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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–324 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–423

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, FOCUSING ON ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS, PARENT AND STUDENT CHOICE, FLEXIBILITY FOR STATES,

SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND SCHOOLS, AND PROGRESS TO DATE

APRIL 23, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MIKE DeWINE, Ohio

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

TOWNSEND LANGE MCNITT, Minority Staff Director

(III)

CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

APRIL 23, 2002

Page

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

Labor, and Pensions, opening statement ........................................................... 1

Gregg, Hon. Judd, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 2

Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Frist, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, prepared statement ............... 5

Questions from Senator Frist for Undersecretary Hickock and Assistant Secretary Neuman ..................................................................................................... 5

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from Wyoming, prepared statement ...... 6

Hickock, Hon. Eugene W., Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,

accompanied by Susan B. Neuman, Assistant Secretary for Elementary

and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 9

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in room SD430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Jeffords, Wellstone, Murray,

Reed, Clinton, Gregg, and Collins.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I apologize to our witnesses. This vote was initially for 11 o’clock,

then 11:30, and finally at 2:30, so I apologize for the late start.

In January, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act

that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The new law is a product of strong bipartisan cooperation and hard

work, and I was pleased that our committee members played a lead

role in enacting that law.

But no matter what the law says, it will make a difference to

students, parents and communities only if it is implemented well.

If we are to ensure that no child is left behind, we must unite

around three key principles—fairness, public engagement, and increased resources.

First, we must ensure that the law is applied fairly, allowing

room for State and local initiatives permitted under the new law.

In passing the new law, Congress was clear about its expectations.

We demanded tough accountability for results. We want to know

whether schools are improving and helping our children do better.

We required annual tests of the highest quality that provide the

disaggregated data that schools need to know in order to determine

what additional help is required for each and every child to succeed. We included new improvements to help train and support

teachers so that every child in America is taught by a well-qualified teacher.

However, within those guidelines, States and districts have the

flexibility to fund programs that meet those goals, including reading programs, professional development programs, technology programs, or after-school programs, as long as they have been proven

to work.

We must uphold this principle as we provide information to

States and communities about how to implement the law. For too

2

long, we have only said that every child can learn to high standards. But we have not always devoted the time, attention, and resources to making that promise a reality for all children.

Second, we must ensure that States, districts, schools, and parents are full partners in the reform effort by engaging them in the

process of implementation. Without their support at each stage of

the process, this new law will never fully succeed.

We must take local concerns seriously and work to address them.

We must provide ample information on how to make this law work,

and we must do so soon. We must continue to provide technical assistance now, next year, the year after, to make sure such reforms

in the law are implemented and implemented well from the beginning and continuing during the succeeding years.

I hope that we will hear fewer reports of educators who say that

parents do not want to be involved in their children’s education

and parents who say that educators make them feel unwelcome.

Third, we must provide significant increases in the funding to ensure that the law is a success and that truly no child is left behind.

We have made a down payment on school reform last year, but we

have a continuing and growing obligation to help teachers and students. Even with last year’s increase, the funding for the Title I

program still leaves behind 6 million needy children. I am deeply

concerned that the administration’s budget for next year proposes

to actually cut funding for public school reform and divert resources to private schools.

The new law requires hard progress each and every year. It demands more of teachers and students to ensure that all children

reach high goals to meet the challenges of the 21st century. To

meet this challenge, we will need to train more teachers, not the

18,000 fewer as the administration’s budget proposes. We will need

to provide school districts with more services for limited Englishproficient children, not 25,000 fewer as the administration proposes. We will need more after-school learning opportunities for

latchkey children, not the 33,000 fewer as the administration proposes. I think we all know that you do not achieve high standards

on low budgets.

If we can work together, I am confident we can succeed in giving

every child a good education.

We welcome Under Secretary Gene Hickok to our hearing today,

the first in a series of oversight hearings that we plan on the new

law. We look forward to learning about the Department of Education’s progress, and I can say personally that I welcomed the opportunity to spend time recently with Under Secretary Hickok at

the Department of Education, raising these issues and some others

that we will have a chance to talk about. I appreciated his willingness to listen to some of the points that we raised and take them

under consideration.

Senator Gregg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GREGG

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.

First, let me thank you for holding this hearing—I think it is a

good idea—and I also want to congratulate you for your attentiveness to this bill, which we worked so hard on, and the fact that you

3

have personally taken the time to not only follow it on the Hill but

go down to the Department and make sure everybody is on their

toes down there.

There is a lot in this bill, and therefore, it is going to take a lot

of us paying attention to it to make sure it is done well. But the

priority goal of this bill is very simple—to make sure that children

from low-income families have the opportunity to learn and that

they not be left behind as, regrettably, they have been, and that

Title I become an effective means for accomplishing that.

Some of the issues which I am most interested in obviously involve the empowerment of parents when they find their children in

schools which have failed and which continue to fail, and that involves how the Department is going to address things like public

school choice and supplemental services, which I think will give

parents options which could turn out to be of tremendous benefit

to them and certainly to their children.

We also obviously have to address some of the specific issues

such as how we test, what types of testing regimes are set up, and

make sure that we do not as a Federal Government become overly

meddlesome in the States’ rights to design their tests, but also recognize that States do have an obligation to have tests which mean

something in the sense that they have to be comparable from community to community within their States, so that as we move into

local assessment tests, we have a balanced way of comparing them.

And we do, of course, have the question of criterion versus normreferenced tests, which all of us recognize as an issue that has to

be dealt with.

Most important in this whole atmosphere, though, is the need to

make sure that we do not create an unfunded mandate here, that

the cost of going forward with these tests which we are now requiring of the States will be borne by the Federal Government. There

have been, I believe, a number of good studies in this area, and I

believe the dollars which the President has put into this account

effectively cover that issue in light of those studies, and I believe

there have been some studies which have serious defects which

may misrepresent that issue, but I do believe that an honest assessment says that the huge amount of money which we have put

into this bill for testing and to pay for testing is appropriate and

will cover that.

I am also interested in how the Department is going to see the

AYP issue. This is going to be a huge question. We do not want

to—it was our goal when we put this bill together, and we talked

about this at almost interminable length, that we did not want to

end up with every school being rated a failure. Rather, we felt that

we did want to have this bill focused on those schools which need

the most help and those students who can get the most benefit as

low-income students. So we have to be careful how we proceed on

that course.

On the dollar issue, I know there is some concern about dollars,

and it is raised and mentioned on occasion around here. But I do

think it is important—I have brought a chart with me, because you

cannot function in the Senate without charts—to reflect on what

has been accomplished by this administration in the area of funding Title I.

4

If you look at the Title I increases between the period 1995 and

2001, you will see that there was about a $2 billion increase over

that 7-year period, which was the period of the prior administration. This administration came in with a clear agenda, which was

to significantly increase funding for Title I and also significantly increase funding for IDEA. In the 2 years that this administration

has addressed this issue, they have made a commitment of over

$2.5 billion toward title I, which is obviously about 25 percent more

than was funded over the prior 7 years.

So I do believe that the dollars are being put on the table. It is

not as much has some would like, but it is a very significant commitment, and it will accomplish a great deal as it moves through

the system and assists low-income children in having a better shot

at education and quality education.

So I look forward to hearing from the Department, and again,

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Collins, would you like to say a word?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for holding this hearing so that we can learn

of the Department’s progress in implementing the landmark education law on which we all worked so hard last year and which the

President signed into law in January.

That had been a truly bipartisan effort with great cooperation between the Senate and the administration, as well as the House,

and I hope that that is the approach we can continue as we move

toward the implementation process.

I am particularly interested in the provisions of the new law that

deal with reading programs and assessments, and I will be asking

questions in both areas today.

In addition, I am very proud of having authored the Rural Education Initiative which was included in that law. I am disappointed

that the budget does not provide funding for the next fiscal year

for that program, and that is something that I will be pursuing as

well.

It is very important that we make sure that we are not only focusing on our urban schools but also on the majority of school systems in our country which qualify as rural schools and may well

have different needs.

So again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and

I look forward to working with you in the implementation of what

I believe is a law that will help us achieve the inspiring goal that

the President put forth of leaving no child behind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I submit for the record statements from Senator Frist and Senator Enzi.

[The prepared statements of Senator Frist and Senator Enzi follow:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRIST

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing here today to update

us on implementation of the historic education reform bill, ‘‘The No

Child Left Behind Act.’’ I am pleased with the pace of implementation of ESEA and commend our witnesses and the Department of

Education for all their hard work. I look forward to hearing an update on the States’ progress, including details about the regulations

regarding adequate yearly progress, public school choice and supplemental services.

As President Bush has said, too many children in America are

segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a constantly changing world that is demanding increasingly complex

skills from its workforce, children are literally being left behind. I

believe that the programs and reforms contained in ‘‘The No Child

Left Behind Act’’ will help Tennessee schools better prepare our

children for the future.

I know the members of the rival party believe increased funding

is the answer to all our schools’ problems. But, time has shown

that money alone is not the answer. Despite spending $125 billion

in Federal education aid for disadvantaged children over the past

25 years, fourth-graders who are African American, Hispanic, or

poor, have less than a 50/50 chance of being able to read. President

Bush changed the education debate by demanding results and accountability. At the same time, the President has dramatically increased funding for education while requiring reforms.

Let’s take a look at the numbers: • In 2000, Title I funding was $7.9 billion. President Bush has requested $11.4 billion for Title I in 2003, a 44 percent increase

over 2000 levels. • In 2000, the Reading program received $260 million. President Bush has requested $1.075 billion for Reading First in 2003, a 284

percent increase. • In 2000, funding for teachers reached $2 billion. President Bush has requested $2.9 billion for teachers in 2003, a 45 percent

increase. • In 2000, funding for after school programs was $453 million, and the President has requested $1.075 billion for 2003, a 137 percent increase. • Finally, if President Bush is granted his 2003 budget request

for the Department of Education, the Department will receive a 42

percent increase as compared to 2000, moving from $35.6 billion to

$50.3 billion.

Before we insist on increasing funding beyond these levels, we

should allow time for ‘‘The No Child Left Behind Act’’ to be implemented, so that we can find out what works and what does not

work. Otherwise, we may continue to fund failure at the expense

of our children’s future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Gregg for holding this

hearing. I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ statements.

QUESTIONS FOR UNDER SECRETARY HICKOK AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY NEUMAN

Question 1. The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSPP), which became

part of the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act,’’ was originally created at NSF. I understand,

however, that NSF was allocated $160 million for MSPP while the Department of

6

Education received only $12.5 million for it. Because of the funding inequity, the

Department piggy-backed their funds onto the NSF program for 2002.

Some Senators have requested appropriators to fund MSPP at as high a level as

possible in 2003 to fulfill its promise. Many believe the Department of Education

should run this program instead of NSF because it has better relationships with

schools and understands how to work with them better than NSF. If the MSPP were

to receive significantly more funding in 2003, how would the Department work to

coordinate efforts with the NSF?

Question 2. Gary Lee, a Superintendent from Jackson County, Tennessee wrote

me to express his dismay about the fact Jackson County did not qualify for the

Rural and Low-Income School Program. Unfortunately for Jackson County, the most

recent poverty data broken down by school districts is from 1997. According to the

1997 data, Jackson County does not qualify, but Jackson County would qualify according to the most recent 1998 data.

I am concerned about this lag in census data. At this rate, the areas that have

been hardest hit by the recession of 2001-2 will not receive Federal funding to help

combat the effects of that recession until the 2006-7 school year. What can the Department or Congress do to help speed up this process?

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming

the Under Secretary of Education, Gene Hickok, and Susan B.

Neuman, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Secretary Hickok, Assistant Secretary Neuman, I appreciate

your willingness to update this committee on the Department of

Education’s progress as you implement the sweeping reforms included in the No Child Left Behind Act.

As members of this committee are well aware, the No Child Left

Behind Act reflects an agenda that President Bush made clear during his first days in office when he invited lawmakers to his ranch

in Crawford, Texas to discuss his number one domestic priority,

education reform. This legislation ensures that every child in

America will receive a quality education by emphasizing accountability, flexibility and local control, funding for programs that

work, and expanded parental control. Students’ access to technology, high quality teachers, and safe learning environments are

also a priority. This legislation also fulfills an important commitment to States like Wyoming that are already heavily invested in

improving student achievement by allowing them the flexibility

they need to continue to innovate.

In addition to the critical educational supports and services provided by the No Child Left Behind Act, this legislation also provides unprecedented increases in funding for programs that help to

educate our Nation’s neediest children. In fact, if Congress passes

President Bush’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, which contains a

$1 billion increase for Title I, that will mean that Title I funding

will have increased nearly as much during the first 2 years of the

Bush administration as it did during the previous 8 years combined. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that these documents,

complied by the Department of Education and the Congressional

Research Service, detailing the Bush administration’s commitment

to funding education in Wyoming and across the Nation be included in the record.

I would like to commend the Department of Education for their

speed and success during the initial implementation of the No

7

Child Left Behind Act. They are making great progress. I would

also like to congratulate Secretary of Education Rod Paige for his

efforts to inform parents and educators about the options that this

new legislation makes available by embarking on the 25-city No

Child Left Behind Tour Across America. His hard work is providing

a great service to educators, parents and children across the Nation.

