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

55–304 PDF 2010

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION: 

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 18, 2010 

Serial No. 111–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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

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 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

John Kline, Minnesota, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 18, 2010 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 3 

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1 

Additional submission: 

Prepared statement of the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly .............................................................................. 61 

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

submission for the record: 

Letter, dated March 25, 2010, from the National Disability Rights 

Network (NDRN) ................................................................................... 64 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Curry, Dr. Daniel, superintendent, Lake Forest School District, Kent 

County, DE .................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Dale, Dr. Jack, superintendent, Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, 

VA ................................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Diaz, Arelis E., assistant superintendent of curriculum/instruction and 

human resources, Godwin Heights Public Schools .................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Gipp, Dr. David M., on behalf of the National Congress of American 

Indians and the National Indian Education Association ........................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Kearns, Jacqui Farmer, Ed.D., Principal Investigator, National Alternate 

Assessment Center, U.S. Department of Education .................................. 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Wotorson, Michael, executive director, Campaign for High School Equity . 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

(1) 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION: 

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF 

DIVERSE STUDENTS 

Thursday, March 18, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

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

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Davis, Loebsack, Polis, 

Pierluisi, Sablan, Hinojosa, Kucinich, Titus, Chu, Castle, Petri, 

Ehlers, Biggert, and Platts. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine, General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau, Senior Education Policy Advisor; 

David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Sharon Lewis, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; 

Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Bryce McKibbon, Staff Assistant; Lillian Pace, Policy 

Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Kristina Peterson, Einstein Fellow; Alexandria 

Ruiz, Staff Assistant; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Stephanie Arras, Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Deputy Director 

of Education and Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, General 

Counsel; Alexa Marrero, Communications Director; Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman KILDEE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to subcommittee rule 12(a), all members may submit an opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, entitled ‘‘ESEA 

Reauthorization: Addressing the Needs of Diverse Students.’’ We 

have been talking about this for many years. I can recall when we 

first coined the word ‘‘disaggregated data,’’ and that word has been 

in our lexicon since. 
2 

The timing of this hearing is critically important, as we continue 

to review the administration’s blueprint for ESEA reauthorization 

and work as a committee to reform our nation’s primary K-12 education law. I hope today’s discussion brings us one step closer to 

that goal. 

The governor and I here have met regularly with the secretary 

of education and with some of the Senate leaders on this bill. This 

is a high priority. The governor and I have worked together many 

times on good education bills and look forward to this process. 

I also want to thank our witnesses for taking the time out of 

their very busy schedules to inform this process. We can’t do our 

jobs, really, without input from educators, advocates, and researchers who are working hard to help all children succeed. 

Like many of my colleagues, I am pleased that we are embarking 

on another bipartisan reauthorization. I have participated in five 

reauthorizations of ESEA during my 34 years here in Congress and 

strongly believe that this next reauthorization is long overdue. 

While the No Child Left Behind Act shed light on the inequalities in our education system, it unfortunately did not do enough 

to close the achievement gap for diverse students. 

The federal government has a responsibility before all others to 

ensure equal opportunity. This must be a top priority for future 

steps in education reform. Just as our country grows increasingly 

diverse, we must ensure that our education system adapts to varying student needs. 

By strengthening current programs for diverse students and investing in innovative strategies for closing the achievement gap, we 

have an opportunity to change the future course for millions of students. 

It is very interesting when you look around our country today— 

and even at the time that I first entered politics—we find a crosssection basically of the world. You go to California, for example, 

and you find no majority ethnic group. And as a cross-section of the 

world, we should set an example for the rest of the world, how we 

can live together in peace and educational development. 

So you have in your hands an enormous responsibility to make 

us become aware of our responsibility during this hearing today. 

We must also explore ways to eliminate the system’s inequalities, 

encouraging a more equitable distribution of resources, expanding 

access to rigorous curriculum in high-need communities, and providing incentives to improve the distribution of effective teachers. 

As we continue to explore these ideas and many others that we 

will hear in the weeks and months to come, I hope we never lose 

sight of the opportunity we have before us. We must prepare to do 

what is right for all students, even if it requires a lot of work and 

significant change. 

Today we will hear recommendations from a panel of educators, 

advocates, and a researcher working to close the achievement gap 

for diverse students. These panelists will help us better understand 

the challenges facing low-income minority students, English-language learners, students with disabilities, Native American students, and homeless students. 

Given the importance of today’s topic, I know our panel will give 

us a lot of thoughts to ponder over as we work across the aisle and 
3 

the capital to improve our education system. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes or such time as he may consume to Governor Castle. Governor? 

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

I am very pleased also to be here and to welcome all the witnesses here today to what I think is an important hearing. I would 

like to thank you, Chairman Kildee, for holding today’s hearing. 

This is a fourth in the current series, as I understand it, as the 

committee begins the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. 

I would also, obviously, like to thank all the people who come 

here today to listen to this testimony. I believe it is imperative that 

we examine all these issues thoroughly, particularly through this 

hearing process. 

We began the process last Congress, and I am glad that today 

we are taking another look at our nation’s diverse student populations, which includes students with disabilities, English-language 

learners, students in rural areas, Native American students, homeless students, and minority and ethnic students. 

Addressing the needs of these students was the driving force behind the most recent overhaul of federal K-12 education policy, 

which Congress passed in 2001. Prior to that time, states and 

school districts were not required to report the academic achievement of these subgroups, and many schools were masking the lagging performance of these students with the test scores of their 

more affluent, higher performing students. 

In 2001, we put these students front and center, and states and 

school districts all across the country have responded with innovative programs and practices to ensure that all students now have 

the opportunity to succeed academically, but it hasn’t been easy. 

This new focus on diverse learners has presented significant challenges to states, school districts, and schools, who have struggled 

to make changes in teacher professional development, curriculum 

and instructional strategies to ensure diverse student populations 

have every opportunity to meet high academic standards, and that 

is why we are here today. 

We owe it to these students to ensure that they receive the same 

high-quality education as their peers. But we also owe it to states 

and local areas to give them the tools necessary to educate students for the wide range of needs. 

Current law was crafted under the guiding principle that all students can and deserve to learn, diverse student populations being 

no exception. As we begin rewriting ESEA this year, we cannot lose 

sight of this. I believe that our witnesses today will provide us with 

valuable information about the importance of and the challenges 

that states and school districts face in educating diverse student 

learners. 

I hope to hear how educators at the state and local levels are 

working to ensure that special populations are receiving high-quality instruction that can lead to high academic achievement. I also 

want to hear that where there have been problems and challenges 

in the implementation of current law from the state, school district 

and school level. 
4 

Finally, I look forward to suggestions about how to reform ESEA 

to ensure that it accounts for the complexities that states, school 

districts and schools must address in educating diverse learners, 

especially how we ensure that they are properly assessed so that 

teachers and school administrators can develop appropriate strategies. 

I hope today’s hearing will help us understand these issues better, which are some of the most difficult and important ones facing 

us in current law and issues that must be considered carefully as 

we craft education reform policy this year. 

I thank you again for joining us this Thursday morning, and I 

look forward to your testimony. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 calendar days to 

submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

Now I would like to introduce our very distinguished panel of 

witnesses here this morning. Michael Wotorson is the executive director of the Campaign for High School Equity, a partnership of 10 

leading civil rights and educational organizations focused on high 

school education reform. Mr. Wotorson has spent his career advocating in support of educational equality and civil rights, working 

for more than 15 years as a researcher, advocate and policy analyst. 

Prior to joining CHSE, Mr. Wotorson was national education director for the NAACP and has held numerous other positions, including at the Mid-Atlantic Equity Center Leadership Conference 

on Civil Rights Education Fund, Fair Employment Council of 

Greater Washington, and the Anti-Defamation League. Originally 

from Liberia, West Africa, Mr. Wotorson holds bachelor and master 

of arts degrees in political science from the University of MissouriColumbia. 

Our second witness is Dr. David Gipp, who is a citizen of the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota and has served as 

president of the United Tribes Technical College since 1977. United 

Tribes College serves over 1,100 adults and 500 children, with 

three early childhood centers and a K-8 elementary school. 

Among other posts, President Gipp has served as an education 

adviser for the greater plains tribes on the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Tribal and Advisory Budget Council, board member for the National Indian Education Association, executive director and past 

president and current board member of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and past chair and current board member of the American Indian College Fund. 

He has also received numerous recognitions, including the North 

Dakota governor’s service award, the National Indian Education 

Association’s Indian educator of the year, and the North Dakota 

multicultural educator of the year. President Gipp was educated at 

the University of North Dakota and holds a doctorate in laws, 

honoris causa, from North Dakota State University for his contributions to tribal higher education. 

I will now yield to my colleague, Congressman Ehlers, colleague 

and friend, who is voluntarily leaving the Congress. That is the 

best way to leave. Some leave involuntarily, but Vern has served 

well here. 
5 

I one time was—give me a minute here—I one time was asked 

by a reporter from his paper who was doing a little profile on him 

what I thought about Vern Ehlers, and I told the reporter that if 

we had more Vern Ehlers in the Congress, we could get things 

done around here rather than sitting around shouting at one another, and I still believe that today. He is a credit. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words, 

and the feeling is mutual. 

I am very pleased to introduce my constituent, Arelis Diaz, who 

is the assistant superintendent of Godwin Heights Public Schools. 

This is a school district that serves approximately 2,200 preschool 

through 12th grade students in Wyoming, Michigan. 

Now, you have to understand geography in Michigan. The city of 

Wyoming, which she is from, is about 10 miles west of Alaska. Another interesting quirk in my district is we have a harbor in my 

district, and it is located roughly one mile from Podunk, so—so we 

have great diversity in my particular district. 

She has had academic success with diverse students, including 

English-language learners, which is a big deal in our area, because 

the nature of our district—the people are very generous, and we 

have received far more than our share of refugees from other countries. And that shows in our school districts that we have handled 

them very well, and she is had great success with that. 

Prior to her current position, she was a principal and led North 

Godwin Elementary to be recognized as a high-performing school 

by the Just For Kids program at the Michigan Chamber Foundation. The school also recently received a Dispelling the Myth award 

by the Education Trust. 

As a teacher for English-language learners, she was recognized 

by the Michigan education association for her work in promoting 

diversity. Arelis has also received the educational excellent award 

by the Michigan school boards association for her development of 

the Parents are Teachers English-language learners parent after 

school program. So you can see she is had experience in many different areas in dealing with non-English-speaking students. 

Born as a first-generation American in Chicago to immigrant 

parents from the Dominican Republic and raised in Puerto Rico, 

Arelis now lives with her husband, Andre, and their three children 

in Byron Center, Michigan. I am pleased to introduce her to the 

committee. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Our fourth witness, Dr. Jacqui Kearns, serves 

as principal investigator for the federally funded National Alternate Assessment Center, which assists five states in developing validity evaluations for their alternate assessments on alternate 

achievement designs. She played a key role in the design and implementation of the first alternate assessment used in an accountability system as part of Kentucky’s education reform act in the 

early 1990s. 

Dr. Kearns also helped a number of states in the design, implementation and evaluation of alternate assessments after passage of 

the IDEA reauthorization in 1997. Dr. Kearns is a third-generation 

educator with 9 years of district classroom experience teaching students with significant cognitive disabilities. She is a parent of two 
6 

children, ages 7 and 4, one of whom was recently diagnosed with 

ADHD and is receiving service through response to intervention, 

RTI. 

I will now yield to our committee’s ranking member, Governor 

Castle, to introduce the final two witnesses. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And happy to introduce our witnesses. First, there will be Dan 

Curry. Dr. Daniel Curry currently serves as the superintendent of 

Lake Forest School District in my home state of Delaware. The 

Lake Forest School District serves more than 3,700 students in 

southern Kent County, Delaware, 15 miles south of the capital of 

Dover. 

Dr. Curry began his 36-year education career at a local elementary school in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, where he taught 

fourth and sixth grade before his first assignment as the principal 

at age 24. During his time in the county, he served as an elementary school principal, a middle school principle, and all-purpose 

central office administrator, and even drove a school bus on occasion, representing the dual roles that most educators play in small 

rural areas. 

At age 34, he was named county superintendent, where he 

served for a total of 15 years. Dr. Curry has also worked in the 

West Virginia Department of Education. And he and I spent time 

together touring the Lake Forest people, I should say, at a school, 

and he is a wonderful tour guide, too, and everyone seems to like 

him greatly in the job he is doing. 

Dr. Jake Dale is the current superintendent of Fairfax County 

Public Schools, the nation’s 13th-largest school system. He has 

served as superintendent since July 2004. From 1996 until 2004, 

Dr. Dale served as superintendent for Frederick County public 

schools where, in his fourth year, he was named Maryland’s superintendent of the year. 

I would like to point out I have been in Congress for 18 years 

and nobody has ever named me the outstanding legislator of the 

year or anything like that. 

Previously, Dr. Dale served as the associate superintendent for 

school administration, curriculum, and instruction at the Edmonds 

School District in Edmonds, Washington. He also served as director 

of personnel in the Everett, Washington, school district, assistant 

to the director at the Center for the Assessment of Administrative 

Performance at the University of Washington and director of school 

instructional services, assistant principal, and mathematics teacher 

in the Bellevue School District, Washington. 

Dr. Dale is co-editor and author of the book ‘‘Creating Successful 

School Systems’’ and has conducted workshops on teacher compensation systems for No Child Left Behind initiatives. He has also 

published papers in the Executive Educator, International Journal 

of Education Reform, American Association of School Personnel Administrators, Research Brief and SIRS Management Information, 

all of which are publications we read up here on a regular basis, 

sort of tongue-in-cheek. 

But I congratulate Dr. Dale on a wonderful career, as well, and 

we are delighted to have all the witnesses here today. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Governor. 
7 

Before we begin, let me briefly explain our lighting system and 

the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members of Congress, is 

limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. The light is 

green when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it 

means you have one minute remaining. When the light turns red, 

your time has expired and you need to conclude your testimony. 

Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into the 

microphones in front of you. Don’t worry, there is no ejection seat. 

So if you want to, you know, finish a thought, you don’t have to 

cut it off in the middle of that. 

So we will now hear from our first witness, Mr. Michael 

Wotorson. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T.S. WOTORSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, CAMPAIGN FOR HIGH SCHOOL EQUITY 

Mr. WOTORSON. Chairmen Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and 

distinguished committee members, good morning and thank you for 

inviting me to testify. My name is Michael Wotorson, as was stated 

earlier, and I serve as the executive director for the Campaign for 

High School Equity. 

I am here this morning not only representing the civil rights coalition that comprises our organization. I am here to speak on behalf 

of the over 18 million young people, students of color enrolled in 

public elementary and high schools in the U.S. I am also here on 

behalf of the over 1 million kids who choose to drop out of high 

school each year, often making that choice because they are forced 

to contend with ineffective construction, low academic standards 

not aligned to college and career readiness, and poor access to academic—to educational resources. 

So my remarks today are going to be focused on the kinds of support that high school students, particularly students of color and 

Native students, need to graduate prepared for college work and 

life. 

The reauthorization of ESEA presents a historic opportunity to 

build upon the promise and the achievements of the 2002 reauthorization known as No Child Left Behind, while remedying the defects that have limited the laws affecting this in eliminating educational inequities. 

To be sure, NCLB was a step forward and greatly enhanced the 

potential for conditions prevent students of color to achieve to be 

removed, to be unhidden, particularly as faced by ethnic minorities 

and language minorities of low-income students and students with 

disabilities. 

As a direct result of that 2002 legislation, the discussion and the 

notion of school accountability is much more widely accepted, and 

important attention is being paid to addressing achievement gaps, 

enhancing college and career readiness, and strengthening high 

school graduation rates for all students. 

If we intend to improve America’s schools, ESEA needs to be 

strengthened in many ways. For CHSE, this means expanding the 

focus on how we address the unique needs of high school students 

of color, Native students, and English-language learners. The pervasive and persistent inequities in our public education system 

puts students of color at a disproportionate disadvantage as they 
8 

continue to attend highly segregated schools, despite the decadesold Brown v. Board ruling. 

To ensure access to equal educational opportunities and to reverse the graduation crisis among students of color, our system of 

education must challenge all students to meet the same high academic expectations. Indeed, in 2008, an American Council on Education report revealed that, counter to earlier trends, far too many 

of today’s young Americans are realizing lower levels of educational 

attainment than in previous generations. 

In years past, our economy allowed high school students to find 

meaningful employment without the requirement of significant 

education and training beyond high school. Today in the increasingly global economy, there is a demand that American students 

are prepared to compete with students from around the world. Unfortunately, most of our high school students do not measure up to 

their international peers. 

It is critical, therefore, that as a society, we provide students 

with high-caliber, relevant academic coursework to adequately prepare them for the increasingly international post-high school reality of college and work. 

Students who attend colleague without having mastered basic 

skills cost our nation over $2 billion a year in remediation costs. 

Additionally, many employers today lament that high school graduates often do not have the skills necessary to be successful in the 

workplace. 

Clearly, we need to restore the value of the high school diploma. 

To do so, we must align state academic standards to college and 

work readiness so that our nation’s graduates leave high school 

prepared to be highly skilled employees and leaders of tomorrow. 

At CHSE, we believe that the American education policy should 

prepare all students for this reality. And to do so, we believe ESEA 

should aim high and address critical needs of high school students 

through the following suggestions. 

Number one, make all students proficient and prepared for college and work. We should guarantee as a minimum threshold that 

all students have access to rigorous and engaging coursework in 

core subjects. 

Number two, hold high schools accountable for students’ success. 

It is imperative that we hold high schools accountable for getting 

students successfully through to graduation by including meaningful graduation rates in federal school accountability standards. 

We should also improve data systems as a critical component of 

a strong accountability system. As we all know, making decisions 

without the benefit of fully disaggregated data ignores the unique 

needs of students of color and ill prepares school administrators to 

allocate resources based on student and teacher needs. 

For example, without fully disaggregated data, the needs of 

whole segments of Asian-American and Pacific Islander populations 

are often neglected and, as a result, entire groups of kids end up 

falling through the cracks. 

Number three, fundamentally redesign the American high school. 

In order to address students’ diverse needs, states and districts 

must provide their schools with the means to explore and implement new educational models, as well as other effective interven-
9 

tions, such as literacy programs, personal graduation plans, and 

extended learning time. 

Number four, provide students with excellent leaders and teachers. The federal government can support programs that establish 

incentives to recruit, train, support and retain effective leaders and 

teachers in high poverty high schools. 

Number five, invest communities in students’ success. The school 

environment is critical to student success, but we also know it is 

not the only factor that impacts a secondary school student’s academic and social outcomes. Families and communities also play key 

roles. 

Number six, provide equitable learning conditions for all students. Persistent disparities in the allocation of key education resources often bar low-income and minority students from receiving 

a high-quality education, a high-quality education that they so 

richly deserve, so resources must be distributed equitably, used effectively, and directed where they are needed the most. 

I just want to say two quick things about our specific recommendation—or actually, three quick things about our recommendation. I am happy to answer questions later. 

Number one, our policy should invest in interventions that work. 

Number three, our policy should adopt effective teaching policy 

strategies and make sure they are distributed equitably. And number three, we should make sure that we do, in fact, improve data 

systems for all students. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Wotorson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Michael Wotorson, Executive Director, Campaign 

for High School Equity 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and distinguished Committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

My name is Michael Wotorson and I serve as executive director of the Campaign 

for High School Equity, otherwise known as CHSE. CHSE is a coalition of leading 

civil rights organizations representing communities of color that is focused on high 

school education reform. Our goal is to advance solutions to close the achievement 

gap for students of color and Native students and to build public will and support 

among policymakers, advocates and community leaders for policies that will 

strengthen high school quality and graduation rates for minority and low-income 

students. 

CHSE partners include the National Urban League, the National Council of La 

Raza, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, the 

Alliance for Excellent Education, the National Indian Education Association and the 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. 

I am here today not only representing the nine national civil rights and education 

advocacy organizations that comprise our coalition. I am here to speak on behalf of 

the nearly 18.4 million students of color and Native students enrolled in public elementary and high schools in the United States. I am also here on behalf of the over 

1 million students who choose to drop out of our nation’s high schools each year. 

CHSE believes in the very simple premise that in order to ensure all students unfettered and equitable access to educational opportunities and to arrest the high school 

graduation crisis among students of color, we must have a system of education that 

challenges and supports all students to meet the demands of a college and of the 

modern workforce. 

My remarks today therefore will be focused on the kinds of supports that high 

school students, particularly students of color and Native students, need to graduate 

prepared for college, work, and life. 
10 

Building on Past Successes 

The promise of a high-quality high school education is integral to our success as 

a nation. From meeting the president’s goal of again leading the world in the number of college graduates, to competing in a global economy, to citizen participation 

in our democracy, education is a basic building block. The pending reauthorization 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act presents a historic opportunity to build upon the promise and achievements of the 2002 reauthorization, 

commonly known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, while remedying defects 

that have limited the law’s effectiveness in eliminating educational inequities. 

NCLB was a step forward. It greatly enhanced ESEA’s potential to improve conditions for students of color, first by holding states, school districts, and schools accountable for the academic success of all students; and second, by disaggregating 

data for racial and ethnic minorities, language minorities, low-income students, and 

students with disabilities. 

The simple fact is that the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA moved us significantly 

closer to strengthening educational quality for all students. In short, it eliminated 

the ability to hide the often tragic conditions student so of color face in our schools 

and consequences of our collective failure to educate all of our students at a high 

level. Today as a direct result of the 2002 legislation, the critical importance of 

school accountability is widely accepted and important attention is being paid to addressing achievement gaps, enhancing college and career readiness, and strengthening high school graduation rates for all students. The 2002 reauthorization of 

ESEA effectively changed our national conversation about educational excellence 

and equity. We must not retreat on these gains if we are to continue making important progress. 

If we do intend to improve America’s schools, ESEA needs to be strengthened in 

many ways. For CHSE, this means expanding the focus on how we address the 

unique needs of high school students of color, Native students, and English language learner (ELL) students. The pervasive and persistent inequities in our public 

education system puts students of color at a disproportionate disadvantage as they 

continue to attend highly segregated schools, despite the decades old Brown v. 

Board of Education ruling. For example, three out of every four of Latino students 

and 56 percent of all Asian Americans1 attend segregated schools in which minorities comprise 50 percent or more of the student population.2 Latinos and African 

Americans comprise 80 percent of the student population in extreme-poverty schools 

where 90 to 100 percent of the population is considered low-income.3 We need to 

ensure that all American students have access to equitable learning conditions 

whether they come from high or low-income neighborhoods. 

