funding of the law is critical to provide the capacity required for success. We recommend that funding not be taken away as a sanction 

135

for Title I schools that are not meeting proficiency. One of our task force members, 

Brent Walker from New Hampshire, offers a compelling story concerning this issue. 

Brent’s rural middle school was one of the first identified as a ‘‘school in need of 

improvement’’ in his state. As a Title I targeted-assistance school, he was fortunate 

to have access to a sizable portion of grant money that was distributed by the state 

to the identified schools to fund their respective school improvement plans. As a result, the school’s staff members were able to conduct a needs assessment and pursue 

an aggressive professional development program that included two years of schoolwide one-to-one consulting. Thanks to this intensive professional development, 

Brent’s school has made AYP each year since being identified for improvement. 

However, other schools in his state have not had access to the same professional 

development funds. This is an even greater issue when considering low-income 

schools that have not achieved Title I status. 

To their credit, many states are beginning to recognize the importance of adequate funding for high standards, but that recognition needs to trickle up to the federal level. A March 2006 report issued by the Center on Education Policy found that 

in 2004 and 2005, nearly two-thirds of the states did not have sufficient funds to 

provide technical assistance to schools in need of improvement. 

In addition, many school districts said that some NCLB administrative costs were 

not covered by federal funds, or that federal dollars were not sufficient to cover the 

costs of NCLB-required interventions such as implementing public school choice or 

providing remediation services for students performing below grade level. In addition, in districts where they were not needed, transportation funds could not be reprogrammed to defray these costs. We request that the federal government increase 

administrative funds associated with this law. Increased costs for schools include 

items such as Title I site administrators; training and professional development; 

and assessment and evaluation. 

NCLB funding is being reduced at a time when schools are poised to implement 

the new teacher quality and science standards, required by NCLB law, and Title 

I funding for high schools is a paltry 5%—or less—and around 15% when middle 

schools are included. If we are truly serious about improving our schools, we must 

provide the resources that address the problems and challenges of school reform in 

a comprehensive manner from pre-kindergarten and elementary through high school 

and beyond. 

Closing 

A few final thoughts: Principals, teachers, and other staff members in the vast 

majority of schools are working hard to improve and meet the standards of NCLB. 

They are implementing new strategies, improving teaching methods, and working 

with parents to achieve higher student learning. Many schools are actively seeking 

to accomplish what has been asked of them. 

According to the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, high-quality leadership 

was the single greatest predictor of whether or not a high school makes AYP as defined by NCLB—greater than school size or teacher retention. Principals should be 

given sufficient resources to implement effective school reform because they are responsible for encouraging the continuation of school reform programs that are working and for discouraging practices that disrupt good reform programs already underway. 

NASSP promotes the improvement of secondary education and the role of principals, assistant principals, and other school leaders by advocating high professional 

and academic standards, addressing problems school leaders face, providing a ‘‘national voice,’’ building public confidence in education, and strengthening the role of 

the principal as instructional leader. NASSP promotes the intellectual growth, academic achievement, character development, leadership development, and physical 

well-being of youth through its programs and student leadership services, including 

the National Honor Society(tm), the National Association of Student Councils(tm), 

and the National Association of Student Activity Advisers(tm). 

[Internet address to National Association of Secondary School 

Principals (NASSP), ‘‘NASSP Legislative Recommendations for 

High School Reform,’’ dated 2005, follows:]

136

http://www.principals.org/s—nassp/

bin.asp?CID=1238&DID=49743&DOC=FILE.PDF 

[Internet address to NASSP Policy Recommendations for Middle 

Level Reform, dated 2006, follows:]

http://www.principals.org/s—nassp/

bin.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=54017&CID=937&VID=2&DOC=FILE.PDF 

[The NASSP NCLB recommendations follow:]


nassp-1.eps
137


nassp-2.eps
138


nassp-3.eps
139


nassp-4.eps
140


nassp-5.eps
141

[Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) follows:]

Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) 

The National School Boards Association (NSBA), representing over 95,000 local 

school board members across the nation, commends you for your strong support to 

reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act during the 110th Congress, and for establishing an aggressive 

schedule for congressional hearings over the coming weeks. NSBA looks forward to 

participating in future hearings and very much appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony for the record. 


nassp-6.eps
142

NSBA strongly supports the goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act and its subsequent reauthorizations, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001. Now that local school districts have had five years of implementation, we urge 

you to fully incorporate our recommendations for improvements to the law. Many 

school boards believe that some of the current provisions in the law do not recognize 

the complex factors that influence student performance. Additionally, local school 

boards are concerned that the law has resulted in may unintended consequences 

that must be addressed. Of utmost importance is our belief that the current accountability framework does not accurately or fairly assess student, school, or school 

district performance. NSBA believes that the law can be amended to address key 

barriers to full implementation while maintaining the core principles of the law to 

improve achievement for all students. 