One of the issues that has been receiving the most attention during the initial implementation stage is the new State-based accountability system that was put in place to ensure that all children are learning. There are some who are questioning whether it

is the intent of the No Child Left Behind Act to allow States the

option of using local assessment measures as part of their statewide accountability systems. Since one of the major principles of

the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act’’ was increased flexibility for States,

I firmly believe it was the intent of this legislation to allow States

to develop accountability systems that suit their individual needs.

I am pleased that the Department of Education’s draft regulations

on Title I Standards and Assessments reflect this intent. I was so

pleased, in fact, that I, and several other members of this committee, wrote to Secretary Paige expressing our support for these draft

regulations. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that a copy of that

letter to Secretary Paige be included in the hearing record. In

short, this letter states that the Federal Government must be willing to allow States to determine the best way to assess children,

as long as those assessments are of sufficient quality and meet the

rigorous standards that are required by the No Child Left Behind

Act. I am aware that the Department of Education plans to hold

regional meetings on this issue throughout the month of May and

I look forward to hearing what local educators and interested citizens have to say.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks to Wyoming’s State

Superintendent of Education, Judy Catchpole, and her hardworking staff. Not only is Judy doing a great job of beginning to

implement the No Child Left Behind Act, but she also made sure

that States across the Nation were well represented during the

Title I Standards and Assessments negotiated rulemaking process

when she was one of the State officials chosen to participate.

I look forward to continuing to work on the issues surrounding

the implementation of this legislation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN.I also want to recognize Susan Neuman, who is

the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education. She is tasked with leading the day-to-day implementation of ESEA, and her experience as an educator, a parent, and a

researcher will help us all. We are glad to welcome her to the committee today.

Mr. Hickok, we look forward to hearing from you.

8

STATEMENT OF EUGENE W. HICKOK, UNDER SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN B.

NEUMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND

SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. HICKOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I am going to submit my statement for the record rather than

read the entire text.

I do want to express my personal appreciation for the chance to

be with you today and in the future to talk about implementation

of this very, very important and very, very complex and comprehensive new law.

I also want to express again my deep appreciation and that of

Secretary Paige and the administration for your leadership, Mr.

Chairman, and yours, Senator Gregg, and all of you on this committee and your colleagues in the House.

Secretary Paige has said a number of times, and I would echo

the sentiment, that in many ways because of the bipartisan nature

of this endeavor, this is neither a Republican nor a Democratic law;

it is an American law, it is an American bill, and it is all about

what we have in common, trying to do what we can to leave no

child behind.

I stated that this is a very complex and difficult piece of legislation, but interestingly, as you all know, it is really built around

four basic principles, and I would just reiterate those four principles very briefly.

The first is one that I think is at the heart of this new law, and

that is improving accountability for results. As we talk about

spending, as we talk about performance, we would like to talk

about investing in things that we know work so that we get educational results.

The second principle is more choices and more options for parents and for students. In many ways, our goal here is to leave no

child behind, and the focus here is on students, on children, and

children who are through no fault of their own enrolled in schools

that are not working that need to find relief. This law talks about

providing some relief.

The third principle, one that I am very partial to because of my

record as a State Chief for 6 years in Pennsylvania, is greater flexibility at the State and local level. I guess I am a federalist when

it comes to this issue; I would like to make sure that there are

ways—and there are in this law—to create opportunities for some

pretty interesting, innovative approaches to education policy at the

State level and at the local level through more flexibility.

Finally, the fourth principle, which is written throughout the legislation and will receive more and more focus in the days and

weeks and years to come, is education-based education policy and

good, solid research.

The record is pretty spotty in education from where I sit on the

quality of education research, both at the Federal Department of

Education and the State departments around the country, everywhere. One of our goals is to turn that around so that we can provide good, solid evidence of what works so that future administraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:39 Oct 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79324.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
9

tions and future Congresses, future school boards and State departments, can make better decisions and wiser decisions on educational policy. We think it is very much needed.

I think I will stop with that except to make a few observations.

I had my staff do an analysis, what I call a road map or a task

list, of this large piece of legislation, and I think there are something like 1,560 discrete tasks that this Department will have to

deal with in the coming days and weeks and years to fully implement this law. I hope to be able to come before you sometime in

the not too distant future and give you my report card on how far

down that punch-list we have come in the period of time allotted

to us.

I also want to make sure that I introduce my colleague Susan

Neuman. She is the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. A great majority of the material that this law

is all about consumes her day and night, as well as her staff. She

is here with me to respond to any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickok follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE W. HICKOK

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to discuss the department’s implementation of the No

Child Left Behind Act, the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965. The enactment of No Child Left Behind was a watershed

event in the history of Federal support for K-12 education. It gives me great pleasure to discuss its significance and the department’s efforts to ensure its successful

implementation across this country.

Mr. Chairman, only 3 days after taking office, President Bush unveiled No Child

Left Behind as a comprehensive strategy for restructuring Federal elementary and

secondary education programs and leading the way toward national reform and renewal in education. Less than a year later, he signed into law this remarkable, bipartisan program for improving the performance of America’s elementary and secondary schools while ensuring that no child is trapped in an unsafe or failing school.

I would like to commend the members of this committee for the bipartisan efforts

on the legislation. And I would like to give special thanks to you, Mr. Chairman,

and to Senator Gregg for the leadership that made the bill possible—leadership and

many hours spent in bicameral and bipartisan negotiations.

The new act embodies the key principles and themes that the President emphasized upon taking office. These principles include:

(1) Increased accountability for results: The No Child Left Behind Act provides for

real performance accountability in the Title I program by requiring statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must

be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics (and later,

science), annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide

progress objectives for ensuring that all students reach proficiency in reading and

math within 12 years. Schools and school districts that fail to meet these objectives,

both for all students and for specific student groups, would be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring aimed at getting them back on track.

(2) More choices for parents and students: The new act significantly increases the

choices available to students attending low-performing schools. Beginning in the

coming school year, they must be given the opportunity to attend another public

school that is making ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ under Title I, and the district must

provide transportation to that new school. Public school choice must also be provided for students in persistently dangerous schools. Students attending schools

that fail to make adequate yearly progress for 3 years in a row will have the opportunity to receive supplemental academic services, such as after-school tutoring, from

providers who can demonstrate success in raising student achievement. The act also

enhances the department’s support for innovations in public school choice, by creating programs for the support of voluntary public school choice and the financing of

charter school facilities .

10

(3) Greater flexibility for States, school districts, and schools: Through a number

of mechanisms, the new act greatly expands the flexibility of States, local educational agencies, and schools to use Federal funds in a manner that best reflects

State and local needs and priorities. These mechanisms include the ‘‘State-Flex’’ and ‘‘Local-Flex’’ demonstration authorities, which will give up to 7 States and 150 districts the flexibility to consolidate Federal program funds and use them for any authorized purpose, in exchange for committing themselves to improving student

achievement and narrowing achievement gaps. The ‘‘transferability’’ authority, another new innovation, will allow all States and most districts to transfer, across program categories, up to half of their formula allocations for certain major programs.

(4) A focus on what works: The new law consistently calls for States, school districts, and other grantees to use their ESEA funds to implement programs that reflect scientifically-based research; that is, programs, activities, and strategies that

high-quality research shows are truly effective in raising student achievement. The

Congress clearly signaled a lack of patience with the faddishness that frequently

substitutes for research-based approaches to educating our children. Particularly in

the area of reading, where the act created the new Reading First program, the

members said that we know what works, we have a solid research base; now it is

time to ensure that all our children benefit.

Those are some of the major themes and messages in the No Child Left Behind

Act. These key principles are also guiding our implementation of the act; they will

be reflected in our regulations, in non-regulatory guidance, and in the instructions

we develop for formula and competitive grant applications. As we delve into the details of implementation, we cannot lose sight of the major principles that motivated

enactment of the statute.

I will use the remainder of my time to give you a brief overview of the department’s progress in implementing the act.

REGULATIONS AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE

When a piece of legislation like No Child Left Behind is enacted, educators across

the country eagerly await information from the department on how the new and revised programs will operate. We provide that information either through regulations

or non-regulatory program guidance. Through these documents, we interpret provisions that may be ambiguous in the statute, fill in a few of the blanks, and translate

statutory text into plain English.

Our guiding principle in implementing No Child Left Behind is to regulate only

when it is absolutely necessary, because non-regulatory guidance tends to provide

States and local educational agencies with greater flexibility. Thus, we have been

working assiduously on developing guidance for major formula grant programs, such

as the Teacher Quality, Educational Technology, and 21st Century Community

Learning Centers State grant programs. In developing our guidance packages, we

have worked closely with State educational agencies and others who administer the

programs. The work on the guidance documents is proceeding rapidly, and we expect to have most of them completed later this spring.

In some cases, we will have to issue formal regulations. In particular, the act calls

on the department to develop, through a negotiated rulemaking process, regulations

for the standards and assessment requirements under Title I. We carried out this

negotiated rulemaking, or ‘‘reg-neg’’ as it is called, during the second and third

weeks of March. We assembled a panel of State and local off1cials, school principals,

teachers, parents, and representatives of students and the business community. Our

negotiators for the department were Assistant Secretary Susan Neuman and Joseph

Johnson, our Title I director. In my opinion, this process was a great success. The

negotiators reached consensus on such important issues as the requirement for inclusion of all students in State assessments, the use of ‘‘out-of-level’’ tests in assessing students with disabilities, and the assessments administered to private school

children who participate in Title I.

We will now issue, as proposed regulations, the agreements negotiated through

that process, along with companion regulations for certain other key Title I issues,

such as ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ and formula allocations to local educational

agencies. We will convene five regional meetings during May for discussion of the

proposed regulations with educators and members of the public. Once we have received public input, we will complete final regulations; we anticipate completing this

process some time this summer.

CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATIONS

For each State formula program in ESEA, the Act provides detailed instructions

on the information States must provide to the department in their State applicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:39 Oct 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 79324.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
11

tions. However, the act also permits States to submit a consolidated application in

place of some or all of the individual program applications, and instructs the Secretary to require, in that consolidated application, only the information absolutely

necessary for consideration by the department.

Because submission of a consolidated application can reduce State burden enormously, and because most States are likely to take advantage of this option, we

have spent a great deal of time developing instructions for the application. On

March 6, we issued proposed instructions, on which we are now taking public comment, and we have convened focus groups of State and local officials to discuss the

application. Our goal is to abide by the statutory charge to require the minimum

amount of information necessary, while making sure that the department receives

the data and documentation essential for ensuring program integrity and accountability. In fact, we believe the consolidated application should include the baseline

data that will undergird a new performance-based information system for elementary and secondary programs.

We intend to issue final criteria for the applications in mid-April so that we can

obtain the applications in time to make formula grants on schedule at the beginning

of July.

PERFORMANCE-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

The department’s new Performance-Based Data Management Initiative will facilitate smoother implementation of No Child Left Behind by reducing the current collection and reporting burden. The initiative will replace many disconnected information systems currently in use by the department to collect data from States and

school districts. When fully implemented, the new system will promote efficient

ways to share data across States and districts and provide more accurate and useful

data at all levels of the education community. Thus, the new system will allow

States and districts to devote more time to their core educational mission and increase the focus on outcomes and accountability for student performance rather

than compliance.

NEW FLEXIBILITY INITIATIVES

The new act holds States and school districts accountable for educating all their

children to high standards. But more than ever before, it gives them room to use

Federal funds to develop and implement their own strategies for improving education. States and local educational agencies will have new opportunities to combine

Federal funds, rather than using them within narrow categories, in a manner that

reflects local needs and priorities.

The new flexibility provisions include the State and local flexibility demonstrations, or ‘‘State-Flex’’ and ‘‘Local-Flex’’ as we call them. They allow selected States

and districts to consolidate their Federal funds and use them for any authorized

purpose, in exchange for a commitment to improving student achievement. In addition to those competitive authorities, all States and most districts will be able to

take advantage of the ‘‘transferability’’ provisions, which allow the transfer of up to

half the money they receive under certain formula programs across those programs

or into Title I.

Ever since the legislation passed, we have been working to ensure a swift and successful implementation of these important new authorities. We want all States and

school districts to know about these new opportunities to improve their use of Federal dollars. We want to receive as many high-quality applications as possible for

the demonstration programs, and we are ready to provide technical assistance to applicants. We have published proposed rules for both ‘‘State-Flex’’ and ‘‘Local-Flex’’ and have taken steps to inform States and districts about the new provisions and

to receive their comments on implementation. We anticipate announcing the first

Local-Flex districts by the end of this summer, and the State-Flex winners by the

end of November. We have already heard from several States that are interested

in applying for the State-Flex authority.

