Honorable Robert E. Andrews
          House of Representatives
          Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Andrews:

I am writing to express the Administration's views on several important            issues facing the conferees on the House and Senate versions of H.R.            1, the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" and the "Better Education            for Students and Teachers Act of 2001," respectively. Additional issues,            such as those relating to the Individuals with Disabilities Education            Act, may be addressed in other letters and communications from the Administration            as the conference progresses.

I am pleased that both versions of this legislation, which passed their            respective chambers by wide bipartisan margins, generally reflect the            themes of No Child Left Behind, the President's comprehensive            proposal to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965            (ESEA). It is very gratifying that one or both of the respective bills            incorporate many of the basic components of the President's key proposals            to: (1) require States to conduct annual testing in reading and mathematics            for students in grades 3 through 8, to help States, schools, and parents            know who is on track and who needs extra help; (2) consolidate numerous            programs relating to teacher quality, bilingual education, issues of            national significance and educational technology into performance-based            grants to States that would allow States and local school districts            to direct Federal funds where they are most needed; (3) make reading            the foundation of education reform by establishing new "Reading First"            and "Early Reading First" programs to support scientifically based methods            to ensure that all children can read by the end of third grade; (4)            strengthen accountability provisions designed to turn around failing            schools; and (5) empower parents with choices when their children are            trapped in failing schools.

While the bills are generally consistent with the President's proposal            for reform, we are concerned about a number of issues, including excessive            authorization levels, the large number of unrequested programs, and            other issues outlined below. I urge the conferees to produce a final            bill that conforms as closely as possible to the President's proposal,            and to the views expressed in this letter, and to do so as quickly as            possible, so that States, school districts, administrators, teachers,            parents, and others are given adequate time to begin the many, and major,            changes the President has proposed, in a way that is as beneficial as            possible to our nation's children.

Targeting Federal funds to disadvantaged children

I urge the conferees to ensure that, where the bills differ on the            extent to which Federal funds and services are targeted toward economically            disadvantaged children, the bill include the version that provides for            greater, rather than less, targeting. For example, the Senate provisions are preferable with respect to targeting under the           Enhancing Teacher Quality and 21st Century Community Learning Centers            programs. The final bill should also avoid the use of mechanisms such            as "hold harmless" provisions that generally guarantee school districts            that they will continue to receive the same level of funding they have            in the past, without regard to current need or numbers of children from            low-income families. We should continue the Federal role of providing            additional resources to students who most need them and who can most            benefit from them. This principle applies to the large programs, such            as Part A of Title I, as well as to smaller programs.

Empowering parents through parental choice and consent

Parental empowerment is one of the four key pillars of No Child            Left Behind. I am therefore pleased that both bills would provide            parents additional choices on where to send their children to school,            and enable them to obtain supplemental educational services, from the            provider of their choice, when their children's schools fail to perform            adequately. The conferees should include the choice-related provisions            from both bills to allow parents to make these decisions and to provide            a solid base from which the Congress may further enhance parental choice            in later legislation. Where the two bills include comparable provisions,            such as in the availability of public-school choice and supplemental            services for children in low-performing schools, the conferees should            adopt the provision that gives those choices to parents sooner and that            makes a greater proportion of funds available for activities and services,            including transportation, that will make parental choice meaningful            and more widely available.

The Administration is reviewing carefully language in the House-passed            version of the bill that addresses the issue of parental consent as            it applies to certain school-based surveys funded by a variety of Federal            agencies. The Administration is eager to work with the conferees in            developing language that protects parental rights while preserving the            utility of surveys designed to help our nation's children. The integrity            of surveys that provide important information about drug use and other            issues depends on high response rates across demographic groups. At            the same time, we want to make sure that parental rights are carefully            protected.

Consolidation of current programs and creation of new programs

The President proposed to consolidate a long list of overlapping and            duplicative programs, including numerous small and narrowly focused            authorities that have accumulated over the years, into a handful of            performance-based State formula grant programs. The President's proposal            would provide greater flexibility to States and school districts to            address their needs and situations, minimize the number of applications,            evaluations, and regulations, and streamline the bureaucracies, at all            levels of government, needed to administer multiple programs. The House            and Senate bills make commendable efforts to increase flexibility in            the major programs, but retain far too many of the smaller, fragmented            programs that divert funds from more flexible authorities. The final            bill should achieve greater program consolidation than either of the            current versions, particularly among these smaller programs.