In January 2005, NSBA officially unveiled its bill, the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2005. The bill contains over 40 provisions that would improve the 

implementation of the current federal law. In June, 2006, Representative Don 

Young (R-AK) introduced H.R. 5709, the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act 

of 2006, which incorporated all of the NSBA recommendations. Co-sponsors of H.R. 

5709 included Representatives Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ-9), Rob Bishop (R-UT-1), 

Todd Platts (R-PA-19), and Jo Bonner (R-AL-1). In January 2007, Rep. Young reintroduced his bill as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, H.R. 648. The bill’s cosponsors to date include Representatives Charlie Melancon (D-LA-3), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9), Jo Bonner (R-AL-1), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11), and Todd Platts 

(R-PA-19), verifying strong bi-partisan support for these important improvements to 

the current law. The bill addresses the key concerns of local school boards and 

would: 

• Increase the flexibility for states to use additional types of assessments for 

measuring AYP, including growth models. 

• Grant more flexibility in assessing students with disabilities and students not 

proficient in English for AYP purposes. 

• Create a student testing participation range, providing flexibility for uncontrollable variations in student attendance. 

• Allow schools to target resources to those student populations who need the 

most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group fails to 

make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the same subject for two consecutive years. 

• Ensure that students are counted properly in assessment and reporting systems. 

• Allow supplemental services to be offered in the first year of ‘‘improvement’’. 

• Strengthen federal responsibility for funding. 

• Require NCLB testing and reporting for non-public schools for students receiving Title I services. 

NSBA encourages you to review the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 

2007, H.R. 648 in its entirety. However, for your convenience we have enclosed a 

copy of our Quick Reference Guide to the bill that provides a summary of the recommended provisions along with the rationale. We will also provide you with recommended legislative language which should be helpful to your staff in drafting the 

new bill. 

Although the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 established a rigorous but theoretical accountability system for the nation’s public schools, what has evolved in the 

name of accountability is a measurement framework that bases its assessment of 

school quality on a student’s performance on a single assessment; and mandates a 

series of overbroad sanctions not always targeted to the students needing services; 

and to date not yet proven to have significant impact on improving student performance and school performance. 

We believe that by adopting our over 40 recommendations—that have bipartisan 

congressional support—the goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

and its subsequent reauthorizations to significantly improve the academic performance of all students would be achieved. 

NSBA very much appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony for the 

record, and we look forward to working closely with you and your staffs to complete 

the reauthorization process during this First Session of the 110th Congress. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL A. RESNICK, 

Associate Executive Director. 

[The National School Boards Association Quick Reference Guide 

follows:]

143

National School Boards Association Quick Reference Guide 

Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress: Group Size/Measuring AYP of Groups 

1. The ‘‘N’’ size may be larger for school districts than for schools. 

Rationale: Larger school districts are negatively impacted by the ‘‘N’’ number designed for an individual school. If larger school districts are to be identified as ‘‘in 

need of improvement,’’ a larger ‘‘N’’ number is more appropriate—of course, subject 

to the approval of the state. 

2. The ‘‘N’’ size for a group within a school may be increased to a number or percentage of that school’s total school enrollment to better align with schools with 

large enrollments. 

Rationale: The number of students within a specific subgroup may vary, so very 

large subgroups should be able to have a different ‘‘N’’ number than subgroups with 

a very small number of students. 

3. The ‘‘safe harbor’’ requirement is reduced from 10% to 5%. 

Rationale: This flexibility would permit subgroups to demonstrate progress and 

such recognition would provide an incentive for the students in the subgroup as well 

as their families. 

4. In calculating AYP, students identified in more than one group may be represented in the count for each group as an equal fraction totaling one student. 

Rationale: This change creates a fairer approach in determining AYP for schools 

with students belonging to more than one group than over representing their count 

and would not adversely affect schools with greater diversity. 