To ensure access to equal educational opportunities and reverse the graduation 

crisis among students of color, our system of education must challenge all students 

to meet the same high academic expectations. Indeed, a 2008 American Council on 

Education report revealed that counter to earlier trends, far too many of today’s 

young Americans are realizing lower levels of educational attainment than in previous generations.4

In years past, our economy allowed high school students to find meaningful employment without the requirement of significant education and training beyond high 

school. Today, the increasingly global economy demands that American students are 

prepared to compete with students from around the world.5 Unfortunately, American high school students do not measure up to their international peers. It is critical that as a society, we provide students with high caliber, relevant academic 

coursework to adequately prepare them for the increasingly international post-highschool reality of college and work. 

Students who attend college without having mastered basic skills cost our nation 

over $2 billion a year in remedial coursework.6 Additionally, many of today’s employers lament that high school graduates do not have the skills necessary to be successful in the workplace. Clearly, we must restore the value of a high school diploma 

by increasing academic rigor. To do so, we must align state academic standards to 

college and work readiness so that as our nation’s graduates leave high school, they 

are prepared to assume roles as America’s college students, highly skilled employees, and leaders of tomorrow. 

Policy Solutions 

CHSE believes that American education policy can prepare all students for college, work and life by creating an environment in which all children can achieve 

that goal regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. To do this, ESEA 

should aim high and address the critical needs of all high school students through 

the following policies: 
11 

1. Make All Students Proficient and Prepared for College and Work 

We should guarantee that all students have access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in core subjects. Coursework should impart the knowledge and skills 

needed to excel in postsecondary education and career, and assessments should 

measure student learning against these criteria. States should in turn be required 

to publicly report on access to college preparatory classes and course-taking patterns 

by income, race and ethnicity, both among and within schools. 

2. Hold High Schools Accountable for Student Success 

It is imperative that we hold high schools accountable for getting students successfully to graduation by including meaningful graduation rates in federal school 

accountability standards. Codifying in law the current graduation rate regulations 

would make a significant difference and would serve as a critical factor in determining the quality of a high school and it would be an effective use of resources. 

Improving data systems is another critical component of a strong accountability 

system. They will to not only improve the fairness and accuracy of accountability 

systems, including ensuring increased accountability for groups that are often 

marginalized, such as, ELLs, Native Americans and Southeast Asians, but will also 

allow schools to target services such as professional development where they are 

needed most. 

Additionally, making decisions without the benefit of fully disaggregated data ignores the unique needs of students of color and ill prepares school administrators 

to allocate resources based on student and teacher needs. While many states 

disaggregate data, inconsistencies in collection and reporting standards leave entire 

groups of students out of the equation. For example, without fully disaggregated 

data, the needs of whole segments of the Asian American and Pacific Islander population are neglected. As a result, entire groups of these young people end up falling 

through the cracks. 

We must also establish accurate and reliable assessments for ELLs. States have 

not yet implemented valid and reliable Title I or Title III assessments for ELLs, and 

the U.S. Department of Education has not yet provided sufficient technical assistance or guidance to the states in the development of appropriate assessment policies 

and practices. Both failures have severely hindered the effectiveness of NCLB for 

ELLs. 

3. Redesign the American High School 

In order to address students’ diverse needs, states and districts must provide their 

schools with the means to explore and implement new educational models, as well 

as other effective interventions such as literacy programs, personal graduation 

plans, and extended learning time. 

4. Provide Students with Excellent Leaders and Teachers 

The federal government can support programs that establish incentives to recruit, 

train, support and retain effective leaders and teachers in high-poverty high schools. 

Federal education policy that promotes culturally based teaching, a practice wherein 

teachers align instruction to the cultural practices and experiences of their students, 

is also critical to helping all students succeed. 

5. Invest Communities in Student Success 

The school environment is critical to student success, but we also know it is not 

the only factor that impacts a secondary school students’ academic and social outcomes. Families and communities also play key roles. Students in low-performing 

schools often do not receive the same exposure to outside learning opportunities as 

their more affluent counterparts. Our policy must harmonize the incentive and disincentive structures of the external and internal environments to support all students’ ability to stay in school, excel academically, and develop into a productive individual. 

6. Provide Equitable Learning Conditions for All Students 

Persistent disparities in the allocation of key education resources often bar lowincome and minority students from receiving the high-quality education they deserve. Research demonstrates that, across states, school districts that enroll the 

highest percentage of students of color and low-income students receive fewer resources than school districts serving white and affluent students.7 Resources must 

be distributed equitably, used effectively, and directed to where they are needed the 

most. 
12 

7. Support the State-led Common Core Standards 

The state-led effort on common standards can be a critical first step in reforming 

the American educational system. If developed and implemented effectively, high 

common standards can help to improve our education system with significant benefits for students of color. The federal government should support states when necessary, as these standards have the prospect to challenge all students to reach the 

same high expectations. 

8. Expand Learning Opportunities Beyond the School Day 

Often, increasing the engagement of older youth requires more than just time beyond the traditional school day. The innovation and enrichment that can take place 

beyond the regular school day can help students stay engaged in school and graduate. 

I would like to speak in more depth about a few areas of interest: turning around 

low-performing schools, student supports needed to help all students succeed, and 

effective teaching. 

Turning around Low-performing Schools 

Our nation’s students of color are four times more likely than non-minority students to attend a persistently low-performing school, and three times less likely to 

attend a high school with very high graduation rates. In fact, dropout factories 

produce 81 percent of all Native American dropouts, 73 percent of all African American dropouts, and 66 percent of all Latino dropouts. 

Despite these alarming statistics, the majority of low-performing high schools are 

left out of school improvement efforts because many are not eligible for Title I support, the trigger for school improvement efforts. In fact, only 61 percent of dropout 

factories are eligible for—and, many analysts believe, even fewer actually receive— 

Title I funds. Even if they do receive Title I funds, many dropout factories will likely 

not be identified as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ since graduation rates are not significantly factored into the determination of a school’s success or failure. For example, 

41 percent of dropout factories made AYP in the 2004—05 school year.8

We have an opportunity right now to ensure that low-performing high schools 

benefit from attention, resources, and aggressive reform by making sure high 

schools are eligible for Title I, are held accountable for graduation rates in addition 

to academic achievement, and are included in school improvement calculations and 

intervention strategies. 

Invest in Interventions that Work 

Creating high-performing high schools that give all students the support they 

need to succeed is no small task, and it requires changing the school in addition 

to a community investment. To truly serve the needs of America’s diverse learners, 

high schools must be redesigned by: 

• implementing a variety of quality high school models shown to support different 

learning styles and student situations; 

• providing integrated student supports that utilize both in-school and community-based services (for example, high-quality high school counselors, graduation 

coaches, social workers, and health care and mental health services); 

• promoting strategies (such as literacy coaches or native language instruction) 

and targeted interventions (such as afterschool programs or block scheduling) that 

improve student numeracy and literacy skills without sacrificing access to high-level 

academic subjects; 

• promoting instructional practices designed to meet the needs of diverse learners 

such as reflexive learning and culturally competent learning techniques; and 

• ensuring that legally and educationally valid criteria are used to appropriately 

inform decisions regarding student eligibility for services in special education, services for ELLs, college preparatory curricula, and gifted and talented programs. 

CHSE believes that community-based organizations (CBOs) play a critical role in 

providing much-needed wrap-around services, particularly for students of color and 

Native students. The federal government should support the creation and expansion 

of multilingual parent centers, as well as CBO-based expanded learning opportunities including afterschool and summer programs, business-school partnerships and 

other community-based support services needed to help students stay in school and 

graduate. 

Throughout a reauthorized ESEA, we must remember that successful strategies 

for high school students differ from those of younger students. High school students 

are inherently more mobile, have competing demands on their time—including 

sports, clubs, jobs, and family responsibilities, among other differences—and therefore, require different strategies, activities, and supports than elementary and mid-
13 

dle school students. For example, expanded learning initiatives and services for 

older students should use innovative practices and partners to better develop student assets by providing leadership and community service opportunities, work experience, academic credits and stipends. Policy must support and drive high-school 

based supports such as expanded learning programs. 

An evaluation of New York City programs9 found certain common elements in 

successful high school effort, and they differed from those that made elementary and 

middle school programs successful. They include: • the use of creative, age-appropriate strategies to recruit youth and encourage 

their continued participation; • the employment of staff who could relate to youth and staff with expertise in 

activity content areas; • activities designed to meet the developmental needs of older youth, for example, 

through the provision of career- and college-oriented activities and leadership opportunities; and • partnerships to increase the fiscal and other resources available to the program. 

Adopt Effective Teaching Policy Strategies and Distribute them Equitably 

High-quality teachers are the single most important factor influencing student 

academic outcomes, including graduation.10 In fact, the presence of an effective 

teacher trumps almost every other intervention, including class size reduction, in 

improving student outcomes.11 Students, especially students of color and Native students who have traditionally been underserved by the system and are most likely 

to benefit, are not being taught by effective teachers.12 In order to address this disparity, CHSE believes that it is critical that all students, especially those most at 

risk of dropping out of high school, should have access to effective teachers. Next 

week, CHSE will release policy recommendations related to effective teaching. Our 

vision contemplates teacher effectiveness policies that: • Are based significantly on growth in academic achievement for all students, • Improve classroom instruction and leadership decision-making, • Include and support high school specific solutions, • Ensure teachers (and school leaders) are culturally competent, • Ensure Teachers of Diverse Learners are prepared and well-resourced; and • Invest in Research 

While we know that teachers are a critical determinant of how a student will perform academically, research shows that the students most likely to benefit are not 

being taught by effective teachers.13 Highly effective teachers are more likely to be 

teaching in more affluent schools and schools with smaller populations of students 

of color.14 Therefore CHSE supports teacher effectiveness policies that ensure that 

effective teachers are equitably distributed to give all students a fighting chance at 

learning. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the last reauthorized ESEA surfaced a number of troubling academic disparities amongst student subgroups. Prior to disaggregating data for racial, ethnic, and language minorities, low-income students, and students with disabilities, the depth of academic achievement gaps remained relatively hidden. While 

NCLB was a step in the right direction, clearly, there is still much to do, and we 

must not only do it right, we must do it NOW. 

The educational interests of students of color and Native students should be fully 

considered in the deliberation over ESEA. In order to meet the needs of these students CHSE and its partners urge Congress to ensure better support for high 

schools and strong accountability for improving results for high school students. 

All students—especially students of color, Native students, ELLs—stand to benefit 

from a reauthorized ESEA. Waiting any longer to reauthorize ESEA amounts to 

shutting the door on thousands of American high school students and their dreams 

of a successful future. CHSE looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee and the full Congress to ensure the timely renewal of this critical civil rights 

legislation. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity and privilege to testify before you today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

ENDNOTES

1Orfield, G., and C. Lee. (2005) Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. 

Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Available at http:// 

bsdweb.bsdvt.org/district/EquityExcellence/Research/Why—Segreg—Matters.pdf. 2Orfield, G. and J.T. Yun, (1999) Resegregation in American Schools. Cambridge, MA: The 

Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Available at http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/ 

research/deseg/Resegregation—American—Schools99.pdf. 
14 

3Orfield, G., and C. Lee. (2005) 

4 American Council on Education (2008). Minorities in Higher Education 2008 Twenty-third 

Status Report. Washington, DC: Author. 5 National Center on Education and the Economy (2007). Tough Choices or Tough Times: The 

Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Executive Summary. 

Accessed at www.skillscommission.org/pdf/exec—sum/ToughChoices—EXECSUM.pdf. 6Strong American Schools (2008). Diploma to Nowhere. Washington, DC: Author. 

7 Carey, K. (2004). The funding gap 2004: Many states still shortchange low-income and minority students. Washington, DC: Education Trust. 8 Balfanz R. et al., (2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the 

right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools? American Educational Research Journal 

44: 559—93. 9 Russell, C. A., Vile, J.D., Reisner, E. R., et al. (2008). ‘‘Evaluation of the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development Out-of-School Time Programs for Youth Initiative: Implementation of Programs for High School Youth.’’ New York: New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. Available at www.nyc.gov/html/dycd/downloads/ 

pdf/ost—hsprograms—report-6-08.pdf. 10 Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: if good teachers matter, why don’t we act like 

it? Thinking K-16, 8, 1. Available at http://www.calread.net/documents/summit3/articles/ 

real—value—teachers.pdf. 11 Jerald, C., Haycock K. and A. Wilkins (2009). Fighting for quality and equality, too: how 

state policymakers can ensure the drive to improve teacher quality doesn’t just trickle down to 

poor and minority children. Washington DC: The Education Trust. Available at http:// 

www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/QualityEquity—3.pdf. 12Gordon, R., Kane, T., and D. Staiger (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance 

on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Available at http://www.brookings.edu/?/ 

media/Files/rc/papers/2006/04education—gordon/200604hamilton—1.pdf. 13Gordon, R., Kane, T., and D. Staiger (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance 

on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/?/ 

media/Files/rc/papers/2006/04education—gordon/200604hamilton—1.pdf. 14Gordon, R., Kane, T., and D. Staiger (2006). 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Gipp? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GIPP, PRESIDENT, UNITED TRIBES 

TECHNICAL COLLEGE (UTTC) 

Mr. GIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be—on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, and the National Alliance to save native languages, it is a great honor to be here today from Bismarck, 

North Dakota. 

As you indicated, I am president of United Tribes Technical College, where we have about 500 children, three early childhood centers, and a K-8 elementary school on our campus that represents 

over 70 different tribes in our student population. 

I would like to speak to about five major points relative to American Indian tribal nations and Indian education. First, we believe 

that we should strengthen tribal control in Indian education and 

in education. Tribes, like communities, are fully aware of what 

their children need. 

As future tribal leaders, tribes recognize the importance of providing their children with the fundamental curriculum that state 

education requires. However, they also bring a unique and critical 

perspective to the table, which includes the incorporation of tribal 

culture and languages. 

State education agencies do not understand the complexity of 

tribal beliefs and, therefore, undermine the vital role in our lives 

of our Indian children. Tribal education departments are formal 

components of our tribal governments, and they need to be recognized and given appropriate authority as part of the ESEA reauthorization. 
15 

Second, we believe that there ought to be increased coordination 

between the Department of Education and the Bureau of Indian 

Education. About 90 percent-plus of our children are educated in 

public schools and about—the other 10 percent are educated within 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs systems or in tribal schools themselves. Because our students attend public, tribal, and BIE schools, 

it is critical that these education agencies communicate and work 

together. 

Third, there ought to be a focus on recruitment and retention of 

native teachers. Indian country needs more native teachers. Teachers that share the same cultural knowledge and ethnic background 

of their students understand their educational needs to a higher 

degree and act as community role models. Consequently, teacher 

retention is a major issue for us. 

Tribal colleges, the 37 that are throughout the United States, 

also have a critical role to play in teacher recruitment and training. 

United Tribes, where I am at, offers a 4-year elementary education 

degree. Graduates of this program, almost all Native Americans, 

are ready to step into the classroom at schools throughout Indian 

country. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to include 

provisions that offer incentives for students to enter teacher training programs through our tribal colleges and universities. 

Fourth, the long-term investment in culturally based education— 

again, I want to highlight the importance of native culture and language in combination with education. What we do know is that the 

research shows and demonstrates that Indian children who have a 

better knowledge base of their culture, their heritage and their language also perform much better with respect to the other kinds of 

academic curriculum. 

We know that our students perform better academically when 

they have a sense of pride and self-esteem for knowing who they 

are and where they come from. This cultural foundation needs to 

be reinforced and strengthened for each of our native students. 

This kind of cultural-based education is being utilized in places like 

Montana, and it is beginning to show good results. 

We also know that native-language-based educational models 

also work to improve performance. On that, we recommend that 

the Esther Martinez Native American Language Preservation Act 

be funded more fully and that a formula base is used for those 

kinds of schools that work with immersion styles of education for 

native children. 

We would also like to emphasize the issue of tribal consultation, 

because our tribes have a treaty and federal Indian relationship to 

the United States government, as well as our states, a nation-tonation relationship that is reaffirmed through those means that I 

have just mentioned and through President Obama’s executive 

order in November 5, 2009, which requires that each agency develop a plan to implement a consultation and coordination with 

tribal government. 

In the past, the Department of Education has not adequately 

consulted with our tribal leaders. As a result, our students were 

left out of the Recovery Act’s stabilization funds and the Department of Ed’s Race to the Top Initiative. 
16 

Finally, I would like to point out that each of our speakers who 

have testified today are representative of various groups throughout education. Our students cannot be characterized into one particular single group, because American Indian and Alaska native 

tribal nations are first and foremost tribal governments and have 

many distinct and diverse cultures within the 565 federally recognized Indian tribes. 

Thus, there is a political aspect that is unique to our educational 

system. We have students from rural and urban areas, and many 

have special needs, and many come from low-income families. We 

also have children who attend all forms of schooling, public, BIE, 

rural and urban, and consequently our tribes can relate to each of 

these groups. 

We hope that the ESEA needs to assist tribal nations by giving 

them the tools of control they need to make through the various 

education systems consistent with each tribe’s cultures and values. 

I thank you for this opportunity today, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Gipp follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. David M. Gipp, on Behalf of the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association 

Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. My name 

is David M. Gipp. My Indian name is Lone Star or Wicahpi Isnala, I am an enrolled 

citizen of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and I am a Hunkpapa Lakota. I have 

served as the president of the United Tribes Technical College, (UTTC, sometimes 

referred to as United Tribes of North Dakota) since May, 1977. On the UTTC campus, there is a Bureau of Indian Education-funded elementary school, Theodore 

Jameson, educating students in K through eighth grade, which has been in operation for 38 years. There are three pre-K early childhood centers on the campus as 

well. 

We submit this testimony in collaboration with our sister organization, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA). NCAI is the oldest and largest American Indian organization in the United States. As the most representative national 

Indian organization, we serve the broad interests of tribal governments across the 

nation. NCAI was founded in 1944 in response to termination and assimilation policies. Since then, we have fought to preserve the treaty rights and sovereign status 

of Indian tribes and to ensure that Indian people may fully participate in the political system. Our partner, NIEA, was founded in 1969 and is committed to increasing 

the educational opportunities and resources for Indian students while protecting our 

cultural and linguistic traditions. 

NCAI, NIEA, and I strongly support the Administration’s and Congress’ efforts to 

reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Perhaps nowhere 

in the country will the impact of this reauthorization be more beneficial than in Indian Country. We were excited to hear Secretary Duncan’s testimony last week as 

he expressed the Department’s desire to move towards greater flexibility and local 

control, as well as his affirmation of promoting promising practices and focusing on 

disadvantaged students. 

Indian education disparities 

In comparison to their peers, American Indian and Alaska Native children continue to fall behind in the educational and learning achievements of their peers. The 

2007 National Indian Education Studyi indicated that in reading and math, American Indian and Alaska Native students scored significantly lower than their peers 

in both fourth and eighth grades. In fact, Native students were the only students 

to show no significant progress in either subject since 2005. Our students also face 

some of the highest high school dropout rates in the country.ii These discouraging 

trends need to be reversed. 

Data for Indian students is often incomplete. There are a number of reasons for 

this—including the need for oversampling, our remote locations, and language barriers. However, some of the comparisons with the non-Native population are quite 

disturbing (additional demographic and statistical information provided in Appendix 

A): 
17 

• 70% of BIA-administered schools failed to satisfy No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress requirements in 2005.iii

• American Indian and Alaska Native students were more likely than students 

of other racial and ethnic groups to receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, about 12% of American Indian and 

Alaska Native students received IDEA services in 2003, compared to 8% of white, 

11% of black, 8% of Hispanic, and 4% of Asian/Pacific Islander students.iv

• Only 44.6% of American Indian males and 50% of American Indian females 

graduated with a regular diploma in the 2003—04 school year.v

• American Indians have a 15% higher chance of dropping out of high school then 

white students.vi

• The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports that 74% of 

American Indian and Alaska Native twelfth graders read below grade level, compared to 57 % of white twelfth graders.vii

Tribal governments believe that we are well positioned to address many of these 

educational disparities. Unfortunately, tribes face many challenges in providing the 

best educational opportunities for our children. 

On Indian reservations, there are three types of K-12 public school systems: federal Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, tribal government schools, and local county 

school districts. In some Indian communities, all three school systems co-exist. 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is responsible for 184 elementary and secondary schools and 27 colleges. These institutions are located on 63 reservations, 

spanning across 23 states; they educate approximately 60,000 students. Schools that 

are not directly operated by the BIE are run by individual federally recognized 

tribes with grants or contracts from the BIE. 

Tribal Education Departments (TED) are formal components of tribal governments. Over 110 federally-recognized tribes have TEDs. Their primary goal is to ensure that tribal students are receiving the same opportunities that non-tribal students receive by coordinating federal, state, and tribal resources for tribal students 

and implementing the goals of the NCLB Act. TEDs improve educational opportunities for tribal students by giving direction, advice, and assistance to local schools 

through the development of education codes and analysis of educational data and 

research. Funding for TEDs has been authorized through the Department of the Interior since 1988 and through the Department of Education since 1994; however, 

TEDs have never been funded at an appropriate level. 

Head Start Programs, particularly the Tribal Head Start and Early Head Start 

Programs are vital to Indian Country. Approximately 38% of all federally-recognized 

tribes have Head Start and/or Early Head Start programs, which are reaching over 

23,000 Indian children; Indian Head Start plays a major role in educating and preparing Indian children for academic success. They have a proven record of enhancing academic readiness and self-esteem of Indian children, and provide a unique opportunity to enhance cultural pride and knowledge through the promotion of tribal 

values and tribal language immersion programs. 

Tribally controlled colleges and universities (TCUs) share many characteristics 

that differentiate them other secondary institutions. TCUs are intended to foster environments focused on American Indian and Alaska Native culture by creating 

learning opportunities that preserve, enhance, and promote Native language and 

traditions. Some TCUs function as community resources, providing social services 

to isolated and remote reservation areas. Currently, there are 34 TCUs. TCUs are 

essential in providing educational opportunities and environments for Native students to pursue advanced degrees in settings that are comfortable and familiar and 

at an affordable cost. 

Indian education is a Federal responsibility 

We must be clear: specifically addressing the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives within the reauthorization of the ESEA is not akin to providing requirements for reducing education disparities or considering the needs of ethnically diverse populations. While we may fall into those target populations as well, the significant difference is that providing education to American Indians and Alaska Natives is a federal obligation because of the unique legal status of Indian people. 

