I

READING & ACCOUNTABILTY:

IMPROVING 21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN MARIETTA, GEORGIA, FEBRUARY 20, 2001 

Serial No. 107-2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

 75-503 pdf WASHINGTON : 2002 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR, 7TH DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................. 2

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHNNY ISAKSON, 6TH DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.............. 3

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................... 4

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY BARNES, GOVERNOR, STATE OF 

GEORGIA....................................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA SCHRENKO, GEORGIA STATE SCHOOL 

SUPERINTENDENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA........................................................... 16

STATEMENT OF BILL HAMMOND, INSTRUCTIONAL COORDINATOR, 

DEKALB COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DECATUR, GEORGIA ......................... 18

STATEMENT OF PAT BIGGERSTAFF, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, J.A. 

MAXWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THOMSON, GEORGIA ........................... 20

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VOLLMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY, GEORGIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA ...................................................................... 22

STATEMENT OF DR. ALVIN WILLBANKS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, 

GWINNETT COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA........................................ 24

STATEMENT OF DR. CINDY LOE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR 

ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANCEMENT, GWINNETT COUNTY, 

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX A -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN 

BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ............................................................................. 41

APPENDIX B -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY BARNES, 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF GEORGIA......................................................................... 49
iv

APPENDIX C -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA SCHRENKO, 

GEORGIA STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA ......... 53

APPENDIX D -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BILL HAMMOND, 

INSTRUCTIONAL COORDINATOR, DEKALB COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

DECATUR, GEORGIA................................................................................................ 59

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAT BIGGERSTAFF, ASSISTANT 

PRICNCIPAL, J.A. MAXWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THOMSON, 

GEORGIA..................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX F -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VOLLMER, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY, 

GEORGIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.... 75

APPENDIX G -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ALVIN WILLBANKS, 

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, GWINNETT COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, 

GEORGIA..................................................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX H -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CINDY LOE, ASSOCIATE 

SUPERINTENDENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANCEMENT, GWINNETT 

COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA .............................................................. 87

Table of Indexes............................................................................................................ 94
1

FIELD HEARING ON “READING & ACCOUNTABILITY: 

IMPROVING 21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS” 

____________________

Tuesday, February 20, 2001 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Fair Oaks Elementary School 

Marietta, Georgia 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., Fair Oaks Elementary School, 

Marietta, Georgia, Hon. John Boehner, presiding.

Present: Representatives Boehner, Collins, Barr, Isakson and Miller. 

Staff Present: Bob Sweet, Maria Miller, Dave Schnittger, Majority Staff and Alex Nock, 

Minority Staff. 

Chairman Boehner. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Before we officially get 

started, we have some introductions to do. Let me start by saying that I am John 

Boehner. I am a member of Congress from the Eighth Congressional District of Ohio 

and Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

 I would like to turn to our colleague and our host today, Bob Barr, who represents 

the Seventh District here in Georgia. 
2

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR, 7TH DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Mr. Barr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to welcome you and 

Ranking Member Miller and our very good friends and colleagues, Johnny Isakson and 

Mac Collins here to the Seventh District of Georgia today. 

 I would like to welcome this panel to the Seventh Congressional District of 

Georgia and the Fair Oaks Elementary School here in Marietta and Cobb County, 

Georgia.

 I also would like to extend a hearty Seventh District welcome to the witnesses 

today, including Governor Barnes; our State School Superintendent Linda Schrenko and 

the other distinguished members of the state educational community. 

 I also would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing 

on one of the most significant public policy issues in America today, the education of our 

children. Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, education has moved 

quickly to the forefront of America's agenda. The President's new emphasis on 

improving our schools has culminated in his recent proposal to the Congress, which he 

submitted just a few weeks ago. I look forward to working in Congress on that and other 

educational initiatives that emphasize local control, accountability, and achieving 

effective results. 

 An important part of President Bush's proposal is the Reading First Initiative, 

which will help ensure a basic standard which we all can agree on; namely, that every 

child be ready, able and willing to read by the third grade. Being in front of the power 

curve here in Georgia, and particularly here at Fair Oaks Elementary, our state has 

already employed a Reading First Program for several years. Reading First places 

responsibilities on both students and their teachers. Students must read approximately 

three hours a day and their teachers are required to either teach reading or privately tutor 

individual students. This program has proved particularly effective among first grade 

students, low achieving second grade students and some low achieving third grade 

students.

 It is entirely appropriate that this hearing is being held in an elementary school in 

one of America's communities rather than in Washington, D.C. Appropriate because our 

attention too often turns to Washington when it comes to education, when, in fact, our 

attention really should be focused here in the schools and communities that actually 

educate our children. Too often students leave our schools without the necessary skills 

they need to succeed in today's economy. I believe we need to recognize programs like 

Reading First, which combat that very problem. We should also work to share such 

solutions with the rest of the nation so that other schools may enjoy the success that Fair 

Oaks has already begun to realize. 

 We all look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses today.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee members for being here in the 
3

Seventh District with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Barr. I know that you had a number of previously 

scheduled activities and so we know that you have got to go, but thanks again for hosting 

us.

 Let me turn to my colleague who is from a neighboring district, Congressman 

Johnny Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHNNY ISAKSON, 6TH

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, first of all, want to thank you for allowing 

this hearing to be held. And second, I want to share that a special affinity in my life 

before going to Congress was with the State Board of Education and with so many of you 

here. There are some real heroes in my life that are here today, and I am going to 

introduce them quickly, because I would like for the members of our Committee and the 

Congressmen to know who is here and how much they care about education. 

 Louise Radloff is the Chairman of the Gwinnett County Board of Education, and 

you should know that Louise, I believe, has served on the Board for 25 years, is that 

correct?

Ms. Radloff. Twenty-nine. 

Mr. Isakson. Twenty-nine years, and has been a champion for public education. 

 Johnny Johnson at the back of the room is the former Chairman of the Cobb 

Board and is on the Board. The current Chairman is Laura Searcy, who is here. Laura.

And Teresa Plenge is also on the Cobb County Board. And like every board, the Cobb 

County Board needs a good attorney. Glen Brock is here somewhere. Where is Glen? 

There he is. Glen is an attorney with the Cobb County Board.

 I am particularly delighted that the lady I served with for three years, 

Superintendent Schrenko, is here. And my friend, Governor Barnes, we have been in 

political office together, I guess, Roy, for 24 straight years now, something like that. I 

am so delighted the Governor would come and testify in his home county, and that 

Superintendent Schrenko would also take the time to testify, and the same of all of our 

other panelists. 

 The Education and Workforce Committee thinks there is nothing more important 

than raising expectations for our children and raising the performance of those that are 

most disadvantaged and fall primarily in the category, as most of you in education know, 

as Title I. So we are here today in Superintendent Joe Redden's school district of Cobb 

County to listen to our witnesses and take their message back to Washington, D.C. and 

hopefully pass a product that is beneficial, with flexibility in the use of federal funds and 

its direction. 
4

 My last comment, Mr. Chairman, is to particularly welcome George Miller from 

California. One of my fondest experiences in Congress is getting to meet George and 

know him. He has served in the Congress since 1975 from California, and he's an 

outstanding advocate on behalf of children, education and the environment. So, George, 

welcome. Thanks for coming all the way from California. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Boehner. Let me extend a warm welcome to all of you, to my colleague, Mr. 

Miller and to my colleagues here in Georgia. My special thanks to both Bob Barr for 

hosting this and to Johnny Isakson for helping us get so many of our great witnesses here 

today. Johnny, I don't think we could have done this without you. 

 I especially want to thank Ms. Suzanne Linberg, the Principal here at Fair Oaks 

Elementary, for all of the work that she has done to help us get ready for today. We 

enjoyed our tour of the school this morning, and seeing the children here at school 

reminds us of why we are here. We want to work together to help schools like this 

provide the best possible education for our children. I know this hearing involves an 

awful lot of work for you, Suzanne, and your staff, and we are grateful for your 

hospitality.

 This is the second of several education reform hearings our Committee will be 

holding over the next several weeks. As Congress begins a new legislative session, our 

Committee will be traveling around the country to hear from parents, teachers, school 

administrators and many others about state and local reforms that are improving 

academic performance. 