Goals for Adequate Yearly Progress 

5. A state may permit a school to be identified as meeting AYP when one or more 

subgroups fail to meet AYP targets as long as the total number of students in the 

subgroups failing to meet their AYP targets does not exceed 10% of the total number of students counted for the specific assessment or indicator. (This alternate 

method could not be applied to the same groups for the same subject in two consecutive years.) 

Rationale: This option permits a one year deferral of a school being identified for 

improvement when small numbers of students prevent a group from making AYP. 

6. Intermediate goals do not have to increase in equal increments. 

Rationale: This option would give school districts flexibility in addressing the 

unique needs of specific subgroups that may already be positioned at different 

points to achieve full proficiency. 

7. Different groups can have different rates of increase to ultimately reach 100% 

proficiency. 

Rationale: This option would provide school districts flexibility in addressing the 

unique needs of specific groups. 

Gain Scores and Other Measures of AYP Developed by the State 

8. The basic AYP measurement system may be expanded to include: 1) gain score 

approaches (like value added) and 2) partial credit for meeting basic proficiency targets. 

Rationale: The current accountability system, focused on ‘‘cut scores,’’ is flawed 

and does not address the need to measure performance via more than one method. 

9. Alternate methods of measuring AYP for schools and/or school districts may be 

substituted for the existing methodology, provided the system is based on attaining 

proficiency in the 2013-14 school year and using intermediate goals. 

Rationale: States would have greater flexibility to design their accountability systems while continuing to support the broader goals of NCLB. 

Participation Rate 

10. The specific requirement for 95% test participation may be adjusted to a range 

of 90% to 95% (based on criteria established in the state plan). 

Rationale: With ‘‘N’’ numbers being relatively small, meeting the current participation requirements could be impacted by the absence of only one or two students. 

11. Students may be exempted from the participation rate requirements on a caseby-case basis due to medical conditions, current state laws that grant parents final 

decisions regarding participation on standardized assessments and uncontrollable 

circumstances (e.g. natural disaster). 

Rationale: This option would recognize that there may be unique circumstances 

facing students that would warrant exceptions to participation, and such absence 

should not adversely impact the performance of the entire school or school district. 

12. Students determined to have ‘‘unusual patterns of attendance’’ as defined by 

the state education agency may be exempt from the calculation to determine participation rate and referenced in the local school district accountability plan. (This catVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-9\HED072.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
144

egory of students may include chronic truants as well as students who fail to attend 

school on a regular basis because of life circumstances but continue to maintain 

their official enrollment status.) 

Rationale: In some communities there are students with very poor attendance but 

who continue to be encouraged to remain in school rather than drop-out. By having 

this option, schools would continue to encourage such students to remain in school 

without the worry of the impact on this student’s performance on the school’s ability 

to make AYP. 

13. Students not participating in the assessment and determined not to be eligible 

for exemptions may be assigned a ‘‘below basic’’ score by the school. In such cases, 

the school may not be identified as failing to meet the participation rate for AYP 

on the basis that those same students did not take the assessment. 

Rationale: Currently a school could be labeled as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ on the 

basis of performance and participation. When calculating AYP, this option would 

permit a school to make AYP as long as the AYP targets were met since the absent 

students are given a ‘‘below basic’’ score as part of the final AYP determination. 

Students With Disabilities 

14. As determined by the state, students with disabilities may be offered an alternate assessment for the purpose of determining AYP, provided that any such assessment is reflected by the student’s IEP and is based on the IEP team’s evaluation 

and the services to be provided for that student—and meets parent consent requirements for IEP’s. 

Rationale: The IEP team has the authority to determine the academic requirements for the students and NCLB should not override its authority. 

15. The percentage of students statewide who may have their score counted under 

this provision as meeting AYP may not exceed 3% of the total number of students 

assessed. 

Rationale: This percentage is consistent with the research. 

16. Consistent with the student’s IEP, alternate assessments may include out of 

level assessments. Likewise, a student’s test results for the purpose of determining 

AYP may be based on gain scores toward meeting the state standard for proficient 

or on an adjusted ‘‘cut’’ score for determining proficient. 

Rationale: The IEP team has the authority to determine the academic requirements for the students and NCLB should not override its authority. 

Limited English Proficient Students 

17. The current regulation is codified relating to 1) first year students in the 

United States, and 2) counting students as LEP for determining AYP once they 

leave the group except that such count may be extended to a third year. 