When Indian tribes ceded certain lands—lands which now constitute the United 

States—agreements were made between tribes and the United States government 

that established a ‘‘trust’’ responsibility for the safety and well-being of Indian peoples in perpetuity. In addition, a number of treaties specifically outlined the provision of education, nutrition, and health care. Therefore, the federal trust responsibility for American Indian and Alaska Native education must be recognized in all 

education policies. 
18 

At the same time, as United States citizens, American Indians and Alaska Natives should have opportunities equal to those of other citizens to participate in the 

benefits of all programs and services offered within the reauthorization. While it 

may be tempting for Congress to dismiss tribal recommendations, due to their complex nature, I assure you they are needed. The Indian education system is invisible 

to most Americans, but it does, and it must, interface with federal and state education systems. We understand what is needed to assure that educational reform 

reaches and benefits Indian Country, and ask that you take the time to understand 

how both the federal trust responsibility and mainstream education can work in 

tandem for Indian people. We are committed to work with you in any way we can. 

To that end, we offer the following specific comments. 

Framework for inclusion of Indian country 

Over the last few weeks, tribal leaders have spoken about the challenges facing 

our Indian education system at a number of venues—Congressional briefing sessions, meetings with the Domestic Policy Council, and most recently on a call with 

Secretary Duncan. At each of these, key principles and themes have emerged, which 

I share with the Committee today. NCAI and NIEA are working with tribal leaders 

from across the nation to transform these principles into our National Tribal Priorities for Indian Education. We are looking forward to sharing the specific details 

with the Committee in the coming weeks. 

1) Strengthening Tribal Control in Education. Tribes are overwhelmingly supportive of local control over education. For Indian Country, this means fully recognizing the status of our tribal education departments (TEDs) as formal components 

of our tribal governments and affording them the same status as State Education 

Agencies (SEA) in tribal geographic territories. 

2) Increased Coordination between the Department of Education and the Bureau 

of Indian Education. Indian education must be viewed as an integrated system, with 

our students moving in and out of public, tribally-run, and BIE schools. As such, 

there must be a coordinated effort between the agencies that are responsible for providing Indian education. 

3) Focus on Recruitment and Retention of Native Teachers. There is no greater 

influence on student learning than the quality of the teacher. Indian schools are significantly disadvantaged in their effort to recruit skilled Native teachers. Uncompetitive salaries, remote locations, and lack of housing are but some of the challenges our tribal governments are facing. Tribal leaders are calling for an increased 

focus on recruiting and retaining Native educators, as well as providing professional 

development and support for teachers in schools with significant Native populations. 

4) Long Term Investment in Cultural Based Education. By definition, Cultural 

Based Education (CBE) is a teaching model that encourages quality instructional 

practices rooted in cultural and linguistically relevant context. For Native communities, this includes teaching our Native language, but it also means incorporating 

traditional cultural characteristics and teaching strategies that are harmonious with 

Native cultural and contemporary ways of knowing. We know that our students perform better academically when they have a sense of pride and self-esteem, and CBE 

provides this vital foundation. We recognize however that there is little quantitative 

data to point to, so tribes are calling for CBE to be a identified as a promising practice in Indian education and for programs to be funded over a period of five years 

so we can effectively build an evidence base that conclusively distinguishes what 

works for which populations and under what circumstances. 

Tribal consultation 

Lastly, I would like to mention the importance of tribal consultation. A unique 

Government-to-Government relationship exists between federally-recognized Indian 

tribes and the Federal Government. This relationship is grounded in numerous treaties, statutes, and executive orders as well as political, legal, moral, and ethical 

principles. This relationship is not based upon race, but rather, is derived the legal 

status of tribal governments. The Federal Government has enacted numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. An integral 

element of this Government-to-Government relationship is that consultation occurs 

with Indian tribes. President Obama recently re-affirmed this relationship with an 

Executive Memorandum, which requires each federal agency to develop a plan to 

implement consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments as required by Executive Order 13175. 

The Department of Education (DoEd) has had little direct consultation—or communication—with the Tribes. They have relied almost exclusively on the National 

Advisory Council on Indian Education, which unfortunately was not effectively utilized over the years. As a result, the DoEd has neglected to take into consideration 
19 

the impact of legislation on our tribal schools. A recent example of this oversight 

is the inability for our schools to receive much needed funding through the Recovery 

Act’s Stabilization Funds or the DoEd’s new Race to the Top initiative. Through the 

new EO, we are looking forward to a direct, productive relationship between our 

tribal governments and the Department. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I would like to remind the Committee that whatever form the reauthorization of ESEA takes, it is important that tribal students, whether they attend 

a Bureau of Indian Education funded school, a state public school, or a tribally run 

school, are served by all of the ESEA programs, and must be specifically considered. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today; and thank you for making 

Indian children a priority. We look forward to sharing the ‘‘National Tribal Priorities for Indian Education’’ with the Committee in the following weeks. I am certain 

that our shared goal of improving the education of Indian children can be fostered 

through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

APPENDIX A

EDUCATION PROFILE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE STUDENTS

Demographics 

• American Indian and Alaska Native students make up 1.2% of public school 

students nationally.viii

• There are approximately 644,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students 

in the U.S. K-12 system.ix

• About 93% of all American Indian and Alaska Native students attend regular 

public schools and 7% attend schools administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.x

• States where American Indian and Alaska Native students compose the largest 

proportions of the total student populations included: Alaska (27 %), Oklahoma (19 

%), Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota (11 % each).xi

School Profiles 

• 52% of American Indian and Alaska Native students attended schools in the 

2003—04 school year where half or fewer of the students were white.xii

• 54% of American Indian and Alaska Native eighth graders attend schools where 

more than half of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.xiii

• In the 2002—03 school year, the average American Indian and Alaska Native 

student attended a school where 39% of the students were poor, while the average 

white student attended a school where only 23% were poor.xiv

• 70% of BIA-administered schools failed to satisfy No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress requirements in 2005.xv

• In public schools with high American Indian and Alaska Native enrollment, 

only 16% of teachers are American Indian and Alaska Native.xvi

Preparedness, Graduation and Dropouts 

• The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 44% of American 

Indian and Alaska Native eighth graders read below grade level, compared to 16% 

of white eighth graders.xvii

• The national graduation rate for American Indian high school students was 

49.3% in the 2003—04 school year, compared to 76.2% for white students.xviii

• Only 44.6% of American Indian males and 50% of American Indian females 

graduated with a regular diploma in the 2003—04 school year.xix

• American Indians have a 15% higher chance of dropping out of high school then 

white students.xx

• American Indian and Alaska Native high school students who graduated in 

2000 were less likely to have completed a core academic track than their peers from 

other racial/ethnic groups.xxi

• NAEP reports that 74 % of American Indian and Alaska Native twelfth graders 

read below grade level, compared to 57 % of white twelfth graders.xxii

Special and Gifted Students 

• American Indian and Alaska Native students were more likely than students 

of other racial and ethnic groups to receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, about 14% of American Indian and 

Alaska Native students received IDEA services in 2006, compared to 8% of white, 

11% of black, 8% of Hispanic, and 5% of Asian/Pacific Islander students.xxiii

• About 20 % of students at BIA schools receive special education services.xxiv
20 

• American Indian and Alaska Native students are 1.53 times more likely to receive special education services for specific learning disabilities and are 2.89 times 

more likely to receive such services for developmental delays than the combined average of all other racial groups.xxv

• 15% of American Indian and Alaska Native eighth graders were categorized as 

students with disabilities in 2005, meaning they had or were in the process of receiving Individualized Education Plans, compared to 9% of all non—American Indian and Alaska Native eighth graders.xxvi

ENDNOTES

iFreeman, C. and Fox, M. (2005). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of 

Education (NCES 2005-108). ii Id. 

iii U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA Funded School Adequate Yearly Progress 2004—2005. 

http://www.oiep.bia.edu/ (accessed June 15, 2007). ivFreeman, C. and Fox, M. (2005). Status and trends in the education of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department 

of Education (NCES 2005-108). v Id. 

viFreeman, C. and Fox, M. (2005). Status and trends in the education of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department 

of Education (NCES 2005-108). viiThe nation’s report card: Twelfth-grade reading and mathematics 2008 (NCES 2009-468). 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. viii Id. ix Id. x Id. 

xi Id. xiiOrfield, G., and C. Lee. 2005. Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. 

Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. xiii National Indian education study, Part II: The educational experiences of fourth and eighthgrade American Indian and Alaska Native students (NCES 2007-454). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. xivOrfield, G., and C. Lee. 2005. Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. 

Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. xv U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA Funded School Adequate Yearly Progress 2004—2005. 

http://www.oiep.bia.edu/ (accessed June 15, 2007). xviManuelito, K. 2003. Building a native teaching force: Important considerations. Charleston, 

WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education (ERIC ED482324). xvii U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2008. The nation’s 

report card: Reading 2008 (NCES 2009-451). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. xviii Editorial Projects in Education [EPE]. 2007. Diplomas count 2007: Ready for what? Preparing students for college, careers, and life after high school. Special issue, Education Week 

26, no. 5. xix Id. xxFreeman, C. and Fox, M. (2005). Status and trends in the education of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department 

of Education (NCES 2005-108). xxi Id. xxiiThe nation’s report card: Twelfth-grade reading and mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007-468). 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. xxiiiFreeman, C. and Fox, M. (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department 

of Education (NCES 2005-108). xxiv U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. BIA and DOD schools: Student achievement and 

other characteristics often differ from public schools’ (GAO-01-934). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. xxv U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs. 2004. Twenty-sixth 

annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, 2004, Vol. 1. Washington, DC. xxvi National Indian education study, Part II: The educational experiences of fourth and 

eighth-grade American Indian and Alaska Native students (NCES 2007-454). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Dr. Gipp. 

Ms. Diaz? Is your—— 
21 

STATEMENT OF ARELIS DIAZ, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT 

OF CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, 

GODWIN HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Ms. DIAZ. Good morning, Mr. Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, 

and Mr. Ehlers, members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be 

here, and I appreciate your time. 

In my immigrant experience, having immigrant parents and 

being a first-generation American, I was really interested in working with ELL learners, and I wanted to share some of the successes 

we have had at Godwin Heights public schools with you, things 

that could be replicated easily and throughout the United States. 

When I started my principalship in 2000, only 50 percent of our 

students were meeting or exceeding reading and writing goals, 46 

percent in math, and only 6 percent in social studies. We knew we 

had to do something very quickly. 

Some of the things we were able to do was analysis of data. This 

is like the GPS of education. We need to know where we are going 

with data, and data analysis provides that for us. It gives us that 

ability to do so. 

Teachers need to know how to look at data and analyze data. 

They need to be given the time to do so during the school day, with 

gaining substitutes, works very effectively. 

It needs to be done in teams by grade level, and it also needs to 

be documented. That work needs to be documented. It needs to go 

to the school improvement team, and goals need to be met based 

on the data analysis. 

The professional learning communities that we have implemented in our district has incorporated the sharing of instructional 

practices that work. It is really moved teachers from isolation to 

collaboration, really increasing the achievement in all of our 

groups, including the English-language learners. 

The school improvement team goals, before you leave for a road 

trip, it is similar to checking your engine, the oil, your tire pressure. What it does is it lets you know that things are in order. 

The ideal time to do the school improvement team goals is really 

in the spring for the fall, if possible. Team members need to be represented by every grade level, ELL teachers, reading teachers. 

There needs to be a good representation of the school and the 

school improvement team. 

The yearly goals need to be based on the data analysis that takes 

place. They need to be measurable and specific, and we need to be 

able to incorporate that in the teacher evaluation process. Oftentimes, that is missing. And principals need to be sure to look for 

those school improvement team goals in the observations and reflect on that through the evaluation process. 

Parent involvement is enormous. We need to include all of our 

parents. When you are dealing with a community of diverse parents and they are surrounded by poverty, it does create a challenge 

for us, but they need to feel welcome, they need to be embraced and 

educated. 

One of the things that has been successful for our district is family and family night, reading nights, math nights, where we are 

specifically demonstrating, live demonstrations to parents on how 

they can help their students with literacy and skills and strategies. 
22 

We also translate everything for the families, Spanish, Vietnamese, 

Bosnian, whatever language is represented, and we feed them. If 

you feed them, they will come. And that is a very important part. 

And through title money, we could also provide that. 

Professional developments like rolling down the window and getting fresh air when you are on a long road trip. Professional development gives teachers a fresh outlook in their education. It kind 

of eliminates the stagnant air, if you will. With implementation 

plans and expectations clearly outlined, professional development 

can make a tremendous difference. 

We need Title 3 funding that can provide resources for us to educate the teachers that are working with English-language learners, 

and it also provides activities for us for parents, before and after 

school tutoring for students, which is extra time and support, and 

programming after school for parents, as well. 

When you reach a destination, there is a sense of joy and accomplishment. Results do that for educators. When you can look back 

and see that your hard work has paid off, it makes a tremendous 

difference. I have included longitudinal data, as well. 

Effective teaching can close the achievement gap. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot do it. But when you have a diverse 

population, it is twice as hard to do so, and we would like you to 

acknowledge that. 

We understand and welcome accountability, but there are modifications that are necessary, and I have included a couple of recommendations in my proposal. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Diaz follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Arelis E. Diaz, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum/Instruction and Human Resources, Godwin Heights Public 

Schools, Wyoming, MI 

Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, Mr. Ehlers, and members of the subcommittee thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I 

am Arelis Diaz, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum/Instruction and Human Resources in Godwin Heights Public Schools District located in Wyoming, Michigan. 

This work is quite dear to me since I am a first generation American with hard 

working parents from the Dominican Republic. I was raised in Puerto Rico and returned to the states during my third grade year. My immigrant experience gave me 

a desire to train for and teach diverse English Language Learners. I was privileged 

to teach ELL students for 5 years, lead teachers primarily as a principal for 5 years, 

and most recently have led instruction for the district as a central office administrator for the last 5 years. I am honored to share some of the work we have been 

successful with at Godwin Heights over the past 10 years to improve instructional 

practices and achieve positive academic gains in addressing the needs of diverse students. 

Background of Godwin Heights Public School District 

Godwin Heights is an urban district located on the border of Grand Rapids. We 

have experienced a great deal of diversity growth in the past two decades. In 1995, 

I had 36 students in my English Language Learners class whose native language 

was other than English. Fifteen years later, although our students’ prominent first 

language is still Spanish, that same school has 155 ELL students who come from 

16 different countries. The changes in poverty are similar. In 1995, Godwin’s community was comprised primarily of strong manufacturing employees working at GM 

and Steelcase plants. Today, the GM plant has closed and Steelcase is a skeleton 

of the healthy and hearty company it used to be. As a result, 84% of our students 

now qualify for free and reduced lunch. 

Godwin Heights Public School District serves 2,212 students at our 3 elementary 

schools, one middle school, one high school, and one alternative high school. All of 

our schools qualify for and receive Title I Program funding. We also provide ELL 

and Special Education services at all of the schools. 
23 

Changes in instructional practice—as principal 

When I became principal of North Godwin Elementary School in 2000, only 50% 

of our students were meeting or exceeding Michigan’s Reading and Writing expectation. Only 46% of our students satisfactorily passed the Math assessment. Our Social Studies results were even worse—with only 6% of our students meeting or exceeding expectations. Why were some students making progress and others not? We 

had to face our brutal facts—quickly! 

I knew that facing our brutal facts meant looking at our data to truly discover 

who was learning, what they were learning, when (what grade level) they were 

learning it, how were we vertically aligning the curriculum, and most importantly, 

why were some students not learning. My mantra became ‘‘we will do whatever it 

takes’’ to effectively educate all of our students! During my tenure as building principal, I continuously focused on the following 5 principles: 

• Give teachers time to analyze past and present data 

• Develop specific and measurable School Improvement Team goals (from data 

analysis) 

• Create a positive, efficacy-based culture—‘‘If you believe it, you will see it. If 

you don’t, you won’t.’’ 

• Develop a continuous learning environment with book studies and collaboration 

• Parent Involvement—embracing and educating them 

Analyze past and present data: 

Teachers need to be given time to be intentional about looking and analyzing 

data. I was surprised to discover that most needed to be taught how to analyze data. 

I found that teachers could not/should not be expected to do this most important 

work on their own time. Administrators needed to give them time and support. Providing this time during the school day, by obtaining substitutes for their classroom, 

works best in my experience. This process must be done in teams, by grade levels 

and include the ELL and Special Education educators with the administrator for optimum results. The findings must be documented and shared with the School Improvement Team, then finally with the rest of the staff members. Ownership of the 

achievement must be embraced by every staff member in the building including 

custodians, food service and paraprofessionals. 

As I studied our data and compared it to our programming, there was a glaring 

observation. Many more students needed more time and support with literacy than 

we were providing. We were servicing a limited number of students with Reading 

Recovery. Many more needed services. I concluded that it was time for a literacy 

revolution! 

The reading teacher and I made an executive decision to modify the reading program to maximize the number of students that could be serviced. We initiated our 

own program which we named the Backpack Reader program and utilized the reading staff as a team that in addition to the classroom teacher would go into every 

K-2nd grade classroom daily. Every day students chose an appropriate level book 

to read with a team member. During that time, the team provided mini lessons and 

reading strategies. The student took the book home to read, and a parent/guardian 

signed daily when they read with the student. The book is brought back to school 

and read with a team member for the third time. The students progress up in levels 

until they are reading independently and can check out books on their own from 

the library. The Backpack Reader program produced amazing results and increased 

reading growth such that every first grader was reading at grade level by the end 

of the year, including ELL and Special Education students. 

School Improvement Team Goals: 

The data analysis findings from each grade level must be presented to the School 

Improvement Team (SIT). Since each team includes one teacher representative from 

each grade level, an ELL teacher, a Special Education teacher, an elective teacher 

representative and the Reading teacher (if applicable), the analysis of the data is 

comprehensive. The key to the success of this team is that the entire school is represented and is part of the decision making process for the yearly goals. This ensures that special populations are addressed. 

The SIT then develops the yearly goals based on the data analysis. Each goal has 

to be specific to every grade level and measurable by marking period. For example, 

once we realized graphing skills were a deficiency throughout our student population, we set a goal that every grade level would include one graphing activity per 

marking period. We were specific: 1st marking period would be a Social Studies 

graphing activity, 2nd marking period would include a graph from the science content, 3rd marking period from Language Arts and 4th from Math. Integration of the 
24 

subject areas was important and based on research, for higher level learning and 

retention. 

I then incorporated the SIT goals into my teacher evaluations. During observations, I requested each teacher conduct a lesson that easily identified and emphasized a SIT goal. This included ELL and Special Education classrooms. 

Create positive culture: 

This is an area that is underestimated in schools. However, every highly effective 

school that has overcome diverse challenges understands that it is essential to believe that all students can learn regardless of their individual needs. 

During my principalship, I was intentional about creating a positive culture. I implemented the FISH philosophy that focused on being there for one another as staff 

members. That also included supporting teachers when their student’s demonstrated unacceptable student behavior and following through with consistent corrective discipline. Increasing and maintaining student achievement is hard work. 

Teachers need to feel safe, empowered and appreciated. Remembering birthdays 

with treats, sending Thanksgiving letters to family members and notes of acknowledgement in mailboxes all helped in establishing a positive climate. 

Continuous Learning Environment: 

It is enlightening to realize that most veteran teachers with continuing certificates have not returned or taken a college credit class since they graduated from 

college. The best way to learn new strategies and be inspired by others is to read 

and study from them. I introduced the staff to book studies, both at staff meetings 

and afterschool. I read a chapter of The Essential 55 by Ron Clark to my staff at 

every meeting and then we implemented its strategies for diverse communities. 

They worked! Afterschool, we read There Are No Shortcuts by Raffe Esquith, a 

teacher from inner city Los Angeles. The success of his ELL students motivated us 

to go above and beyond. 

Finally, I modified the schedule to provide each grade level common collaboration 

time during the day. There was some resistance at the beginning because traditionally teachers had always worked in isolation as individual experts. However, as they 

started sharing activities, lessons and strategies, that worked slowly. The collaborative teams realized they each had individual natural strengths and weaknesses, 

that they could help one another, primarily in the area of ELA/SS and Math/ 

Science. Then, vertical alignment started taking shape. As the teams discussed gaps 

in learning, they realized they needed to talk with the grade levels above and below 

them. Finally, they sought out all of their resources, including the ELL and Special 

Education teachers for assistance. 

Parent Involvement: 

When parents are surrounded with poverty, it complicates things for educators. 

Our parents are working two and three jobs. When they are sleeping, their children 

are in school. When they are awake and working, their children are at home. And 

many do not know or understand the English language. Parents need to feel welcomed into our school environment and need to be educated on the importance of 

being involved as a part of the school. 

We initiated Family Reading and Math Nights where we demonstrated strategies 

that parents could easily implement at home with commonly used products. For example, we showed them that shaving cream is a fantastic way to learn spelling or 

sight words. We translated everything and we provided dinner every time because 

if you feed them, they will come! 

Remember the Backpack Reader program? This is a perfect example of how we 

had to educate our parents. When we initiated this program, we had very little support from the parents. They were not reading with their children, not signing that 

they read with their children, and failing to return the books. Instead of stopping 

the program, we educated the parents instead by incorporating the importance of 

reading into every opportunity we had: classroom newsletters, building-wide newsletters, PTO meeting presentations, family nights, drop off and pick up time, at 

breakfast, etc. It worked so well that by the end of the year, the parents were calling us if the book was not in the backpack! 

The results? In 2005, when I left North Godwin for the Central Office our achievement was simply outstanding. We were recognized as a Top Performing School by 

the Just for the Kids Foundation. Our students, including ELL and Special Education students, were and still are, outperforming similar students throughout the 

state. 85% of students met or exceeded state reading standards and 87% met or exceeded state writing standards in 4th grade (compared to 50% in 2000). 75% of students met or exceeded state Social Studies standards in 5th grade (compared to 6% 

in 2000). 
25 

Changes in instructional practice—as assistant superintendent 

In 2005, I packed the lessons I had learned from being a principal brought them 

to the Central Office. 

Analyze past and present data: 

I instituted district-wide early release once a month where students are dismissed 

at 1:30 p.m. and teachers stay until 4:15 p.m. for collaboration. It allows all teachers, including Special Education and ELL teachers to collaborate not just as a building, but as a district and we can align the curriculum vertically as well. The Professional Learning Communities (PLC) philosophy and practice has dramatically 

changed the way our educators teach and virtually eliminated the teaching in isolation practices. Teachers are sharing what works and modifying their instruction 

based on their discussions with one another, and most importantly they are incorporating the SIT goals. The result? Increased achievement for all students including 

diverse subgroups. 