Both versions of the bill would create new programs that the President            did not request, and that should not be included in the final bill.            The Senate version authorizes more than 70 unrequested program authorities            and the House version authorizes more than 20 programs that the President            did not request. I urge the conferees to eliminate unrequested program            authorities and enhance local flexibility.

Excessive authorization levels

The President's budget request for fiscal year 2002 provides significant            increases for ESEA programs, reflecting the high priority the President            has placed on education reform. Major increases are requested for key            pillars of the President's No Child Left Behind proposal: Reading            ($614 million), Title I grants to assist disadvantaged students ($459            million), Teacher Quality ($375 million), Assessments ($320 million),            and Charter Schools ($160 million). Clearly, we are committed to increasing            the Federal investment in education, but additional funds should support            what works and be tied to accountability for results.

Unfortunately, the authorization levels in both the House and Senate            versions of H.R. 1 are far in excess of what the President proposed,            especially in the Senate bill. In fact, the Senate version authorizes            $300 billion more than the President's budget for ESEA programs in the            next 10 years, while the House bill authorizes more than $90 billion            over the President's budget for the same period. Additionally, when            including other authorized programs in the Senate bill, in particular            IDEA, the Senate version authorizes more than $400 billion over the            President's budget over the next 10 years. As the President has noted,            while increased funding for education is justified, money alone does            not improve student achievement. Resources should be allocated based            on program performance, and should be committed as results are demonstrated            and progress toward success is made. The Administration urges the inclusion            of authorization levels that reflect the President's budget request.

Annual State assessments of reading and mathematics in grades 3            through 8

I am very pleased that both bills adopt the President's proposal that            States administer annual tests in reading and math for all children            in grades 3 through 8, and authorize substantial funding to help States            develop the additional tests they will need. A centerpiece of No            Child Left Behind, this proposal will provide parents the information            they need to know how well their child is doing in school and how well            the school is educating their child, and is critical to the success            of education reform.

Recognizing that developing these additional assessments takes time            and money, the President proposed giving States three years to put them            into effect and included $320 million in his fiscal year 2002 budget            (with annual increases in the future), to help States develop and use            them. The Senate bill, however, departs from the President's proposal            by giving States an extra year to develop these assessments, and by            permitting States to delay or suspend administration of the new tests            unless the Federal Government fully funds the amounts authorized for their development. Delaying these tests would significantly weaken efforts to improve student performance              and create uncertainty among States and school districts about what              tests they are expected to have in place and the timetable for doing              so. These tests are the linchpin of the strengthened accountability              systems called for by No Child Left Behind, and should not              be subject to the vagaries of the appropriations process. The conferees              should follow the House bill on these points.

The final bill should also make clear, as neither bill now does,              that the reading and math tests used at the various grades within              a State yield comparable data from grade to grade, in order to ensure              that they provide parents and educators with information on how students              are progressing over time. We would be pleased to work with you to              achieve this result.

Finally, the bill should follow the House proposal to make bonus              awards available to all States that develop their assessments ahead              of the statutory schedule, as called for in No Child Left Behind,              rather than making those awards available only to those States with              the very best assessments, as provided by the Senate. If the underlying              standards for those assessments are as rigorous as they should be,              any State that develops assessments that meet those standards at least              a year ahead of schedule should receive a bonus for doing so.

State participation in the National Assessment of Educational              Progress

Another key element of No Child Left Behind that is related              to the assessment of student achievement is the participation of States,              as a condition of receiving funds under Title I of the ESEA, in annual              testing of a sample of students on the 4th and 8th grade reading and              mathematics assessments administered by the National Assessment of              Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is an independent testing system              that is rigorous and widely respected, and in which more than 40 States              currently participate every two years. The NAEP results would be used              to corroborate the results reported by the States on their own assessments,              and would be used by the Secretary, along with the State assessment              results, to make bonus awards to States that make the most educational              progress.

Requiring States to participate in the NAEP is an essential part              of the Federal effort to ensure that States develop rigorous, meaningful              accountability systems that truly "leave no child behind," and will              help ensure that States do not set low achievement standards for their              own assessments. The President has proposed that the Federal Government              pay for the administration of State NAEP, and requested a $69 million              increase in the NAEP budget for that purpose.