 These hearings will help lay the foundation for legislative action later this spring 

on our major K-12 education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Just a 

few weeks ago the President announced his education reform plan, a plan with academic 

accountability as its centerpiece, and a plan that ensures that no child is left behind. 

 Today, we are particularly grateful to Governor Roy Barnes, who has agreed to 

share his thoughts with us on how education reform is being implemented here in 

Georgia. Several others will tell us about the new accountability measures the state has 

instituted to ensure a quality education for all of Georgia's school children. We want to 

learn from you and make sure that any federal education reform legislation complements 

what you are doing here in Georgia. We want to be partners in this effort to provide the 

best education possible for our children. 

 Our hearing today will focus on the success of Georgia's Reading First program 

under the able leadership of Superintendent Linda Schrenko. At the national level, 

President Bush has made improving reading for America's school children a top priority. 

The first day on the job he held a reading round table with teachers and principals who 

were successfully applying scientifically research-based reading instruction in their 
5

schools. His vision, like that of Georgia's Reading First initiative, is to ensure that every 

child is reading fluently by the third grade. 

 It is my hope that the federal government can learn from what you are doing here 

in Georgia. President Bush's education reform proposal would provide assistance to 

states and school districts in establishing comprehensive scientific based research reading 

programs. 

 With that, I will turn to my colleague from the great state of California, George 

Miller.

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES – SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE 

MILLER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing, 

and I thank Fair Oaks School hosting us. And to our colleagues from Georgia, thank you 

very much for attending this field hearing. 

 As has already been said, this is an effort to try and continue to gather information 

so that we can make the intelligent and right decisions about how to proceed on the 

proposal that the President has submitted to the Congress. We will be doing this in the 

next few weeks, both in the House and in the Senate. I think there clearly is bipartisan 

agreement that we need to make sure that our school systems are in fact accountable for 

the education that we seek for our children and that we have the ability to provide for our 

children to be able to read by third grade. We clearly understand that that is not 

happening today. As we look at the NAPE exams in the last round, only 31 percent of 

our fourth graders were reading at what we call grade level. Clearly, we have to make a 

strong investment of resources in research-based programs that we know can deliver the 

goods that we seek on behalf of the education of our children. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses today. 

Governor, thank you very much for taking the time to appear. Your struggles on behalf 

of education reform go beyond the borders of Georgia. We are well aware of your efforts 

and we look forward to hearing about provisions for accountability and also for the 

programs the state and the counties have started with respect to literacy. 

 Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 

14 days to allow member's statements and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record, and without objection, so 
6

ordered.

 And with that, it is my pleasure to introduce to all of you, you all know him, the 

great Governor of the State of Georgia, Roy Barnes. Governor, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY BARNES, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

Governor Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 First, I would like to welcome you to Georgia and I would also like to thank you 

all for accommodating my schedule. When the General Assembly is in session, I am a 

little bit skittish about leaving the Capitol for any extended period of time. 

Chairman Boehner. Governor, having been a member of the state legislature, I know 

exactly what you mean. 

Governor Barnes. There are four basic building blocks to education reform. Great 

teaching, leadership that is committed to serving the best interest of the children, 

willingness to use innovation rather than defending the status quo and accountability. 

Which is what I am here to talk about just for a short period of time today. 

 Absolute standards must be used in order to measure the success of education 

reform. That is why in last year's education reform effort we set up an independent 

Office of Education Accountability here in Georgia to set standards, to measure results 

and to reward success. Now I know that later this morning you will hear from Mike 

Vollmer, who is the Executive Director of our Office of Education Accountability. 

 Now does this involve testing? It does. But I hope that you will not consider 

testing to be a bad thing. There are those that contend that testing is unfair, that we test 

children too much, that teachers will teach to the test. Every excuse known to man will 

be thrown up to you as to why not to test to observe children. I suggest to you that if you 

do not test, you cannot make a diagnosis on what needs to be corrected, number one. 

And that you cannot make the steps and strides that are necessary to improve education 

and the performance of education. Well, if we do not test, and to all of those that contend 

that testing is bad, I will tell everyone, as I have in the last couple of years, that there is a 

test coming one day and it is called life. And we either test now to find the weaknesses in 

the education system and hold our schools accountable and reward them for 

improvement, or we will fail in the test called life in preparing our children for 

employment and for a lifetime of learning. 

 People almost do not get into college or they almost do not get jobs and we do not 

want our children to get an almost good education. So we have to be able to measure 

results in some type of objective standard and method. Here in Georgia, we are 

developing the test ourselves, the Criterion Referenced Competency Tests that are being 

written by Georgia teachers and based on the standard Georgia curriculum being taught 

in our schools, and they have had some dramatic results in the first series of tests that we 

have given. We have tested at grades four, six and eight. We found that almost a third of 

our fourth graders couldn't read on a basic level. Forty-six percent of our eighth graders 
7

could not do math on a basic level. So we test our children to learn the weaknesses and 

seek to correct them. We do this so our children will be able to learn and kept on grade 

level. Now if you look at the results in North Carolina, Texas or Kentucky, you will 

discover that it was a similar system of accountability that allowed them to vastly 

improve their school systems over the last 10 years.

 I want to give you some things that I think you need to keep in mind in 

accountability systems. One is, you have to make sure that the test results, the criterion 

test results, are not dumbed down in the scores. The easiest way to show some type of 

improvement is just to set the cut scores lower so it shows that everybody is doing well.

We went through this earlier in this decade, or in the last decade in Georgia. That is the 

reason we give NAPE at every opportunity, and also we give Stanford 9s. We gave ITBS 

before. We give Stanford 9s to be able to crosswalk and crosscheck the Criterion 

Referenced Test. Now everyone, as I said, when you do this, will all complain that there 

is too much testing, but, in fact, it is necessary to be able to crosscheck and crosswalk 

those Criterion Referenced Tests to assure that we are testing and setting a high enough 

standard.

 The accountability system that we are putting into place here in Georgia, and it 

has this crosscheck from NAPE and also from the Stanford 9s, will monitor the progress 

of our schools and then give each school two grades, one for absolute performance and 

the other one for improvement. This gives two opportunities for rewards under our 

accountability system. Schools that score an A or a B for either absolute performance or 

improvement will receive financial rewards. These rewards will come in the form of 

bonuses to teachers, administrators and all other school staff, including cafeteria and 

maintenance workers, because a school should operate as a unit and they should help and 

assist each other. If they improve or they score high on the absolute standard, then 

everybody should share in a financial reward. It takes all of these people; every person in 

a school to make sure that a school runs correctly and all should be rewarded when a 

school is doing well. 

 Now schools that score a D or an F on either scale will be visited by school 

improvement teams that will help the administration determine what can be done to fix 

what is obviously failing. For when a school fails, it is our children that suffer and not 

the adults. 

 If a school continues to fail, the State Board of Education will have the 

opportunity and responsibility to intervene. Options include taking over the day-to-day 

management of the failing school, closing the school, or allowing parents to remove their 

children and send them to another public school in the district. 

 The Office of Education Accountability will also do performance audits on 

schools to verify that the information being submitted to them each year is accurate. 

 Just last week, I proposed to our General Assembly to take accountability one step 

further and to end social promotion here in Georgia. We must do all that we can to help 

those children who are failing and falling behind stay on grade level. But when 

everything possible has been done, sometimes the best option for that child is for them to 

repeat a grade. I have proposed a set of statewide guidelines to be used in conjunction 

with local policies to determine when a child needs to be held back. Our hope is that this 

happens to a very few children, that we are able to use early intervention programs that 
8

we've put into place and are expanding, and other programs to keep children up to speed 

and on grade level. And if a school is holding too many of their children back each year, 

which will be another reason for the Office of Education Accountability to check on 

them, we can give assistance in that regard also. 

 Schools that are high-performing schools should be rewarded and given flexibility 

to continue to do the good job they are doing. But schools that are failing and that are 

having children fall behind need all the help we can give them in order to ensure every 

child in Georgia a quality education. 

 I want to add one other thing, too, and it fits into this, but it is not exactly on 

accountability. We have created an early intervention program where children that are 

behind grade level in grades K through 3, and we are expanding it to four and five this 

year, has a teacher for every 11 students. We fund a teacher for every 11 students. We 

also have provided funds to extend the school day, the school week and the school year 

for those children. 