School Improvement Team Goals: 

At the district level, the school improvement team goals have to be woven with 

the Board of Education goals. Our board has consistently focused on improved reading goals. As the new curriculum leader for the district, I knew what worked from 

my work at the building level. We had to implement successful programs such as 

the Backpack Reader and Accelerated Reader district wide at all three elementary 

buildings. We provided training for all teachers and set minimum usage expectations per grade level. On a weekly basis, I check the Accelerated Reader Dashboard 

for individual teacher participation and success index (how well the students performed on their reading quizzes) for all K-8 classrooms. Additionally, we incorporated another software component specifically for ELL students that focuses on 

vocabulary building called English in a Flash. The results have been increased reading scores on the MEAP state assessment district wide for all students, including 

our diverse subgroups. 

Continuous Learning Environment: 

Most recently, we have incorporated the Response to Intervention (RtI) program 

in all of our schools. It has proven to be extremely successful due to the daily intense, targeted lessons and the progress monitoring built into the program. It has 

allowed us to identify the foundational skills necessary for long term proficient readers. Prior to RtI, our reading revolution produced good readers, but we noticed that 

we saw a drop in third grade reading skills. We now realize, thanks to RtI, that 

we were missing some steps in the continuum critical to long term reading success. 

At any point in the school year, we know exactly where all of our students are on 

the reading continuum. As a result, we have seen a decrease in Special Education 

referrals. 

When we analyzed our data, our ELL students needed more time and support. 

District wide, we implemented before and/or afterschool tutoring for our ELL students this school year, utilizing Title III Immigrant Funds. We are focusing on targeted areas where they are not meeting expectations in their content areas. Classroom teachers re-teach lessons not mastered utilizing a variety of differentiation 

strategies to master the content. The teachers have already provided feedback that 

confirms the extra time and support is working. Pre and post assessments prove 

that the students are obtaining mastery on a weekly basis, simply by receiving more 

time and support. 

Teachers and administrators also need time and support to maximize their effectiveness. Although as a novice administrator, I sent teachers to conferences and 

workshops as they requested, now I send only teams of new teachers to a conference 

each year. The remainder of our professional development practice involves: 

1. Training all teachers (including ELL and Special Education staff) at the same 

time 

2. During the school day 

3. Based on needs from data analysis 

4. With an implementation plan and clear expectations articulated and 

5. With follow up training throughout the school year(s). 

During the past several years our district’s professional development has focused 

on writing and literacy. We have discovered that teachers working with consultants 

that come to our district for building wide or district wide training is very effective; 

much more effective than the singleton conference approach. For our administrators, 

the professional development has focused on instructional leadership versus management utilizing Marzano’s research. We emphasized that leadership is not about 

us as administrators, but rather about empowering others. 
26 

Results, Reflections, and Recommendations: 

I have attached our MEAP state assessment results from 2005 to the present. 

Longitudinally, you will see that we have made significant gains. Keep in mind that 

the growth has occurred during financially troubling times of yearly budget cuts, 

yearly increases to our free and reduced lunch counts, and a growing ELL population. This type of achievement is not easy when you consider the expanding challenges facing our district every year. However, what I have tried to explain to you 

is that effective teaching can close the achievement gap in any diverse group! 

Now that I have made it perfectly clear that it can be done, allow me to identify 

some recommendations that would assist us in the field to continue to make it happen. Understanding that life is not fair, please, please, please acknowledge the fact 

that districts with diverse populations must work twice as hard to produce the results that are expected. Consider for a moment a fourth grade teacher that welcomes several new refugee or immigrant students into their classroom at the beginning of the year. Even though the new students have no prior knowledge of the 

English language, the teacher goes above or beyond to teach the students on a daily 

basis. The school provides ELL, RtI Tier 1, 2 and 3 services, Backpack Reader, Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Math, English in a Flash, before, lunch and after 

school tutoring. The students make miraculous gains of 2 to 3 year gains * * * but 

they are still at a second or third grade level! We understand and welcome accountability, but modifications are necessary to acknowledge of schools and students 

working hard to close the achievement gap. 

As I have a special place in my heart for English Language Learners (ELL), allow 

me to make three final recommendations for this population: • Permit states to include growth in their accountability systems, rewarding districts and schools who are making progress. This is an important tool for measuring 

the success of English Language Learners. • Increase resources for the Title III program to help states and school districts 

provide English language instruction programs for English Language Learners and 

provide more professional development for the teachers working with these diverse 

learners. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the successes we have enjoyed 

at Godwin Heights Public Schools. It is indeed a tribute to all of the hard work and 

dedication of our excellent teaching and staff members. You may contact me at 

diaz@godwinschools.org with any further questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Kearns? 

STATEMENT OF JACQUI FARMER KEARNS, ED.D., PRINCIPAL 

INVESTIGATOR, NATIONAL ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT CENTER 

Ms. KEARNS. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle, and all the members of the subcommittee for inviting me 

to testify this morning. 

I am here today to discuss the importance of including all students with disabilities fully and equitably in assessment and accountability systems. I am fortunate to work in collateral with nationally recognized experts in education, measurement and curriculum to regularly review and discuss the research in this area. 

Currently, students with disabilities participate in accountability 

systems in one of four ways: general assessment; general assessments with accommodations; alternate assessments on modified 

achievement standards in a few states, the 2 percent test; and alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards, the 1 

percent test. 

Eighty-five percent of students identified under the IDEA do not 

have intellectual disabilities that should prevent them from achieving at grade level. They should participate in general assessments 

with or without accommodations. 

A number of states have conducted an analysis of their general 

assessment data by identifying learners who are persistently low 
27 

performing. Over and over again, states have been surprised to find 

that this group includes both students with and without disabilities. These students are more likely to be male, represent a minority, economically disadvantaged students, or have a disability. 

Unfortunately, many students represent all these characteristics. 

There is a chart representing these data in my written testimony. 

Teachers at schools that have successfully closed the achievement gap for these students include the following: alignment of 

curricula with state standards, inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes with appropriate support, and use 

of student assessment data to inform decision-making. 

For the purposes of system accountability, we absolutely need to 

know where every student is in relation to the standards of their 

enrolled grade on a summit of assessment. For other purposes, including diagnostic and instructional planning on interim, benchmark or formative basis, we may find other tests helpful, but care 

has to be taken not to lower the expectations or academic targets. 

It is true that some students with disabilities who are among the 

students who can attain grade-level achievement are most challenging to assess. This group includes children with hearing and vision disabilities, but also some students with learning disabilities 

and intellectual disabilities. 

Consider Lizzie, a young lady with a severe learning disability. 

She comprehends on grade level, but needs accommodations to 

demonstrate her knowledge, yet accommodations for reading are 

not allowed for the test in her state. None of the current state assessment options can produce a valid set of results to accurately 

represent her achievement level. 

Consider Megan, a student with Down syndrome, an intellectual 

disability. Because Megan had access to high-quality instruction, 

individualized support and services, and the opportunity to learn 

from the general curriculum, she graduated from high school with 

a standard diploma in a state with high standards and is attending 

college. 

Career and college-ready achievement is well within the reach 

for students like Megan. Our obligation is to ensure that she and 

others like her are prepared to reach these goals. ESEA should continue to ensure that schools are accountable for the academic 

achievement and graduation rates of all students, including students with intellectual disabilities. 

Other students with intellectual disabilities participate in alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards. This is the 

1 percent test. It may surprise you to learn that the largest group 

of these students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, 

about 70 percent, can communicate, read sight words, and solve 

math problems with a calculator. I have included a chart representing these data in my written testimony before you. 

Consider Bruce. Bruce is a student with significant disabilities. 

Bruce is not provided with assistive technology to communicate 

until late in high school. In the video clip, you will see that Bruce 

is answering questions about predicted and actual temperature 

within days of receiving his device. 

[Begin video.] 
28 

VOICE. Let’s look at October 20th. Were the forecasted and actual 

temperatures high, low or about the same? 

VOICE. The forecasted and the actual temperatures were the 

same. 

VOICE. Very good. Now, look at these forecasted temperatures. 

Okay? Looking at them? How many days was the forecasted temperature higher than the actual temperature? 

[End video.] 

Ms. KEARNS. Low expectations and segregation have denied 

Bruce access to the general curriculum. Sadly, he will exit this 

school this year without a high school diploma, greatly limiting the 

opportunities available to him. Bruce’s story illustrates a classic example of the failure of the IEP team and why access to the general 

curriculum is so important. 

We continue to hold schools accountable for all these students. 

The challenge of high expectations is being met in many places 

with leadership and hard work. In large part because federal law 

has required transparency and accountability for all students, children with disabilities are showing us what they know and can do, 

often exceeding our expectations. We must continue to hold schools 

accountable for the education of all students. Their futures depend 

on it. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Kearns follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Jacqui Farmer Kearns, Ed.D., Principal Investigator, National Alternate Assessment Center, U.S. Department of Education 

Thank you Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and all the Members of the 

Subcommittee for inviting me to testify this morning 

I am currently the Principal Investigator for the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs funded National Alternate Assessment Center 

(NAAC), a research center on alternate assessments, and a General Supervision Enhancement Grant assisting five states in developing validity evaluations for their alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards at the University of Kentucky. I have completed three other federal research initiatives about alternate assessment and universally designed, technology-based general assessments. In the 

early 1990’s, I played a key role in the design and implementation of the first alternate assessment used in an accountability system during Kentucky’s Education Reform Act (KERA). When the IDEA was reauthorized in 1997 and included the provision for alternate assessment, I assisted a number of states in the design, implementation, and evaluation of alternate assessments as Associate Director of a university-based assessment design group at the University of Kentucky. I have authored and co-authored research publications including the first text on alternate 

assessment and, more recently, a new text on alternate assessment and standardsbased instruction. I have extensive experience in providing professional development 

support to teachers serving students with significant cognitive disabilities and to 

principals regarding the implementation of inclusive education and access to the 

general curriculum. I am a third generation educator, with 9 years of direct classroom experience teaching students with significant cognitive disabilities. Finally, I 

am the parent of a child recently diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder, who received services through Response to Intervention (RTI) through his 

second grade year and has been referred for evaluation under the IDEA. However, 

in my testimony this morning, I am representing myself, and not the University of 

Kentucky or the multiple projects on which I work. 

Today’s Focus. I am here today to discuss the importance of including ALL students with disabilities fully and equitably in assessment and accountability systems. 

These systems must include challenging content standards, progress and proficiency 

measures, participation, and data reporting. To do otherwise, places the entire population at risk for a variety of serious consequences as they leave school unprepared 

for the educated world that waits them. I have brought with me some students 
29 

whose stories will help us understand the complexities of the issues that face us. 

I will describe the challenges and possible solutions for students with disabilities 

who are ‘‘persistently low performers’’ and lessons learned from schools who have 

successfully closed the achievement gap. Next, I will introduce Lizzie, a student 

with a learning disability. Lizzie teaches us the importance of designing solutions 

for assessments that accommodate the widest array of possible users, so students 

can show what they know and can do. Megan reminds us that high expectations 

can result in students who can and o exceed our expectations. Finally, Bruce a student in an alternate assessment teaches us that IEP teams can’t do it by themselves. My area of expertise is alternate assessments and students like Bruce. I am 

fortunate to work in collaboration in collaboration with national special education, 

measurement, and curriculum experts. 

How Do Students with Disabilities Participate in Accountability? 

Currently, students with disabilities participate in the accountability system in 

one of four ways: 1) general assessments, 2) general assessments with accommodations, 3) alternate assessments on modified achievement standards, and 4) alternate 

assessments on alternate achievement standards. Eighty-five percent (85%) of students identified under the IDEA do not have intellectual disabilities that should 

prevent them from achieving at grade level. This includes students with learning 

disabilities, who comprise nearly half of the IDEA population, as well as students 

with physical disabilities, vision and hearing impairments, emotional and behavioral 

disabilities, and even some students with mild cognitive impairments. 

Persistently Low Performing. A number of states considering the 2% flexibility 

have conducted an analysis of their general assessment data by identifying learners 

who are ‘‘persistently low performing’’ (Gong, Marion, & Simpson, 2006). Over and 

over again, states have been surprised to find that this group of persistently low 

performers includes BOTH students with and without disabilities. Furthermore, 

these students are disproportionately representative of males, minorities and disadvantaged as identified by Free and Reduced lunch, as well as students with disabilities (Lazarus, Wu, C., Altman, & Thurlow, 2010). Researchers from the National Center on Educational Outcomes presented the data from five states considering these students. The charts in Figure 1 illustrate these data. 

As the layers of the data unfold, researchers have discovered that many of these 

students have not had access to high quality curriculum or instruction. Meanwhile, 

schools across the nation ARE CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP for historically low-performing students with and without disabilities—through leadership and 

hard work to improve their educational opportunities. From these data, and similar 

data from other investigations it is clear that providing accountability ‘‘relief’’ to 

schools for these students with disabilities while other schools can and do help these 

students achieve is unwarranted and counterproductive for inclusive accountability 

policy. 
30 

Studies of Low Performing Students. States have studied the extent which students with disabilities are low performing students, in an effort to design alternate 

assessments based upon modified achievement standards for the 2% flexibility that 

is currently allowed under the ESEA regulations (Fincher, 2007; HB Study Group 

from Colorado, 2005; Marion, Gong, & Simpson, 2006; New England Compact, 

2007). Researchers at the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA) conducted one the first of these investigations. These researchers 

found that the scores of students with disabilities were distributed all across the 

scaled scores, as are the students without disabilities. (Marion, Gong, & Simpson, 

2006). This study foreshadowed results of studies in multiple states: the lowest performing students on state assessments under NCLB are not only, or even primarily, 

students with disabilities. Perie (2009) summarized data mining approaches in 

Georgia and South Carolina. Georgia mined data from three years of the state test, 

identifying persistent low performers in grades 5 and 8 as students scoring in the 

lowest of three achievement levels. South Carolina looked at grades 4 and 7, identifying students with two years of data scoring in the lowest of four achievement levels. In both states, the percentage of students with disabilities represented 39% to 

55% of all students in the lowest achievement levels, adjusting for variations in test 

cut scores. 

Closing the Achievement Gap. Current accountability definitions require that 

schools ensure that students with disabilities achieve proficiency through access to 

the same challenging curriculum as their peers. Schools that are succeeding have 

recognized the importance of integrating the content standards into a challenging 

curriculum for all students, and providing access to students with disabilities 

through individualized and appropriate services, supports, and accommodations 

identified by the Individualized Education Program team so that each student can 

be successful. 

Special education as typically practiced in this country has questionable effectiveness. Access to the general curriculum at grade level is an essential component of 

accountability that cannot be understated. A new study by Morgan, Frisco, Farkas, 

and Hibel (2010) found that students who were identified for special education services had significantly lower reading achievement after receiving those services from 

2002-2004 than their peers with similar learning and demographic characteristics 

who did not receive special education services. The National Association of School 

Psychologists (2002) has found that labeling of students tends to result in lowered 

expectations, fewer typical peer relationships, and a lack of curriculum integrity. 

We have examples of how system accountability the past decade has resulted in 

significant reductions of the achievement gap between students with and without 

disabilities in schools where special education practice has changed. An Association 

of Curriculum Development Association (ASCD) longitudinal study of schools in 

Rhode Island found that 100 of the 320 schools had show a dramatic closing of the 

achievement gap by students with disabilities (Hawkins, 2007). The 2004 Donahue 

Institute study and the 2009 Ohio Follow up Study on Students with Disabilities 

had similar findings. Indeed, closing the achievement gap between children with 

and without disabilities is an articulated goal in schools across the country, although some school leaders continue to resist taking responsibility for these students. Features of these schools that have successfully closed the achievement gap 

include the following: 1) alignment of curricula with the state standards, 2) inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes with appropriate supports, 3) use of student assessment data to inform decision-making, 4) disciplined 

social environment, and 5) strong leadership teams (Hawkins, 2007; Pritchard Committee, 2005). 

It is important to note that schools that have achieved the goal of closing the 

achievement gap for their sub-groups including those with disabilities have done so 

in part by changing the way they think about the children who challenge our educational system. They did not seek ‘‘relief’’ from accountability or lower their expectations for student achievement. 

Students Who are Challenging to Assess. Some students with disabilities who are 

among the students who can attain the grade-level achievement are challenging to 

assess. This group includes children with hearing and vision disabilities, but also 

some students with learning disabilities. 

• Consider Lizzie. Lizzie is a middle school student who has a severe learning disability that affects her ability to read. Despite intensive efforts to improve her reading, her conventional reading skills are still well below grade-level achievement. 

However, her comprehension of oral text is well within grade-level achievement and 

will be a strength on which she builds toward college and career readiness for a lifetime. Accommodations for reading are not allowed for the test in her state. Test day 

is extremely frustrating for Lizzie and her teachers. Providing an out-of-level grade 
31 

assessment which measures conventional reading but does not measure comprehension commensurate with her grade will NOT provide an accurate assessment of her 

performance. The resulting data will not encourage her teachers to build the skills 

she needs for her future. 

Assessment Options. As the description of Lizzie illustrates, none of the current 

state assessment options would have produced a valid set of results to accurately 

represent her achievement level. The State has not provided adequate accommodations policy to meet her needs. An out of level assessment, or even a self-leveling 

assessment, would not appropriately demonstrate her performance. 

For a variety of reasons, a one-size-fits-all approach will likely never have the precision to assess the widest array of possible students. For the purposes of SYSTEM 

accountability we absolutely need to know where students are in relation to the 

standards at their enrolled grade on a summative assessment. For OTHER purposes, including diagnostic and instructional planning on an interim, benchmark or 

formative basis, we may find other tests helpful, but care has to be taken to avoid 

lowering expectations and academic targets. 

Use of Accommodations. The research on the use of accommodations during assessment is increasingly more sophisticated and refined (Thompson, Morse, Sharp, 

& Hall, 2005). The use of accommodations during assessments should be built on 

the foundational assumption that students with disabilities must be expected to 

demonstrate achievement in the same content as other students and thus the content targets should not be changed by the accommodations, accommodations used 

in assessment should also be used during instructional assessment as a matter of 

practice, and that accommodations decisions are specific to individual students. Accommodations should be used consistently and the use of them and the need for 

them evaluated regularly. Ultimately, the use of an accommodation should not prevent the student from mastering the content or limit the student’s pathway to learning future content (Thompson, Morse, Sharp, & Hall, 2005). Finally, deep understanding of the content is essential for making appropriate accommodations decisions. 

Growth Model Designs. We often hear teachers comment ‘‘he has grown so much 

over the year’’ and the assumption is to measure that growth for these populations. 

No doubt the teacher’s observations are reliable, but the assumptions about using 

a ‘‘growth model’’ design to measure this must consider the variety of pathway that 

defines progress across the widest array of student users. Growth model designs are 

based on the theoretical assumptions of norm referenced assessments. Most students with disabilities were not included in normative samples (Hill, Gong, Marion, 

DePasquale, Dunn, & Simpson, 2005). An accurate description of the pathway to 

academic competence is an essential component of ‘‘growth model’’ assessment designs (Betebenner, 2005; Hill, Gong, Marion, DePasquale, Dunn & Simpson 2005). 

This is because for most students with disabilities like those described today, something is missing from the pathway that we need to understand in order to build a 

fully valid growth model assessment. In many states, research suggests that this 

missing piece is effective instruction and access to the curriculum. Still, we know 

that we do NOT know all we should about how to ensure students like Lizzie can 

first learn and then show what they have learned on state tests. This is also true 

for students with significant cognitive disabilities in AA-AAS who take alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards where less evidence to support the 

curricular pathway exists. 

Career and College Ready. According to the National Transition Technical Assistance Center data, the predictors of post secondary education for students with disabilities depends to a large extent on the following factors: 1) participation in the 

academic curriculum, 2) performance in reading, writing, and math, 3) placement 

in general education 4) high school diploma (Baer, 2002; Raybren, 2005). As would 

be expected, similar factors are predictors of post school employment. 

Intellectual Disabilities. Of the students with disabilities who DO have intellectual disabilities, some CAN achieve grade-level proficiency when given high quality 

instruction, individualized supports and services, and the opportunity to learn. 

• Consider Megan. Megan graduated from high school with a standard diploma 

and is attending college. She has a disability commonly known as Down syndrome 

which is a chromosomal condition that typically but not always results in an intellectual disability. 

If you are tempted to suggest that the standards for attaining a high school diploma must be low in her state, I assure you that the current graduation and dropout rates in her state do not support that claim. The purpose of this example, is 

to challenge our understanding and beliefs about what students with intellectual 

disabilities given the right supports and expectations for achievement 
32 

Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities. The students with intellectual disabilities, who participate in alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards, represent at least two distinct groups of learners. We know that 

70% of students participating in alternate assessments on alternate achievement 

standards can communicate, read basic sight words, and solve math problems with 

a calculator (Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, Kleinert, Thomas, in press) often beginning 

in elementary school. 

FIGURE 2: READING AND MATH CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS IN AA-AAS

The remaining 30% of this 1% of students in the AA-AAS do not use oral speech 

to communicate or in some rare cases respond inconsistently. Furthermore, more 

than half do not have augmentative communication systems. Of all the groups, we 

agree that this group is the most challenging to assess. However, vigilance is warranted because many students in this group have not received the services they 

need to communicate. This misidentification and failure of service is tragic but sadly 

not uncommon. 

• Consider Bruce. Bruce a high school student who has cerebral palsy who does 

not use oral speech. His IEP team determined that he had an intellectual disability. 

He was dropped from speech/language therapy as a related service due to ‘‘failure 

to make progress in using oral speech’’. He received educational services in a segregated class for students with significant intellectual disabilities with limited to no 

access to the general curriculum. A new teacher recognized that Bruce had not been 

appropriately identified or served, and requested the assistance of speech/language 

external to the school and district. As a result, Bruce received a touch screen computer with voice output communication device. In the video clip, you will see that 

Bruce is answering questions about predicted and actual temperature within days 

of receiving his device. 

From his performance, it is clear that a series of unfortunate errors and low expectations from the IEP team across a number of years has reduced his ability to 

communicate, and thus has denied him access to the general curriculum. Sadly, 

Bruce will exit school this year without a high school diploma which will gravely 

limit the opportunities available to him after high school. Bruce’s story illustrates 

a classic example of the failure of the IEP team. IEP teams are limited by the 

knowledge they have available to them and the extent to which they access to high 

quality professional development and technical assistance. In most cases, neither 

professional development or technical assistance is available. Further, shift in system accountability to the IEP team would seriously threaten productive home/school 

partnerships and increase the probability of due process procedures, attorney involvement, and litigation. If the only place to ensure the system is accountable for 

a child is through the IEP team process, then all parents will bear a terrible burden 
33 

to ensure THEIR child benefits from a free appropriate education under IDEA. The 

research on the quality of the IEP team processes and outcomes suggests that, instead, parents will have to accept what schools choose to offer, regardless of what 

their child needs to be successful (Hunt & Goetz, 1989; Turner, Baldwin, Kleinert, 

& Kearns; 1997). Bruce’s story illustrates this problem. For these reasons, we believe that the IEP is not a viable option as an accountability tool. 