Rationale: The law would be consistent with the regulatory changes that have already been issued by the U.S. Department of Education. 

18. Students may be provided an alternate assessment that is based on making 

specific gains individually determined for that student toward meeting state standards for up to three years, as determined by the local school district. 

Rationale: Such flexibility is necessary to meet the needs of individual students 

who enroll in schools with wide variations in English fluency. 

19. The higher score achieved by a student who is assessed more than once prior 

to the beginning of the next school year may be used as the sole score for that student for the purposes of determining AYP. 

Rationale: Students should be evaluated on their best scores similar to SAT participation. 

First Assessments 

20. If a student scores proficient or above on an assessment taken prior to the 

academic year in which that assessment is normally offered, that student’s score can 

be counted for the purpose of determining whether AYP was met. However, if that 

student fails to score at the proficient level, that student’s score will not be counted 

for determining AYP. 

Rationale: Schools that offer such assessments more than once should have flexibility in calculating performance using the best possible scores. 

State Flexibility by the U.S. Department of Education 

21. In approving a state’s NCLB accountability plan the Secretary shall grant 

states flexibility to alter the federal framework to align with the state’s own accountability system. 

Rationale: States have the responsibility for educating their students and should 

have the authority to use state systems subject to approval by the Secretary. 

145

22. The Secretary may provide statutory and regulatory waivers—including 

waiving requirements that are unnecessarily burdensome or duplicative of state requirements. 

Rationale: States should not have to implement federal mandates that are inconsistent, duplicative, or add no value to state requirements as long as those state requirements support the broader objectives of NCLB. 

23. When the Secretary approves an amendment to a state plan or grants a waiver, that information must be published on the U.S. Department of Education 

website in clear and complete language within 30 days. 

Rationale: Information regarding adjustments approved by the Secretary is not 

readily available. This change would ensure that all states are informed regarding 

adjustments and accommodations granted by the Secretary. 

24. A waiver or state plan revision approved by the Secretary shall be available 

to any other state on a case-by-case determination. 

Rationale: This change would encourage equitable treatment by the U.S. Department of Education. 

Public School Choice 

25. A transfer option need only be offered to those low achieving students within 

the group who failed to meet their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more 

years—not to all students in the school. 

Rationale: Although an unintended consequence from the current law, higher performing, more affluent students opt for the transfer, leaving the school less likely 

to improve its performance in subsequent years. 

26. Financial obligations for a school district to provide transportation for a student ends when the group to which the student belongs no longer is identified as 

not meeting AYP target within the student’s former school even if that school continues to be identified as not making AYP for other reasons. 

Rationale: Title I funds are already limited. Continuing such financial obligations 

without the need adversely impact already limited resources. 

27. A student need only be offered the option to transfer to one other school rather 

than the current interpretation of at least two schools. 

Rationale: This change would make the regulations consistent with the intent of 

the law, and acknowledge the often very limited choice options available in many 

small school districts. 

28. The current regulation exempting students from being offered the transfer option when health and safety are involved is codified and the following conditions for 

exemption are added: 1) class-size laws, 2) overcrowding, 3) the need for mobile 

classrooms, construction, or other significant capital outlays, and 4) such travel burdens as time, safety, and unusually high per pupil costs. 

Rationale: This would make the law consistent with the regulations already 

issued. 

Supplemental Services 

29. Supplemental services may be offered in the first year that a school is in improvement status—rather than only offering the transfer option for that year. 

Rationale: Research supports the change, and the Secretary has already granted 

such an option to many states. 

30. Supplemental services need only be offered to low achieving students within 

the specific group that fails to make AYP in the same subject for two or more years. 

Rationale: Given the limited Title I funds available, such resources should be targeted only to those students who have demonstrated a need, not all Title I eligible 

students. 

31. The state is required to consult with school districts in developing criteria for 

supplemental service providers. 

Rationale: Currently, providers are placed on the list with little, if any, input from 

local school districts that often have relevant information concerning their performance. 

32. The state may establish a date, not later than December 15, to permit school 

districts to spend portions of the 20% set-aside from Title I not needed for such services with appropriate parent notification. 

Rationale: This would allow school districts to reallocate funds to support other 

Title I initiatives for eligible students within the district. Currently such funds cannot be released to support much needed programs during the remainder of the 

school year. 