 The states need more flexibility to integrate Title I money into those existing 

programs. What is happening now in many cases is there are parallel programs being run 

in Title I schools. And these schools generally overlap, as you well know. And we're 

running parallel programs that do not allow us to combine and consolidate into one 

program. Now, I do not want the State to say well, we will just use Title I money and do 

not use state money. I am willing to have some agreement and some requirement that 

you have to continue with your level of funding or increase it, but there needs to be 

flexibility. And to do that, the funds need to be paid so that they are subject to the 

appropriation process rather than flowing through.

 Now I know there has been several advances in trying to get more flexibility in 

Title I money, but there is, in my view, lost and wasted money not being used to its 

fullest potential by not being able to integrate fully on an annual basis and make the 

changes in Title I money so that we can give the remedial help to make sure that an 

accountability system works. For an accountability system to work, you have to have the 

backup programs to give the assistance to the children to keep them on grade level. You 

have to have the extended day and the extended week and the extended year. 

 One of the things that has amazed me over the years is this: I have heard all of my 

life that children learn at different levels, and that is true. They learn in different time 

periods. The phrase I have always heard is, all apples do not ripen at the same speed. If 

that is true, then why do we have all children going to school the same number of hours a 

day, the same number of days a week and the same number of weeks a year? Some 

children need more time on tasks. And to be able to form those types of programs to 

keep children on grade level so that an accountability system works, we need to be able 

to fully integrate state and federal funds in remedial programs. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to come. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY BARNES, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF GEORGIA – SEE APPENDIX B 
9

Chairman Boehner. Governor, thank you. We appreciate your testimony. Under 

Committee rules, each of us has five minutes to question our witnesses. 

 With that, let me begin. Let's begin on the last point that you brought up, that you 

need more flexibility with Title I funds to better integrate our activities with yours. I 

think all of us here would agree with that. Although in the past when we gave block 

grants to states for specific purposes, we noticed something after several years, and that 

is, the money got funneled off into other purposes. One of goals here is to consolidate 

the number of programs, focus our efforts on those students whom most need it and 

frankly, to beef up Title I, but to give the states the flexibility that you are calling for. 

How can we best do this? 

Governor Barnes. Well, I will tell you this. We have got a little better experience now 

than we have had in past years. For example, with TANF money, which came in a block 

grant, that has worked very well. That money hasn't gone off to other purposes and has 

not sloughed off to other purposes. So we have a little better experience now. But the 

best way to do that is to say that the state, in my view, the state can, if they have a 

program, a remedial program, and they agree not to decrease the funds below the level, or 

have even some growth in it, state funds that existed on a certain date, that the federal 

Title I money can be put into that program to expand it as long as it covers all Title I 

eligible schools, which it will. Because what you do now, you know, the local school 

comes up with a plan and it goes to the state plan and it flows through the state but there 

is so much paperwork there that it is difficult to review and to be able to monitor what is 

effective and not. So when you are not doing that, you have two parallel plans. You 

have an intervention program that is state funded and an intervention program that is 

federally funded. 

 You have made some giant steps in that regard. One of the problems in extending 

the day, for example, for children that need remedial is transportation. You now can use 

Title I money for transportation for remedial programs. We should not let bus schedules 

run whether a child gets remedial work during the day, a remedial chance during the day. 

Chairman Boehner. That is a novel idea. 

Governor Barnes. But it happens. And when I talk to administrators and I say why do 

we not, just to use an example I have right now, why do we not have an extended day for 

those children that need it, and they say, well, you cannot get it on the bus schedule. And 

I always say, well, bus schedules should not be running the idea of whether a child stays 

on grade level or not. If we have to put more money into transportation, let us do it. And 

if we have the flexibility of using the funds, we can do that. 

Chairman Boehner. Governor, I have got one more question and my time is about up. 

Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improving President Bush's plan? 

Governor Barnes. Well, of course, all I have seen is the summary. I was one of the 

governors who was invited to the White House. There were about 15 or 16 of us. On 

first blush, I have some difference of opinion only on vouchers, but we will lay that aside.

Besides that, I think he is on the right path and I agree with him. I would like to see the 

details, of course. The devil is always in the details. But I think he is on the right path.
10

It is consistent with the plans that Texas and North Carolina and Kentucky and some of 

these other states have done in the past. 

 You know, for years we struggled to figure out what it was that improved schools. 

We were looking for the recipe back when I first came to the General Assembly in the 

'70s and '80s. We know what the recipe is, and it is setting high standards and measuring 

and pushing those standards every year. And to measure, you have to test. And to be 

able to push those standards, a good number of children have to go to school longer 

periods of time, whether it be extended day or extended year.

Chairman Boehner. I recognize my colleague from California, Mr. Miller. 

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

Governor, again welcome and thank you. If I just might ask a couple of questions. You 

stated that you thought Title I money should be subject to the appropriations process. Do 

you mean the district appropriations process or the state legislature? 

Governor Barnes. The general assembly. 

Mr. Miller. Oh, Governor, wait a minute here. 

Governor Barnes. I know there are those that disagree with this, but what happens is, 

you cannot integrate into a program. Listen, whether we are Democrat or Republican, if 

you are a governor, the number one priority you have is education, or it should be. And 

to be able to integrate those programs in and to use the funds effectively is very difficult.

In all of the education reform effort, I did not take Title I into consideration in what we 

did in Georgia because it was so difficult to integrate into the program. 

Mr. Miller. Well let me beg to differ with you a little bit, Governor. 

Governor Barnes. I know there are others that differ with me. 

Mr. Miller. No, if I understand the process correctly, Title I monies that would come to 

this school under the Reading Excellence Act, let us say, which supports reading 

programs. They could be used essentially for any program that this school would decide. 

They could use Reading First, they could use Success For All, or they could use Reading 

Recovery. Essentially, we would like them to use some research-based reading program, 

but that is a decision that the schools make, or the district, I guess, if they wanted every 

school to use the same one, and Title I would simply fund that program, along with state 

monies.

Governor Barnes. Yes, but let me tell you what; that is a nice theory but it is not the 

practice. What happens is, I am not telling you at this school, but I am telling you that in 

many schools, we have a reading program that you will hear more about this year. We 

are making some changes in it this year. And what we are going to do is get the local 

districts a menu. You can choose these, but you have to have an assessment method 

every certain period of time and we will fund it, we will give you a grant. All right, now 

you have a local district that says all right, we choose under that plan and then we have 

the federal money over here, why not have them in one program? 
11

Mr. Miller. There is no prohibition on those federal dollars being used. 

Governor Barnes. There is not, but what happens is, on a local basis they never funnel 

down. I am not telling you that it occurs here, but I am telling you in many parts of the 

state they never funnel down to be able to have that flexibility. And what happens is, it 

becomes a plan that is repeated. A Title I plan that is sent and forwarded on every year 

and it becomes the same plan and it does not have the accountability measures. 

Mr. Miller. Oh, I agree that it may not have the accountability measures, that is a 

different issue. We would hope that that would be incorporated. I think the growing 

trend in the Congress is to try to drive these dollars to the school site. In my state, I hate 

to say this, but my superintendent of education takes 70 percent of her office out of Title I 

funds. Now people argue we are only six or seven percent of the dollars, but all of a 

sudden we are funding 70 percent of that office. I had rather that go down to the 

schoolroom. Now that is not your problem in Georgia, I understand that. 

Governor Barnes. No. 

Mr. Miller. But, you know, our concern here is that these dollars get driven to those 

schools most in need, that they get targeted to those schools and we do not have that 

many of them to go around. I hope the President will increase them. 

Governor Barnes. Let me reply to that directly as to this. These schools that we are 

trying to affect right now; last week we identified some at a meeting at our Education 

Coordinating Council where I require everybody that has got anything to do with 

education, all of the heads, university system, technical college, they come to one place 

once a quarter and we discuss education and the problems that exist across lines. We 

identified schools that at least 70 percent or more did not score basic on our test. In many 

cases, I will tell you that this school is an exception, but in many places in the state we 

are trying to change things that are repeatedly occurring each year at that local level. 

And when you say well, let us just send it back to the local system, and you say the 

General Assembly cannot affect it by trying to require some changes with that, you are 

repeating the same mistake every year. It is time to do something different. 

