September 5, 2007

Honorable George Miller
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I write to express my appreciation for your work to date on reauthorization 
  of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and to provide the Department 
  of Education's general comments on the August 28 "Miller-McKeon discussion 
  draft" of Title I of NCLB, as posted on the Committee's Web site. I am 
  encouraged that reauthorization is moving ahead and look forward to working 
  with you throughout the legislative process to achieve a final bill that meets 
  our shared goals.

At the outset, I am pleased that two of the bright-line principles of NCLB 
  would remain in place: every child performing at or above grade level in reading 
  and math by 2014; and annual assessments and disaggregation of data by subgroups. 
  I also appreciate that the discussion draft incorporates some of the specific 
  policy concepts proposed by the Administration to build on the reforms made 
  by NCLB, including growth models, increased rigor and accountability in high 
  school, and differentiated consequences, which allow States to prioritize schools 
  in improvement based on the specific needs of the school and its students.

While these aspects of the draft bill establish a solid basis for further discussion, 
  I am deeply troubled that the draft would decrease information and options for 
  students and parents - a key bright-line principle of NCLB. I have outlined 
  this and other serious concerns with the discussion draft below.

**Complexity and Transparency**

The overall approach to holding schools and school districts accountable for 
  improved academic achievement is far more complex than current law, which will 
  make it more difficult for parents to clearly understand if their children are 
  learning and if their schools are doing a good job.

The increased complexity would make it far more difficult to provide a clear 
  picture of progress. As the person who oversees and works with States on their 
  data and accountability systems, I have grave reservations about the capacity 
  and capability of States and districts to administer the complex level of accountability 
  that is proposed in the discussion draft. We could easily lose simple transparency 
  about whether schools are teaching students to read and do math on grade level, 
  and obscure what's actually going on in schools under this new approach. Ultimately, 
  we run the risk of creating a very confusing and burdensome process for all 
  who play a part in educating our children, including parents, teachers, principals, 
  superintendents, school board members, and other public officials. I am also 
  concerned that some of the bill's provisions would be burdensome and costly 
  for States and districts to implement, such as required school district audits 
  of student mobility and additional reporting requirements.

**Accountability**

While I agree that the Act should provide some additional flexibility in measuring 
  student progress on reading and math assessments, the draft bill would make 
  it too easy for many low-performing schools to escape needed intervention and 
  improvement. As a consequence, parents and the rest of the community would be 
  led to believe that the current achievement gap is acceptable. The discussion 
  draft would provide several additional methods by which a school could demonstrate 
  that it is making adequate yearly progress (AYP), the basic element of NCLB's 
  accountability system - even if student performance in reading and math falls 
  short. With the inclusion of nonacademic indicators in determinations of student 
  progress in reading and math, student proficiency scores in those subjects would 
  no longer be accurate reflections of their basic reading and math ability. Proficiency 
  in these core areas forms the gateway to learning in other subjects. Finally, 
  the pervasive inclusion of statistical adjustments and other data manipulations 
  creates a greater potential for masking students' and schools' true performance. 
  The fact that fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic fourth graders 
  have fundamental reading skills, as defined by the Nation's Report Card, makes 
  it a moral imperative to continue to close the achievement gap, and to refuse 
  to accept any approach that threatens to turn back the clock on accountability.

**School Improvement and Parental Options**

Although I am pleased with the general concept of recognizing that schools 
  that fail to make AYP across the board should be required to implement more 
  serious interventions than those that narrowly miss making AYP, I am concerned 
  that, under the language in the draft, a low-performing school might never be 
  held accountable for real change or be required to provide real options for 
  parents. Our reading of the draft allows a school to become worse over time 
  and actually start over in the interventions and assistance timeline.

While I support increased accountability in the provision of supplemental educational 
  services, I am extremely concerned that the draft bill would significantly restrict 
  the opportunities for children in schools that fail to make AYP to obtain free 
  tutoring to help increase their academic proficiency, whether by limiting the 
  situations in which those students would have the right to tutoring or by reducing 
  the amount of funds available to pay for tutoring. The opportunity to obtain 
  this aid should be expanded, as proposed by the Administration, not curtailed, 
  in order to meet the goal of having all students on grade level by 2014. I am 
  likewise concerned that the bill restricts public school choice options and 
  does not include additional private school options for low-income students as 
  proposed by the Administration.

**Students with Disabilities and with Limited English Proficiency**

The changes to the accountability system for students with disabilities and 
  students with limited English proficiency will exclude more students and allow 
  them to be held to lower standards, even though these two groups have made some 
  of the most significant progress under NCLB. For example, in order to ensure 
  that tests given to limited English proficient (LEP) students actually measure 
  their knowledge of the particular subject matter, instead of their knowledge 
  of the English language, current law permits States to test LEP students in 
  their native language for up to three years, and for an additional two years 
  on a case-by-case basis. For those States that administer native language assessments, 
  the discussion draft would extend the three-year provision to permit five years 
  of testing in the native language (while retaining the additional two years 
  on a case-by-case basis). That's simply too long; this would allow a third-grade 
  student to reach the tenth grade before ever being tested in English. States 
  and school districts need to be held accountable for ensuring that LEP students 
  learn English and should be given incentives to accelerate, not slow down, the 
  learning of English, especially when approximately two-thirds of LEP students 
  are born in the United States. Similarly, I am concerned that an increase in 
  the number of students with disabilities who are allowed to take alternate or 
  modified assessments could lead to ignoring those students' academic progress.

**High Schools**

I am pleased to see movement toward providing a clearer picture of high school 
  accountability, which is critical to our Nation's competitiveness. While the 
  Administration supports increasing high school rigor and accountability, we 
  believe this can be best achieved by expanding the existing Title I program 
  rather than creating a costly new high school program. The Administration supports 
  reforming Title I so that more funds flow to high schools, and provides significant 
  new funds in Title I to do so.

I am also concerned that the bill provides incentives for States and districts 
  to use a five-year graduation rate for accountability for all students. It should 
  instead use the commonsense four-year period for most students, as specified 
  in the National Governors Association's graduation rate compact, which all 50 
  Governors have affirmed.

**Moving Forward**

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is working. Test scores are rising and 
  achievement gaps are narrowing. For the last forty years, the federal role in 
  education has focused on leveling the playing field for our neediest students, 
  and I am concerned that this draft walks away from that commitment. As we work 
  to strengthen and renew NCLB this year, we must increase the law's flexibility, 
  but not remove its power and sense of urgency entirely. Thanks to this law, 
  we're finally shining a bright light on every child's achievement. We don't 
  always like what we see, but instead of obscuring what the law has uncovered, 
  we must focus on the hard work ahead. Now is the time to build on the progress 
  we have seen and the many lessons we have learned to target resources, improve 
  policy, and enhance competitiveness. I look forward to working with you in this 
  vital effort.

| | Sincerely,        
| | ------------------
| | /s/               
| | Margaret Spellings

(Note: An identical letter was sent to Honorable Dale E. Kildee, Honorable 
  Michael N. Castle, and Honorable Howard "Buck" McKeon)

|Last Modified: 09/06/2007
|-------------------------