Alternate Achievement Standards. Students in alternate assessments on alternate 

achievement standards are among the most diverse of the assessed populations and 

the least is known about how they achieve competence in academic domains and the 

curricular pathways to academic competence. As described previously, the students 

who are emerging in their language development may require a different set of 

achievement expectations until consistent responding and engagement can be established. More than one alternate achievement standard is currently allowed under 

the 1% regulation, and that option should be continued to meet the needs of these 

students-. While we continue to build the knowledge base around these instruments, 

maintaining the flexibility for setting multiple achievement standards for these assessments is warranted., Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities 

should continue to be engaged in reading, math, and science activities based on content standards that that are chronologically age appropriate, linked to grade-level 

content, and consistent with what peers without disabilities are learning. This least 

dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984; Jorgensen, 2005) will safeguard their 

learning opportunities until more data are available. 

Academic Content Standards Linkage. Earlier in this testimony, I reported data 

indicating that the majority of students (70%) in alternate assessments read sight 

words and solve math problems with a calculator (Kearns et. al. in press). Our data 

also suggest that the percentages of students performing these skills across the 

grade bands from elementary to high school do not appear to change much. While 

these data are not longitudinal, we would expect increased percentages of more difficult skills as students advance through the grades and decreased percentages of 

easier skills as students advance through the grades. These data suggest that performance may be essentially static, meaning that limited progress is made beyond 

elementary school (Kearns et. al). Despite the growing number of studies pointing 

to the effectiveness teaching students in this population academic content reading, 

math, and science (Browder,Wakeman, Y.Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 

(2006); Browder, Spooner, Ahlgirm-Delzell, Wakeman, & Harris, (2008); Courtade, 

Spooner, & Browder, (2007); many continue to argue for functional skills. To counter 

that argument, Kleinert, Collins, Wickham, Riggs, & Hagar (in press) suggest that 

these skills are best embedded into naturally occurring routines across the student’s 

day alongside academic instruction. 

We recommend vigilance in maintaining a close linkage to grade-level academic 

content standards and consideration of achievement standards that mirror the highest achievement standard possible for this group of students. 

Career & College Ready. As yet, limited data are available on extent to which students who participate in alternate assessments are prepared to transition from 

school to adult life. Current post school outcome data define a positive outcome as 

fully time enrollment in post secondary education or full-time employment. Few students in the 1% population achieve full-time employment or post secondary education (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Gazar, 2006). As a result, little is known about their post school outcomes. 

However, a Kentucky study in progress will consider the student interview data 

among students who participate in an alternate assessment for the ACT to describe 

current outcomes. The Kentucky Transition Attainment Record (TAR) includes transition student and IEP team interviews. Kearns, LoBianco, & Harrison (in preparation) found that the majority of these students plan to receive special education 

services through age 21. Roughly, two thirds of these students plan to have full or 

part time jobs and have identified supported employment as an important transition 

support. This figure compares to the majority of students in this population who 

read sight words and solve math problems with a calculator. An additional one third 

of students checked ‘‘stay at home’’, which also compares to the percentage of students who are pre and emerging symbolic language users. 

The majority of these students selected job interests related to working with children, animals, or food service. When asked what they would like to learn more 

about in school, the most selected responses were 1) computers, 2) work experience, 

and 3) music and arts. These responses were followed by academic goals of reading, 

math and science. While these data are very preliminary, the Kentucky Department 

of Education has authorized a study to merge these data with other student assessment and transition data sources to provide a more complete picture of the transition outcomes for these students. 
34 

We want to build a vision that post secondary education is an option for all students including those with intellectual disabilities. Programs like Think College at 

Boston College or the Transition Program at Asbury College in Kentucky are making post secondary educational opportunities available to these students. Increasing 

post secondary opportunities for this population underscores the importance of academic instruction and vigilance in maintaining close alignment with content standards. 

Alternate Assessments. Unlike students in the general assessment who respond 

independently to what are described largely as multiple choice or open response 

items, students in this population must rely on a direct observation by the teacher 

of the student engaging in the behavior or the teacher’s recall of a student’s previous performance. At this time, nearly all alternate achievement standards assessments are individually administered generally by building personnel and in most 

cases the student’s teacher (Quenemoen, Kearns, Quenemoen, Flowers, & Kleinert, 

2010). The level of teacher involvement in an accountability environment represents 

an inherent validity problem which must be accounted for in the assessment design 

(Gong, & Marion). However, given that the majority of this population (70% read 

sight words and solve math problems with a calculator) (Kearns et al. in press), it 

may well be possible for these students to respond independently using touchscreen, screen readers, and other use of technology. While the feasibility of this approach is unknown, given the rate of technology development, it is certainly worth 

consideration. 

It is important to note that the name of an alternate assessment is also not necessarily an indicator of the quality of the assessment. All the nominal categories 

used to describe assessments for this population (portfolio, performance task, rating 

scale, multiple choice with picture choices), have relative strengths and weaknesses 

from a technical quality point of view (Gong & Marion, 2006). Technically sound assessments account for the weaknesses they present and clearly explicate the interpretations or inferences that can and cannot be made from the assessment results 

(AERA, APA, NCME Standards for Assessments, 1999). As a result many hybrid 

AA-AAS are beginning to emerge which may include features from multiple formats. 

While technical quality in AA-AAS continues to improve, poorly designed AA-AAS 

are simply poor assessments regardless of the name given to the assessment format. 

To that end, assessment format is less important than consistent use, achieving the 

intended purpose and consequences while minimizing negative consequences. Ultimately, the technical properties of an alternate achievement standards assessment 

format will be revealed in carefully planned and documented validity studies. 

Who is Responsible for These Students’ Success? 

Research suggests that home/school partnerships are essential to promote 

achievement (Heward, 2009)). Our son John has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and is reading behind his peers. Through response to intervention, he has received intensive reading instruction by a reading specialist in addition 

to the supports he needs to access the general curriculum. The partnership that we 

have with his teacher and his reading specialist has resulted in steady progress. 

Should he qualify for services under the IDEA, we want to build partnerships with 

his teachers. Furthermore, we want his teachers to have high expectations for his 

performance, we want an accountability system that recognizes his participation, 

challenging academic standards, and well-designed progress and proficiency measures. We want to know where the achievement standard is, how close or far away 

his performance is from the achievement standard, and more importantly what we 

need to do to in partnership with his teachers to support his achievement. His future depends on it. 

I want to acknowledge that the ESEA has a long history of supporting students 

with disabilities through the birth of the IDEA in the late 1970’s through the current authorizations of both the IDEA and ESEA. Never in our history have children 

with disabilities been considered more a part of the essential elements of what we 

know as school Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Indeed accountability has 

been largely responsible for giving students with disabilities access to challenging 

content, improved instruction, and highly qualified teachers. I see this discussion 

today as important in the continued progress toward achieving the goal of equal 

educational opportunities for all children. 

REFERENCES

AERA, APA, NCME (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. 

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. 

Betebenner (2005) Norm and Criterion Referenced Student Growth. http:// 

www.nciea.org/publications/normative—criterion—growth—DB08.pdf 
35 

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. 

(2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive 

disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72,392-408. 

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgirm-Delzell, L., Wakeman, S.Y. & Harris, a. 

(2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant 

cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407-432. 

Courtade, G. R., Spooner, F. & Browder, D. M. (2007). A review of students with 

students with significant cognitive disabilities that link to science standards. 

Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 32, 43-49. 

Donahue Institute. (2004, Oct). A study of MCAS achievement and promising practices in urban special education: Report of field research findings (Case studies 

and cross-case analysis of promising practices in selected urban public school 

districts in Massachusetts). Hadley, MA: University of Massachusetts, Donahue 

Institute, Research and Evaluation Group. Available at: http:// 

www.donahue.umassp.edu/docs/?item—id=12699 

Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral 

Disorders, 9, 141-150. 

Fincher, M. (2007). ‘‘Investigating the academic achievement of persistently low performing students’’ in the session on Assessing (and Teaching) Students at Risk 

for Failure: A Partnership for Success at the Council of Chief State School Officers Large Scale Assessment Conference, Nashville TN, June 17-20, 2007. Retrieved August, 2007, from: http://www.ccsso.org/content/ PDFs/ 

12%2DMelissa%20Fincher%20Paul% 20Ban%20Pam%20Rogers% 

20Rachel%20Quenemoen.pdf. 

Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2006). Dealing with flexibility in assessments for students 

with significant cognitive disabilities. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. (PDF : 202 Kb) 

Hawkins, V. J. (2007). Narrowing gaps for special-needs students. Educational 

Leadership, 64 (5), 61-63. 

Heward, W.L. (2009). Collaborating with parents and families in a culturally and 

linguistically diverse society. In W.L. Heward, Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (pp. 88-126). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Hill, Gong, Marion, DePasquale, Dunn & Simpson (2005) Using Value Tables to Explicitly Value Student Growth. http://www.nciea.org/publications/MARCES— 

RH07.pdf retrieved 03/09 

HB 05-1246 Study Committee (2005, December 31). Assessing ‘‘students in the gap’’ 

in Colorado. Retrieved May, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/Teleconferences/tele11/ColoradoStudy.pdf 

Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new 

paradigm. Disability Solutions, (6) 3. 

Kearns, J., LoBianco, T. & Harrison, B. (in preparation). An analysis of transition 

outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities in Kentucky. Lexington: University of Kentucky. 

Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., Kleinert, J., & Thomas, M. (in press). 

Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special 

Education. 

Kleinert, H. Collins, B. Wickham, D. Riggs, L. & Hagar, K. (in press). Embedding 

life skills, self-determination, and enhancing social relationships and other evidence-based practices. In H. Kleinert & J. Kearns, (in press). Meaningful outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Alternate assessment 

on alternate achievement standards. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Lazarus, S., Wu, Y.-C., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2010).NCEO brief: The characteristics of low performingstudents on large-scale assessments. Minneapolis, 

MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

Marion, S., Gong, B., & Simpson, M. A. (2006, Feb. 6). Mining achievement data 

to guide policies and practices on assessment options. Teleconference on Making 

Good Decisions on NCLB Flexibility Options. Minneapolis: National Center on 

Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April, 2009, fromhttp://education.umn.edu/ 

nceo/Teleconferences/tele11/default.html 

Megan’s Story: A Study in Postsecondary Education for Persons with Intellectual 

Disabilities. University of Kentucky : Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.hdi.uky.edu/Media/MegansStory.wmv 

Morgan, Frisco, Farkas, & Hibel (2010). A propensity scoter matching analysis of 

the effects of special education. Journal of Special Education 43 (4), pp. 236-254. 

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2002). Position statement: 

Rights without labels. Original statement adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly 
36 

in 1986. Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 14, 2002. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.nasponline.org/about—nasp/ 

pospaper—rwl.aspx 

New England Compact. (2007). Reaching students in the gaps: A study of assessment gaps, students, and alternatives. (Grant CFDA #84.368 of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, awarded 

to the Rhode Island Department of Education). Newton, MA: education Development Center, Inc. 

Newman, L. Wagner, M. Cameto, R. & Knokey, A. (2009). The post high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the national longitudinal transition study-2. Retrieved from 

www.nlts2.org/reports/2009—04ntls2—report—2009—04—complete.pdf. 

2009 Ohio Followup Study on Students with Disabilities 

Perie, M. (2009). Understanding the AA-MAS: How does it fit into a state assessment and accountability system? Presentation to CCSSO SCASS meeting, February 4, 2009. 

Perie, M. Marion, S. & Gong,B. (2007). A framework for considering interim and 

benchmark assessments. The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. http://www.nciea.org/publications/ 

ConsideringInterimAssess—MAP07.pdf 

Quenemoen, R. (2010). Who are the students taking modified achievement standard 

assessments. 

Thompson, S.J., Morse, A.B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Council of 

Chief State School Officers, ASES SCASS. Also available from OSEP toolkit at 

http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/accommodations—manual.asp. 

Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments 

(Technical Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National 

Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [03/13/2010], from the World Wide 

Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm 

Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E. Liu, K. K., Scullin, S., Hausmann, K. E., & Shyyan, 

V. (2009). Disabilities and reading: Understanding the effects of disabilities and 

their relationship to reading instruction and assessment. University of Minnesota: Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. 

Wagner, M. Newman, L. Cameto, R. Levine, P. & Gazar, N. (2006). An overview of 

the findings from wave 2 of the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NTLS2). Retrieved from the www.nlts2.org/reports/2006—08nlts2—report—2006— 

08—complete.pdf 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Curry? 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL CURRY, SUPERINTENDENT, LAKE 

FOREST SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Mr. CURRY. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Mr. Castle, members of the committee. My name is Dan Curry. It has been my 

pleasure—I often say I have the best job in the world—to be superintendent of Lake Forest School District since 2003. 

Prior to that, I served 15 years in that same capacity in my home 

state of West Virginia in districts ranging from 1,500 students to 

15,000 students, the most rural of which is considered the most 

rural school district east of the Mississippi, I understand, with 1.3 

children per square mile. 

First, let me say that ESEA allocations have always been a godsend to rural school districts. It is the nature of rural school districts to have high instances of poverty and low property values, 

leading to limited resources collected through property tax. 

Central office staffs are often small, and they wear multiple hats. 

For my 6 years in the central office in Pocahontas County, I think 
37 

I did virtually every assignment there would be, including, as Mr. 

Castle, mentioned, I did drive a bus on occasion. 

Rural superintendents I have talked to all agree that formula 

funding is the fairest means of distribution of ESEA funds. We fear 

that turning to competitive grants might leave rural districts at a 

disadvantage to compete. Most don’t have grant writers, nor do 

they have the resources to dedicate to them. 

Spending time and money to go after grants we may not get is 

a poor use of human capital, especially during this economic downturn. It will do nothing but broaden the gap between the haves and 

the have-nots. 

I urge the committee to ensure that formulas are equitable for 

rural school districts. Specifically, the funding formulas should be 

based on percentages of poverty, not raw numbers. A poor student 

is a poor student no matter where they live and should not lose 

funding because they choose to live in a rural community. 

The challenges facing rural schools are many. Recruiting and retaining teachers continues to be difficult for many. Some districts 

have no choice but to maintain small schools with small enrollment. Geographical isolation and transportation challenges make 

that so. 

This leads to teachers who must teach multiple subjects and 

makes it almost impossible for them to meet the standard to be 

considered highly qualified. 

First-time teachers willing to agree to any assignment for a 

chance to teach can find themselves committing to a heavy load of 

multiple class preps, while driving miles after work several days a 

week to take the necessary classes. In general, rural school districts face the same challenges when it comes to finding a sufficient 

candidate pool of qualified candidates for special education, math 

and science, in particular. 

Rural surroundings are sometimes a deterrent to some candidates. Though they may be willing to go anywhere when looking 

for work, many will leave after a time, seeking easier access to 

basic amenities like grocery stores and shopping centers and theaters. And in addition, there is little focus by the teacher training 

programs to encourage candidates to take jobs in rural communities. 

The rural school district student is like every other student in 

the United States, except he is accustomed to long rides on the bus. 

He wants to do well. He will respond to good teaching and high expectations and a climate that is supportive and challenging. 

I urge you to take steps to see that student progress is measured 

by growth and achievement and that progress for students in special education be in accordance with the educational goals of their 

IEP. 

When creating the new accountability system, I would like to remind the subcommittee to take into account the impact of small 

numbers of students. Rural schools are more likely to have small 

schools, small class sizes, and when using student assessment data 

for accountability or for tracking the progress of teachers, remember that the results of just one or two students can skew the results. 
38 

Finally, graduation rates. If we are to reach the administration’s 

goal of college-and career-ready students, we need to let go of the 

expectation that all children will get that done in 4 years. Those 

of us who have sent our kids to college recently—and I am one— 

learn that they may need more than 4 years to complete college. 

The college degree earned in 5 years or 6 years has the same value 

as the one earned in 4. 

Why then must we—while acknowledging that all children can 

learn, but they learn at different rates—be prodded to get every 

child through high school in 4 years? Many would be better served 

with a 5-year plan. Many, due to challenges at home, would like 

to be supported to attend high school on a part-time basis. 

Any high school graduation, whether it takes 5 years, 6 years, or 

whether it is earned after taking a year off, should be celebrated. 

A mandated 4-year graduation requirement works against all we 

know and understand of how children learn. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you today. 

[The statement of Mr. Curry follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Daniel Curry, Superintendent, Lake Forest 

School District, Kent County, DE 

Good morning. My name is Dan Curry. I have served as superintendent of Lake 

Forest School District in Kent County, Delaware since the summer of 2003. I’ve 

been a school superintendent for 22 years, having served in that capacity for 15 

years in my home state of West Virginia. Each district was uniquely different. Student enrollment ranged from 1500 to 15,000. One of those districts, Pocahontas 

County, is considered the most rural school district in the East with presently 1.3 

students per square mile. 

During my years as superintendent I have personally observed, and my districts 

have adjusted to, the change in philosophy from ESEA supporting and 

supplementing the work of the states and local school districts to ESEA mandating 

and directing the work of the school districts. 

Lake Forest School district is a rural farm community around 12 miles south of 

Dover. We have around 3900 students in 166 square miles. Much of our land is 

dedicated to farming. We have huge fields planted mostly in wheat, soy and corn, 

but there are also plenty of fruits and vegetables. From 2004-2006 enrollment increased around 5% each year, and some of our fields gave way to sub-divisions. 

The Lake Forest student population is 70% white, 25% African American and 5% 

all others. 43% of our children qualify for free or reduced priced meals at school. 

We have three primary schools with grades pre-K—3, one intermediate for grades 

4—5, one middle school for 6-8 and one high school. 

First let me say that ESEA allocations have always been a godsend to rural school 

districts. It is the nature of rural areas to have high instances of poverty and low 

property values, leading to limited resources collected through property taxes. Central office staffs are generally small and they wear multiple hats. While working in 

the central office in Pocahontas County, over several years I managed almost every 

program. I even drove bus on occasion. In some smaller school districts out west, 

they may share administrators or the principal might also be a teacher. 

Rural superintendents I have talked to all agree that formula funding is the fairest means of distribution of ESEA funds. We fear that turning to competitive grants 

might leave rural districts at a disadvantage to compete. Most don’t have expert 

grant writers nor do they have the resources to dedicate to them. Spending time 

and resources to go after grants we may not get is a poor use of resources especially 

during this economic downturn. It will do nothing but broaden the gap between the 

haves and the have not’s. 

I urge the committee to work to ensure that the formulas are also equitable for 

rural school districts. Specifically, the funding formulas should be based on percentages of poverty, not raw numbers. A poor student is a poor student no matter where 

they live and should not lose funding because they choose to live in a rural community. 

The challenges facing rural schools are many. Recruiting and retaining teachers 

continues to be difficult for most rural school districts. Some districts have no choice 

but to maintain small schools with small enrollments. Geographical isolation and 
39 

transportation challenges make that so. This leads to teachers who must teach multiple subjects and makes it almost impossible for them to meet the federal highly 

qualified definition. Finding the necessary additional college classes to eventually 

earn highly qualified status or making them take multiple assessments to meet this 

arbitrary definition is also a challenge for the same reason. First time teachers willing to agree to any assignment for a chance to teach, can find themselves committing to heavy load of multiple class preps while driving miles after work, several 

days a week to take the necessary classes. 

In general, rural school districts face the same challenges when it comes to finding a sufficient candidate pool of qualified candidates for special education, math 

and science. The rural surroundings are a deterrent to some candidates. Though 

they may be willing to go anywhere when looking for work, many will leave after 

a time, seeking easier access to basic amenities like grocery stores, shopping centers 

and theaters. In addition, there is little focus by the teacher training programs to 

encourage candidates to take jobs in rural communities. 

Finding school leaders is much the same. I was first given an opportunity to be 

a principal in rural Pocahontas County at age 24 because there was absolutely nobody in the district with the licensure. I was willing to make that move and it 

turned out to be a great decision in my career, but not everyone would enjoy living 

and working in such a rural area. 

The rural school district student is like every other student in the United States, 

except he is accustomed to long rides on the school bus. She wants to do well. He’ll 

respond to good teaching and high expectations in a climate that is supportive and 

challenging. I urge you to take steps to see that student progress is measured by 

growth in achievement and that progress for students in special education be in accordance with the educational goals of their IEP as opposed to the goals of the average student. 

My district last year had the highest percentage of 8th grade students scoring proficient in Math—we ranked 1st in the state. Our 8th grade writing scores were 2nd 

and reading scores ranked 3rd. Yet, my middle school did not make AYP. Why? Because our special education students did not meet the general population target for 

proficiency. Our special education students are learning and making great strides; 

however, we must measure them based on what they are learning. 

When creating the new accountability system, I would just like to remind the subcommittee to take into account the impact of small numbers of students. Rural 

schools districts are more likely to have small schools and small class sizes. When 

using student assessment data for accountability, or for tracking the progress of 

teachers, remember that the results of just one or two students can throw off the 

results. 

In addition, remember that every time the federal government requests data on 

an issue, there is someone in a school district that is now responsible for tracking 

that new item. While never bad on its own, when these data points are added up 

they have a huge burden on rural schools which often lack administrative staff. Instead, principals and sometimes teachers are running around to meet these data requests. This is time away from critical instruction. Please remember the impact at 

the local level when these data requests are made. 

I would also like to mention my support on behalf of rural superintendents for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program. While my district does not receive this 

funding directly, a lot of my colleagues do. This important funding stream is the 

only federally dedicated funding stream for rural schools across the country, both 

small and high poverty. It provided them with critical formula dollars to help overcome the gap in federal funding and their geographic isolation. This program has 

proven to be a huge success story in the over 6,000 district’s nationwide that support it. I urge the subcommittee to adopt HR 2446, the REAP Reauthorization Act, 

introduced by Representatives Pomeroy, Graves and Hare. This important legislation will make the minor necessary updates to this very important program. 

Finally, graduation rates. If we are to reach the administrations goal of ‘‘College 

and Career—Ready Students’’ we need to let go of the expectation that all children 

will get it done in 4 years. Those of us who have sent our children to college in recent times have learned that many will need more than 4 years to earn a degree. 

The college degree earned in 5 years or 6 years has the same value as that earned 

in 4. Why then must we, while acknowledging that all children can learn, but they 

learn at different rates, be prodded to get every child through high school in 4 

years? Many would be better served with a 5 year plan. Many, due to challenges 

at home, would like to be supported to attend high school on a part-time basis. Any 

high school graduation, whether it takes 5 years, 6 years or whether it’s earned 

after taking a year off, should be celebrated. A mandated 4 year graduation requirement works against all we know and understand of how children learn and develop. 
40 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today. I would be 

happy to take any questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Dale? 