Mr. Miller. Well, I do not want to get over technical here; 

Governor Barnes. That is all right. 

Mr. Miller. But I think, you know, those are decisions that the state boards make, the 

general assembly makes, and the local districts make, and that is how you spend Title I 

money. That is just a question of whether or not this school will have the resources to 

deal with a population that has a huge percentage of free and reduced price lunch and 

whether or not they will have the same quality programs as other schools do and Title I is 

to contribute to that pot. How you want to spend that money; in the old days, we used to 

tell you how to spend every nickel and dime. We used to call them radioactive dollars. 

Well that did not work. 

Governor Barnes. No. 
12

Mr. Miller. That just did not work. So now we agree, you ought to be making these 

determinations at the state and local level. 

Governor Barnes. Except you are making them at the local level; there are 1800 schools 

in this state. 

Mr. Miller. No, no, no, I am not saying that at all. That is your decision. That is your 

decision. All I am saying is that when you make the decision that you want kids reading 

by the time they are in third grade, our goal is to drive enough money to the poorest 

schools where the students are having the most difficult time and making sure that they 

get the same shot as kids in other neighborhoods that have more resources to do that. 

Governor Barnes. I agree with you. 

Mr. Miller. That is all we do in Title I. 

Governor Barnes. That is all education reform is about. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. I knew we would agree. 

Governor Barnes. Education reform is about closing the gap. But what you are saying, 

and I do not mean to be argumentative with you. 

Mr. Miller. And we are two Democrats going at it like this. 

Governor Barnes. I do not mean to be argumentative with you, but what you do is, 

when you do not allow us to tailor programs on a statewide basis that target those schools 

and say, well, it ought to be pushed down to the local school basis, that sounds great in 

practice but you are trying to change those very schools, and we are too. And we are 

trying to change those schools and we ought to be able to concentrate both the state and 

federal money in one pot and push it down and say, choose from these. You have got 

these accountability measures and push along. Listen, that is what education reform is 

about. It is about gap closing, primarily on income levels. We know that. All of us 

know that. But we ought to be able to control that policy and push it on down so you can 

bring about some of the real changes rather than it get into arguments about all 1800 

schools.

Mr. Miller. I suspect that I will be hearing more about this from Congressman Isakson. 

Governor Barnes. You probably will. 

Chairman Boehner. But, Governor, I think your goal and Mr. Miller's goal are 

identical. Now frankly, I share the same goal. The key to the legislation is to make sure 

that we in fact meet the goal we are all agreeing on, and that is getting the money to 

where it is needed and giving you the flexibility to maximize those dollars to help those 

students who most need it. 

Mr. Isakson. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the Governor's time, which is tight, I am 

only going to ask one question, but before I do, I want to make sure I introduce the first 

lady of Georgia, Marie Barnes, who is standing over at the side. Marie, welcome. 
13

Governor Barnes. I used to say that she was an old schoolteacher, but I was corrected, 

she is a former schoolteacher. 

Mr. Isakson. I did not know whether to say Myree or Marie. She is first lady, so I stuck 

with Marie. We are glad to have you, Marie. 

Roy, on the testing and accountability, I hope, if you cannot answer this maybe Mike can. 

In the last two weeks Fair Oaks Elementary had 12 new students enroll and six students 

leave.

Governor Barnes. Yes. 

Mr. Isakson. The diversity of those 12 students was all across the board, for 50 percent 

of this school, English is not their primary language. And there is a tremendous turnover 

by the nature of the transient work that their parents do. 

Governor Barnes. Yes. How do you take that into consideration? 

Mr. Isakson. Now, I 100 percent agree with testing. You and I have talked a lot about 

this and your concept, mine, and what the President is talking about are exactly correct.

The President does not want to tell you what test. He just wants to make sure you test 

and make sure that you cross-reference it. 

Governor Barnes. With NAPE, yes. 

Mr. Isakson. But how does Fair Oaks Elementary, since we are here, how can we be 

sure how we are doing; just like in business, you do like-store sales, we need to do likestudent improvement where you do not penalize them for that. 

Governor Barnes. You do. Mike will give you the details later, but a child should be 

required to be present in that school for a certain period of time before they go into the 

overall accountability measures. It is not right to bring a child in five days before a test 

or the CRCT is given and hold that school responsible. The teachers and the school 

should have a fair opportunity. We are still working on those numbers. I mean, you 

know, that time period. 

 The other thing that you have to do, Johnny, that follows up on that is you have to 

have a good student information system, which we are developing. So that if a child 

comes within the state, that information about where they were is available electronically 

to that school. Now we appropriated $50 million last year to do that student information 

system. We are building it right now. I think Price Waterhouse is to one that is doing it; 

won the bid or something. We should have it up and running in about 18 months. 

Mr. Isakson. Yeah, I remember student information systems. 

Governor Barnes. I am sure you do. It is not the first round with it. 

Mr. Isakson. I want to thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for taking your time to 

come and for bringing Marie. We appreciate that. 
14

Governor Barnes. Thank you. Good to see you. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. 

Governor Barnes. Oh, I am sorry, Mac. 

Governor Barnes. I did not mean to overlook you, Mac. Mac and I used to serve in the 

Senate together years ago. 

Mr. Collins. Governor, we had a little bit of this conversation last week I believe by 

phone.

Governor Barnes. Yes. 

Mr. Collins. First, Mr. Chairman, let me say thank you for your attendance here in 

Georgia and Cobb County this morning, but also for taking just a few minutes to meet 

with several of the superintendents from the Third District of Georgia who are here with 

us. We had previously scheduled a meeting this morning in another part of the state, 

which was down around Callaway Gardens, for the school superintendents of the Third 

District, but after this hearing was scheduled, we called and they were agreeable to 

coming up here because they wanted to participate and listen to what was going on here 

today. So we welcome them and thank them for coming and thank you for spending 

some time with them. And thanks for allowing me to participate. 

Governor, as I said last week, one of the problems with the approach to funding 

that you want to take goes back to a lot of things that have already been evident here this 

morning. There seems to be a distance of trust on some previous programs and how they 

have been conducted, how those funds have come down and been merged with state 

funds and then used in other manners, maybe not the same year, but in years to come. 

Also, one of our theories or philosophies of many of us in Congress is less government 

and more local control. I think what you are proposing, merging those funds, would 

increase the size of the state's participation and probably take away some of the local 

control, which is adverse to the thinking of many of us in Congress. 

Governor Barnes. Well, I disagree with you. I mean, it does not take away local 

control. What you do is provide a larger pot of money to participate in the remedial 

programs that you have. I mean, the State of Georgia, for example, which is entirely 

proper in my view, says when you receive funds to hire teachers, you have to use 80 

percent of it to hire a teacher. Do you think that takes away local control when you say 

that money for teachers has to be spent for teachers? 

 The standard should be in the improvement of the child. I mean, it is nice to talk 

about local control and this and that and the other, but believe me, the school districts in 

the state will make sure that they have sufficient flexibility under the systems. I mean, 

they elect folks and they are there in the General Assembly. You have been there and 

you know that. Are you satisfied with the way Title I is done right now? Are you 

satisfied with the results that come out of it? If you are not, then you need to try 

something different. I suggest to you that if you look at the results out of Title I schools, 

there has not been the improvement; there has been improvement in some, but there has 
15

not been the improvement that we should have. Why? Because it is Balkanized in the 

approach that it gives. Without the state board and the state superintendent and the 

General Assembly being able to say, listen, these are programs where we want to put 

money to, then it gets diluted. 

Mr. Collins. Well, I still have a problem with the fact that we have, 

Governor Barnes. It sounds like you and Congressman Miller ought to get together.

You all have got bipartisan support coming there. 

Mr. Miller. That would be a first, huh, Mac? 

Mr. Collins. That would be a first. 

 You know, in the 159 counties that we have, there is quite a difference in the makeup of 

the counties and the tax digest of the counties. 

Governor Barnes. Yeah but algebra is algebra in all the counties and reading is reading 

in all of the counties. This is not about different make-ups. This is about where children 

learn the basic skills in each county, and surely we do not set different standards and 

expectations for kids in different parts of the state. That is a part of the problems we have 

had before. You know, they are from a poor area, or they are black, or they are from a 

different demographic group. That is one of the things that we have to fight. You have 

to make sure that the standard is set on a high enough expectation that every child in the 

state can learn and they will learn and they will learn to read at certain levels or do 

mathematics at a certain level. I have heard that over the years. You know, well the state 

is different. Children compete in the same job market and we either set high expectations 

for all of them or we are going to lose them. 