33. The state is required to develop—and make available to the public—procedures to enable local school districts to bring complaints regarding the selection and 

146

performance of the provider, and number of schools served by the provider if such 

scope of service adversely affects the quality of service. 

Rationale: Currently, local school districts have little recourse regarding substantive complaints against the providers, forcing unnecessary political/partisan engagements. 

34. School districts may not be denied the opportunity to provide supplemental 

services solely because they did not make AYP or they are in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status. 

Rationale: Under current regulations, local school districts identified as ‘‘in need 

of improvement’’ are not permitted to offer supplemental services. This is an unnecessary restriction resulting in costlier programs using the same teachers and facilities that would be available with the school district as a provider. Secondly, Secretary Spellings has already granted such exceptions to some districts. 

Sanctions in General 

35. Sanctions for schools and school districts will apply only when AYP is not met 

by the ‘‘same group ‘‘ for two or more consecutive years in a subject or the ‘‘same 

indicator ‘‘—rather than applying sanctions when different groups and/or different 

indicators are involved from year to year in that subject. 

Rationale: This provides a more reasonable approach in the identification of 

schools. Under current law, even if a subgroup previously not making AYP subsequently makes AYP, the school is forced to be identified and subject for sanctions. 

By requiring at least a two-year pattern of low performance, limited school resources can be strategically targeted, and the number of schools identified would be 

reduced. 

36. The application of corrective action sanctions to restructure a school district 

will occur when it fails to make AYP in each grade. 

Rationale: This change provides a more reasonable approach and has been approved for some states by the U.S. Department of Education. 

37. Provisions of federal law requiring the restructuring of a school or a school 

district shall not be implemented unless the total number of students in the groups 

not scoring proficient or above exceeds 35% of that school or school district’s enrollment. 

Rationale: Under current law, an entire school district could be identified for restructuring based on as few as 50 students if that were the ‘‘N’’ number, regardless 

of how large the enrollment is in the school district. This change would acknowledge 

that before an entire school district is identified for costly restructuring, the percentage of students not meeting AYP must represent at least 35% of the total enrollment. 

38. In addition to deferring implementation of sanctions for one year for schools 

and school districts that face hardships such as natural disasters or financial difficulties, implementation may also be deferred due to a sudden change in the enrollment of particular groups of students in the school or within identified groups. 

Rationale: This change would acknowledge that there could be very unique circumstances facing a school district such as those school districts receiving displaced 

students from the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 

39. Sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring will be deferred in 

any year that appropriations for Title I is not increased by at least $2.5 billion over 

the previous year until Title I is fully funded. 

Rationale: Federal funding should bear some relationship to requirements to implement costly sanctions. Therefore, Congress should be held accountable for its fiscal commitment. 

40. Sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring will be deferred in 

any year that appropriations are not increased by at least $2 billion over the previous year for students with disabilities. 

Rationale: Federal funding should bear some relationship to requirements to implement costly sanctions. Therefore, Congress should be held accountable for its fiscal commitment. 

Non-Public Schools 

41. Students receiving Title I benefits in non-public schools shall be given the 

same assessments, as public school students, with appropriate accountability and 

test reporting requirements to parents and school districts that are required by 

NCLB to provide consultative services to those non-public schools. 

Rationale: Non-public schools receiving federal support should be subject to the 

same measures of performance and accountability as public schools. 

147

42. States may authorize a cessation of Title I support to a non-public school 

whose Title I students as a whole do not make AYP and perform at lower levels 

than the area public school(s) for three years or more. 

Rationale: Non-public schools receiving federal support should be subject to the 

same measures of performance and accountability as public schools. 

[Letter from the National Parents and Teachers Association 

(PTA) follows:]

March 13, 2007. 

Hon. EDWARD KENNEDY, Chair, 

Hon. MICHAEL B. ENZI, Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chair, 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN MILLER, RANKING MEMBER ENZI AND

RANKING MEMBER MCKEON: Thank you for convening this bicameral hearing on the 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and for allowing 

me this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the National PTA. As national 

president of PTA, I represent nearly 6 million parents, teachers, students and other 

child advocates devoted to the educational success of children and the promotion of 

parent involvement in schools. We are greatly encouraged by the cooperation between both sides of the Capitol, evidenced by this hearing, and we hope it will lead 

to the development of a more comprehensive bill that will be accepted widely. 