STATEMENT OF JACK DALE, SUPERINTENDENT, FAIRFAX 

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Mr. DALE. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and Governor Castle, 

and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

address you this morning. 

I would like to start with, Mr. Kildee, your comments at the beginning about how much of the United States now is a cross-section 

of the world and how important it is to prepare our children for the 

world, because I share that passion with you. 

I would like to reflect a little bit on what we have all learned, 

I think, from the first round of No Child Left Behind high stakes 

accountability and then provide some of my thoughts for the future. 

The first thing I think we have learned—and you can see from 

all of us is disaggregation. We pay very close attention to our subgroups. But I think the next iteration, the next level of 

disaggregation, is individual students, because behind every successful school in the United States is when they have peeled the 

onion back and disaggregated to individual students. And that is 

where our next area of emphasis should be. 

We have also learned the importance of assessment. We have 

talked about the variety of assessments. Ms. Diaz has talked about 

the importance of data analysis, Ms. Kearns about the alternative 

assessments. And one of the things that we have learned in assessments is one size does not fit all. And what we have learned, 

though, is how much richer some of our assessments can be when 

we think about the needs of our individual children, and that is extremely important in this next iteration. 

I am almost beginning to think, too, it is a little bit less important about the individuals we hire to be teachers and principals 

and maybe more important about what those people do once they 

are on the job. 

I have found that our most successful schools are ones where the 

teams of teachers and principals are beginning to work diligently 

on individual student needs, individual student learning gaps, individual student assessment changes to get at what their children 

know, and I think that is the interesting thing that we need to 

keep perspective of. 

The diversity—Fairfax County public schools, we have over 

170,000 children. We do represent the nation. One place we are different—and I will make some comments about—is in our Englishlanguage learner population. 

While we have a comparable percentage of our students who are 

English-language learners, we differ in that about 80 percent of our 

English-language learners are not U.S.-born students. They are immigrating to the United States, most recently even from Haiti. 

But what we have learned with our English-language learners is 

how important it is to teach them English and how to ensure that 

they teach—or they learn English and that we can assess that 
41 

English-language progress and then begin to assess simultaneously 

in a phasing program their knowledge and background in literacy 

and in math and science and social studies, but they must master 

English, and we must have transitional assessments to accommodate that. 

Our special education children are no different than whatever everybody else has talked about. One of the things I would note is 

in the nation we are becoming—I think we are having greater percentages of our children with greater needs. And so while a great 

proportion of our children can be assess through the normal process, we are also beginning to see greater numbers of children who 

need alternative assessments so that we can communicate with 

them, they can communicate with us, and they can demonstrate 

the knowledge that they, in fact, have, so that alteration and assessments is extremely important. 

We tried that in Virginia. We had a Virginia grade-level assessment, which was basically a portfolio assessment. Some people 

think it is suspect because it allowed greater passage rates. I think 

it is a step in the right direction, because it actually allowed children to demonstrate their deep understanding of the content that 

we are expecting them to learn. The normal testing mechanisms 

did not allow that particular exhibition of knowledge to take place. 

Funding. Funding is always an issue. With stimulus funding, we 

have all benefited greatly through the increase in Title 1 and IDEA 

funds. We are all recognizing the cliff that is coming after one more 

year. 

With IDEA especially, I think we should try and advocate for the 

continuation of that level of funding for our special needs children 

because, as I mentioned, we are having greater numbers of those 

children and we need to pay attention to their needs much more 

so. 

A comment about assessments. Not only should we standardize 

those across the United States, as we are trying to do, and I can 

see the administration pushing us in that direction, a good 

thought, but we also need to push ourselves to look at world assessment. Things that we are looking at in terms of world assessments are pieces of the program for international student assessment or TIMS, the trends in international mathematics and 

science. We should be looking at some of those, as well as our U.S. 

based assessments. 

Finally, I want to make a comment about college readiness. College readiness is going to be a challenge because we do not have 

a universal definition of what college readiness means. Our community colleges, our traditional state 4-year colleges, and our competitive private college entrance assessments vary greatly. 

And while we aspire to have all of our students college-ready 

and/or career-ready, we have a train wreck coming in that definition. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Dale follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Jack Dale, Superintendent, Fairfax County 

Public Schools, Fairfax, VA 

Overview 

The mission of Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), a world-class school system, 

is to inspire, enable, and empower students to meet high academic standards, lead 
42 

ethical lives, and demonstrate responsible citizenship. FCPS believes that each child 

is important and entitled to the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential, 

and that a well-rounded education enables students to lead fulfilling and culturally 

rich lives. 

Fairfax County students achieve at high levels across a broad spectrum of pursuits. FCPS values a well-rounded education that goes beyond basics, and encompasses the arts, literacy, languages, technology, and preparation for the world of 

work. FCPS provides a breadth and depth of opportunities to allow all students to 

stretch their capabilities. More than 93 percent of FCPS graduates go on to postsecondary study—including more than 62 percent to four-year colleges. The on time 

graduation rate is more than 90 percent. 

FCPS is the largest school system in Virginia and the twelfth largest in the 

United States. In the 2009-2010 school year, more than 173,000 students are served 

by 22,137 staff members in 197 schools and centers. Fairfax County is home to more 

than a million residents and reflects an increasing level of cultural, economic and 

linguistic diversity. Fewer than 47 percent of FCPS’ students identify themselves as 

White; 18 percent Asian American; 18 percent Hispanic; 10 percent African American; and 6 percent Multiracial. While the county is often viewed as having wealth 

and resources, it also has the highest cost of living in the state. In the current 

school year, more than 39,000 FCPS students are eligible for the Federal Free and 

Reduced-Price Meals Program (FRL), a nationally recognized benchmark indicating 

poverty. 

Fairfax County’s critical issues include a rapidly growing population, increasing 

diversity, primarily from immigration and resettlement, poverty, extreme income 

disparity, high mobility, as well as the recession, which continues to significantly 

impact our community. Decreased revenue at the county level has led to a decrease 

in the amount provided to FCPS, which relies on the county for nearly 75 percent 

of its funding. The budget crisis in the schools will impact a wide range of programs 

and services, in particular programs that impact low income and language minority 

students. 

ELL 

Currently in FCPS, more than 41 percent of PreK-12 students live in homes in 

which a language other than English is spoken (language minority students), with 

more than 140 different languages and 200 countries represented. Students come 

to FCPS from all over the world, with major groups coming from Central America 

(El Salvador, Guatemala), South America (Peru, Colombia, Argentina), Asia (Korea, 

Vietnam, China, the Philippines) and Africa (Somalia, Ghana). Some of the most recent arrivals include orphans from Haiti being united with families in Fairfax. Approximately half of FCPS language minority students (or 20 percent of the total 

FCPS student population) are also English language learners (ELLs—also referred 

to as limited English proficient [LEP] students). The FCPS ELL student population 

has more than quadrupled in the past 20 years. 

Nationwide, ELLs are the fastest growing student population, and are projected 

to comprise more than 25 percent of the entire K-12 student population in the US 

by the year 2050. To prepare ELLs to be successful members of the 21st century 

global society, there is a need to articulate a clear national vision of high expectations for ELLs. This includes guaranteeing ELLs equal access to advanced academic 

programs, including Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) 

courses, and college and career preparation programs. It is also necessary to provide 

ELLs with appropriate differentiated instruction and resource support to prepare 

and enable them to become successful in these rigorous academic settings. 

It is important to include ELLs in accountability systems, to ensure that they are 

also being provided equal access to and quality instruction of content area standards. However, ELLs should be assessed with measures that are fair, valid, reliable, 

and appropriate for their current English language proficiency level while they are 

learning academic English. States should be given the resources to provide those appropriate alternative assessments for ELLs, especially when assessing literacy. 

Research demonstrates that it can take five to seven years to acquire the type of 

academic English necessary to be academically successful. Since ELLs’ educational 

background varies greatly, their academic achievement and English language proficiency should be assessed using multiple measures, with a focus on their progress 

and growth over time. ELLs who enter US schools during the secondary level should 

be provided with additional time, as necessary, to fulfill graduation requirements 

without penalizing schools through the accountability measures. 

ELLs development of English, as well as the knowledge of their home language, 

should be promoted and cultivated so that they can learn to communicate in two 

or more languages to enhance their ability to be successful participants of the global 
43 

economy of the 21st century. Innovative models of providing high quality, successful, 

rigorous, and challenging instruction to ELLs should be promoted, rewarded and 

shared nationwide as demonstration models. ELL student populations are growing 

most rapidly in areas around the country that previously did not have ELL populations. Therefore, all instructional personnel need pre-service and ongoing in-service professional development on successful, research-based strategies for working 

with ELLs in the classroom. 

IDEA 

The underfunding of the actual cost of programs for students with disabilities at 

the federal level impedes services to all students. Federal funding for IDEA has not 

been brought to the level deemed appropriate when PL 94-142 was enacted in 1975 

to help school districts maintain quality in special education and slow the drain of 

funds for services to students who are not disabled. 

IDEA requires that services mandated in each student’s IEP must be funded. 

These services in the IEP cannot be cut when budgets are tight, so cuts to other 

students go a little deeper. Even in good times, there is real budget tension between 

special education and general education. Only additional funding or regulatory relief 

can ease the budget tensions and help school districts deal with shortfalls in state 

and local revenue as a result of the recession. 

Currently FCPS serves 24,502 students with disabilities through IEPs. Of particular concern is that while the number of students with mild disabilities has increased only slightly, the number of students with severe disabilities has increased 

significantly. These students receive more than 50 percent of their education in self 

contained settings. The number of students with significant disabilities has risen by 

12 percent. In the area of autism alone, there has been an increase of 413 students 

from 2007 to 2009. The cost to educate these students can be in excess of $10,000 

per student in addition to the general education per pupil cost. The services are 

IEP-driven and are mandatory requirements of a law that is funded at approximately 15 percent of the cost to the district. Stimulus funding through the IDEA 

created some partial support in this area but with the loss of this funding in FY12, 

the education services to all students will be compromised. Permanent funding must 

be found to close this gap. 

Assessment Requirement 

The testing requirements in IDEA and NCLB initially produced results which 

were not useful in planning individual or group instruction for students with disabilities who function at low to very low cognitive levels. The tests based on the federal requirements measure proficiency based on long lists of grade level standards 

but are not connected to a clear objective, like readiness for the next grade, or college/career readiness. These laundry-list tests were clearly not suited for students 

who function at a very low level. 

This resulted in the adoption of the one percent rule, which helped to ensure that 

the information coming from tested students would be a more accurate reflection of 

overall student performance. However, the many standards and the lack of internal 

connectivity among the standards still resulted in tests where students functioning 

at lower cognitive levels, but not the lowest, faced few items they could answer, 

leaving the assessments unreliable for these students as well. The United States 

Department of Education came up with a two percent rule to deal with inaccurate 

and unreliable tests for this next tier of students. The two percent rule has not been 

easy to implement because federal rules still insist on standards rigidly tied to 

grade levels and because of the lack of appropriate assessments designed to address 

the continuum of cognitive functioning. Virginia created the Virginia Grade Level 

Assessment (VGLA) in an attempt to respond to the two percent challenge. While 

a step in the right direction, the VGLA has not proven adequate. In fairness, no 

assessment will be adequate until federal requirements permit adaptive assessment 

and until there are fewer, clearer standards that build step by step to a logical 

measurable end, like college and career readiness. 

Assessment provides a valuable staff development opportunity. Teachers learn 

more, and schools improve when they are provided time to sit down and analyze 

the data from these assessments with their teams. They work together to apply 

what they have learned from the analyses to formulate plans to bridge the gaps on 

student achievement 

Funding 

All of these accountability programs and assessments have a direct and substantial impact on local resources. The estimated local cost to FCPS of the underfunded 

federal programs is listed below: 

• IDEA—$43 million (would have been nearly $62 million without stimulus) 
44 

• NCLB—$16 million 

• ELL—$51.5 million 

• Homeless—$112,000 for staff (not including additional classroom resources) and 

$500,000 in transportation costs covering taxis, buses, vans, and gas and smart trip 

cards. 

Additionally, FCPS is eligible for greater Impact Aid under current allotment formulas than is received. However, because Impact Aid is not fully funded, school divisions like FCPS that have large overall operating budgets relative to their Impact 

Aid eligible population receive proportionately fewer Impact Aid dollars. If fully 

funded according to the federal definition, FCPS would receive $15.8 million in Impact Aid; instead of the $3.5 million received in FY 2009. 

Looking to the Future 

Assessment can and should improve, and we have many of the tools necessary to 

improve these tests. Performance assessment and adaptive assessment have made 

huge strides in reliability and validity since the adoption of No Child Left Behind. 

The new ESEA and then the new IDEA must permit the use of these more accurate 

assessments. Educators want to improve accuracy by measuring growth or progress 

over time. Time can be measured by grade level or by years in school, but there 

must be a beginning point for each student that is accurate and tracks over time. 

Such measures require a clear end target and equally clear steps and benchmarks 

along the way. 

Assessment must move from a once a year event to a regular occurrence that is 

built into the learning experience. Results must be available within hours, not 

months, and the results must be individualized. School districts must also be permitted to include valid and reliable assessments they develop or purchase along 

with required state assessments to provide a more complete picture of student 

achievement in the aggregate and for individual students. Then the two percent rule 

could be eliminated because the continuum of cognitive functioning will be accommodated in the assessment design. 

More importantly every high scoring country internationally is using high-quality 

performance assessments. No country that scores high on international benchmarks 

like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) or Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is using the type of tests required by IDEA/NCLB to improve schools or to measure student achievement, so 

why are students in the US left using the Model T version of assessment? 

Standards must improve too. States now have long lists of standards for each tested grade level. These standards exist in isolation from each other and do not include 

internal steps or benchmarks that would inform students, parents, teachers, and administrators about student progress. Fewer, clearer standards that build to an easily understood and measured end point such as college and career readiness are a 

must if students are to have a clear road map to success. In particular, special education and ELL students and their parents need that map to plan their futures. 

Students who do not speak English well enough to take a content test in English 

are also disadvantaged by the requirements of IDEA/NCLB and by the rules established by the US Department of Education to implement those programs. At some 

point on the continuum of mastery, a student’s content knowledge can be accurately 

assessed in English. Until they get to that point, there are too few items on current 

tests to accurately and reliably gauge their academic achievement—the content tests 

simply become a measure of their comprehension of the English language. The rigid 

rules about time in school assume a uniform rate of learning English which is not 

consistent with what we know about student language mastery. There must be some 

flexibility in determining readiness for content-level testing and then the assessments themselves must be improved to give students the best opportunity to demonstrate their content knowledge. 

Instead of choosing assessments based on what is educationally sound and best 

for our students, the assessments being used appear to have been chosen largely 

based on their cost. State of the art testing will require new resources, and those 

resources must come from the Federal Government. We cannot require states and 

localities to use of high quality assessments without making the resources available 

to implement them properly. Our students need and deserve these changes to stay 

competitive in our dynamic global economy. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and will 

now proceed with the question-and-answer period of the hearing. 
45 

The presentations were very clear, and they provoke some good 

questions from ourselves, too. 

I recognize myself first for 5 minutes. 

President Gipp, one of the important messages in your testimony 

is the significance of tribal consultation. I have been a longstanding 

advocate of native students and understand the importance of including tribal leaders in decisions that affect their students. 

Can you talk more about the challenges tribal leaders face in this 

area and how we can ensure that the needs of native students are 

properly addressed and just not sometimes forgotten? For example, 

I think in the Race to the Top and in the state fiscal stabilization 

fund, by omission, you were not included. 

What can we do to make sure that when we have special programs, which made a great difference in many school districts in 

many states, that you are not ignored in that, but that you can see 

how you can be included in those special programs that the president initiates? 

Mr. GIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, you are correct that 

there has been a major oversight of tribal communities and tribal 

nations with respect to Race to the Top and those kinds of opportunities, and our communities have been completely left out. 

So I think it would be incumbent upon the executive branch to 

take a look at how they can formulate some of those or reformulate 

some initiatives that could be made available to tribal governments 

and tribal communities. 

The second thing is to look at how we might also look at a special 

initiative enabled by Congress itself so that those communities can 

be included in terms of appropriations and directives to the administration to include tribal nations. 

But more importantly, as you mentioned, the issue of tribal consultation is a very, very critical thing that needs to be ongoing, and 

it needs to be part and parcel to how the Department of Education 

and other federal agencies conduct themselves with respect to tribal governments who do have this nation-to-nation relationship with 

the United States government. 

Chairman KILDEE. And I think you are very correct. You know, 

I have read many of the treaties. And very often, we fail to recognize that there is a direct relationship of government to government between the federal government and your tribal government. 

I always, particularly with the younger Indians, point out that 

I have, for example, two citizenships. I am a citizen of the United 

States, and I am a citizen of the state of Michigan. You and other 

Native Americans have three real citizenships of sovereign entities. 

You are a citizen of the United States, and that is been proven by 

the number of Indians serving in our armed forces. You are a citizen of the state. And you are a citizen of your tribe. 

And you have rights and responsibilities that come from those 

citizenships. And I think we have to make sure we don’t by omission fail to carry that out, because sins of omission can be as damaging as sins of commission. 

So I appreciate your comment on that. 

Now I will recognize the governor for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
46 

And let me thank all of you. I think your testimony is wonderful, 

and I can’t get to all the questions I have, so I apologize for that. 

But I am going to start with a question and go along with Dr. Dale, 

Dr. Curry and Dr. Kearns, and that is the whole issue of adaptive 

testing, which we are about to adopt in Delaware for next—or have 

adopted, I guess, for next year, in terms of computer testing that 

can go up and down, give instant results, and that kind of thing. 

And you mentioned it in your testimony, Dr. Dale. 

But I would be interested in your thoughts about that on a 

broader sense. I think the whole business of assessments is going 

to be a vital question. And however we redo the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, and I don’t know what your experiences 

with it has been or what your thoughts about it are, but I would 

be curious to hear about that. And I also worry about the special 

populations and their ability to be able to handle that kind of testing, too. 

Mr. DALE. You raise excellent questions. The assessments that 

we are looking at trying to put in place to supplement our regular 

standardized—standards of learning test in Virginia they are 

called—is—well, first of all, we are trying to put assessments in 

place that are informative. 

You can assess weekly, monthly, whatever period of time to assess progress and intervene. It is to us not educationally sound to 

wait until the very end of the year to begin to do assessments that 

we should be doing that, so those kinds of adaptations, I want to 

say, should take place. 

The other is to try and look at different methods by which children can demonstrate their competency. As I mentioned in my testimony briefly, we have instituted a portfolio assessment collecting 

artifacts of student work to demonstrate their competency, which 

is a different method than just a paper or pencil test to accommodate special needs children, and that is a piece that we believe 

strongly in continuing to research. 

People question whether the validity and reliability of that kind 

of an assessment is comparable to a paper and pencil test, but 

those, I think, are research questions which we should continue to 

pursue and not dismiss, but we should do, as Ms. Kearns says, continue to pursue those, to make sure that we have equivalent methods by which kids with different kinds of needs and disabilities can 

demonstrate their competency. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Curry? 

Mr. CURRY. And as you are aware, Congressman Castle, Delaware is making a move toward assessments of that ilk. We just this 

week finished our state test in our traditional time period in 

March. And almost immediately, we will go into field testing. A 

new assessment that will be used next year, that assessment will 

be Web-based. Most students will take it on computer. And there 

will be various forms available so that the student may take it 

more than one time throughout the year. 

In that way, it helps inform the teacher so that they can adjust 

instruction and make changes to instructional needs based upon 

the students’ performance and a formative level of the assessment. 
47 

So we are looking forward to this new opportunity to more accurately measure student progress. And I think it will be good for all 

the children of Delaware. 

Mr. CASTLE. Ms. Kearns? 

Ms. KEARNS. Thank you, Ranking Member Castle, for that question. I think that is a really important one that both Dr. Dale and 

Dr. Curry pointed out, that they still use their state tests as the 

demarcation of the standard, and I think that is really important. 

We want kids with disabilities, particularly, to have access. We 

want to know where the standard is. We want to know what the 

achievement standard is for all kids. And both of my colleagues 

here have mentioned that that was an important part. 

Out of level tests or interim informative assessments in addition 

to that are absolutely fine, as long as they help teachers really up 

the expectations of what kids can know and can do, and I think we 

really want to keep that in our minds. We really want to help 

teachers understand what the expectations are and how to get kids 

to those higher levels of expectations, and that would be for all 

kids. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I want to ask the other side of the panel a question quickly. This 

is an education hearing, and I understand that, but it often, in 

terms of dealing with children who are underachieving and minority groups, or groups just coming to America, I worry about what 

is also happening at home. Are they being prepared to be educated, 

is there—in the encouragement of that and that kind of thing? 

I am not sure in redoing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act we can address too much of that directly, but Ms. Diaz 

mentioned parents, and I think we are all very conscious of the 

family effect in terms of moving forward. 

Your comments on anything that we should be thinking about 

doing, in terms of making sure that there is a recognition of the 

importance of education among all groups, but obviously those who 

are minorities or have English as a second language or some other 

barriers in terms of education? 

Mr. WOTORSON. I think it is a wonderful question, Mr. Kildee— 

I mean, Mr. Castle. I apologize. 

When the Campaign for High School Equity was first put together, we put out a document called the plan for success that specifically addressed that issue where we were urging policymakers 

to consider a variety of ways of specifically addressing how you, in 

fact, invest communities so that they can be better supported in 

terms of providing wraparound services so that there is more support in terms of how you involve parents in the education process. 

It is something that we would—that I would say we agree with 

you on 112 percent, that it is something that should be invested 

in and to make sure that there is more support for kids outside of 

school. 

Ms. DIAZ. I would also agree. In my experience, it is very doable 

and it is just about being intentional about it. We have utilized 

Title 3 funding very carefully. And what we have found is that parents need to be educated, but they also need to be taught what 

things they could do at home, and they need to be talked honestly 

to and boldly. 
48 

In our Hispanic community, for example, the soap operas are in 

the evening, unfortunately, and Univision is very popular. That is 

a total contradiction of what we need as educators for them to 

spend their time and in the evenings. 

We need to explain that to them. It is just something that us as 

educators need to hold on and embrace and say—and expect them 

not to spend their time doing that, but to turn off the TV and explain why that is important and then show them how to do so. 

We have—I talked a little bit about how we are intentional about 

showing them strategies, and we do that—we try to do that with 

household, common household, you know, goods, for example, shaving creams. Most people have shaving cream at home. It is a wonderful tool to practice spelling words or sight words, for example, 

but you have to show them. If they don’t know, they won’t implement it. 