Mr. Collins. Well, there is a difference from county to county, system to system. You 

know, in the Third District we have a system with 47,000 students and we have a system 

with less than 900. 

Governor Barnes. Sure there is a difference. Does that mean that the child from a 900-

system shouldn't be able to be reading on grade level by the end of grade three? 

Mr. Collins. Your answer is? 

Governor Barnes. Of course not. The one from a small system and a large system 

should have the same chance, and the way you do that is you consolidate and be able to 

give those that are poorer, because generally many times in a smaller system are poor, 

more access to more programs and you do that by funneling and being able to give those 

resources to those poor students. 

Mr. Collins. We will hold you accountable for that statement based on your 

appropriations of state funds because there are some systems that do not seem to have 

adequate funds to produce those same results that you are talking about. And every child 

does have the right and should have the right and must learn to read. 

Governor Barnes. Sure. I agree with you. And that is exactly what all of this funding 

controversy has been about in this last year. Instead of equalizing at 90 percent, we are 

equalizing at 75 percent. We have a school construction plan that is going through right 
16

now that gives to poorer systems larger amounts of construction money. You are exactly 

right. But if you do not allow that to be done in the process of the General Assembly in 

making overall policy then you lose the impact of it. 

Mr. Collins. We will not debate state politics here. It is not the time and place, but we 

will have that debate. 

Governor Barnes. Okay. 

Mr. Collins. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mac. 

Governor, I do want to say thank you for taking time out this morning and sharing with 

us what is happening here in Georgia. Your input this morning will be very helpful to us 

as we proceed in the moving of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act. Thank you. 

Governor Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. If the other witnesses could come forward and take your seats, we 

are going to continue to move along. 

 While everybody is settling in, let me begin to introduce all six of our witnesses.

First is Ms. Linda Schrenko, who is the Superintendent of Schools here in Georgia. She 

will be followed by Mr. Bill Hammond, the Instructional Coordinator, DeKalb County 

Public Schools in Decatur, Georgia; followed by Pat Biggerstaff, who is the Assistant 

Principal at J.A. Maxwell Elementary School in Thomson, Georgia; followed by Michael 

Vollmer, Executive Director of the Office of Education Accountability, Georgia State 

Department of Education. Then we will hear from Dr. Alvin Willbanks, Superintendent 

of Schools, Gwinnett County and Dr. Cindy Lee, who is the Associate, Cindy Loe, I'm 

sorry, Associate Superintendent for Organizational Advancement, also here in Gwinnett 

County.

 With that, Linda, if you would like to begin. We would like to ask all of our 

witnesses to keep your statements to five minutes. Your entire written statement will be 

made part of the record and that will keep things moving. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA SCHRENKO, GEORGIA STATE 

SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Ms. Schrenko. Thank you, Chairman Boehner, and thank you for coming to Georgia 

and for listening to those of us that implement these programs. 

Chairman Boehner. Do you have a microphone? 

Ms. Schrenko. Can you hear any better? 
17

Chairman Boehner. I can hear you fine. I want to make sure the people in the back can 

hear you. 

Ms. Schrenko. My testimony today centers around Reading First, our reading initiative 

in Georgia. I have to tell you first that we copied Texas' program, so if there are some 

similarities between the Bush proposal and what Georgia is doing, it is because we did 

not reinvent the wheel. 

 In 1996, after we reviewed our curriculum standards and our student achievement 

scores and we found that we were extremely low, we started trying to do an analysis of 

what the problem was. At that time, we got a new Board Chairman, Johnny Isakson, who 

served with me for three years. 

 We decided after looking at all of our achievement scores and interviewing 17-

year olds who had dropped out of school, we asked these 17-year olds, what would have 

kept you in school, what could we have done differently for you during our K through 12 

years that might have kept you in your school career? Over 80 percent of them said, if I 

had of learned how to read before I left third grade, I probably would have stayed in 

school because I could have read the science book, I could have read the social studies 

book, I could have been successful. So with that in mind, we contacted the 

Congressional Research Office and asked them what the best reading programs around 

were and they gave us some suggestions and we hired a reading director to begin a 

program called Reading First. 

 We started with federal funds, some of the flexibility that you gave us. We chose 

eight schools to begin Reading First. What we said to those schools was, one, you have 

to train your teachers. They cannot just use whole language. They have got to teach a 

phonics-based approach to reading. They have to teach comprehension, they have to test. 

All of the teachers have to be willing to go through this training and you have to be 

willing to have students who are not on grade level have three hours a day of reading 

instruction because if they are ever going to catch up they need additional time in the 

reading subjects. 

 We then went out and in those eight schools we had a pilot project for two years. 

In the pilots we demonstrated up to 20 and 30 percentile points of improvement. We 

further found that the earlier we caught these kids in kindergarten, we could raise their 

scores 20 or 30, one school, 32 points. Regardless of poverty, regardless of background, 

we could raise reading scores. 

 So after two years and some success stories in the eight schools, we asked the 

General Assembly to fund a proven project. They funded the first year 350 schools to be 

trained and go into the Reading First program, and the second year they added 250 more.

So around 650 schools are in the Reading First program. Most of those schools are in 

their first year, but there are a few of them in their second year. What I am pleased to 

report to you is that regardless of whether they are in first grade, second grade, third 

grade, they are showing improvement in reading. They show the most improvement if 

we catch them in kindergarten, next highest in first grade and in the third grade they still 

show gains but not nearly as much as they do in the first two grades. Parents continue to 

write to us pleased that their children can read. We have had students up to the eighth 

grade level in Reading First and parents writing to us to say that for the first time ever 

their child can read. We have, in the schools that have Reading First, decreased the 
18

number of students in the lowest 25 percent of the test scores and increased the students 

in the top percentiles of test scores and raised the average scores overall. We have a 

school in north Georgia that gained 32 points. We have a school close to my hometown, 

and Pat will tell you about that in a little while, a very poor school that reached the 89th 

percentile or 83rd? 

Ms. Biggerstaff. The school scored in the ninety-second percentile in kindergarten. 

Ms. Schrenko. Oh, the ninety-second percentile.

 So we have had success where the program is implemented correctly. If you 

refuse to give the three hours, if you refuse to use the phonics-based approach to 

instruction, you don't get nearly the success that we do in the schools that use all of the 

components of the program. 

 That is why when the Bush proposal came out, I was delighted to see Reading 

First, because I think it can do for the United States what Reading First is doing for 

Georgia, and that very simply is to ensure that every child can read by third grade, or by 

the time they leave third grade. We can affect dropout rates; we can improve our quality 

of life simply by starting with these kids and teaching everybody to read. So I am 

wholehearted supporter of the Bush proposal, and I hope the faster you can pass it the 

quicker we will get started. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA SCHRENKO, GEORGIA STATE SCHOOL 

SUPERINTENDENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. Linda, thank you. Mr. Hammond, you may testify. 

STATEMENT OF BILL HAMMOND, INSTRUCTIONAL 

COORDINATOR, DEKALB COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

DECATUR, GEORGIA

Mr. Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill Hammond and I am an 

instructional coordinator with the DeKalb County, Georgia schools. I am also a member 

of the International Reading Association, the Georgia Reading Association and the 

International Reading Association's Urban Initiatives Commission. I appreciate the 

opportunity to come and share with you some of my personal concerns as well as the 

concerns reflected by the International Reading Association. 

 I am very pleased that this hearing is being held here in Georgia because our 

population, as our Superintendent and our Governor have alluded to, is very much 

reflective of the needs and the successes of the nation with respect to reading instruction.

Our state has 42.9 percent of its students on free and reduced lunches and our reading 

scores are very close to the national average on the state reading report card for fourth 

grade, and our state required test data reflects a set of scores that reflects some progress 
19

but not consistent progress. 

 To that end, the International Reading Association has addressed some of the 

concerns and made some recommendations regarding a list of children's rights. That is 

reflected in a statement entitled ``Making a Difference Means Making It Different.'' 

There are 10 children's bills of rights that are reflected in my statement. In the interest of 

time, I will not elaborate all of those, but they are there for your reading. 