NEW PROGRAMS

The No Child Left Behind Act consolidated a number of ESEA programs, but also

created some new programs for us to administer. A major focus of our efforts in recent months has been on implementing these programs. For instance, Reading First

embodies the President’s commitment to ensuring that all children learn to read by

the third grade. All States will be eligible to receive formula grants for implementation of programs of scientifically based reading instruction, particularly in schools

where high percentages of students are not learning to read. Early Reading First

is a companion program that focuses on preparing preschool-aged children to learn

12

to read once they enter school. At this time, we are moving ahead, on schedule, with

implementation of these and the other new programs.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

Implementing No Child Left Behind involves more than just issuing regulations,

reviewing applications, and making the grants. It really means bringing the whole

country together around the idea that, if we are to continue to flourish as a Nation,

no child really can be left behind, that it is time to stop making excuses for educational failure, and time to use the framework provided by this legislation to get

on with what we have to do. Toward that end, we have communicated continually

with governors, chief State school officers, school superintendents, teachers, parents,

and the general public on this act and on the vision that it embodies. On the week

of the signing, the secretary convened an historic summit with State superintendents to discuss implementation of the new law. We have held three leadership academies with State officials and one with big-city districts to acquaint them with the

Reading First program. We also have held other forums and have more planned for

the future. Making No Child Left Behind succeed will require more than the department’s effort, it will require everyone’s effort, and we intend to use every opportunity to bring the country along with us.

In conclusion, let me say that the department really has been operating on all cylinders since the Congress passed the act in December and the President signed it

in January. The late enactment of the bill, and of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation,

left us very little time to get all the pieces in place before the coming school year.

At this point, I think we are on schedule. We have faced challenges in implementing

this very important and complex legislation, and there will be further challenges

ahead. But I think we can implement all components successfully and on time, and

I welcome your support.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Neuman, is there anything that you wanted to say?

Ms. NEUMAN. Not at this time, no.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I will put in the record at the appropriate place, as I am sure

you would want me to, the record of funding for ESEA in recent

years, as well as the current budget request, just so we are clear.

[Information follows:]

13

14

• The Bush administration has proposed the worst education budget in 7 years—

a 2.8 percent increase for education that is barely enough to meet the cost of inflation and less than one-fourth of the 13 percent average increase over the last 7

years. (Source: U.S. Dept of Education, Budget Service, www.ed.gov. (Budget History)).

• Two months after passage of the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act,’’ the Bush administration proposed to cut its funding by nearly $100 million. (Source:U.S. Dept. of

Education Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Summary, February 2002).

• The Bush budget shortchanges the promise of a better education for disadvantaged children for next fall under the Title I program by almost $5 billion and

leaves 6 million needy children behind as school reform for other children moves

ahead. (Source: U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee).

• The Bush budget pushes 33,000 latch-key children out of after-school programs

nationwide.

• 25,000 limited English proficient children would be cut from Federal bilingual

education programs nationwide.

• The Bush education budget freezes funding for most education programs, including the Title II teacher quality and class size reduction program, failing to adjust for inflation and thereby reducing services. It cuts funding for teacher professional development, new teacher mentoring, and teacher recruitment. It cuts funding for class size reduction and school repair. 18,000 fewer teachers nationwide will

receive training. (Source: U.S Dept. of Education Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Summary,

February 2002).

• The Bush administration’s FY 2003 budget proposals for student assistance programs are $1.4 billion below the current services level needed to offset inflation and

address enrollment growth. For example, the Bush budget would result in a $100

cut in the maximum Pell Grant from $4,000 to $3,900. In total, the proposed budget

would serve 375,000 fewer students compared to current services, according to the

Bush administration’s own budget justification documents.

• The President is requesting $50.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for the

Department of Education in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1.4 billion or 2.8 percent over the 2002 enacted level. (U.S. Dept. of Education Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

Summary).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Funds for State Formula-Allocated and Selected

Student Aid Programs for Wyoming

2001

appropriation

2002

appropriation 2003 request Change from2002 appro.

ESEA Title 1—Grants to Local Educational Agencies $19,569,782 $23,883,476 $26,495,658 $2,612,182

ESEA Title 1—Reading First State Grants .................. 0 2,158,750 2,400,000 241,250

ESEA Title 1—Even Start ............................................. 1,122,500 1,127,500 910,000 0

ESEA Title 1—Migrant ................................................. 266,080 276,490 276,490 0

ESEA Title 1—Neglected and Delinquent .................... 408,145 429,548 429,548 0

ESEA Title 1—Comprehensive School Reform ............. 465,706 509,153 525,234 16,081

ESEA Title 1—Capital Expenses for Private School

Children .................................................................... 2,879 0 0 0

Subtotal, Education for the Disadvantaged ........ 21,835,092 28,384,917 31,036,930 2,652,013

Impact Aid—Basic Support Payments ........................ 8,220,403 6,360,038 6,436,488 76,450

Impact Aid—Payments for Children with Disabilities 406,750 407,945 407,945 0

Impact Aid—Construction ............................................ 71,617 153,740 153,740 0

Impact Aid—Payments for Federal Property ............... 0 0 0 0

Subtotal, Impact Aid ........................................... 8,698,770 6,921,723 6,998,173 76,450

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ...................... 0 13,567,163 13,567,163 0

Class Size Reduction .................................................... 7,605,781 0 0 0

Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants .... 2,398,869 0 0 0

Safe and Drug—Free Schools and Communities State

Grants ....................................................................... 2,142,933 2,307,865 2,307,865 0

State Grants for Community Service for Expelled or

Suspended Students ................................................ 0 250,000 0 (250,000)

21st Century Community Learning Centers ................. 1 0 1,522,706 2,787,808 1,265,102

Educational Technology State Grants .......................... 2,250,000 3,078,446 3,239,552 161,106

State Grants for Innovative Programs ......................... 1,911,525 1,911,525 1,911,525 0

15

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION—Continued

Funds for State Formula-Allocated and Selected

Student Aid Programs for Wyoming

2001

appropriation

2002

appropriation 2003 request Change from2002 appro.

Fund for the Improvement of Education—Comprehensive School Reform .................................................. 90,717 136,075 0 (136,075)

State Assessments and Enhanced Assessment

Instruments .............................................................. 0 3,389,341 3,407,669 18,328

Education for Homeless Children and Youth ............... 100,000 150,000 150,000 0

Rural and Low-income Schools Program ..................... 0 14,167 0 (14,167)

School Renovation Grants ............................................ 5,483,750 0 0 0

Indian Education—Grants to Local Educational

Agencies ................................................................... 498,555 523,857 523,857 0

Language Acquisition State Grants ............................. 0 500,000 500,000 0

Immigrant Education .................................................... 0 0 0 0

Special Education—Grants to States .......................... 13,896,695 16,711,120 19,181,491 2,470,371

Special Education—Preschool Grants ......................... 1,090,450 1,090,450 1,090,450 0

Special Education—Grants for Infants and Families 1,878,520 2,043,288 2,141,694 98,406

Subtotal, Special Education ................................ 16,865,665 19,844,858 22,413,635 2,568,777

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants ........................ 6,506,430 8,184,617 8,631,737 447,120

Client Assistance State Grants .................................... 118,241 120,724 120,724 0

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights ............. 138,633 147,782 147,782 0

Supported Employment State Grants ........................... 300,000 300,000 0 (300,000)

Independent Living State Grants ................................. 297,581 297,581 297,581 0

Services for Older Blind Individuals ............................ 225,000 225,000 225,000 0

Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology ...... 50,000 50,000 50,000 0

Subtotal, Rehabilitation Services and Disability

Research .......................................................... 7,635,885 9,325,704 9,472,824 147,120

Vocational Education State Grants .............................. 4,214,921 4,214,921 4,214,921 0

Vocational Education—Tech-Prep Education State

Grants ....................................................................... 280,263 285,551 285,551 0

Adult Education State Grants ...................................... 761,550 801,046 801,046 0

English Literacy and Civics Education State Grants ... 60,000 60,000 60,000 0

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders ........... 32,305 32,305 0 (32,305)

Subtotal, Vocational and Adult Education .......... 5,349,039 5,393,823 5,361,518 (32,305)

Federal Pell Grants ....................................................... 18,100,000 19,700,000 19,900,000 200,000

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 888,235 931,940 931,940 0

Federal Work-Study ....................................................... 1,253,418 1,253,418 1,253,418 0

Federal Perkins Loans—Capital Contributions ............ 220,784 220,784 220,784 0

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership .......... 92,195 112,433 0 (112,433)

Byrd Honors Scholarships ............................................. 75,000 73,500 73,500 0

Total ..................................................................... 103,496,213 119,514,245 126,058,161 6,543,916

1 Prior to fiscal year 2002, funds for 21st Century Community Learning Centers were not allocated by formula.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ESEA TITLE 1-A GRANTS FOR FY02 UNDER THE

CONFERENCE VERSIONS OF H.R. 1 AND H.R. 3061

State Actual FY01 grant Estimated FY02 grant Percentage change

ALABAMA ................................................................ $133,799,574 $155,525,000 16.2

ALASKA ................................................................... 23,064,148 29,717,000 28.8

ARIZONA ................................................................. 137,445,740 172,601,000 25.6

ARKANSAS .............................................................. 83,257,615 96,973,000 16.5

CALIFORNIA ............................................................ 1,155,139,183 1,453,077,000 25.8

COLORADO .............................................................. 78,562,595 96,829,000 23.3

CONNECTICUT ......................................................... 83,812,994 105,341,000 25.7

DELAWARE .............................................................. 22,220,748 28,466,000 28.1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ......................................... 26,602,647 34,401,000 29.3

FLORIDA .................................................................. 400,839,734 510,406,000 27.3

GEORGIA ................................................................. 250,866,383 312,310,000 24.5

HAWAII .................................................................... 25,773,215 33,063,000 28.3

16

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ESEA TITLE 1-A GRANTS FOR FY02 UNDER THE

CONFERENCE VERSIONS OF H.R. 1 AND H.R. 3061—Continued

State Actual FY01 grant Estimated FY02 grant Percentage change

IDAHO ..................................................................... 26,557,496 32,842,000 23.7

ILLINOIS .................................................................. 357,248,214 436,625,000 22.2

INDIANA .................................................................. 128,797,584 156,748,000 21.7

IOWA ....................................................................... 55,102,714 61,726,000 12.0

KANSAS ................................................................... 61,259,673 74,001,000 20.8

KENTUCKY .............................................................. 130,624,753 151,163,000 15.7

LOUISIANA .............................................................. 191,576,000 211,209,000 10.2

MAINE ..................................................................... 32,488,539 38,000,000 17.0

MARYLAND .............................................................. 124,098,482 155,623,000 25.4

MASSACHUSETTS .................................................... 180,987,023 220,690,000 21.9

MICHIGAN ............................................................... 349,305,563 412,216,000 18.0

MINNESOTA ............................................................. 95,313,310 114,813,000 20.5

MISSISSIPPI ............................................................ 124,800,491 130,451,000 4.5

MISSOURI ............................................................... 140,578,687 161,788,000 15.1

MONTANA ................................................................ 28,242,684 34,558,000 22.4

NEBRASKA .............................................................. 32,935,512 37,187,000 12.9

NEVADA .................................................................. 32,381,713 41,353,000 27.7

NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................... 21,390,479 27,775,000 29.8

NEW JERSEY ........................................................... 209,372,261 256,952,000 22.7

NEW MEXICO .......................................................... 68,503,891 81,979,000 19.7

NEW YORK .............................................................. 822,655,074 1,028,355,000 25.0

NORTH CAROLINA ................................................... 172,306,751 212,222,000 23.2

NORTH DAKOTA ...................................................... 21,081,381 27,275,000 29.4

OHIO ....................................................................... 303,990,460 336,773,000 10.8

OKLAHOMA .............................................................. 101,343,518 121,007,000 19.4

OREGON .................................................................. 76,714,311 94,008,000 22.5

PENNSYLVANIA ....................................................... 346,293,427 402,563,000 16.2

PUERTO RICO ......................................................... 267,301,458 332,720,000 24.5

RHODE ISLAND ....................................................... 27,057,169 34,347,000 26.9

SOUTH CAROLINA ................................................... 112,033,252 137,465,000 22.7

SOUTH DAKOTA ....................................................... 21,251,082 28,184,000 32.6

TENNESSEE ............................................................. 137,350,755 152,087,000 10.7

TEXAS ..................................................................... 692,898,811 831,593,000 20.0

UTAH ....................................................................... 37,418,349 43,673,000 16.7

VERMONT ................................................................ 18,015,861 23,015,000 27.7

VIRGINIA ................................................................. 138,409,145 170,359,000 23.1

WASHINGTON .......................................................... 118,080,391 143,754,000 21.7

WEST VIRGINIA ....................................................... 73,751,173 81,118,000 10.0

WISCONSIN ............................................................. 129,069,834 152,878,000 18.4

WYOMING ................................................................ 19,058,944 24,255,000 27.3

TOTAL ............................................................ 8,449,030,790 10,244,062,000 21.2

ESTIMATED ESEA TITLE 1-A GRANTS TO LEAS FOR FY2002 UNDER

PUBLIC LAWS 107-110 AND 107-116

Note: Most of the data on which these calculations are based will be revised before

actual grants are made. In addition, neither the FY2001 grants nor the FY2002 estimates are adjusted for authorized deductions for State administration or program

improvement, or for possible transfers of funds to charter schools or special purpose

LEAs, or possible reallocation among LEAs serving localities with total population

below 20,000 persons.

The primary purpose of these estimates is to compare the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels; they are not intended to predict specific

amounts which LEAs will ultimately receive.