But if you can explain what they can do, for example, and how 

to do it and then the results that their students will gain, it makes 

a remarkable difference. Every parent wants their child to succeed, 

and immigrant parents really have high expectations for their students. They do not want them to be cleaning hotel rooms and dishwashing in the backs of restaurants. 

And if you can explain that in that way, the fact that it is an 

investment, it is a sacrifice at that point in time to be able to turn 

off the TV, but it is an enormous investment of their time, and if 

you show them, and if we teach them English, as well—part of our 

Parents Are Teachers program is helping parents learn English, as 

well. 

So it can be done. You just have to be intentional about it. And 

Title 3 funding can be very beneficial to us as educators. 

Mr. GIPP. Thank you, Ranking Member Castle. I would agree 

with both of the comments made by Mr. Wotorson and Ms. Diaz 

as to this special population. 

I would also add that our tribes need the authority to develop 

their own measurements and standards. That is something that is 

always been lacking. We always say that the local community is a 

part of American pie and all of those kinds of things. That is not 

been the case historically with the Indian tribe and tribal populations. 

I remember my own grandfather being told by the local superintendent of the reservation that, when he went home, he was not 

to speak Lakota in the home. He wasn’t supposed to speak that to 

his children and likewise. This went on for many, many years. 

And so we were always taught that we shouldn’t be who we 

were. That, however, is not the case. We are who we are today. We 

have lost a lot of cultural value. 

But on the other hand, it can be put back together because our 

tribes are still there, our children are still there, and they are intensely interested in knowing who they are by culture, by language 

and by history. And this is where our tribes need to have a voice 

when we talk about issues of accreditation, of standards, of measurement that have been totally left out of the picture. 

And that is why it is so important to support tribal education departments, to support education standards, and a accreditation system that is responsive to who and what we are all about and help-
49 

ing us build them from within the community, let’s put it that way. 

There is more to say, obviously, about this. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wotorson, your organization is a coalition of civil rights 

groups. Do I understand that correctly? 

Mr. WOTORSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. The achievement gap—in many areas, there is a very 

clearly identifiable, ethnically identifiable achievement gap where 

children of one group are educated to the 10th grade and children 

of another group are educated to the 12th grade. Does that violate 

the principle in Brown that the children—the minority race is 

being denied an equal educational opportunity? 

Mr. WOTORSON. I think in many ways it is reflective of the unfinished legacy of Brown. On the one hand, Brown intended to ensure 

access, but it never ensured equity. And as you rightly point out, 

we are faced with a situation of a real hyper-concentration of a 

number of problems that affect low-income and minority students 

in equitable access to critically important educational resources, access to oftentimes the most ineffective teachers, just a whole range 

of things that, at the end of the day, do, in fact, have the effect of 

denying them a high-quality education. 

Mr. SCOTT. And there has been the—in the litigation over disabled children 30 years ago, it was concluded that the localities had 

the responsibility of educating special ed students and cost could 

not be a defense, is that right? 

Mr. WOTORSON. That is my understanding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, one of the elements of the achievement gap is 

the dropout rate. When we started No Child Left Behind, we put 

in there—there is legislation that they had to consider dropout 

rate. Otherwise, you would have a perverse incentive, letting people drop out to drop from the bottom. The more people drop out, 

the higher your average looks, that you had to offset by dropouts— 

unfortunately, we left it up to the states to figure out what dropout 

meant, and by the time they finished, it was a meaningless calculation. 

Do you have a problem with leaving it up to the states as to how 

they count who drops out? 

Mr. WOTORSON. Mr. Congressman, that is exactly why we have 

called for, at a minimum threshold, holding states accountable for 

student success and requiring states and districts to report on how 

well they are doing in terms of moving students towards graduation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, the name of your organization is Campaign for 

High School Equity. Did you find as a finding that the low-performing schools, in fact, got less resources? 

Mr. WOTORSON. The finding has been established, actually, for 

quite some time that generally the lowest-performing schools have 

inequitable access to the same kinds of resources and that, more 

often not, students of color tend to be concentrated in those schools. 

Similarly, teachers with the least amount of experience tend to be 

concentrated in those schools, as well. 
50 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Dale, you represent one of the most diverse 

school systems in the nation. When you get your disaggregated 

data and notice that some groups are not achieving and there is, 

in fact, an achievement gap, you have a choice. You can just watch 

or you can try to do something. 

And we have in the legislation kind of cookie-cutter steps. Do you 

do any diagnosis to find out what, in fact, the problem is and prescribe a solution to deal with that problem? Or do you just go 

through some cookie-cutter ideas, whether it fits or not? 

Mr. DALE. We go through individual—let me respond in a couple 

things. One is to piggyback on the resource question. 

The first thing we have done, regardless of Title 1 funding, regardless of IDEA funding, regardless of any state funding, even, is 

we distribute additional resources to our schools that have the 

greater needs, and our greater needs are defined three ways: 

underperforming, high poverty, English-language learners. 

And so we—out of our own local resources—distribute an additional set of staffing and additional time for teachers to address 

that, so we—— 

Mr. SCOTT. That is in addition to Title 1? 

Mr. DALE. In addition, well above Title 1. In fact, it is probably 

twice our Title 1 funding. Then, to diagnose issues in a given 

school, we expect our teachers and our principals to work on individual student needs. And so we get down to the individual student 

to determine why that student is or is not succeeding and provide 

the intervention. That is our quest. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does it work? 

Mr. DALE. We have many schools, in fact, where our 

disaggregation data would suggest that the white middle class is 

the underperforming class, interestingly enough. Yes, it works. 

Mr. SCOTT. Good. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Diaz, you have indicated that you can eliminate the 

achievement gap, and you also suggested that a comprehensive approach was necessary. What kinds of initiatives—you mentioned a 

couple of them—actually eliminate the achievement gap? 

Ms. DIAZ. I think education within our educators is important. 

One of the things that we have tried to do is be very focused about 

our professional development. 

We had a changing community. It was—the immigrant population came to the educators as a surprise. And being able to educate them was quite difficult at the beginning, so utilizing Title 3 

funding to also educate the teachers in how to differentiate instruction for ELL learners. 

The other thing we had to do was re-educate our English-language learner teachers. One of the thing I observed is that traditionally, our ELL teachers were seeing their role as what I call a 

mother hen syndrome, is protecting their ELL students and trying 

to do the best, but it was primarily tutoring services versus teaching content and teaching language acquisition. 

So for the regular classroom teacher, being able to train them so 

that they could provide good teaching for ELL learners, as well, not 

just what I call the Crayola curriculum. Every student in every 

country knows how to color and they don’t need a teacher to teach 

them that. They need to be taught content. 
51 

And the ELL teachers needed to see their jobs as—we need to 

also work with the regular classroom teachers, and we need to provide learning, not just simply tutoring and let me help you with 

your homework. 

The combination of the two and working together so the ELL 

teacher understands what the classroom teacher is doing and vice 

versa and then working together collaboratively during our collaboration period, that is what they are looking—they are looking at 

the data, but what do they need to teach in both arenas? That has 

been very successful. 

Ms. KEARNS. I would like to add that that is ditto for children 

with disabilities. When special ed teachers protect them, it is a lifetime ruin, so we really have to have access to the general curriculum. We have to have professional development. We have to 

have all of those things if the kids are going to meet the standard. 

Chairman KILDEE. The chair now yields 5 minutes to the 

gentlelady from Illinois whose interest in education has been very 

deep, very broad. When she was a member of the state legislature 

in Illinois, she played a key role in the reorganization of the Chicago school district. And it helped turn that district around, and we 

are all very grateful to her for that. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much for those kind words, Mr. 

Chairman. And I would like to kind of address something that we 

haven’t been talking about, but since we are addressing the needs 

of diverse students, I understand that several of you have excellent 

programs to serve homeless students. And I would wonder how 

much of an increase for services there has been since, obviously, 

the climb in the unemployment and the recession. 

And, second of all, I am wondering about—and maybe introducing legislation which would allow Title 1 funds to be available 

for transportation for homeless students, which would then provide 

greater resources for the McKinney-Vento program. And I would 

like to know if your districts receive McKinney-Vento subgrants. 

And maybe Dr. Dale or Dr. Curry, I think you both—— 

Mr. DALE. Yes, thank you for raising that question. Homeless 

children are an issue. Economic circumstances does increase that, 

as parents lose jobs and then children are left—or parents are left 

in trying to grab—migrate to wherever it is they might be able to 

live. 

As we well know, the theory behind the McKinney-Vento act was 

to make sure that the stability for that child was then their school. 

And so when we do that, we obviously do increase transportation 

costs. And while we get funds to cover some of that, it is nowhere 

near the expenditures that we have in Fairfax County. 

We used to spend in excess of $5 million on transportation costs 

for homeless children, children who are foster care, which we have 

put in somewhat the same category of trying to provide stability. 

And while we redesigned some of our transportation processes, we 

are still in excess of $2 million that we are spending to transport 

kids to give them that stable environment in their school. Any assistance in that area would be tremendously helpful. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Dr. Curry? 
52 

Mr. CURRY. And even rural areas are no stranger to issues of the 

homeless. We have a large transient population, and there is a lot 

of movement when jobs are lost to move back home often and move 

in with grandmother and grandfather at times, but sometimes that 

is not a possibility, as well. 

So my district has invested a great deal. And managing the 

homeless, I don’t have any numbers in front of me, but I do know 

that it is significant, and we do not, however, exceed the available 

money through McKinney-Vento, because everything we need has 

been made available. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Is there anybody else that would like to comment 

on that? No? Then I have one other question, and that is about, 

you know, the testing and the IEP. And I know that we had a 

hearing yesterday—and Secretary Duncan said that testing with 

the IEP rather than the general—that single test for those with severe disabilities, he thought, would be an option that he would like 

to look at. 

And, Dr. Curry, you mentioned it, and then, Dr. Kearns, you 

seem to have a little difference of opinion on that, so—— 

Mr. CURRY. Yes, we need to move to measuring progress of all 

students, first of all. How much progress did we make and aim to— 

for those who are behind, to make more than one year’s progress? 

And so overall, for all children, movement to assessments that 

identify progress and movement to assessments that identify 

progress so that we can also reward teachers for helping bring 

about student progress is important. 

And when it comes to special needs populations, when appropriate, their IEP will dictate, will tell you that they should be held 

accountable to the same assessments, but at times that maybe it 

won’t be appropriate, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration and measure of every child’s progress is critical. 

With such a specialized program for a special needs student, you 

have a lot more information to go on, on whether or not that child 

is progressing. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Dr. Kearns? 

Ms. KEARNS. Absolutely the IEP plays an important role. However, I would point out that Bruce is the classic example of a student who had an IEP, and the IEP team failed terribly. And it was 

only because the teacher had to figure out how to assess him for 

his alternate assessment, that she asked for assistance, and that 

is how he got his technology. 

So I would say that absolutely the IEP is an important tool, but 

it is not an accountability tool. The other concern I have about 

using the IEP for that is that we really need parents and teachers 

to form partnerships. And my biggest concern about that is the inherent possibly resulting in litigation, and we really don’t need to 

go there. We really need to reinforce parent-school partnerships. 

But all kids need to be in the assessment and accountability system, and I think Bruce’s example is the classic example of where 

IEP teams sometimes don’t have all the expertise they need to 

make those important decisions. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I see it as a very sensitive issue that we will really have to look at. Thank you both. I yield back. 
53 

Chairman KILDEE. We have been told that we may have a vote 

in about 10, 15 minutes, so we will have to move along as quickly 

as possible because coming back after a series of votes would take 

over an hour, so we will try to move along. 

But the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi? 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to extend my own welcome to the witnesses, particularly Ms. Diaz, who I understand was raised in Puerto Rico. I am 

glad to see, Mr. Chairman, that my fellow Puerto Ricans are contributing to the general welfare of the great state of Michigan. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman KILDEE. We appreciate your generosity in sharing. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Welcome, everyone. Today’s hearing addresses 

educational issues faced by a range of diverse learners. Because I 

have only a brief period of time, I want to focus my questions on 

the needs of English-language learners, which are the fastest growing segment of the nation’s school-age population. 

How well our schools educate the students will dictate the future 

success of our nation. To meet the needs of English learners, our 

schools must provide not only highly qualified teachers of English 

as a second language, but also teachers who can teach the students 

in their native tongue. 

Yet schools in Puerto Rico and in many states are having great 

difficulty in recruiting highly qualified, bilingual teachers certified 

to teach ESL and subject-specific classes in the student’s native 

language. Due to the dearth of quality applicants, many teachers 

of English learners do not have the fluency for ESL teaching skills 

necessary to provide effective instructions to the student population. 

As I see it, the need for high-quality bilingual education extends 

beyond the needs of English learners. We must prepare all students to work and succeed in the 21st century worldwide marketplace and to provide students in the United States with the same 

language skills already required of students in Europe and Asia. 

That is why it is important that high schools graduates of all background be able to communicate in more than one language. 

I should say that, actually, I am impressed with your English, 

Ms. Diaz. I hope that my Spanish matches yours. But that should 

be the goal. I am talking now about Spanish, students who Spanish 

is their first language, but the same applies to other languages. 

I would like now to just ask a couple questions. I know that timing is running. 

Ms. Diaz, I agree with your recommendation that this should 

provide more professional development to teachers working with 

English-language learners. Have you found certain professional development programs to be particularly effective for teachers of 

English learners? Have you used teacher exchanges as a way for 

teachers to learn from other teachers and schools? 

Ms. DIAZ. I have used a SIAP model, and that has been also very 

effective. I have trained all of our English-language teachers in the 

SIAP model within our district. I believe that colleges need to be 

doing a better job. 

And I agree that we need to be focusing on the endorsements of 

teacher prep programs. Most of our colleges are moving away from 
54 

the bilingual model certification process to the ESL model and that 

the difference between the two is, if you are bilingually certified, 

you have to choose a second language to learn and be certified in. 

You have to show proficiency in a second language. In an ESL endorsement model, you do not have to know a second language. 

So primary concern there really comes when you are working not 

only with new immigrant families that need that second language; 

I also find that there is a distinct difference between a teacher that 

has gone through the process of learning a second language and 

their ability to teach immigrant students and someone that has 

not. 

And more importantly, with working with parents, if you have 

that second language, it opens the door very wide open to working 

with the parents and the success that it brings when you educate 

the parents. And you need that second language to be able to do 

so, so I am in complete agreement. [Speaking in Spanish.] 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Oh, my goodness. She is good at that, too. [Laughter.] 

And then, Mr. Dale, Dr. Dale, does your school district have a 

shortage of teachers of English as a second language? And what 

strategies for increasing the number of qualified ESL teachers do 

you have or are using? Any recruitment incentives, professional development? Can you elucidate on this? 

Mr. DALE. We are actually blessed with not having a recruitment 

issue. And we focus on, in our English-language learning program, 

we have probably one of the nation’s premier people in Teddi 

Predaris in knowing how to train our own teachers in how to best 

teach English, because that is—we have two areas to focus on. 

I am going to reinforce the other bilingual component that you 

talked about. We have children from 200 different countries, 120 

different languages, so there is no way we can do dual language. 

We just don’t have that capacity. 

So we focus on teaching all of our English-language learners 

English proficiency and monitor that through Title 3 processes and 

make sure that they, in fact, learn that and exit from the program 

within usually 3 to 4 years max. 

The other piece that I want to note is that we have actually put 

in place our own goals to have all of our children conversant in at 

least two languages upon graduation, because we do also think 

that that is important. 

Now, 40 percent of our kids go home every night where English 

is not the primary language, so we have a benefit of having bilingual, trilingual students already, but we want to make sure they 

are extremely proficient in English, because that is our mission, 

and then also pick up another language to be part of the world. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts? 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I first want to thank each of our witnesses for your testimony 

and, maybe most importantly, for your shared committed to our nation’s children and working to make sure we do right by all of our 

nation’s children. That comes through loud and clear. 
55 

First, just a comment, I guess. Dr. Curry, you talked about your 

concerns with rural school districts. And my oldest sister, who 

taught for about 20 years, for a number of years taught in west 

Texas, where kindergarten to 12, her school had—the entire district had about 100 kids. She was the English department for seventh through twelfth grade. Her graduating class, the one year I 

visited her, was four. 

So your comment of one student, you know, impacting dramatically in that assessment, I think, is something we need to be very 

conscious of in assessing how the school district, the school building, which was all one, or the teachers are doing in the classroom. 

Ms. Diaz, I wanted to specifically ask you—you emphasized the 

importance in your original testimony and in answering questions 

about the family involvement, and I share that completely. Danny 

Davis and I have sponsored legislation, Education Begins at Home, 

about trying to help promote parenting education programs, nurse 

family partnership and others. 

But specifically in the area of literacy, in your area in Michigan, 

if Even Start—is there an Evan Start program in your area? Are 

you familiar with it? And how do you see that working in trying 

to promote family literacy that then helps the parent at home? 

Ms. DIAZ. In our county, we have implemented a similar program 

called Bright Beginnings. And they are very similar, as far as 

foundational beliefs and philosophies, and that—we have a representative stationed in our district to work with parent 0 to 5 and 

performing play groups in our schools. It is a great feeder program, 

and it focuses on literacy skills. 

They go to the home for home visits and they also bring the families into the schools. We have a—we are very fortunate to have a 

bilingual Bright Beginnings representative within our district, and 

she works collaboratively with our district to provide not only literacy skills, but the content that we would like her to focus on, as 

well. 

She is also part—I mentioned the family night, the reading 

night, math night. She is part—actively a part of those nights. And 

she brings the families into those activities and provides them in 

Spanish, as well. 

Mr. PLATTS. Sounds like your district’s really on the ball, as far 

as the importance of that 0 to 5 years and combining the literacy 

with just the broader education skills or foundation through the 

parents. 

Ms. DIAZ. Extremely important to start them out as soon as possible. 

Mr. PLATTS. Yes, thank you. 

Dr. Gipp, you emphasized the importance of Native Americans in 

the classroom with Native American students. Is there a percentage today that you are aware of what percent—if you are familiar 

with those numbers—that are Native American teachers and tells 

us kind of how far we need to get, if we place a greater emphasis 

here? 

Mr. GIPP. Well, within the tribal communities, it still is very, 

very small. We are lucky to have 5 percent to 10 percent of our 

teachers in our school systems, sometimes as high as 20 percent, 
56 

that are teachers in a given school system. But it will vary from 

one school and one tribe to the next. 

Again, a large percentage of our students are educated in public 

school systems, so there are fewer teachers there, so we have a 

major need to redevelop and put forth a teacher initiative to teach 

and train more people to become—Native Americans to become 

teachers. 

Many in the past have already retired, and so it is very important to bring in teachers that also have the cultural identity and 

the teaching of native heritage within the curriculum as we develop 

these systems. 

Mr. PLATTS. Yes, I think well stated. Thank you. 

And I am going to try to squeeze in one last question, Dr. Dale. 

When you talked about the assessment—and if I understood your 

statement correctly, you said a standard assessment across the 

country. And usually we hear local control, not top-down, but bottom-up. And did I understand you correct? 

Because one of my concerns is we are incentivizing—this goes to 

the competitive grant process, also, that Dr. Curry referenced, that 

we are going to incentivize or give more and more money—in fact, 

most of the increase is in the competitive grant category, not in 

Title 1, not in IDEA, but through competitive grant, which I think 

is a point that Dr. Curry made that was important, but also in how 

you do the assessment, if you do a regional, statewide—or a regional approach versus a state doing their own assessment, you are 

disincentivized from doing your own. Can you clarify where you are 

on that? 

Mr. DALE. I think I misspoke, because I remember the words I 

said. What I believe is that we should have a set of national standards, and I think the local assessments in how to get there are still 

fine, because I think we have a sophistication in the assessment industry now to be able to do cross-state comparisons if we can agree 

on a set of standards. 

And my quest would be to make sure that those standards are 

globally competitive, as well. 

Mr. PLATTS. Okay, so but still national standards that, in essence, we are setting here? 

Mr. DALE. I think the notion of trying to get all of the states to 

agree upon a set of standards is a positive direction to go, because 

our kids are so mobile now—— 

Mr. PLATTS. Yes. 

Mr. DALE [continuing]. We do them a disservice to not having 

some kind of assurance. 

Mr. PLATTS. If it is more that cooperative state approach versus 

a national—meaning us—— 

Mr. DALE. Yes, I would agree. Thank you for—— 

Mr. PLATTS. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis? 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Access to quality early childhood education is a very important 

strategy if we are to improve the educational outcomes of at-risk 

students and if we are ever going to truly succeed in making Amer-
57 

ica a leader in college graduates by 2020, which is the goal that 

President Obama has set for the nation and I strongly support. 

I wanted to give you the chance—since it wasn’t covered in the 

testimonies—to address some of the severe inequities the low-income and other at-risk students face before they even enter the 

classroom in kindergarten. Lacking adequate preparation, these 

students are already behind before they even set foot in a public 

school environment. 

I would like to open it up to see who would like to discuss the 

role of expanding access to high-quality early childhood education, 

especially for low-income students, as part of systemic school reform and any recommendations you might have in that area within 

the context of ESEA reauthorization. 

Yes, Dr. Curry? 

Mr. CURRY. Quality early childhood, pre-kindergarten opportunities ought to be generally available to all students. I think some 

states have done a better job of opening up access so that all children as 4-year-olds can have the opportunity for school. 

But it is something that I have no doubt as an elementary educator initially that that early intervention is critical, and that is 

the—without that, that is, indeed, part of the deficit that many 

children come in the door with, is that they didn’t have the same 

opportunities. So that needs to be strengthened. It would be helped 

with some federal dollars to help support that. 

Mr. POLIS. Ms. Diaz? 

Ms. DIAZ. I would encourage partnership. There is a lot of early 

childhood programs. Bright Beginnings is one I have mentioned already. Head Start is also stationed within our district. We have a 

strong preschool program with the Great Start Readiness Program, 

and we have all-day kindergarten. 

With our immigrant population, that has become very effective, 

as well, and all-day, everyday kindergarten program. That solid 

foundation between Bright Beginnings, Head Start, pre-school, and 

all-day kindergarten has brought incredible results. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay, yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all of you for being here. 

I wanted to focus on the diversity of the teaching force for a moment. According to the Department of Education statistics from 

2007 and 2008—and may well be quite aware of this—83 percent 

of public school teachers were white, 7 percent Latino, 7 percent 

African-American, and overall, 75 percent were female. 

So we have a problem. There aren’t enough Latino and AfricanAmerican teachers, but particularly male teachers for a diverse 

teaching force. 