 The essential part of the testimony here and the time that I hope will be addressed, 

will be the section that we will call to your attention is those kinds of things that are 

recommended that need to be done and need to be addressed. From the standpoint of the 

Association, there are 10 recommendations. 

 Number one. Teachers working with our neediest children need to be 

professional teachers. In too many schools, nonqualified teachers and paraprofessionals 

are employed to provide instruction to the neediest children. This is a source of major 

concern of professional educators, as well as parents, and rightfully so. 

 Number two. Even the best teachers need professional development, and 

programs such as Title I should provide funds for training based on teachers' assessment 

of their needs. This is occurring and it does need to continue being addressed. This is, in 

part of what our Governor was alluding to when he spoke to the issue of flexibility; 

greater flexibility of Title I funds. 

 Now Title I school-wide projects should address the needs of those who are most 

at risk of school failure. Too often resources are diverted from this core mission. These 

programs should be changed so that the funds may be used only for core curriculum and 

for the neediest students. I think any discussion with any person that has been involved 

at a local level, such as I have been for 32 years, would give you some insight into that 

process and to what occurs in terms of the misuse and the misappropriation of those 

funds.

 Early intervention is critical. Local Title I programs should expand their outreach 

activities to coordinate with Head Start and other professional programs. 

 Number five. Assessment needs to be ongoing and linked directly to instruction.

Assessments must reflect students' instructional programs and provide teachers with 

useful feedback. Students and their parents need to understand the assessment process. 

In Georgia there has been a consistent effort on the part of the school board and the 

school system, the State Board of Education, to mold that assessment process into 

something that is going to be meaningful not only to teachers but to parents and to 

students as well. That needs to continue and it needs to be supported. 

 Accountability encourages involvement and enhances program effectiveness.

Teachers, schools, districts and communities need to be held accountable for publicizing 

the goals of all of their programs. Funding should be contingent upon shared 

commitment and accountability. And you will hear, I suppose, from several of our folks 

here, statements regarding accountability and the support of that statement. At the local 

level there is strong support for accountability. Teachers support accountability, but not 

on their back alone. That is the part of it that has alienated our teachers and why we have 

a significant teacher shortage in many, many instances. We are doing them a disservice 
20

by just burdening them with that business without the other support. 

 Number seven. Services for children need to be coordinated to fit the needs of the 

children, not to fit the children in the service. And that is not something that is 

particularly new. When I first came into education and we had the ESEA program, it 

seems like 100 years ago now, that program adapted the children to their needs, and as 

such it was not successful. We have duplicated that failure time and time again at the 

state level, and at the local level and even at the national level. There does need to be a 

change and there does need to be differences that are appropriated there. 

 Programs should be based on a wide range of research. Research programs 

should be tailored to local and individual student needs, but they should also be based on 

proven principles of effective schooling subjected to independent objective review. My 

organization, the International Reading Association, reflects the full spectrum of 

viewpoints on reading. We battle more than Democrats and Republicans in terms of 

what we do and what we perceive as reading. We do spend the most amount of time 

investigating the practices, and there are some effective practices that have been 

identified. We do know what research historically has shown us about effective 

schooling. It is there. We do know how to go about our business and what kinds of 

things are practical and effective. It would be very much appreciated if that body of 

literature would be continued to be considered and to be a basis upon which action is 

taken, and those kinds of things I look forward to. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. Hammond. Thank you so much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BILL HAMMOND, INSTRUCTIONAL 

COORDINATOR, DEKALB COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DECATUR, GEORGIA 

SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Biggerstaff, you may testify. 

STATEMENT OF PAT BIGGERSTAFF, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, 

J.A. MAXWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THOMSON, GEORGIA

Ms. Biggerstaff. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank all of you for 

having us here today. 

Chairman Boehner. Pat, if we can move the microphone over to you. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. First of all, I would like to thank all of you for having us here today. I 

want to let you know that I brought with me one of our kindergarten teachers, Ms. 

Deborah Hodges, and one of our students, Ms. Breanna Burns and her mother, Sharon 
21

Burns. Possibly later on you might want to ask them something pertaining to what I have 

to say today. 

 Gentlemen, four years ago J.A. Maxwell Elementary, a pre-K through second 

grade school had a major power shortage. Students did not have the power to read. Of 

course, no one was really surprised at that because, you see, Maxwell is located in a rural 

town of Thomson, Georgia. Over half the students are minority and most students are 

from lower socioeconomic status and 68 percent of our students receive free or reduced 

lunch. Many students come from one-parent homes; many are latch-key kids due to 

parents working shifts, and many are at-risk students due to limited vocabulary and 

experiences. Maxwell is a Comprehensive Title I School. All of the above are common 

reasons and excuses as to why children cannot read. 

 In the fall of 1997, Ms. Hanna Fowler became the principal and I became the 

assistant principal at Maxwell. Together we began to study what teachers were teaching 

and it was not reading. We were encouraged by Governor Zell Miller's heart for 

education. We were encouraged that Superintendent Linda Schrenko was a classroom 

teacher herself and was well aware of the power of reading. She employed Dr. Cindy 

Cupp, author of the Reading Program, to guide a reading program for Georgia's schools 

and when Superintendent Schrenko unveiled the Georgia Reading First Program, it was 

the beginning of the end of the power shortage at Maxwell. 

 In 1998 we became a Reading First school and immediately test scores began to 

rise. This is our third year as a Reading First school and all areas of assessment continue 

to improve and that includes math. Last year our reading total for kindergarten at 

Maxwell was the 92nd percentile. This, of course, means that our students scored 92 

percent or better than the students in the nation taking the test. 

 Now Reading First requires ongoing training of all teachers in the instruction of 

reading. This includes your PE teachers and music teachers and so forth. Reading First 

says that all students will have three hours of reading per day per child. There seemed to 

be some question if that meant every child having three hours of reading a day, but yes, 

that is what we do at Maxwell. So Hanna and I implemented an AB Day Block Schedule 

to support teachers so that they would have the time to do this. 

 Reading First requires the use of research-proven programs and effective reading 

practices. Explicit systematic scripted phonics combined with sight-word instruction and 

comprehension are strong components of Reading First. A nationally known assessment 

and that basic literacy test and other assessments are given to chart individual and 

classroom progress and hold us accountable for student learning. No more excuses. 

Professionalism and morale are very high at the Mighty, Mighty Max. 

 Since the implementation of Reading First, we have become a Georgia School of 

Excellence; we have done the Pay for Performance and we have received many other 

honors and awards. Teachers and administrators from other schools are visiting 

Maxwell. Legislators and community members are visiting our school and we appreciate 

the generous amount of time that Congressman Charlie Norwood has spent visiting us.

We thank you all for this meeting today because, you see, by sharing our success of the 

Georgia Reading First program with others, we can ensure that students in our nation 

have this power to read. Our advice is for every school in our nation to plug into the 
22

Reading First program. 

 Now I would like to introduce you to Breanna. Breanna, could you come up for 

just a minute? She is a second grade student at Maxwell and she is reading at a fourth 

grade reading level and she just wants to read a little bit to you. Smile at those men up 

there.

Ms. Biggerstaff. Give them your Ms. America smile. Tell them your name. 

Ms. Burns. My name is Breanna Burns. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. And your teacher's name? 

Ms. Burns. Ms. Thomas. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. What are you going to read for us today? 

Ms. Burns. Super Fudge. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. All right, read a little bit. 

Ms. Burns. That night mom and dad went out and grandma stayed at home with us. We 

all watched TV together and my little sister was on grandmother's lap having her late 

night bottle. So how is kindergarten going Grandma asked Fudge? I have a nice teacher 

he said. She says I am as sweet as my name." 

Ms. Biggerstaff. All right, thank you, Breanna. 

We think she has got the power to do whatever she wants to do in life because she is a 

very good reader. And I might add that not only can she read, but she can comprehend as 

well. That is a very important part of Reading First. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAT BIGGERSTAFF, ASSISTANT PRICNCIPAL, J.A. 

MAXWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THOMSON, GEORGIA – SEE 

APPENDIX E

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Vollmer. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VOLLMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY, GEORGIA STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Mr. Vollmer. That is a hard act to follow, Mr. Chairman. 
23

Chairman Boehner. It sure is. 