17

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATES PREPARED BY CRS, JANUARY 24, 2002

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY 2001

grant

Estimated FY

2002 grant

LEA poverty

rate

WI .............. 17040 WISCONSIN DELLS .................................................. $151,000 $180,000 10.9

WI .............. 17070 WISCONSIN RAPIDS ................................................ 688,000 813,000 11.8

WI .............. 17100 WITTENBERG-BIRNAMWOOD ................................... 180,000 214,000 13.2

WI .............. 17130 WONEWOC-UNION CENTER ..................................... 55,000 65,000 10.9

WI .............. 17160 WOODRUFF J1 ......................................................... 54,000 64,000 11.6

WI .............. 17190 WRIGHTSTOWN COMMUNITY ................................... 63,000 75,000 6.6

WI .............. 17220 YORKVILLE J2 ......................................................... 8,000 8,000 2.1

WI .............. 81003 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 0

WI .............. 81007 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 0

WI .............. 81079 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 50.0

WI .............. 81139 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 0

WI .............. 99998 UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................... 0 0 0

WI .............. 99999 PART D SUBPART 2 ................................................ 1,233,000 1,606,000 100.0

WY ............. 730 ALBANY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................. 911,000 1,101,000 15.8

WY ............. 960 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 38 .............. 376,000 512,000 46.9

WY ............. 1030 CARBON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................ 430,000 541,000 15.8

WY ............. 1090 BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 04 ............. 126,000 136,000 16.0

WY ............. 1260 SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 09 ............. 99,000 129,000 13.7

WY ............. 1420 BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............. 203,000 254,000 21.6

WY ............. 1460 BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ............. 178,000 179,000 12.3

WY ............. 1470 CAMPBELL COUNTY SCHOOL DlSTRICT 01 ............ 839,000 1,009,000 8.2

WY ............. 1700 CARBON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ................ 169,000 221,000 14.6

WY ............. 1980 LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............... 2,389,000 3,135,000 13.7

WY ............. 2070 PARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 06 ..................... 512,000 643,000 15.6

WY ............. 2140 CONVERSE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............ 303,000 377,000 12.4

WY ............. 2150 CONVERSE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ............ 241,000 300,000 19.0

WY ............. 2370 CROOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 .................. 153,000 200,000 11.1

WY ............. 2670 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 .............. 84,000 104,000 20.3

WY ............. 2760 UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 .................... 662,000 715,000 12.2

WY ............. 2820 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 21 .............. 338,000 430,000 39.8

WY ............. 2830 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 06 .............. 119,000 148,000 19.8

WY ............. 2870 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 .............. 402,000 503,000 15.2

WY ............. 2990 GOSHEN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................ 832,000 920,000 20.4

WY ............. 3170 BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 03 ............. 82,000 88,000 11.5

WY ............. 3180 PLATTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 .................. 78,000 75,000 9.3

WY ............. 3310 HOT SPRINGS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 .......... 181,000 228,000 16.2

WY ............. 3770 JOHNSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............... 257,000 321,000 16.3

WY ............. 4030 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................ 113,000 96,000 3.1

WY ............. 4060 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ................ 359,000 470,000 14.0

WY ............. 4120 LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ............... 107,000 141,000 13.6

WY ............. 4230 NIOBRARA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............. 134,000 166,000 20.1

WY ............. 4260 UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 06 .................... 94,000 123,000 7.6

WY ............. 4380 PARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 16 ..................... 54,000 68,000 20.3

WY ............. 4450 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 .............. 422,000 503,000 33.0

WY ............. 4500 UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 04 .................... 111,000 145,000 10.5

WY ............. 4510 NATRONA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 .............. 2,799,000 3,571,000 16.0

WY ............. 4830 WESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................ 182,000 193,000 12.9

WY ............. 4860 SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............. 74,000 97,000 11.3

WY ............. 5090 PLATTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 .................. 351,000 421,000 17.1

WY ............. 5160 PARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ..................... 319,000 417,000 14.9

WY ............. 5220 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 .............. 1,059,000 1,324,000 22.1

WY ............. 5302 SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ........ 714,000 888,000 9.6

WY ............. 5680 SHERIDAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 03 ............. 19,000 24,000 18.7

WY ............. 5690 SHERIDAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............. 219,000 275,000 21.1

WY ............. 5695 SHERIDAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ............. 732,000 909,000 14.4

WY ............. 5700 FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 24 .............. 81,000 100,000 19.0

WY ............. 5762 SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ........ 366,000 478,000 8.9

WY ............. 5820 WASHAKIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02 ............. 54,000 76,000 33.3

WY ............. 5830 TETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ................... 185,000 241,000 7.9

WY ............. 6090 WESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 07 ................ 36,000 47,000 10.0

WY ............. 6240 WASHAKIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 01 ............. 210,000 271,000 10.9

WY ............. 81029 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 0

WY ............. 81039 BALANCE OF COUNTY ............................................. 0 0 0

18

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATES PREPARED BY CRS, JANUARY 24, 2002—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY 2001 grant

Estimated FY

2002 grant

LEA poverty rate

WY ............. 99998 UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................... 0 0 0

WY ............. 99999 PART D SUBPART 2 ................................................ 300,000 550,000 100.0

19

20

The CHAIRMAN. We will have 7-minute rounds, and I will ask

staff to keep track of the time.

The areas I want to cover, Mr. Hickok, are the ones that we

talked about at the Department. Initially, we want to ask about the

process of implementation and which States you think will be

ready to implement the new law, with approved plans, by this

school year, which ones will be late, and what else you are able to

tell us. Then, we want to get into the Reading First program a little bit, and also how Federal funds are supplementing other funds

and not supplanting them. We find out that my own State is cutting $340 million in its education budget. It appears that that is

happening in other States. We want to get into how we can make

sure that some of these extremely important provisions are going

to be implemented.

I am going to also ask you a little bit about how the administra- tion justifies putting $4 billion into private school vouchers which

will not have anything to do with providing a well-trained teacher,

nothing to do with adequate yearly progress, nothing to do with

after-school programs, nothing to do with smaller class size. And

please explain how an administration and a President that have

been so strong on accountability can justify adding almost $4 billion for private schools that are exempt from all accountability requirements.

Then, finally, I do not know if you had a chance to look through

the very excellent program that was done the other night on ‘‘60

Minutes’’ on education in the military, where it turns out that in

the military, they have 100,000 students, 200 public schools, and

64 percent of the children in poverty. They have seen the significant achievement gap between races close, and they were asked

about whether this could be replicated or duplicated in other parts

of the country. The report said: Just try reproducing in the inner

city the small schools that they have on base or the big budgets.

Per-pupil spending here is 15 percent above the national average.

One thing that could be duplicated in every community in the

country is the parent involvement.

They talk about three items—small schools, resources, and parent involvement—and they have been able to have a dramatic impact in terms of improving quality and achievement. As we are

looking over what really works, if you have not had a chance to see

it, it might be something that you will want to take a look at as

we are looking forward.

So, first of all, could you tell us—and I have just used half of my

time—a little bit about where we are in the States in implementing

the various programs? You had some deadlines—I guess the deadline was the middle of April—is that right—for the States?

Mr. HICKOK. It was April 8, I believe.

Ms. NEUMAN. April 8.

The CHAIRMAN. What can you tell us about where we are in the

States, and if you could then tell us which ones you think will be

able to handle it by the fall, which ones will be in, out, and how

you plan to deal with it.

Mr. HICKOK. I would be glad to. Let me ask Susan to respond

to the April 8 deadline, because we were very pleased with where

we ended up on that date.

21

The CHAIRMAN. Okay.

Mr. HICKOK. Susan?

Ms. NEUMAN. First, to give you a ‘‘state of the States,’’ more or

less, one of the first things we had to do was ensure that the 1994

law was in fact complied with, and in fact, that required that

States have an agreement. This does not ensure full compliance

with exactly what was asked in 1994; rather, it really focused on

whether they had a plan and a time line that ensured that they

would comply. And they did—all States had that by April 8.

So by April 8, we had 19 States in full approval, other States in

time line waivers of one or two years, and five States in compliance

agreements.

If I could just add one more thing, for those States that we had

compliance agreements with, it would not be enough for them

merely to comply with a 1994 law, because in fact what would happen is that would ensure that they would be late for the 2005–2006

three through eight testing. So what we asked these States, for

those who were going into compliance, was that they would segue

the old law with the new law so that their time line actually shows

compliance with 2005–2006.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am interested in where we are going now

with the new law.

Mr. HICKOK. That is what I wanted to comment on. I think the

other important part of this story is that we have tried to be very

proactive with the States. Secretary Paige convened a meeting with

the State Chiefs—and I think we had over 30 attend—2 days after

the bill was signed at Mount Vernon. The goal here was to send

a couple of messages—one, we want to be, as you mentioned in

your opening statement, full partners with the States and the

locals on getting this done; second, that we are serious about getting it done, so that this time a couple of years from now, we are

not talking about a lot of time line waivers as we are now with

1994; and third, that we want to help them get this done. We are

moving from a compliance model to a technical assistance model,

so that one way we are going to work with individual States is to

see where they are and what they need to do to get in compliance

with this new law and what we can do to help them get there.

The Secretary has sent individual letters to every State Chief

about issues they need to be aware of. We have had meetings with

the Governors’ education policy advisors. We continue meetings as

we speak with various State and local officials. The chiefs of the

major school districts in the Nation got together for a meeting. So

we are being very proactive in a lot of different ways.

I should also mention, because you mentioned parents, that Secretary Paige unveiled, a couple of weeks ago in New Mexico and

Atlanta, and last week in Las Vegas, on a 25-city tour what we call

a tool kit for parents to understand better this new law.

A lot of our challenge is to make sure that everyone in America

realizes this is everybody’s business. Certainly it is primarily the

concern of educators, but it is also very much the concern of parents, taxpayers, and employers. So we want to reach out to those

constituents in a much broader way.

The CHAIRMAN. My time is just about up. I have two reactions.

One, if you could comment on the parents’ lawsuit on the Title I

22

negotiated rulemaking process claiming your failure to include an

equitable number of parents in the process. As I mentioned to the

Secretary, the most important thing we want to avoid is demonstrations against the law; the last thing we want is to exclude

parents from being involved or have them feel that they are not involved. So this is something that obviously has to be worked

through, and I would be interested in what you are doing on that.

Then, finally, because my time is up, on the reading program, as

you know, the law is clear that programs the Reading First funds

can support are a wide variety of programs—they are not limited

to programs that focus on classroom-based instruction; they can

also be used for small group instruction and individual tutoring

programs that may not benefit the whole class as long as they are

research-based strategies. Your guidance emphasizes that classroom-based instruction is the focus of Reading First, so I want to

be clear that States that want to also fund small group and individual tutoring programs will not be prohibited from doing so.

Mr. HICKOK. Let me comment on the suit, and I will ask Susan

to comment on Reading First.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you.

Mr. HICKOK. The suit is before the court. The plaintiffs sought

a temporary restraining order before negotiated rulemaking started, and the court did not grant that.

Our position is that while the negotiated rulemaking process outlines certain organizations or certain sectors that need to be at the

table—and parents are among them—we took the position that— two things—one, we wanted to make sure that people engaged in

the daily delivery of education, including parents, at the table—not

just representatives of organizations here in the Capital City, although there were some of those there at the table as well. Second,

a lot of folks really wear a couple of different hats. They might be

experts on teaching or curriculum, but they are also parents. So we

felt it was a rather false kind of structure to say that only two parents are at the table because ‘‘two are there to represent parents.’’

The CHAIRMAN. Two out of the 19. I guess the category is 19, and

two out of the 19 are parents; the others, as I understand, are representatives of different groups, which are not parents.

Ms. NEUMAN. Many were parents as well.

Mr. HICKOK. But I guess our point is that although many at the

table are parents as well as other education-related occupations, so

we felt that they bring many non-parent hats to the table. That is

my point.

On Reading First, I will let Susan comment.

Ms. NEUMAN. Just one other anecdote which is I think indicative

of the negotiated rulemaking process. One of the parents, after the

whole process was over, came up and testified before the group and

said that in the beginning, she felt like she might not have a great

deal to contribute, but at the end, she felt that her voice had been

heard and that people were very responsive to the parent comments.

So that Under Secretary Hickok’s point about wearing multiple

hats was very clear throughout the w hole process.

In terms of Reading First, Reading First is really designed to improve reading instruction, moving it from an art to a science. What

23

we are saying is that this is the most major reform we have seen

in the history of our country, really focusing on what are the scientific principles of reading, what do we know, and then beginning

to place what we know in classroom instruction.

We know that the benefits of scientific-based instruction will help

all children learn to read, but especially those children who have

had very little opportunity.

There was a famous study done by Dick Ellington who talked

about the children who are struggling readers. Very often, they are

the children who are taken to different places. They are pulled out

for one thing, they are pulled out for another thing, and they end

up having less instruction that any classroom-based instruction because they are so often pulled in various places.

So what we are saying about Reading First is that the primary

venue of instruction is the classroom, because we know that that

classroom is so critically important.

What we are saying also is that at times, teachers will need to

provide supplemental instruction. That means that at times, they

will have opportunities for supplemental instruction with small

groups in various places perhaps outside the classroom. But the

primary venue is the classroom, because that is where the rigor,

the intensity, the quality of instruction really allows all children to

succeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Just to read the language, and then I will yield,

it says, ‘‘The conference intends that State educational agencies

and local educational agencies are to be able to select from a wide

variety of quality programs and interventions to fund under Reading First and Early Reading First, including small group and oneto-one tutoring, as long as those programs are based in research

meeting the criteria and the definition of scientifically-based reading research.’’ So this is what was agreed to in the conference, and I think

small groups and one-to-one tutoring, as I understand, were included in the conference as long as they were based upon scientifically-based research.