The Washington Post ran an article last summer basically talking about the fact that young male African-American students really don’t feel that they belong in a classroom. Interestingly enough, 

it doesn’t affect the young women quite as much, because at least 

they have a female model, even though it may be an Anglo model 

in the classroom. 
58 

And I wonder if you could speak a little bit to this issue. I actually was on the board of San Diego Unified from 1983 to 1992. And 

at that time, we created the African-American Male Project, which 

recognized that it was impossible to put—to have a teacher in 

every classroom, but if we could group students and at least they 

could have a benefit of a really good and strong role model. 

What is—you know, from your experience, how really as we move 

forward with the new authorization, what is it that you would like 

to see there that the Department of Education could be doing to increase that kind of diversity? 

Mr. DALE. I would like to jump in on that one, because I share 

with you—and I would add into the mix the shortage of Asian 

teachers in general, male and female both, is a very underrepresented group. 

I think the incentive in the pipeline is there are a lot of people 

who entered education with various incentive programs several 

decades ago that no longer exist, but I think that is the key piece. 

The other ones are new teachers for America programs that actually go out and overtly begin to recruit underrepresented groups of 

individuals. 

And the final piece that we need to pay attention to is our workforce is changing, and we are now experiencing people with multiple careers. And so it is not just the college area, but it is out of 

the general workforce where people are now wanting to come into 

to education. So we have to have our sights on not only recruiting 

in the pipeline and through college, but also as people are changing 

positions in their own careers and lives. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And as a few more, if you can respond—but, you 

know, I think intuitively, we know how important this is. I don’t 

know whether—do we have really statistics that show that it really 

does make a difference in terms of the performance of young African-American males, for example, or other groups? 

Mr. GIPP. I was just going to say that teacher training initiatives 

are a major priority for us with respect to tribal and Indian communities across the nation. We need to set a goal of recruiting at 

least 2,500 new Indian teachers in our systems alone, and that is 

probably the low side of it, out of the Department of Education’s 

goal of 200,000. 

And we need to reauthorize teacher training initiative for tribal 

colleges and universities that I was talking about earlier. And we 

need to have a tribal priority allocation for native teacher recruitment. We need to do very strong recruitment. If we don’t, then, you 

know, nothing is going to move and nothing is going to happen. 

And I am not convinced that enough is being done across the board 

when we talk about these special populations, particularly with 

Native Americans. 

Mr. WOTORSON. I would just say very briefly that the federal government can support the incentivizing process to ensure that we 

do, in fact, not only recruit more diverse teachers, but also to retain 

and support them. 

As you well know, part of what we are struggling against is a 

perception in our country today that the teaching force is no longer 

an honorable or desirable profession. We have to figure out a way 

to reverse that trend. 
59 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. CURRY. And if I could add, continue to support alternative 

routes to education. My community is—even though it is a rural 

community, we are 25 percent African-American, we struggle just 

the same, of getting enough good role models. Many times we get 

them from the military. We continue also to support ways to get, 

you know, troops into the classroom after their retirement after 

they do their term. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. My time is up, but if I might just say, 

I am very interested in the evaluation process that we are talking 

about in the new reauthorization. If you have some ideas or 

thoughts about that, I would certainly welcome how we can do a 

better job of incentivizing school districts and schools to have good 

oversight in terms of principal evaluations, as well as teachers. 

Thanks a lot. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Diaz, I just wanted to commend you on your collaborative 

model in your district, especially as it pertains to English-learner 

students. Since I have so many in my district, I was very, very interested in that. And I was impressed by how you include every 

stakeholder, including teachers, who are able to have input into the 

process. 

Now, my question pertains to assessment. According to No Child 

Left Behind, English learners were supposed to be given tests that 

were appropriate for them, but we had a problem in California and 

continue to have it, where English learner students are given the 

mainstream English language assessment test the moment they 

walk in the door. 

And, of course, the students don’t understand it, they fail miserably, and that is their first experience with the school. I am wondering how you dealt with the whole assessment issue. 

Ms. DIAZ. In Michigan, we have two tracks for assessing Englishlanguage learners. We are testing them, their language acquisition 

knowledge, with LVA, and we are also assessing their content acquisition with the regular state assessment, the MEAP. 

We have provided 9 months of reprieve for new immigrants that 

are coming to the states for the first time. And we are grateful for 

that. We do feel that as they increase in grade levels, it does become more difficult for the students to not only acquire the English 

language, but the content level that is required. 

And so 9 months is not quite enough, if you come in as a brandnew immigrant to—as a sophomore, for example, in a high school 

and are expected to know all the content area that goes along with 

that. And so it is a challenge, and the modifications that would be 

required would probably be more time, granting them more time to 

be able to acquire the language and then, also, of course, the content. 

It is important. We do our best, and it is difficult, and we have 

to have high expectations, because we—I also see it as a delicate 

balance for educators to also get a little lazy with that time period 

that we would give them as time to acquire, so there needs to be 
60 

a delicate balance between making sure that during that time effective teaching is happening and that we are not sheltering them 

and mother-henning them, as I explained earlier, but also utilizing 

that time very effectively to maximize their language acquisition 

learning. 

Ms. CHU. Are you giving them the same test—does every student 

get the same test? Because an alternative would be a test that may 

be more appropriate for them. 

Ms. DIAZ. Yes, they do have the same test. There are some modifications that we can—standard modifications that we could utilize 

for ELL learners. And, again, we appreciate that, but there could 

be more. 

Ms. CHU. And do you do those modifications to the assessments? 

Ms. DIAZ. Yes. Yes. We absolutely utilize every modification that 

we are provided with. 

Ms. CHU. Dr. Dale? 

Mr. DALE. In Virginia, we have an alternative assessment that 

was not only able to be used for special needs, but also our early 

English-language learners in the assessment of reading competency 

or literacy competency, really. And so we basically had an alternative assessment available for the first 2 years of their Englishlanguage learning, and they were able to demonstrate literacy competency versus trying to—test could just become an English-language vocabulary test if it is not done in an alternative manner. 

So we were able to do that during those first 2 years, and then 

they moved into the regular assessment. 

Ms. CHU. And what was the benefit of doing it that way? 

Mr. DALE. The benefit of doing it that way was to allow our children to demonstrate literacy competency while still recognizing 

they are still learning English. And they on the human side of it 

could recognize that, oh, I actually know what is expected, and so 

allow that kind of growth and development to continue to occur, instead of discouragement that you were speaking of. 

Ms. CHU. Right. And, finally, Ms. Diaz, you emphasized parental 

involvement. The California Association of Bilingual Educators 

brought to my attention the elimination of funding in the president’s budget for parental information and resource centers. They 

use the funding extensively to help ELL parents in California become involved in the school system. What impact does this funding 

elimination have on your school district’s ability to engage ELL 

students? Or where did you get the funding to involve the ELL parents? 

Ms. DIAZ. We utilized Title 3 immigrant funding and limited 

English proficient funding for our parent involvement. We have 

had this Parents Are Teachers program for about 10 years now, 

and it has always come from the Title 3 funding. 

With the immigrant funding, this year, we added the before-and 

after-school tutoring. What is unique about that is that we have 

the regular content teachers re-teaching the content for the students, and that is very critical. 

You know, our parent involvement has been a very strong part 

of our success in educating the parents. When they understand 

what they can do at home, they are empowered to really make 

those changes. They tell us that because of that, their lives have 
61 

changed, not just what they do routinely on a daily basis at home 

with what we have taught, but their jobs. They are much more successful citizens, as well. They have gone on to, you know, go on to 

college, get GEDs, get, you know, promotions at work to supervisory positions. 

And so it empowers them as citizens, as well, when we can incorporate parental involvement. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. This panel has individually and collectively been very helpful to the committee, as we 

work our way through the reauthorization of this bill. I want to 

thank the staff for bringing together such a distinguished group, 

again, individually and collectively. It has been very helpful to us. 

I love hearings, because you really get people who are expert in 

this, see this every day, and bring that expertise here to Washington, and so I thank you very much. 

As previously ordered, members will have 14 calendar days to 

submit additional materials for the hearing record. And any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within the requisite time. 

Without objection and with thanks, this hearing is adjourned. 

[An additional submission from Mr. Kildee follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Tribal Education Departments National 

Assembly 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is currently up for Reauthorization and it is the most important federal law that applies to American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribal students. The ESEA currently has 10 Titles with multiple 

programs. Some are general programs, like the Title I Improving Basic Programs, 

and some are specific to Native Americans, like the Title VII Indian Education Act 

programs. Tribal students, whether they attend Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 

funded schools or state public schools, are served by all of the ESEA programs. And, 

all of the programs could do more to help tribal students by recognizing a role, or 

by enhancing the role or roles, including in public school education, of tribal governments as sovereign nations. Tribal governments are a major untapped resource in 

education, and this ESEA Reauthorization needs to change that. 

Over 200 of the over 560 federally-recognized tribal governments today have education agencies. Known as ‘‘Tribal Education Departments’’ (TEDs) or ‘‘Tribal Education Agencies’’ (TEAs), these tribal governmental agencies can help the non-tribal 

federal and state governments serve tribal students. TEDs / TEAs can assist with 

the most fundamental education improvement and accountability functions like data 

collection, reporting, and analysis. TEDs / TEAs can help in other areas as well, including the development of curricula, standards, and assessments; teacher training; 

research; and, specific local initiatives like truancy intervention, drop out prevention, and tutoring programs. 

In particular, TEDs / TEAs are in a unique position to coordinate data on tribal 

students that is generated by various and sometimes multiple sources, including 

federal education programs, public school systems, states, and BIE-funded schools. 

For tribal students, this never has happened before; right now we can only imagine 

accurate and current tribe-wide, statewide, or nationwide data-based reports on tribal students. But if such reports were available, agencies and legislatures of all governments could make data-driven decisions regarding tribal students as they implement the next Reauthorization of the ESEA. 

For the data roles of TEDs / TEAs to reach their full potential, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) needs to be clarified by an amendment that 

includes TEDs / TEAs as being among the education agencies, authorities, and officials to whom protected student records and information can be released without the 

advance consent of parents or students. Such an amendment to FERPA would be 

consistent with the TED / TEA programs authorized by Congress since the ESEA 
62 

Reauthorizations of 1988 and 1994 and thus would bring FERPA up to date and 

in accord with the ESEA. 

TEDs and TEAs in the ESEA 

The current ESEA authorizes TEDs / TEAs in Title VII and Title X. Both Titles 

contemplate that TEDs / TEAs will coordinate education programs; develop and enforce tribal education codes, policies, and standards; and provide support services 

and technical assistance to schools and programs. Unfortunately, the funding authorized to support this work in Titles VII and X never has been appropriated. This 

Reauthorization should retain both TED / TEA program provisions, increase their 

funding levels to at least $25 million, and strengthen them. Moreover, each ESEA 

Title needs to better connect TEDs / TEAs with states, public school districts, BIEfunded schools, and the various federal education programs that serve tribal students. 

Title I: TEDs as SEAs, Increased Tribal-State Relations; and Teaching Tribal Sovereignty 

Title I is and always has been the biggest ESEA program (over $15 billion annually). State Educational Agencies (SEAs) can get Title I funds if they submit proper 

plans that address academic standards, assessments, and accountability; teaching 

and learning support; parental involvement; and reporting. In the development of 

these state education plans, which are a prerequisite for Title I funds; there is no 

specified role for TEDs / TEAs. This has severely limited or impaired the ability of 

TEDs / TEAs to work with SEAs. The following three recommendations should be 

incorporated into Title I: 

1) TEDs / TEAs should be Authorized to Perform SEA functions within Tribal 

Geographic Territories 

TEDs / TEAs should be authorized to perform SEA functions within significantly 

large tribal geographic territories that include a high percentage of tribal students 

served by Title I. For example, twelve Indian reservations are larger than the State 

of Rhode Island, and nine reservations are larger than the State of Delaware. Instead of being part of a state’s Title I education plan, the TEDs / TEAs that serve 

these large tribal geographic bases should be allowed to develop a reservation-wide 

or a tribal-wide plan for Title I funds, which the TED / TEA should submit directly 

to the U.S. Department of Education. If the U.S. Education Department approves 

the TED’s / TEA’s plan, the TED / TEA should get Title I funds directly from the 

Department and perform the SEA services within the Tribe’s geographic territory. 

Presumably, not every TED / TEAs would immediately seek SEA status—some 

TEDs / TEAs are ready and willing to perform SEA functions immediately while 

others will take several years to develop the necessary capacity and infrastructure. 

For example, the TED / TEA of the Navajo Nation is already performing SEA-like 

functions on the Navajo Reservation and is currently working with the BIE to seek 

official designation as a SEA. Another TED / TEA that is seeking SEA status is that 

of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. But although the vast majority of TEDs / TEAs are not 

likely to seek SEA status in the immediate future, they should have that option 

when they are ready. 

Where TEDs / TEAs do get Title I funds directly under an approved tribal-wide 

plan, TEDs / TEAs should have the option of sub-granting the Title I funds to the 

public schools that serve tribal students, or co-administering the Title I funds with 

the public schools, or even administering the Title I funds themselves. 

These changes will connect Title I funds and programs with states and tribes. The 

recommendations may sound radical, but the fact is that the BIE-funded schools 

have long been able to administer Title I grants directly. And the most recent ESEA 

Reauthorization—the No Child Left Behind Act—went even further to allow TEDs 

/ TEAs to set standards in BIE-funded schools and even accredit BIE-funded 

schools. The public schools, where 92% of tribal students go, now need these same 

kinds of options. 

2) States should be Required to Meet with TEDs or TEAs as a Condition of 

Receiving Title I funds 

In other instances, outside of significantly large tribal geographic territories, 

where there are TEDs / TEAs located within states, the ESEA should, at a minimum, require the SEAs of those states to identify the TEDs / TEAs, meet with 

them on a quarterly basis, develop joint strategies for improving education in 

schools with tribal students served by Title I, and jointly report on the results of 

such meetings to the U.S. Education and the Interior Departments as a condition 

of receiving Title I funds. 
63 

3) Encourage or Mandate the Teaching of Tribal Sovereignty as a Condition 

of Receiving Title I Funds 

Yet another suggestion for the Title I program would be to encourage those states 

receiving Title I funds that have TEDs / TEAs operating within their borders, if 

they do not already have one, and there are five states that do—California, Maine, 

Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin—to enact state laws that mandate the teaching 

of tribal sovereignty in their K-12 curriculum on a regular basis. If a state chooses 

not to enact such a law, TEDs / TEAs with students served by Title I funding must 

be allowed to develop such a curriculum mandate that the public schools must follow. 

Titles II and III: Native Language Curricula and Teacher Certification 

Twelve states—Arizona, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—now have 

laws that address tribal language curriculum and the certification of teachers for 

these curricula in their public schools. All of these laws acknowledge a role of tribes 

as sovereigns in the development and implementation of these laws. The Reauthorized ESEA should require the SEAs and the TEDs / TEAs in these states to jointly 

track the progress made in implementing these laws and their impacts on students, 

and to jointly report on these matters to the Department of Education and Congress. Further, the ESEA Reauthorization should authorize, at least on a nationwide pilot project basis, other states and tribes to enter into compacts or agreements 

for tribal language curricula development and teacher certification, and authorize 

appropriate funding to implement such compacts or agreements. 

Titles VII and VIII: Tribal Eligibility or Increased Eligibility as Grantees 

In the ESEA Reauthorization, for the Indian Education Act Formula Grant programs and for Impact Aid funding, tribes should be eligible or increasingly eligible 

to receive directly these funds, if a tribe has a TED / TEA and is willing to enter 

into a compact with a public school district to co-manage and co-administer these 

funds. For the most part, public school districts have not been willing to voluntarily 

agree to such arrangements, and thus the ESEA should allow the funding to go to 

eligible Tribes that then would be required to enter into cooperative agreements 

with public school districts. 

Title IX: Definition, Tribal Consolidated Plans and Reporting, Tribal Waivers 

1) Definition 

The ESEA and other federal statutes at present have several different definitions 

of TEDs / TEAs which has caused some confusion. The following definition of TEDs 

/ TEAs should be included in the next ESEA Reauthorization definitional section: 

(ll) Tribal educational agency 

The term ‘‘Tribal educational agency’’ means the authorized governmental agency 

of a federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribe (as defined in 25 

U.S.C. §450b) that is primarily responsible for regulating, administering, or supervising the formal education of tribe members. ‘‘Tribal education agency’’ includes 

tribal education departments, tribal divisions of education, tribally sanctioned education authorities, tribal education administrative planning and development agencies, tribal education agencies, and tribal administrative education entities. 

2) Tribes receiving ESEA funding should, like SEAs, be Eligible to Consolidate 

Administrative Funds eligible for Consolidation 

Currently, Part B of Title IX allows SEAs to consolidate administrative funds 

available in ESEA programs eligible for consolidation if the SEA can demonstrate 

that the majority of its resources are from non-Federal sources. TEDs / TEAs receiving ESEA funding should be able to consolidate administrative funds according to 

the same set of requirements. 

Tribal students are served by programs funded from federal, private, tribal, and 

state sources. Potentially all of these programs contain funds to be used for administrative purposes. The authority of TEDs / TEAs to consolidatie administrative funds 

received will reduce waste and ensure efficient program management at the tribal 

level. 

3) Tribes, Like SEAs, should be Authorized to Submit ESEA Consolidated 

Plans and Consolidated Annual Reports 

Currently, Title IX Part C allows SEAs to submit ESEA consolidated plans and 

consolidated annual reports. Consolidated plans include general information about 

each program and a single set of assurances applicable to each program. Consolidated annual reports replace individual annual reports for each program included 
64 

in the consolidated annual report. TEDs / TEAs receiving ESEA funding similarly 

should be eligible to submit consolidated plans and consolidated annual reports. 

The purposes of Part C are to ‘‘improve teaching and learning, by encouraging 

greater cross-program coordination, planning and service delivery’’ and to provide 

greater flexibility through consolidated plans, applications, and reporting. No Child 

Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §7841. For tribal students, the potential need for program coordination is particularly great. Authorizing TEDs / TEAs to submit consolidated plans and consolidated reports is consistent with the express purposes of Part 

C. 

4) Tribes should be Eligible to Request Title IX Waivers for Public Schools 

within Tribal Geographic Territories 

Currently, Title IX Part D allows for waivers by the Secretary of Education of 

ESEA statutory and regulatory requirements. Tribes are among the eligible entities 

that may request a waiver for tribally operated schools. The ESEA reauthorization 

should retain this option and extend the option for TEDs / TEAs to seek waivers 

of statutory and regulatory requirements for public schools at least within significantly large tribal geographic territories. 

Such waivers have the potential to allow TEDs / TEAs the flexibility and local 

control needed to improve the academic performance of tribal students. Specifically, 

various reports and research show that tribal students generally perform better 

when taught using tribal language and culture. The Navajo Nation has requested 

a Title IX waiver to develop its own definition of AYP. Other Tribes could request 

waivers to develop their own standards, assessments, and curriculum to meet the 

unique cultural-academic needs and goals of their communities. 

Conclusion 

The drop out rate of tribal secondary and elementary students nationwide remains an alarmingly high 50%. All stakeholders that are affected by this dire statistic and other troubling statistics regarding tribal student academic achievement, 

test scores, and college readiness, stand to gain from enhanced roles of TEDs / TEAs 

in the ESEA Reauthorization. The recommendations in this report will result in crucial structural and programmatic changes and support to develop TED / TEA roles 

and capacity to better-serve tribal students. 

[An additional submission from Mr. Miller follows:] 

March 25, 2010. 

Chairman GEORGE MILLER, 

Committee on Education and Labor, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Supplemental Testimony for Subcommittee hearing on ‘‘Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization: Addressing the Needs of Diverse Students’’ 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) staff attended the March 18, 2010 hearing of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) Reauthorization: Addressing the Needs of Diverse Students’’ and offers this 

letter to supplement the record on the use of a student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) as in accountability tool. 

Dr. Daniel Curry testified that one of the ways in which rural school districts 

could be helped in ESEA reauthorization would be to use a student’s IEP as an accountability measure under the ESEA. No other witness testified in support of this 

position. Dr. Jacqui Farmer Kearns testified that the IEP should not be used as an 

accountability tool, as that was not its intent. She also testified that if the IEP were 

to be used as an accountability tool it could result in an increase in litigation under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

NDRN strongly agrees with Dr. Kearns’ testimony that a student’s IEP should not 

be used as an accountability measure for ESEA purposes. The IEP lists a student’s 

current level of educational performance, annual goals designed to meet the needs 

arising from the disability, how progress is to be measured, and the services to be 

provided to the student. Therefore, even for students with the most severe disabilities, the IEP does not address all areas of a student with a disability’s education 

and does not serve as the student’s curriculum. Furthermore, the IEP is not necessarily grounded in any outside objective measure, such as the regular education 

curriculum. Thus, strong performance on a student’s IEP goals need not have any 

connection to progress in the general curriculum. 
65 

One of the benefits of the NCLB is the expectation that all students, including 

students with disabilities, are expected to learn. This was operationalized by requiring that all but a small percentage of students with disabilities be given the same 

assessments as all other students. This requirement allows us to know how students 

with disabilities are performing compared to their peers who do not have disabilities. It provides an objective way to determine how students with disabilities are 

performing on an outside measure of performance tied to the expectations for all 

students. It would be harmful to remove this critical, objective mode of comparison 

at this time, as students with disabilities, even those who should be expected to perform at grade level, continue to lag behind their peers who do not have disabilities. 

There are other options within NCLB’s current framework that could be utilized 

to more accurately measure how students with disabilities are performing on grade 

level content without removing them from the ESEA accountability system. For example, NCLB currently allows students with disabilities to take the same assessment which is given to all other students, but with accommodations as approved 

within an IEP. However, certain accommodations have been deemed to invalidate 

the test, even if the accommodations have been approved by the IEP team, are used 

by the student in all course work, and may very well be used by the student for 

the rest of his or her life. These restrictions should be lifted from any reauthorization of the ESEA to better enable students with disabilities to demonstrate their 

proficiency. 

Finally, as Dr. Kearns testified, using the IEP as an accountability measure 

would increase litigation under IDEA. It is our experience that the ways in which 

a student’s progress is measured are not the subject of IDEA due process hearings 

with any frequency. The primary issues raised in due process tend to pertain to the 

nature or amount of services being provided to a student, whether the student’s 

placement is in the least restrictive environment, and other issues concerning the 

nature of the students program. If the IEP were to become the accountability measure, it would place this issue at the forefront of litigation. An increase in litigation 

would only divert resources from cash-strapped schools and increase tension between those schools and parents. Given the negative academic and financial consequences of using the IEP as an accountability mechanism, NDRN strongly advises 

against it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

RONALD M. HAGER, 

Senior Staff Attorney. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]