Mr. Vollmer. I will try not the read anything because I could not equal that 

performance. 

 I want to thank you very much for your time and effort and commitment to this. I 

feel like we are in really good hands because of Johnny and Mac sitting up there, those 

two great individuals helped us implement two of the nation's finest education programs 

in the last five to ten years, the Hope Scholarship Program and the Georgia Prekindergarten Program. What I would like to do is spend about five minutes talking to 

you about accountability from the state level. 

 You know, the popular statement the train has left the station is very appropriate 

when we look at accountability in education. The train indeed has left the station on 

accountability. Just about every governor in the country, as well as our new President, is 

talking about either implementing an accountability system or have already implemented 

accountability systems. 

 In Georgia, the time of accountability has come, not for a punitive reason, but 

rather to focus on student achievement throughout our state, 1.4 million students, on a 

school-by-school basis, 1800 schools. In Georgia, we are currently spending over $10 

billion a year in local and state tax money for our education system. When we look at 

our share of the state budget allocated for education, in the early 1990s it was in the 50 

percent range. It is now approaching 58 percent of our state budget that is going to 

education. I think it shows a remarkable commitment of resources by Georgia's citizens. 

 However, when we compare ourselves to other states in school completion, 

national assessment tests and drop-outs, we always fall off from the national average. 

For instance, we lose 27,000 students a year between grades nine and twelve through 

drop-out. If we look at our 1990 census in the state of Georgia, we have more students 

dropping out per year, 27,000, than populate 104 of 159 of our counties. So the question 

many Georgia taxpayers are asking is, what is happening with this commitment? On top 

of this, Georgia has become the largest importer of college-educated talent in the nation. 

So as a state, we have got to focus on how we can home-grow some good students, some 

college-educated students to fill the economic needs of our state. 

 What I would like to spend the remaining part of my time on is the Georgia 

accountability system and the four fundamental principles of that system. 

 Number one. Assessment of student progress in every grade. Not just a couple, 

in every grade. 

 Two is ensuring that no child or group is left behind. 

 Thirdly, focusing on absolute levels of student achievement. Here is a bar. But I 

think more importantly zeroing in on student performance gains as well. 

 And fourthly, and probably most importantly is providing support for those 

schools that we find that have a low level of student achievement. 
24

 First, there must be assessment of student progress in every grade level. You 

know, accountability systems come in all sizes. In some states school performance is 

judged by maybe a test in the fourth grade, maybe a test in the sixth grade, maybe a test 

in the eighth grade and one in the high school. You can certainly have an accountability 

of that system in that mode. However, we are more interested in following a student's 

performance on an annual basis and past that annual basis, grade to grade, to see where 

student achievement is either going well or not going so well. So we believe our role is 

much more than just pinpointing low performing schools, it is pinpointing where our 

students are not meeting expectations and what to do with that. 

 Secondly, ensuring that no child or group is left behind. In many states 

accountability systems look at general student populations. In Georgia, what we will do 

is measure student achievement in so-called disaggregated means, or really more or less 

in common English, we are going to break down student groups, male, female, white, 

Hispanic and based on socioeconomic status. Why is that so important? Because as you 

all have learned, there is a gap in student achievement in many of these groups. What we 

want to do is identify those gaps and see what we can do to close those gaps in all areas. 

Mr. Vollmer. Is that it? Just lastly, if I can, sir, please. Focusing on absolute levels of 

student achievement, what I would implore this Committee to look at is when you are 

setting accountability standards or at least looking at the state setting accountability 

standards, keep in mind that it is great to have that absolute bar, but I think it is even 

better to judge the performance gains of schools. That way, you will be not pushing 

teachers out of low performing schools into higher performing schools, but giving 

teachers in lower performing schools the incentives to stay there and ratchet student 

achievement up. 

 Thank you very much for your time, sir. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VOLLMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY, GEORGIA STATE DEPARTMENT 

OF EDUCATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA – SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman Boehner. Dr. Willbanks. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ALVIN WILLBANKS, SUPERINTENDENT OF 

SCHOOLS, GWINNETT COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 

Mr. Willbanks. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, Isakson and Collins, I thank you 

for this opportunity and for your work on behalf of education and children to ensure that 

no child is left behind. 

 My testimony will be from the perspective of the local school district here in 

Georgia.
25

 Certainly I subscribe to the belief that assessment that is appropriate, timely and 

ongoing is an essential part of improving instruction and increasing student achievement; 

thus, I view accountability as a value and not something to be feared. Several years ago 

Gwinnett County citizens made their expectations known to us. They wanted clear 

communication about and accountability for what students are taught and what they 

learn. They wanted to be certain that every child was held to a high academic 

expectation and they wanted our assurance that every child would receive the time and 

opportunities needed to meet these expectations. 

 We embarked on a number of initiatives to ensure that we could meet this charge. 

We developed and implemented curriculum standards in every subject and course at 

every grade level, standards that we expect all students to meet. To be certain that they 

indeed did meet the standard, we established performance standards in the form of a 

gateway assessment in language, arts, mathematics, science and social studies at grades 

four, five, seven and eight, a graduation exam in language, art, science and social studies 

and an end-of-course exam for all high school courses were developed. 

 To ensure that our schools are doing everything they can to help our students be 

successful, we implemented performance objectives and standards for every school.

Along the way, we have informed parents and the community of our progress and 

involved all of our stakeholders; teachers, parents, community, even students, in the 

progress. The result has been increased student achievement despite a rapidly growing 

population and significant changes in our demographics. 

 These initiatives provided the focus we needed to assure a quality education for 

all students. We began with a vision that our students would be provided a world-class 

education and a mission to pursue excellence for every student and hold ourselves 

accountable against accepted standards. 

 We believe that the most powerful, positive effect of our standards-based reform 

is this: It has focused attention on student learning and has shifted the conversation from 

one about different groups of students meeting different standards to all students being 

held and taught to meet high standards. Holding ourselves accountable for students 

reaching those high standards just makes sense. I ask you, is it important for students, 

parents and teachers to know clearly what is expected in the classroom? Should all 

schools be accountable for providing each student world class education? Does it make 

sense to have a consistent standard for teachers to use in planning instruction, intervening 

and providing extensions for students? Should parents and educators know with 

confidence that our graduates are well prepared for the future? We believe the answer to 

all of these questions is yes and that accountability for reaching high standards is the way 

to achieve goals. 

 In our county, our standards-based approach began with a comprehensive and 

rigorous curriculum that demands high levels of learning for all students. We call it our 

Academic Knowledge and Skill or AKS. We spent more than four years aligning that 

curriculum with top quality instruction and a program of meaningful assessments that 

truly tests what we expect to be taught and learned. Our assessments included the 

Gateway Test, included short-answer questions and extended-response items, as well as 

multiple-choice questions. In other words, our tests demand high levels of thinking and 

performance from our students. We undergird our standards-based approach with 

support for both teachers and students. Materials, support staff and professional 
26

development are provided to those delivering the curriculum. Targeted interventions are 

provided for those struggling to learn it, and extensions are offered for students who can 

do more. 

 Obviously that is not the whole picture. For students to reach high standards, they 

must have competent and caring teachers who are prepared to teach those standards. We 

allocated our personnel based on the needs of the school. We differentiated for schools 

with high mobility, many disadvantaged students and large numbers of students who are 

achieving below grade level. We support them with resources and targeted staff 

development based on the need of the student. But professional development 

opportunities are essential for all teachers when implementing high standards. 

 The State provides all systems in Georgia with funding for staff development. On 

top of the State's contribution, Gwinnett provides additional dollars to provide 

professional development activities. We offer centralized staff development to support 

system initiatives, and because our principals regard staff development as important and 

valuable, they devoted still more local funds for training for their teachers and staff. 

There is a focus to our staff development activities, both at the central and local levels. 

 As the State increases its professional development requirement for teacher 

renewal, Gwinnett continues to require a minimum number of staff development hours 

based on the needs of local school faculty. These needs have included using standards, 

designing appropriate assessments and interpreting test data; all are important for raising 

student achievement. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Willbanks. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ALVIN WILLBANKS, SUPERINTENDENT OF 

SCHOOLS, GWINNETT COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA – SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Chairman Boehner. Dr. Loe. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CINDY LOE, ASSOCIATE 

SUPERINTENDENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANCEMENT, 

GWINNETT COUNTY, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 

Ms. Loe. Good morning. I will be speaking from the blue folder that you have and there 

is a handout in there with a slide presentation of Gwinnett County Schools. 