Ms. NEUMAN. And that really means that they have to focus on

the five components, that we agree completely on the five components of what we know is high-quality reading instruction—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehensive.

Very often, the one-to-one, if they are provided extra instruction,

they have to have the full components of what we know is quality

instruction, scientifically-based.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gregg.

Senator GREGG. Just following up on that, I think that was the

Senator’s point by reading the language of the report. For example,

programs like Reading Recovery, which is a program that is very

popular in a lot of New England schools, I presume would come

under this reading agenda.

But on another issue, what are the top five concerns that you are

hearing from the State administrators and from the local, handson deliverers of education about the way this bill will be administered?

Mr. HICKOK. I think they are probably the ones that many of you

have heard. One is the adequate yearly progress issue, which the

24

law is pretty definitive about. Another one is capacity, the ability

to manage the amount of information adequately that they will get

in testing.

I have to tell you that one thing I have really learned on this job

compared to my job in Pennsylvania is that a lot of States have not

done a lot of capacity-building in terms of being able to collect lots

of information on student achievement and then to use that information. I am stunned at how many places test kids but never use

the results to improve student performance or curriculum or testing—which is what testing is all about, obviously. So that is a big

concern, I think.

I think there is a general level of anxiety out there about how

a State moves from where it is to full compliance on the testing accountability system. Frankly, we have not heard a lot of negatives

on the accountability system; it is more about how we are going to

get there and concern about implementation on their part.

I would say those are the primary issues, and we share those

concerns. That is one reason why we are talking about trying to do

the partnerships.

The other one is—and it really has not been an issue that has

been discussed a lot yet, at least in the field, although I am eager

to make sure it is discussed—making sure that those provisions for

public school choice and supplemental educational services that

need to kick in this fall are going to kick in. They are going to need

some real guidance and support on how to go about doing that

business.

But I would say that is mostly it.

Susan, do you have anything else?

Ms. NEUMAN. No.

Senator GREGG. What is the number of schools that you think

are going to kick in this fall as unfortunately having met the failing level that will make public school choice and supplemental

services available?

Mr. HICKOK. We should have a more definitive answer to that

sometime at the end of May. I should explain the process and how

it has changed. Right now and in the previous years, the Department receives from the States a list of the number of schools that

are failing to make adequate yearly progress as identified by the

State and as AYP is defined by the State. That number varies. I

have seen figures from 6,000 to 8,000. It depends on the school

year.

Now they have to tell us not just how many schools but which

schools, and that is what they are busy doing right now. So I cannot really answer that question yet, but we think it will be somewhere around 3,000 to 5,000; that is based upon current numbers

that we have.

Senator GREGG. So, 3,000 to 5,000 schools where you will immediately, theoretically, have available public school choice or supplemental services as an option to the parents. How do you see that

actually being instituted?

Mr. HICKOK. Well, I think one of the first challenges we have is

to make sure that parents know that this is an option that should

be available. Secretary Paige in one of his first correspondences

with the State Chiefs talked about making sure they are ready at

25

the State and local level to identify the schools and to put together

a process for public school choices and for supplemental services.

We are thinking about convening a pretty large meeting of folks

from States and from supplemental service providers to talk about

putting structures in place. We know that some States are busy

preparing. We have prepared some preliminary guidance—we are

not ready to send it out yet—so we are eager to help them get

there.

But our challenge right now is to make sure that parents know

what should be available, and then to talk to districts and States

about how they should go about doing this. But we do not anticipate, nor do we think we should, at the Federal level getting down

directly into implementing or telling them how to implement choice

in supplemental services, but making sure that it is there.

Senator GREGG. One presumes that it is going to be virtually impossible to assume that even a high percentage of those 3,000 to

5,000 schools are going to have in place options which will have

been screened by the local education community as available and

effective for supplemental services or maybe even options in the

public school choice area. Isn’t it likely that we are going to have

a fair amount of disorientation here for a little while?

Mr. HICKOK. I think there are those who would like to make the

argument that the choice provisions, at least in some places, are

a false hope, either because enrollment is above capacity so there

are no empty seats for them in some places, or because in some districts, the number of schools falling into this needing improvement

category is so large, frankly—I think of some of the districts from

my home State of Pennsylvania, for example—that the ability to

move to a school that is not in need of improvement is somewhat

cut short.

I guess one of my responses to that is that if you inform parents

that their children should have the option of attending a school

that works, and then tell them ‘‘but in reality, you do not have that

option,’’ I think you will see a level of interest at the local level in

charter school and in making that choice available that we have

never seen before. And I think that is important.

On supplemental services, I have heard quite a bit from a variety

of sectors of interest in getting ready to provide supplemental services. I have encouraged folks in higher education, for example—a

lot of our major cities have lots of institutions of postsecondary and

higher education. They might be very appropriate providers of supplemental services. We know of places like Sylvan and Huntington

who are talking.

So I tend to think the supplemental services aspect of this might

become more available quicker because there is sort of a market

there, if you will.

On public school choice, I think we are going to have to make

sure that that choice becomes available.

Senator GREGG. I think we sort of presumed that when we did

the bill, actually, or at least I did. And I think what you are saying

is that the marketplace is going to respond, and I think it will, and

I hope we are both right.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd.

26

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for conducting this oversight hearing.

I thank both of our witnesses for being here today.

I said last year when we began the process of dealing with the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act that I saw a welcome

change of heart. I remember only a few years ago at a summit

when Republicans were talking about eliminating the Department

of Education. We have come a long way from those days, and that

is heartening. I commend the President for taking such a strong interest in the subject matter from the very beginning of his administration. He certainly has made this an important issue.

I want to raise in my remarks a general question and then a couple of very specific ones on the draft regulations. One is the obvious

one that has been raised by others already, and that is a rather

paltry commitment financially to elementary and secondary education, particularly under this particular proposal where we see

freezes or cuts in a number of areas that many of us worked on

in a bipartisan fashion—hiring and training quality teachers, afterschool programs, bilingual programs, Safe and Drug-Free Schools,

which Senator DeWine and I worked on for years, serving only

about 40 percent of low-income children under Title I, and less

than half the increase the Senate proposes for special education,

just to mention a few.

Some have argued that we are actually looking at a 2 percent reduction in elementary and secondary education. The President said

that ‘‘Washington should be giving help to our schools, not giving

orders.’’ Yet in this bill, there are some orders. The mandatory testing is not a request—it is an order—and the question is whether

schools and localities, with the tremendous pressures they are

under financially, are going to meet these obligations with the lack

of resources that is proposed in the budget.

Now, the two specific questions have to do, one, with the civil

rights provisions in the bill. We worked very, very hard, as I am

sure both of you know, to allow certain community-based organizations to participate in some of the programs, and we also included

the critical civil rights protections in the law to protect the rights

of students, employees, and others. Yet the draft guidance that the

Department has issued concerning after-school programs makes

virtually no reference to these critical protections. We have not

seen the guidance on supplemental services. So my question is why

the department did not include the civil rights in its draft guidance

and whether you intend to do so, as I certainly hope you would. In

fact, I would note that the draft after-school guidance states that

‘‘The Secretary cannot waive civil rights provisions,’’ but nowhere

describes what those protections are.

I see you nodding your head affirmatively, so I presume that is

going to get back in here somewhere.

Ms. NEUMAN. Exactly.

Senator DODD. Is that correct?

Ms. NEUMAN. Yes. In fact, we are working on it now. It is in the

last process. You should see that rather soon.

Senator DODD. That is good. I am glad to hear that.

My second question deals with professional development for early

childhood educators—also something I worked to include in the legVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:39 Oct 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79324.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
27

islation—to help prepare children to be ready for school. I have

cited the statistics—78 percent of all women with school-age children are in the work force; 65 percent of women with children

under the age of 6 are in the work force; and 50 percent of women

with infant children are in the work force.

So the issue of working with these children where they are before

they begin school is critical. Kindergarten teachers tell us today a

staggering number of children come into the system not ready to

learn. There does not seem to be any willingness to talk about the

child care, the quality of child care, where so many of these children are. We are only serving a small percentage of eligible children under the Child Care Development Block Grant—even though

the social, emotional, cognitive, and physical skills that make it

possible for children to be ready to learn, or ready to read or

achieve early literacy, are so critical.

My question is whether the Department intends to limit this program to a pre-reading program as suggested in the budget or administer it in keeping with the broader policy proposals that we included in our statutory language.

Let me engage you on the larger issue here—no one seems to

want to talk about child care, and yet that is where most of these

kids are before they start school. Head Start serves 900,000 kids,

but that is not a huge program. There are 14 million kids under

the age of 6 in child care—14 million—every day.

Ms. NEUMAN. I know those numbers well. As a researchers in

early childhood, a teacher in reading and early childhood, I very

much understand and appreciate your point.

I think we are doing a great deal in this area, and to answer

your first point, I think that when we talk about early childhood

professional development, we are talking about the whole child and

that we cannot divorce the social, emotional, and cognitive development. But so very often, we have overestimated or thought about

child care provider and not child care teachers.

One of the things that we need to recognize is that these people

are teachers of our children, and our children are not coming to

school well-prepared. So one of the things that we are trying to do

in early childhood professional development as well as Early Reading First is bring these areas together—and not dichotomizing the

field, where we are talking about social/emotional, and now we are

talking about cognitive—but really encouraging professional development that focuses on the whole child and what that child needs

to have in order to go to school.

So we are looking at the early childhood professional development in a much more broad way.

Senator DODD. Again, I come back to the budget issue—you

freeze the Child Care Development Block Grant program, and yet

we now know that with welfare reform, we are going to be moving

to larger work requirements. My fear is that we will still continue

to serve the welfare recipient, but the working poor who are trying

to stay out of welfare, hanging barely by their fingernails, are

going to be excluded because we do not have the resources to provide the accessible, affordable, and quality child care that is essential to do exactly what you have just described doing.

28

Ms. NEUMAN. I wish it were our program, but it is HHS. So the

whole child care provider issue is not our issue.

Senator DODD. But we are talking about the budget. My point is

you are talking about that same child. It may be a different agency

of Government, but it is the same kid; and the fact that you have

two agencies dealing with the same child does not minimize the

problem—if you are cutting the resources at one level and freezing

them at another and talking about expanding the requirements, it

does not work. That is my point.

Mr. HICKOK. If I could just make one brief follow-up, I mentioned

in my earlier comments how the research in education is pretty

spotty. What is really disappointing is that we do know—and this

lady is one of the chief architects—what works in terms of early

childhood cognitive development. And what we do not do in this

country is a very good job of making sure we do what works.

So one of our goals, whether it is with child care or Head Start

or Early Reading or whatever, is to make sure we do what works.

It is one thing to not know the answer to some of these problems—

and there are a lot of answers that we do not have—but on education and reading, we do.

Senator DODD. We do. And my point simply is that we intended

to have a broad application of those concepts in here as we talked

about the training and development of teachers to work in the

early childhood development phase, the critical phase, and that is

the issue I wanted to raise with you as well as the issue of your

budgetary commitments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Collins.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hickok, Ms. Neuman, I want to start by thanking you for

your hard work. I know it is a monumental task that you have undertaken, and I am impressed with how quickly the Department is

moving to implement the new law. That is heartening to all of us

who worked so hard on it last year, particularly our chairman and

our ranking Republican member, and I am very pleased to see the

progress that you have made.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am particularly concerned about the reading programs and worked very hard on the

Reading First and Early Reading First programs. I have long been

convinced that the best way for us to achieve the goal of leaving

no child behind is to teach every child to read.

Maine has had tremendous success with its reading emphasis,

and indeed, our third and fourth graders rank among the top in the

Nation on reading scores. One reason is because in addition to the

emphasis on reading and using research-based methods, we have

very successfully incorporated the Reading Recovery program that

Senator Gregg referred to in his statement.

Therefore, I share the concerns mentioned by Senator Kennedy

and by Senator Gregg that some of the guidelines in the reading

program appear to not allow for funding of Reading Recovery, and

indeed there are references to classroom-only or small group

throughout the guidelines.

29

Will the guidelines be able to either be revised to make it clear

that successful programs like Reading Recovery and other one-toone tutoring could be funded with Reading First dollars?

Ms. NEUMAN. It surely can be funded by Reading First dollars.

Reading Recover—and I am very familiar with the program as well

as all the research attached to it—has never described itself as a

classroom-based or a program other than that for early intervention and acceleration of reading for those children who are struggling readers.

Therefore, what we are saying with Reading First is not to preclude Reading Recovery at all, but to suggest its rightful place in

reading reform. What we know is that reading instruction really

needs a strong classroom-based, comprehensive-based, a coherent

skill-based instruction that really encourages all five of the key elements, essential elements, of instruction.

Reading Recovery has a place at the table, but it cannot be the

only thing, because it is not a comprehensive program.

Senator COLLINS. I agree that it should not be the only emphasis,

but you cannot argue with the success that States like Maine have

had where our scores nationally, year after year, top the Nation,

and the reading specialists that I talk to in Maine, plus our State

department of education, say that Reading Recovery is very much

an essential part of that success.