The House and Senate bills each contain language relating to NAEP              that is inconsistent with the President's proposal and should not              be included in the final bill. The House                         would permit each State to select an alternative to NAEP, so long                as it meets certain criteria, and the Senate would require States                to participate in NAEP only if the Federal Government pays 100 percent                of the cost of their doing so over the next several years. These                provisions should not be included in the final bill. The House provision                would provide too great of an incentive for States to select tests                that most closely track their own tests, defeating the purpose of                requiring an independent confirmation of their tests, and making                it difficult, if not impossible, to compare State achievement for                the purpose of making rewards and imposing sanctions. The Senate                provision would subject the vital requirement of State participation                in annual NAEP tests to the vagaries of the annual appropriations                process.

Adequate yearly progress and identification of low-performing                schools

The House and Senate bills each adopt a version of the President's                proposal to hold schools accountable for making adequate yearly                progress (AYP), and for imposing an increasingly rigorous series                of consequences on schools that fail, over a period of years, to                make that progress. These include public school choice, the availability                of supplemental services, and reconstitution or restructuring. Unfortunately,                while the respective bills set out different criteria for identifying                low-performing schools, each bill is substantially flawed on this                critical point, and would result in the majority of schools being                identified as failing. I urge the conferees to craft a definition                of AYP that is as simple, flexible, and fair as possible, while                being rigorous enough to ensure that schools are held accountable                for the performance and progress of all students they serve. The                Administration has been exploring possible approaches to resolving                this fundamental issue with the conferees, and we look forward to                continuing those discussions.

Charter Schools

The expansion of charter schools is an important part of No                Child Left Behind: they replace rules-based governance with                performance-based accountability. In order to ensure the continued                success and expansion of charter schools, the final bill should                ensure that charter schools are subject to accountability requirements                in a manner that avoids confusion and duplication of administration                and accountability requirements, particularly in light of the fact                that there are multiple chartering authorities in many States.

No Child Left Behind included a charter school "homestead                fund" to support, through credit enhancement activities, the acquisition                of facilities by charter schools, which the President's budget would                fund at $175 million. I urge the conferees to include Senate language                that authorizes these activities and creates incentives for States                to establish and expand programs that provide facilities assistance                to charter schools on a per-pupil basis.

Flexibility

No Child Left Behind proposed to allow "charter States                  and districts" to enter into performance agreements with the Federal                  Government, under which a State or district would be freed from                  many of the requirements of categorical Federal education programs                  in exchange for a commitment to reach high performance goals within                  five years. While neither the House nor the Senate adopted this                  idea to the extent envisioned by the President, each bill takes                  a step in that direction by including mechanisms to increase flexibility.                  The Senate bill would permit up to seven States and 25 school                  districts (in other States) to enter into performance agreements                  like those called for in No Child Left Behind. The House                  bill includes several provisions to enhance flexibility in spending                  ESEA funds, and authorizes performance agreements, similar to                  those in the Senate bill, for 100 districts (but no States). The                  final bill should make flexibility, in return for accountability,                  available to as many States and districts as possible; provide                  a variety of mechanisms for States and districts to exercise that                  flexibility; and tie the extent of flexibility to the extent of                  accountability. It should also include the House provision that                  permits districts to transfer funds among various ESEA programs.

Other issues

The final bill should not include an authority for the Math and                  Science Partnerships. The President's budget provides funds for                  this program within the National Science Foundation (NSF) and                  the final bill should not create a duplicative program authority                  at the Department of Education.

The final bill should include language that requires school districts                  receiving funds from the Department of Education to provide the                  Boy Scouts of America the same access to their schools that they                  provide to other groups and organizations.

The final bill should also ensure that activities carried out                  under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program do                  not denigrate the religious views of students or their parents.

The President's No Child Left Behind proposals to promote                  teacher excellence included taking steps to better protect teachers                  from Federal liability arising out of their reasonable efforts                  to maintain discipline in the classroom. The Administration would                  prefer that any such language included in the final version of                  the bill be broadly inclusive, and apply not only to teachers,                  principals and other school professionals responsible for student                  safety, but also to school board members as well.

Conclusion

I urge the conferees to quickly agree on a bill that reflects                  the views expressed above, and stand ready to help in whatever                  way may be helpful.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection            to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's            program.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------