PTA is a registered 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization that prides itself on being 

a powerful voice for children, a relevant resource for parents, and a strong advocate 

for public education. Membership in PTA is open to anyone who is concerned with 

the education, health, and welfare of children and youth. Since its founding in 1897, 

PTA has reminded our country of its obligations to children and provided parents 

and families with a powerful voice to speak on behalf of every child. PTA strives 

to provide parents with the best tools to help their children succeed in school and 

in life. With more than 25,000 local, council, district, and state PTAs in the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Department of Defense 

Dependents Schools overseas, membership in PTA is open to anyone who supports 

the Mission and Purposes of PTA. 

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 

2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) took great strides towards providing 

accountability for schools to ensure that every student becomes proficient in math 

and reading. PTA is looking forward to science being included in the equation, and, 

we hope this will help to create more jobs and opportunities for students in cuttingedge fields of study. Keeping the United States competitive in a global market was 

a major priority during the last reauthorization; PTA hopes this priority will continue as Congress looks to reauthorize the law. In addition, PTA continues to support the original intent of ESEA in helping children of low-income families receive 

a high-quality education equal to their economically-advantaged peers. 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provided an excellent outline of accountability. It is PTA’s hope that reauthorization of the law will shore up some of the 

items that were overlooked during the last reauthorization, or found to be flawed 

during implementation. Congress has an excellent opportunity to fine-tune this law 

to make it more effective in reaching the goal of 100 percent proficiency by the 2013-

2014 school year. 

The PTA believes it is imperative that parents know exactly why their child’s 

school is failing, what the state is doing about it, and the options available to parents—all in a very clear and understandable manner. In its current form, NCLB 

does not give explicit instructions to the state or local education agency (SEA and 

LEA, respectively) regarding how and when they should involve parents. Moreover, 

there is no unified, consistent method for an LEA to keep their parents notified of 

how their child’s school is doing and what actions the school is taking to become 

proficient under NCLB. 

The PTA believes that including parental involvement specifically within the 

Committee’s objectives will enhance substantially opportunities for parents to become and remain involved in their child’s education. In addition, expansion of Parental Information and Resource Centers (PIRCs) will improve parental involvement 

in Title I schools. A PIRC can be extremely useful in not only helping parents with 

148

their questions and concerns, but also in providing ‘‘technical assistance’’ to those 

schools not achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years. By supporting 

this provision, PIRCs can continue to be a vital tool for parents, teachers, and the 

LEA. 

PTA’s interests are not limited to parent involvement. The Committee needs to 

take a critical look at how to ensure schools include as many students as possible 

in their accountability standards. ESEA was established to provide a helping hand 

to those students who need to help the most. More attention needs to be paid to 

these students and not the overall school. Finding a way for individual students to 

be tracked will greatly enhance our ability to identify their strengths, weaknesses, 

and specific assistance they need to improve their academic skills. 

Supplemental Education Services should be better publicized and the process to 

become one of these services needs to encourage participation rather than serve as 

an obstacle. The reauthorization must provide states the flexibility to offer unique 

services that will enhance a student’s education. 

The Committee should also explore ways in which a more comprehensive view of 

student progress can be assessed and measured. Reading, math, and science are extremely important to student academic success, but do not overlook the importance 

of art, music, civics, history and other core subjects that are critical to the development of the whole child. 

It is imperative to ensure the resources that help schools, districts and states 

meet the goals of this important legislation. As states continue to implement the 

provisions of NCLB, schools across America are working hard to improve academic 

results for all children. Having the necessary resources is crucial to its success. 

Through all of the changes the Committee may contemplate in the reauthorization 

of ESEA, PTA urges you to consider how it will affect parents and how you can provide a way for them to become more involved. There is little incentive and even less 

accountability in the current law for SEAs and the LEAs to include parents in critical decisions that affect their child’s learning. While no state can force a parent to 

be involved, the more opportunities that exist, the better chance a parent will become and remain active. By mandating what a state MUST do and by having some 

part of the state and federal departments of education ensuring all parent involvement sections are being followed, more parents will find opportunities to take a 

much larger role in their child’s education. 

The PTA thanks you for your tireless work on behalf of our nation’s children. We 

look forward to working with you throughout the reauthorization. Our members 

stand ready to assist you in any way they can. 

Sincerely, 

ANNA WESELAK, 

PTA National President. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]

Æ