I just want to make sure that the Department is taking a broad

approach, because our goal here is to teach children to read and to

read well and to intervene early so that we are teaching children

to read while that window of literacy is still open and before it

slams shut after the third grade and makes it so much more difficult.

Ms. NEUMAN. As I said, we are not precluding, and one of the

wonderful things about Maine is that they have been on the top of

the NAEP list for a long, long time, even before Reading Recovery

was in this country. So you have a history of reading success in

Maine that I am sure will continue.

Mr. HICKOK. Another point is that we want to make sure that

we complement the kind of remediation that Reading Recovery is

all about, dealing with students who are falling behind. What we

want to do is emphasize in a more proactive sense what we need

to do as a Nation so that fewer students begin to fall by the wayside and need Reading Recovery. That is not to say that Reading

Recovery has not worked. It is a different kind of program. I think

we want to have a balance there somehow.

Senator COLLINS. Well, again, I guess I would say that States

that are successfully teaching their children to read are States that

we should learn from and look at what is being successfully used.

Let me move on quickly to another issue. I am very pleased to

see the proposed regulations on the assessment issue which has

been very important to my State. Again, Maine has led the Nation

in developing a standards-based assessment system that does

stress high standards for all students and accountability, and we

have a mixture of Statewide tests in some years, supplemented by

local assessments in other years to measure students’ progress. But

always the emphasis is on high standards, measurement, accountability—exactly the themes that undermine this legislation.

30

Therefore, I know that you have conflicting letters from members

of this committee on this issue, and I want to emphasize my belief

that you are doing the right things by not mandating a single

Statewide assessment test but rather, a allowing States to have the

flexibility, and that again, the important point is making sure that

our children are learning, that there are concrete, good, solid measurements, and that we hold schools and everybody in the system

accountable.

Mr. HICKOK. Just by way of reaction, I think most States—as I

said, I was in Pennsylvania for 6 years—most States have a system

of accountability. The challenge of No Child Left Behind is for

every State to have a more rational, systemic approach to accountability.

I think the goal for all of this is the same. Some States will get

there differently, but the goal here is to have State standards and

a testing system that somehow measures student knowledge based

on those standards. And how individual States get there will be different, and our job will be to talk to those States and listen to those

States and see if they are ending up where they need to end up.

Senator COLLINS. Ms. Neuman.

Ms. NEUMAN. I was just going to add—but the bar will be high,

in response to Senator Kennedy and a number of other people who

wrote a note. The bar will be high. In other words, those States

that choose—we have about five States right now who have chosen

to do local State assessments. And I agree with you so importantly

that the goal is to have a high-quality system with high content

standards, high-quality content standards, and an assessment. But

the bar will be high in that the local assessments will have to provide evidence that they are the highest-quality equivalent to the

State assessment as well. For those States who can do that, we believe that the content, rigor, and quality will be the same.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We will come back to that.

Senator COLLINS. You cannot; I have to leave. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

I want to move you back in history a little bit. I was around in

1983 when President Reagan was President, and he had Terry Bell

as his Secretary of Education. At that time, he released a report

entitled ‘‘A Nation at Risk.’’ I remember that very well, because I

worked with him and worked with him beyond that.

I am disturbed when I look at the present situation and all the

problems. Since that time we have done nothing in this Nation to

improve the percentage of the costs that our local governments

bear for providing education—in fact, it is even worse now than it

was back then. And as I look through some of the things that we

have been talking about, it would take about $55 billion to really

give us the child care with the appropriate educational help, about

$25 billion to lengthen our school days and school year; and it

would take another large amount of money to be able to reach all

the standards that we are applying—and there are no funds there.

So I just wonder if we are going to walk into a situation where—

and I praised the President when I first met with him and I praise

him now for getting the testing in that will show us where we realVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:39 Oct 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79324.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
31

ly are—but the question is where are the resources going to come

from, and I have seen nothing out of the administration that is

going to provide anything close to the funding that is necessary in

that respect.

I would just ask you if you feel that we are not just setting ourselves up for a huge failure? I look at Vermont and the number of

schools that we could have. In our little State, we have 300 schools,

but it looks to me like 100 of those may be on the failing side, and

we do not have any resources to change that.

I would also point back historically that the only time we have

really helped our schools was back in 1948, when we provided

about 11 percent of the total Federal budget for education; now we

are down to a paltry amount of 1.5 percent of our Federal budget

goes toward education.

In all of our competitor nations, the amount of money that they

furnish to their local schools reaches about 30 percent of the cost

of those schools; we reach about 7 percent of the cost of the schools

at the Federal level.

I just want to strongly insist that we are going to have a disaster

on our hands if we do not have methodology to provide the financing that is necessary. I am going to try my best to get that financing, but I have seen no willingness in the administration to recognize the serious problems that are there and no ideas on how the

resources are going to be there to take care of these kids when the

schools are failing.

Mr. HICKOK. May I respond?

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. HICKOK. I remember the Nation at Risk report very well,

and I look back on that report and the time since then in terms

of dollars, Federal, State and local—but you are right, primarily

State and local—and I guess I read it as telling me that we have

spent a lot of money on education. It is clearly a very high priority

at the State and local level. Yet we are still in many ways a Nation

at risk, so much so that this committee and this Congress got together with this President and passed No Child Left Behind as a

sort of high priority.

So to me, the issue, in addition to resources, which will always

be a major issue, is the wisdom with which we spend those resources. And I have to say, having sat in a State Chief’s chair in

Pennsylvania for 6 years, that I am convinced that the schools in

that State over that 6-year period could do a much better job of

spending the resources they get. Certainly they could use more resources, and I think we can debate and obviously will debate the

adequacy of the resources. But I think that what we really want

to talk about is what are those dollars doing in terms of results for

kids. And we are beginning to do that in this country. We are beginning to do that in every State with accountability systems. We

are beginning to do that at the Federal level with No Child Left

Behind.

But that is a relatively new conversation in education, and I am

glad it is here. I welcome it. It will be very difficult. I would make

the argument, Senator, that with a strong accountability system, it

will be easier to recognize where the needs are in education, because we will have a bottom line. We will know where students are

32

not succeeding. We will know where subpopulations are not succeeding, and that will make it easier to make the case for more resources, because then we can really focus where the need is. Up

until now, that has not been the case.

Senator JEFFORDS. We know where the needs are. The Glenn report that came out was terribly disturbed at the fact that we do

not have the resources already in the schools for the mathematics

which is necessary. I think the title, ‘‘Before it is Too Late,’’ I think

says it all. How are we going to do it without more resources?

I just anguish at the thought of all the results of the testing,

which is great—we will know how bad we are—but unless there is

a real look and some plan for how we are going to make those resources available, I think we are going to have an ungodly disaster

on our hands next fall.

Ms. NEUMAN. I would beg to disagree. One of the things that we

say about No Child Left Behind is that there is a theory of action

here. As Under Secretary Hickok said, one of the things that we

are going to find through this accountability is we are going to

disaggregate the data, and we are going to see where we really

area. That is the first point.

But what we have is Reading First, and Reading First is part of

the solution. We have never tackled reading instruction in our

country as dramatically as we are about to. Further, we have $100

million more going into the 2003 budget.

So when we begin to put in scientifically-based practice—I mean,

we have done a lot of research in the field of reading; as a reading

researcher, I can tell you that we have done many, many hears of

research—and we have never put it in the classroom. We have

never used it effectively.

Senator JEFFORDS. No; because we do not have the money.

Ms. NEUMAN. Now we have the resources to do that and to

target—— Senator JEFFORDS. We do?

Ms. NEUMAN. Yes, and to target professional development, to

really train our teachers who have not been trained adequately to

really teach reading to our young children.

Senator JEFFORDS. Where are the resources?

Ms. NEUMAN. Reading First. More than three times the amount

of the Reading Excellence Act; a more comprehensive, more targeted sources of funding.

Senator JEFFORDS. How much money is that in millions of dollars or billions of dollars?

Ms. NEUMAN. It is enough to get the job done.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a billion dollars, and the Early Reading Program is $75 million.

Senator JEFFORDS. There is nowhere near enough resources for

all of this. I hate to go longer on this, but I just get so disturbed,

Mr. Chairman, when I look back at those times and the warnings

we had, and we have not made a change since then in the resources, and every other nation in this world does it, and we do

not, and we wonder why we are last in the world in math and

science—that is why.

The CHAIRMAN. We will keep the record open. We have had great

attendance today, with a lot of different things going on. One thing

33

I think, from the quality of the conversations, is that we should try

to do this about every 6 or 7 weeks—isn’t this enjoyable for you?

Ms. NEUMAN. I hope you are kidding.

Mr. HICKOK. We will be here, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a real desire here to stay on top of this

law. We know that you have a lot of things to do, but this is enormously important, and we will try to organize it and let you

know—— Senator GREGG. Is that during the school year, every 6 or 7

weeks?

The CHAIRMAN. We will let you know the areas that we are interested in so we focus the subsequent hearings. We will ask the committee to focus, too—and this obviously will not restrict them—but

to give you an idea of the topics of interest. We do want to try to

monitor this.

Senator Murray.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just thank Senator Jeffords for his remarks. I think they

get to the guts of the frustration that many of us have. When we

worked hard to pass the ESEA bill last year, there were two sides

to it—one was higher standards and accountability, and I think we

all agreed on that and moved it forward and worked hard on that;

but the other side was that we were going to provide the resources

for districts to make it work. With all due respect, just having a

reading program in place, without understanding that you cannot

put a child in a classroom with 35 kids, implement any kind of

reading program and expect a 6-year-old, who may come from a variety of different backgrounds, to learn to read is not enough. It

takes smaller class size. We know that. All good tests show that.

We know that you need a teacher who is trained, and putting some

emphasis on that is critical. But we are going to be testing these

kids and saying they are failing without providing the resources to

address this. I am very frustrated with the President’s budget and

its lack of money and resources.

How much of the Federal budget did you say goes to education,

Senator Jeffords?

Senator JEFFORDS. To primary and secondary, 1.5 percent.

Senator MURRAY. One-point-five percent. That is really the crux

of the problem.

Besides all of that, let me focus it even more for you. I want to

talk about a school district in my State, the Klickitat school district. It is a K-12 school district with 178 students. It is like a lot

of rural school districts around the country. It has severe teacher

shortages. It has extremely high transportation costs, because it is

a large district, and they have to transport the kids across long distances. They do not have advanced classes. They only have 178 students in the district. They receive hardly any Federal grant money

because they are too small to effectively use funding.

In our ESEA bill, we included a rural schools program to provide

some additional funding and flexibility for districts like this. They

are going to have to meet the accountability standards just like

every other district. They are going to need certified teachers when

standards ratchet up next year, without any additional funds since

the administration zeroed that out.

34

I want to know how rural districts like Klickitat school district

are going to be able to meet the requirements if we have not provided the funds they need to make that happen.

Mr. HICKOK. One of my responses is that the law does provide

for a variety of different approaches to flexibility. I think it is the

first time, as a matter of fact, that the Federal law provides for opportunities for flexibility designed at the local level, the school district level.

So I tend to think in terms of opportunities in these laws that

are not necessarily defined by the certain title.

Senator MURRAY. But when we did the ESEA bill, we did a rural

schools portion, because we recognized what we were putting on

top of these very small school districts challenges that are beyond

what they can deal with at the local level—but the President’s

budget zero-funded it.

Mr. HICKOK. I think this budget—and I am talking about the

larger portion of the budget, not just the rural schools—is a budget

that reflects two things. It is war time, and this is a responsible

approach to funding education.

Senator MURRAY. I will tell you that it is war time in our classrooms. My State, like Senator Wellstone’s and like a lot of other

States, is in a severe budget crisis right now. Washington State cut

$1.5 billion out of a $20 billion budget. They are not going to have

increased funds for schools, but they are receiving a Federal requirement right now to have a lot more accountability and testing,

to live up to standards. Their class sizes are going to be increased.

I know that Senator Wellstone’s State is laying off teachers; I assume many other States are as well.

There is a crisis in our schools—there is a war-time crisis, you

bet—but it is because kids are being asked to do an awful lot without the resources behind it. That is our responsibility. We are failing these kids.

Mr. HICKOK. Well, you mentioned the testing. As you know, the

budget calls for money to develop a test and—— Senator JEFFORDS. Only after we made you do it.

Mr. HICKOK. The budget does include money to develop the test.

I guess I cannot comment about that particular district, obviously, and I will be glad to look at it, but I know it is an illustration of a larger concern, and that is rural schools.

Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that you are trying to do the right

thing, but I think it is unfair to say to our kids in our classrooms

that we are in a war time situation, and therefore, we are not

going to provide you the resources that you need to be a competent

adult. We are going to require you to take tests. We are going to

require you to live up to accountability, but we are not going to be

there to help you do that.

Mr. HICKOK. And I would argue that it is unfair to tell the taxpayers of this great Nation—State and local taxpayers who have always shouldered more of the burden on this than Federal tax dollars—it is unfair to tell them that we should expect more money

from you to continue to do what has not worked. We have now

asked for record increases in the last couple of years. This money

is just beginning to move toward the school districts. Let us see

what kind of impact it begins to have.

35

I just think that we as a Nation—you are exactly right, the Federal contribution has never been that large; it is larger now than

in the past—but that is not a reflection of how much this Nation

spends on education.

Ms. NEUMAN. I would just like to add one other point. I think

it is a classic example of what I think is so important to us. You

have a wonderful Reading Excellence Act director. Her name is Jo

Robinson. And you also have a wonderful Chief State School Officer

who has done some incredible things in accountability.

My point is that Jo Robinson is the kind of woman who has made

a program work. She has begun to be more influential in scientifically-based reading instruction in your State, and she has done it

sometimes at tremendous effort when there has not been a great

deal of funding for REA, yet she did it, and she did it because she

approached the Reading Excellence Act intelligently, she used the

funds appropriately, and she is getting results.

Senator MURRAY. I will not quibble with you about her skills, but

I will tell you this. I have been in a classroom. I have taught. I

know what happens when you have 26 kids in a classroom. I have

been there. I have specifically been in that situation many times,

not just once, but I will give you one example.

I had 26 kids in my classroom. We were talking about the letter

‘‘A.’’ Each child was supposed to tell us something that started with

the letter ‘‘A.’’ I turned to the first child, and he said to me: ‘‘My

dad did not come home last night.’’

Now, you tell me how I deal with that child and the difficult situation he is in, with 25 other kids who are squirrely at best, and

I have to do a test the next week on reading.

We have to put the resources there to reduce the class size so

the teacher has the ability to deal with situations that none of us

can imagine. We have to make sure that that teacher has training,

not just in reading—and reading is important—but in all the other

skills that are so difficult. We need them to be in classrooms where

the roofs are not leaking, and kids are not required to go outside

to another building because there is no water or no facilities in the

building, as in districts that we have across our States.

So I really appreciate and applaud the reading program; I think

it is absolutely essential. I will tell you that. But if we have just

rhetoric here about how great we are doing, and we do not provide

the dollars that are needed in our districts, we are going to have

a failure on our hands.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Senator CLINTON. [presiding]. Senator Wellstone?

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I appreciate you being here.

First of all, I agree with my colleagues here. Part of what we

have done is we have a Federal mandate that you are going to test

every child in grades 3 through 8, but we do not have a Federal

mandate that every child is going to have the same opportunity to

do well. And our schools and our teachers down at the local level

are saying, first of all, where are the resources to make sure these

children can do well, and then—and I like the idea of

disaggregating; I think that is very important—and then, after we

36

know which children are not doing as well, where is the additional

help—where are the resources?

I have to tell you, Mr. Hickok, you mentioned the taxpayers—I

guarantee you that people in Minnesota want more Federal funding for education. We are seeing in some school districts as many

as 20 percent of the teachers cut. My daughter’s Spanish class is

now up to 50 students, and that is supposed to be a ‘‘conversation’’

class. My son teaches in an inner city school in Saint Paul, and

they are going without the resources. Minnesota wanted that bill

that we passed in the Senate that said that we were going to take

special ed, and on a glidepath, we were going to fund it for 6 years.

That would be $2 billion more over 10 years for my State. Now the

administration and the House Republican leadership came in and

blocked it.

In Minnesota any day of the year, people would say we want the

Federal Government to live up to its commitment, and if you ask

people whether they want to have all these Robin-Hood-in-reverse

tax cuts for the top one percent wealthiest Americans, or if you

want to take some of what was going to be there and put it instead

into education so our kids can all have the same chance, I am prepared to stake my reputation and I guess my career here in the

Senate on the proposition that people would say give us some more

resources for our schools and our kids. But, under the President’s

budget the money is just not there.

I have been in a school in Minnesota every 2 weeks, and I have

found few teachers who subtract from children; most of them add.

But they do not need tests to tell them which kids are not doing

well. What are we talking about here? We know which kids come

to kindergarten not prepared. We know which kids come to school

hungry. We know which kids come to school where English is a second language. We know which kids are on free and reduced school

lunch. We know which kids never had the educational stimulation

before kindergarten, and we know which kids move two and three

times a year because there is lack of affordable housing.

We already know which kids do not do well. Our question is

whatever happened to ‘‘leave no child behind’’? That is the mission

statement of the Children’s Defense Fund. You have given us a tin

cup budget. That is a charade. You do not achieve the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget, and that is what we have.

It is symbolic politics with children’s lives. That is what the President’s budget is.

Now that I have gotten that off my chest, a question. Members

of the Red Lake Tribe in Minnesota talk about ESEA, and one of

the things they are worried about is Title VII, where there is a 5

percent cap on administrative costs for the local education agencies. But tribes around the country are frustrated because this is

the only place in the bill where there is a cap on the LEA. What

they are saying is that some of the actual delivery of services might

be considered administration.

So my question is whether you would be willing to work with the

tribes in developing these regulations so that we can make sure

that the administrative caps do not actually end up harming the

tribes’ ability to provide education.

37

Mr. HICKOK. Yes. I looked at that before I came over, and most

definitely, most definitely. These are some of the children who are

most necessarily needing these services, so yes, we will be able to

look at that.

Senator WELLSTONE. Would you be willing to work with people

in Indian country? There is a whole set of rules and regulations

here that are critically important. I think that what they want to

do is have a chance to sit down at the table with you.

Mr. HICKOK. Yes, yes.

Senator WELLSTONE. I much appreciate that.

On test quality funding—am I out of time.

Senator CLINTON. No. Go ahead.

Senator WELLSTONE. Okay. The whole question of making sure

we do testing the right way was something that I wanted to focus

on a lot in the education bill. I have three questions that go together. Do you agree that test quality is something that we have

to continue to work on and improve and that we need more valid

and reliable tests? Will you ensure that States provide evidence of

test quality, and will your Department enforce that important requirement? We added this requirement because we wanted to make

sure, you will remember, that States did not just take off the shelf

standardized tests. We said, look, tests have to be related to curriculum, they have to be high-quality. So, given the importance of

test quality, why did the administration propose to cut the funding

available for the Test Quality Enhancement grants by $10 million?

We had some money in there that would basically enable States to

do their own work and come up with models for improvement, and

my understanding is that that was cut by $10 million. I am just

asking why; it is sort of a one-two-three question.

Mr. HICKOK. Overall on the test quality issue and accountability

issue, as Dr. Neuman said, the bar is going to be very high especially on the test quality. There are experts on this that we call

psychometricians. They know far more about these issues than I

ever will, thankfully, but their job, working with us, will be to look

at the degree to which these tests relate to standards in the State

and have validity and high quality. That is a very important concept for us. It is the heart of the accountability system. So the bar

will be very, very high. And that is not meant to send the message

that you cannot get there; it is meant to send the message that all

of us take this responsibility seriously.

Senator WELLSTONE. Ms. Neuman, did you have something to

add?

Ms. NEUMAN. As you know, the negotiated rulemaking focused

on criteria reference tests and norm reference augmented. We will

have a process similar to what we have already had in the Department of Education, and that is to subject all evidence to a very

stringent peer review process that really focuses on alignment

issues which we have not talked about today—alignment is critical

because it really focuses on whether we begin to test what we

teach—and valid and reliable among those things. That process

will continue, and in the new regulations what we will see are actually three options. States will be able to have criteria reference,

criteria reference and norm reference augmented, or if they do it

38

in the same year, criteria reference and norm reference in the same

year.

Senator WELLSTONE. Can I interrupt you, because I only have

about one minute left.

Ms. NEUMAN. Sure.

Senator WELLSTONE. So the point is we do not want a focus on

just a single standardized test, and we do not want teachers to

teach to the test. We want it to be related to curriculum, and we

want to use the best judgment of people in the professional testing

field to make sure that they are high quality.

Well, I want to tell you that I think that is really important, and

I think that if the accountability piece is done the right way, it

works, but if it is not, it is going to invite a lot of backlash.

Then, my final point—and I am sorry to sort of speak at you—

I again want to say in a quiet way, please remember, though—and

I know you know this—that the test is no substitute for a good

teacher.

Ms. NEUMAN. Oh, I agree.

Senator WELLSTONE. [continuing]. And it takes a large investment to have good teachers and maintain good teachers. A lot of

our problem is not just recruitment, but retention. The test is no

substitute for smaller class size, and it is no substitute for good

technology, and it is no substitute for good pre-kindergarten programs, and it is no substitute for good after-school programs, and

it is no substitute for getting more help to these kids when they

fall behind, when we find out that they are behind in reading or

math. That is where our schools are strapped for resources. That

is where we should have done better, starting with special ed, then

moving on to other programs. I really believe that. I know you

want the accountability; I just think you have got to also have

the——

Ms. NEUMAN. Right.

Senator WELLSTONE. [continuing]. The opportunity should go

with the accountability is what I am saying.

Ms. NEUMAN. A little point, and that is that professional development is throughout this bill, and I know you well know that, but

in early childhood, in reading, and Title II has professional development, and smaller class size is an option within that. We have

professional development in Title I.

So I think we all agree that helping our teachers really begin to

teach our children well is critical.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you.

Mr. HICKOK. Could I just say something?

Senator CLINTON. Certainly.

Mr. HICKOK. You mentioned special education a couple of times

and——

Senator WELLSTONE. And I mentioned Title I, too, if you want to

comment on that.

Mr. HICKOK. [continuing]. On special education, as you know,

that is going to be up for reauthorization. And I guess I can think

of no tougher or more important issue, frankly, for Congress to

work on than looking at IDEA and making sure that its promise

can be fulfilled.

39

It is a very tough issue. It is full of litigation, it is full of emotion,

it is full of money. It is one of those issues that every district really

grapples with, and every State does, and I know that Members of

Congress and the administration do.

But I think one of our challenges is how to make sure that the

‘‘E’’ in IDEA is taking place. So as reauthorization begins, the

President has appointed a commission to look at excellence in special education. Their ideas will come to the table. We will have

some ideas. I cannot say I welcome the conversation, because it is

going to be difficult, but it is a very important one—and I think

money will be a part of it as well, obviously. But IDEA is so much

a challenge—a human challenge—that I think we will get a chance,

working together, to talk about how to make sure it is doing what

it should do, and it is a combination of policies and dollars.

Senator CLINTON. I want to thank Secretaries Neuman and Hickok for being here. I was delighted by our chairman’s statement that

we will do this on a regular basis, because I think all of us are

deeply concerned about how we implement the changes that were

made last year. So I greatly appreciate your both being here. I look

forward to the continuing dialogue that I think is necessary to ensure that we do what we intended to do.

I have a number of questions. Secretary Neuman, to go back to

Senator Collins’ point, I listened carefully to your answer and I just

have to confess that I did not understand it with respect to Reading Recovery. Is Reading Recovery going to be defined as one of the

number of programs that schools may support?

Ms. NEUMAN. We do not define anything. One of the——

Senator CLINTON. Well, let me just reference the Title I Monitor

of March 2002 where, according to that report, the Department actively did promote certain reading programs at the Reading Leadership Academies and discouraged the use of others.

Taking that information and combining it with Department regulations that are restricting funds to classroom-use-only programs,

to my reading—and I may not read as well as I should; maybe I

need some intensive help—but to my reading, that seems to exclude Reading Recovery and other effective intensive programs.

Am I reading that wrong?

Ms. NEUMAN. Yes.

Senator CLINTON. Okay. So tell me—I want to go on the record

on this, because I want to be able to tell all of my districts in New

York, particularly where we use the Reading Recovery program operated by the New York University, which has been extremely successful, that Federal funds can be used in New York for Reading

Recovery under the Reading Excellence Act. Is that correct?

Ms. NEUMAN. Let me be very clear about this.

Senator CLINTON. And I want you to be very clear.

Ms. NEUMAN. First, I want to say that the Title I Monitor wrote

a clarification of that particular column, and that was put on the

web for anybody in New York or other places to read.

Secondly, we do not have a list or a suggested list of programs.

What every State is now doing is a couple of weeks ago, we sent

out the Reading First application which signifies the most major

reform in reading that we have ever had in our history.

40

In that application, there was also guidance on how someone

might fill out that application. Nowhere have we ever listed a program—we would not list Reading Recovery, we would not list other

programs.

The onus is on the State. The State has to write a proposal that

focuses on the scientific basis of reading and the five component

parts of reading—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It has to describe how it focuses on a

comprehensive, coherent, skill-based instruction—— Senator CLINTON. I understand that.

Ms. NEUMAN. [continuing]. Once it does that—— Senator CLINTON. I understand that, Secretary Neuman. But if

you are putting the emphasis on classroom-based programs, that

sends a very clear signal to whomever fills out that application at

the State level that a program like Reading Recovery, which is an

intensive one-on-one program, may not be appropriate. Isn’t that

an understandable reading of what you are telling the districts and

the States?

Ms. NEUMAN. No. No, it is not.

Senator CLINTON. Well, then, I think you had better clarify it, because clearly, it is not only my concern. We have heard this on both

sides of the podium today, that our districts are telling Senator

Collins, and they are telling me, that based on everything they are

getting from the Reading Leadership Academies and from the directives coming out of the Department, Federal dollars are not

going to be welcomed in the use of non-classroom-based reading

programs.

Ms. NEUMAN. What the guidance and application says is that it

focuses primarily on classroom-based with supplemental opportunities throughout the program. So in other words, what a State

would have to do is, in their application, focus on how they provide

comprehensive reading instruction, how they may provide supplemental instruction when needed, but with high-quality reading instruction, our hope is that supplemental instruction will not be as

needed as it has in the past, because the quality in the classroom

is better than ever before.

Senator CLINTON. Well, I understand that that is the hope that

we all hold, but there is a long way to go before that reality can

be achieved. When I think about a district like New York City or

Buffalo, where we are not only having teachers laid off, where we

have huge numbers of uncertified teachers, where we do not have

the quality of instruction that clearly we need, we have a lot of

work ahead of us.

I was just handed the State application for Reading First—I assume this has not been clarified—and it reads: ‘‘The Reading First

program focuses on putting proven methods of early reading instruction in classrooms.’’ So clearly, it is a focus on classroom-based instruction, but if you

are running a school district where you have large numbers of

uncertified teachers, where 30 percent of the teachers leave in the

first year or two, where you have even a higher percentage in highpoverty areas, and you are saying to yourself, I am going to try to

do what I know works, and we know that Reading Recovery works

even though it is more expensive, and let us at least focus on those

41

kids, because we have highly-trained teachers we can use for this

intensive program while we try to create a teacher pool that can

perhaps have classroom-based instruction, are you going to permit

that?

Ms. NEUMAN. We are going to look at a State application, and

the State application will focus on—— Senator CLINTON. So in other words, you are not saying yes, and

you are not saying no.

Ms. NEUMAN. [continuing]. I am saying that the expert panel— this is not for me to decide—but every proposal will be examined

by an expert panel who will look for whether instruction is provided and the comprehensive nature of that proposal. Supplemental instruction is possible, and it says it very clearly in that.

But the focus here in Reading First—I can remember as a reading specialist, I was in one school in Philadelphia where there were

300 kids who needed supplemental instruction in remedial reading,

there were 12 children who got remedial reading instruction in that

school, and there were over 280 children waiting for instruction.

With Reading First, what we are focusing on is quality instruction for all of our children and supplemental instruction for those

who need it.

Senator CLINTON. Well, Secretary, I would just suggest that in

districts like the one I represent, nearly every child needs it. It is

not supplemental. It is essential. And I would hate to think that

I had voted for a bill that would result in my districts who are

using Reading Recover in a good partnership with universities and

actually making a difference in the lives of some children being

told: No—we are going to ask you to go to classroom-based even

though you may not have certified teachers, even though you may

not have the means to go to classroom-based, and therefore, you

are going to lose these kids who could obtain grade-level achievements in reading through Reading Recovery.

I would just ask you very seriously to please take another look

at this. This is obviously a concern not only in Maine, where they

do extremely well already, but in New York, where we have some

children who are going to be left behind.

Let me ask also, are you planning to conduct a negotiated rulemaking process around the definition of scientifically-based research?

Ms. NEUMAN. No.

Senator CLINTON. No. Okay. I think it is going to be interesting,

then, to see what your expert panels determine are the allowable

programs that are going to be funded.

Ms. NEUMAN. No programs are listed in the application.

Senator CLINTON. But classroom-based is the criterion.

Ms. NEUMAN. Classroom-based in terms of the five essential components. For example, any program—some people may name it,

some people will not—but if will have to indicate five essential

components of good reading instruction.

Senator CLINTON. And does Reading Recovery meet that, except

for the classroom-based aspect?

Ms. NEUMAN. I would leave that to the expert panel to make a

decision, and those expert panels will be examining the comprehensive nature of that instruction.

42

Senator CLINTON. One of the issues that I am also confused

about is the alignment of the tests with State standards. It was our

intention, those of us who went along with the increase in testing,

to ensure that every State had a coherent testing system that allowed for comparisons between school districts. Yet, in the regulations, it appears that the Department is allowing States to use

local assessments in every year if they choose. That then creates

yet again a patchwork which will make it very difficult if not impossible to compare student performance across districts, and in

addition, with the NAEP scores not being available at the district

level, this is not going to be a very useful check on State and local

assessments.

I listened as you said that we can use criterion reference, norm

reference, but if you use local assessments, how are you going to

develop the kinds of comparisons that many of us thought were

really at the heart of the testing program, Secretary Hickok?

Mr. HICKOK. The issue really is whether it would create a patchwork assessment system.

Senator CLINTON. Well, now, stay with me on this, because you

know, I am not a—what did you say?

Mr. HICKOK. Psychometrician.

Senator CLINTON. [continuing]. Yes, a psychometrician.

Mr. HICKOK. Neither am I.

Senator CLINTON. So it is kind of like the blind leading the blind

here, I guess.

But if each local school district has the ability now to use local

assessments, and after leaving no child behind, it has the ability

to use local assessments, what have we gained?

Mr. HICKOK. Well, first of all, if it were that simple, if it were

simply the status quo with local assessments, we would have

gained nothing. But the whole thrust of the negotiated rulemaking

proposed regulations is to say this to the local assessment State:

If you choose to try to do this under No Child Left Behind, you are

going to have to make the kinds of adjustments to your system that

reflect test validity on State standards so that you do not create— even thought it has the appearance—you do not create a patchwork

system.

The psychometricians tell us that that is possible but very, very

difficult, so any State that chooses to go that route will have to

make a pretty tough case that they are not merely creating a

patchwork system of assessment, because we do not think that that

is what the letter or the spirit of the law is all about.

Senator CLINTON. Well, I have to confess that I do not know why

we are going down this road to start with. It seems to me that the

whole idea was to have some coherent testing system that allowed

comparisons. And if you know, going into it, that it is very difficult,

but some people are going to try to do it, and then we have to set

up a process for holding them accountable and determining whether or not they have done it, we are just kicking this can down the

road. I do not see the point behind that.

Mr. HICKOK. I think in part it is because we recognize that if you

have 50 States and additional Territories, each of which might do

things differently and have done things differently, have reached a

different level of standards and assessment and accountability in

43

their State, and rather than say to all 50 States ‘‘It is our way or

the highway; we have all the answers on this,’’ we are saying this

is what we are looking for, this is the goal we have in mind, which

I think we have all agreed up, and if you can reach this goal using

your strategy, make your case.

We think it is going to be much tougher to do it on a local assessment basis, but we are not going to say that we have the corner

of wisdom on this. We will wait and see if they can make the case,

but it is going to be tough to do.

Senator CLINTON. Well, I thought the whole idea of Statewide assessments was one of the fundamental assumptions underlying the

accountability system that we were adopting, and I am just surprised to learn that we are going to start down this road where we

basically permit local districts to first of all have some kind of a

dispute process with the State to argue that they can keep their

own local assessment systems, and then we are going to decide

whether or not that works. I just think we have created a bureaucratic and regulatory morass.

But I have made my views known earlier in a letter that I signed

along with some of my colleagues to Secretary Paige, and I am

very, very concerned that this really does run counter to what we

had originally determined was the big step that all of us were willing to take, which was to move toward Statewide assessments, and

I will certainly look forward to our continuing dialogue about what

this means and how we are going to achieve the original idea.

I am also concerned, looking at some of the cuts that the President’s budget is making, with some of the specifics concerning leadership in our schools. Title II authorized a School Leadership Program that was designed to help high-need districts recruit and retain principals, which is a major problem throughout the country.

Again, just speaking for New York, 40 percent of our principals

are expected to retire in the next decade, and in New York City,

165 of our 1,000 principals were not certified when the schools

opened. Part of the reason that I championed this idea was to try

to get some Federal dollars behind the idea that we needed to support strong school leadership. We funded that at $10 million in fiscal year 2002, and my first question is when can we expect to see

States and districts receiving that program; but then, my second

question is that it is zeroed out in fiscal year 2003, and I was wondering about the rationale behind that.

Mr. HICKOK. I will let Susan answer the question about when

you will receive funds.

Ms. NEUMAN. Actually, we are working on the application package right now for the principalships, so that should be available

shortly.

I think that one of the key issues—strong principalship is, as you

know, incredibly important, and instructional leadership is also incredibly important—I think that that particular program can be

melded and integrated with much of the Title II professional development, creating instructional leaders. So I think that was the consideration.

I would like, however, to go back before we go on too far to talk

about the patchwork, because I do not see it as a patchwork at all

in terms of testing. One of the things that we know is that very

44

few States are taking that option of local/State assessments. Five

States are currently doing that. As they change to a Statewide system which goes 3 through 8, it is highly questionable how many

States will continue to do that.

If Senator Collins were still here, she would probably indicate

that what has happened in the past is that the State has used local

assessments and has then calibrated those assessments against the

State assessment, providing a mechanism so that we really can see

one system.

As Under Secretary Hickok talked about, it is really incredibly

important to focus on all of the assessments aligned to the content

standards, so that was the strategy that allows them to use the

local assessment yet calibrate it against the State assessment

mechanism.

So we do not see it as a patchwork as much as an option.

Senator CLINTON. Well, if the five States that are using those

local assessments do not reach the high bar of calibration, will you

approve their plans?

Ms. NEUMAN. What we decided in the negotiated rulemaking—

which again is still in the process, since we are about to do regional

meetings—is that they would have to have a statistical measure to

show equivalence, so that the local assessment in terms of quality,

rigor and depth would be of the same quality as the State assessment, and they would have to show it not in face validity issues

or content validity but would actually have to show statistically

that they were similar. This will avoid one testing being different

from another.

Senator CLINTON. Over what period of time will they have to

show that?

Ms. NEUMAN. They would have to have current validity. In other

words, it is——

Senator CLINTON. And if they fail to do that, you do not approve

their plans?

Ms. NEUMAN. Yes, exactly.

Mr. HICKOK. And that is another reason why, as I mentioned

earlier, Senator, it is so important that we start—and we are starting—to work with States now. We do not want to just tell States, ‘‘This is what you have to do. Come back in 3 or 4 years and let

us know if you did it,’’ and then say, ‘‘No, you did not do it.’’ Some States are going to have a much tougher time, so our goal

is to work with States so that if they are encountering the kinds

of challenges we are talking about right here, we can let them

know quickly so they can move in the right direction. It is very important.

Senator CLINTON. I agree with that. Obviously, that is the whole

idea behind what we did.

Finally, I have a particular interest in a provision in the bill

about the Healthy Schools provision which concerns some of the

issues that we are now exploring and learning more about, which

involve the impact of dilapidated public school buildings on the

health of our children.

We also had a big article today in The Washington Post, I believe, an investigate article about schools being built on or near

toxic waste sites, children getting sick because of their attendance

45

in school buildings and on school property, soccer fields and the

like. It is a particular concern of mine because we have a number

of such issues raised in New York. I recently sent a letter to Secretary Paige asking that he use his discretionary authority to provide funding for this program, which is to conduct a study to explore the health and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on children.

Does the Department intend to fund the Healthy and High Performance Schools Program, Secretary Hickok?

Mr. HICKOK. I will have to get back to you on his response to

your letter; I do not know if he has responded yet.

Senator CLINTON. Not yet.

Mr. HICKOK. But certainly we share everyone’s concern about the

healthy conditions of schools. I mean, that is a pretty basic issue.

And if there is a way that we can contribute some kind of analysis

as you suggest, we would be glad to do it.

I think we have to look at all of these issues relating to things

such as school renovation, construction, et cetera, with a couple of

very big questions in mind, not the least of which is should there

be a Federal role here, and how large a Federal role should it be.

So my short answer to your question, although it is not that

short, is that I think the jury is still out on where we should be

on that issue.

Senator CLINTON. Well, I would hope that you would at least

fund the study, because it is very difficult to make decisions at the

local or State level without good information.

Mr. HICKOK. I agree with that, certainly.

Senator CLINTON. This would help us to determine what we

might need to do. And of course, the reasoning behind the Senate’s

passage of its version of the education bill that would have provided for full funding of special education was to free up State and

local dollars for some of the goals like lower class size and construction and modernization needs that we have. With the administration’s decision to cut both of those programs and to take the

Federal role out of both construction and modernization as well as

adding teachers to the classroom, it is very difficult to ask many

districts, particularly those that are hard-pressed and do not have

a very big property base on which to tax to begin with, to deal with

some of these concerns.

So if there is not going to be a Federal role, then, at least, the

Federal role that was accepted 25-plus years ago to fully fund special education ought to be addressed and dealt with in order to

properly align the Federal, State and local financial burden so that

we can have a better way of making some of these tough decisions.

It would be easier for districts to deal with some of their classroom

size issues and construction issues if they did not have the fastestgrowing part of their budget being the special education budget.

Mr. HICKOK. Well, certainly, I made my comments known about

special education. I think it is a combination of resources and policy that needs to be studied very carefully.

Senator CLINTON. I do not think you will get any argument from

any of us, but a promise or at least a goal was set all those years

ago, and the Senate in a bipartisan way voted to finally meet that

goal, and unfortunately, we were not successful in keeping it in the

46

conference. But it would certainly go a very long way toward fulfilling the stated purpose of leaving no child behind if this administration would support fully funding special education.

As we go through the process of reauthorization, it is going to be

very difficult to make some of the tough decisions we need to make

in the absence of a commitment to fully fund special education, and

I would hope that the administration would work with us toward

that end.

Mr. HICKOK. Well, we are certainly going to work with you and

with the members of the committee on special education generally

and on implementation of this law, so we look forward to those conversations.

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much for coming. We look forward to seeing you again, and I hope that members and staff remember that Senator Kennedy said we would leave the record

open. We will leave it open for 5 days for additional statements and

questions.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