 Superintendent Willbanks shared reasons we have embarked on standards-based 

reform. I will share how we did that and what the results have been since we began in 

1996. On page 5 at the bottom of that presentation handout, you see a slide called 

``Putting It All Together,'' which basically takes you through the steps in the process that 
27

we have put in place and we believe would be the steps that would be required for putting 

in place any standards-based reform. It begins with the vision and mission and goals for 

high expectations for all students, classified through content standards, in our case called 

the Academic Knowledge and Skills or the AKS, that students are expected to learn at 

every grade level. It is important to clearly communicate these to students and parents 

and each year. You have a copy of one of these in your blue folder; we provide a 

handout to each parent, student and teacher of what are the content standards that the 

student is expected to learn and be able to do by the time they leave that grade level at the 

end of the year. Note that they are correlated to the QCC, the Georgia curriculum, the 

PSAT, the SAT, the ITBS and even the Character Education initiative that are part of 

Georgia's comprehensive curriculum, so that if teachers are teaching the contents 

standard, they are teaching the test. And that is what we want them to do because the test 

covers the entire curriculum and that is aligned with any test or measurements that they 

might take. 

 As Governor Barnes said, once you have excellent content standards, then you 

must have in place measurements in order to know whether or not students are achieving 

the curriculum. If teachers are teaching the curriculum, then students will do well on the 

test. If they do not do well on the tests, interventions must be put in place and those in 

Gwinnett County have included a comprehensive three-week summer school for 

approximately 10 percent of our students who are in danger of retention since we 

eliminated social promotion in 1996. Over half of those students go on and are 

promoted, but those that are not are available to be in transition classes. Those transition 

classes assure that students do not repeat the same negative experience in the grade level 

that they had the year before, because we all know that straight retention does not work. 

 On page 8 of this slide presentation handout, you will see two slides that show 

you that free and reduced lunch participation in Gwinnett during this time has doubled 

and our ESOL students who do not speak English have tripled in this same time that we 

put in place these content standards. 

 If Gwinnett County had done the good job it had always done prior to 1996, but 

had seen and put in place these increases in ESOL and free and reduced lunch, we could 

anticipate that our test scores would have dropped over the past five years. But in fact, 

since we put this program in place, we have seen in 1999 and in 2000, our highest SAT 

scores ever. 

 And on page 10 of your handout, you will see that that is with 72 percent of 

Gwinnett students taking the SAT, well above the national average and the Georgia 

average, both on percent taking and on score. 

 But more importantly, as Governor Barnes said, we know that the real proof of 

improving standards and reform in our country is based on closing the gap between white 

students and minority students. The slide on the bottom of page 10 shows you that while 

our white students' scores are increasing, for instance, over the past three years, 13 points 

on the SAT, our African-American student scores, which is our largest minority in 

Gwinnett, have increased at two and a half times that rate with an increase of 31 points.

We are seeing that same kind of trend on other testing like the PSAT results that you see 

there, the number of students taking the rigorous advanced placement courses and tests 

and we are proud to say that in 2000, we are not only well above the national mean, but 

the global mean on that test that is given in English-speaking schools throughout the 
28

world.

 Georgia's CRCT program, which Governor Barnes and Mr. Vollmer discussed, is 

where Georgia tests our QCC, the Georgia curriculum. Gwinnett students participated in 

that testing last year for the first time and on page 13, you see that Gwinnett students 

were significantly above that score. 

 On our own Gateway CRCTs, we have seen improvement every year over the 

past four years that we have had that program in place. 

 On the bottom of page 16, you will see that our accountability plan is a simple 

one. Students are responsible for learning the curriculum, the AKS. They are 

responsible for showing that they have learned that through a variety of assessments 

including the SAT, the ITBS, our own Gateways and the state tests. The school's 

responsibility is to work together to make sure that students learn the AKS and we are all 

accountable through our results-based evaluation system, or RBES, for communicating 

those results to our parents and our business partners who serve on our local councils.

And one way we do that is through our accountability report, and you have a copy from 

one of our schools in your packet, as we work together to increase student learning. 

 And finally, if I could just mention that standards reform is hard and it is difficult 

for teachers and they need support. They need support to work smarter, not harder. And 

you see from the slides some of the technological tools that we have available to teachers 

so that they can at their desktop computer be aware of lesson plans, test questions and 

other curricula support technological tools that are also available to parents on the 

Internet. 

 We are putting in place in Gwinnett a student information system and a data 

warehouse which both support teachers as they do the very difficult work of increasing 

achievement for all students. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CINDY LOE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR 

ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANCEMENT, GWINNETT COUNTY, 

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA – SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Boehner. Dr. Loe, thank you, and let me thank all of the witnesses for your 

viewpoints and your excellent testimony. 

Mr. Vollmer, under the Georgia system, who is ultimately responsible for every child 

getting a good education? 

Mr. Vollmer. That is a very insightful question. 

 The concern, if I can give you some background on this. 
29

Chairman Boehner. No, no. I do not want to get too way laid here. I want to know 

who is responsible. 

Mr. Vollmer. I would have to say the local school system, the local school. 

Chairman Boehner. Well, that is kind of a building; it is a group of people. When I 

think about accountability in my business, there was somebody that had the ultimate 

responsibility. And if somebody does not have the ultimate responsibility, then they are 

not really accountable. So I am trying to determine under your system who is ultimately 

responsible.

Mr. Vollmer. Our system stops at the school door. We will be looking at each of the 

1800 schools in this state, issuing them a grade. However, we will not go further than 

that in terms of assessing teachers; that will be the ultimate responsibility of that principal 

in that particular school. 

Chairman Boehner. So it is the principal of the school building, at least in your view. 

Mr. Vollmer. I think so, I think to a large part, sir. 

Chairman Boehner. Dr. Willbanks, in your view of this, who do you think has the 

ultimate responsibility to ensure that every child gets the tools they need to get a good 

education and meet the standards as outlined under the system? 

Mr. Willbanks. In my system, I would be, sir. I share that responsibility with the school 

principal.

Chairman Boehner. I can understand that you are responsible, you are the 

superintendent. How many schools do you have in your system? 

Mr. Willbanks. Eighty-six. 

Chairman Boehner. So obviously you cannot be responsible for each of those children. 

Mr. Willbanks. Correct. 

Chairman Boehner. Somewhat, but in terms of delegating your authority, do you think 

it is the school principal that is ultimately responsible for what happens in their building? 

Mr. Willbanks. I certainly think the school principal sets the tone and the expectations 

for what goes on in that school. Obviously, unless accountability is at the classroom 

level, I do not think you ever have true accountability. 

Chairman Boehner. Now of the 86 schools that you have in your district, do all 86 

schools have equal opportunity to provide the resources and the services necessary for 

every child to get a good education? 

Mr. Willbanks. They do equally, yes, sir. 
30

Chairman Boehner. Do you spend the same amount of money in each of the 86 

schools? 

Mr. Willbanks. No, sir. 

Chairman Boehner. Is it on a per-child basis? 

Mr. Willbanks. It would not be on a per-child basis. We have differentiated staffing. 

Those schools with a very high diverse student population, they get additional staff, 

which certainly would impact the per-pupil cost. 

Chairman Boehner. Knowing that low-income students require more services than 

students that come from better neighborhoods, would you guess that you provide more 

money to those schools than you do in the better schools? 

Mr. Willbanks. On an individual student basis, yes. Our school board for years has 

approved of that and allowed us to have a formula whereby we differentiate staffing, 

giving to some schools different staffing formulas than we would to other schools. 

Chairman Boehner. I have heard a great deal over the last month or so about the fact 

that in certain states, they do not have equitable funding issues. Apparently that is not as 

big an issue here in Georgia, but putting the accountability pieces and standards all in 

place and the testing all in place is the easier part of this process; difficult but easier than 

actually getting there. 

 One of the concerns that others and I have is that while the standards go in place 

and everybody is expected to meet them, that the resources necessary in lower income 

areas, in lower socio-economic neighborhoods, are not there to help those children, to the 

extent they are in better neighborhoods. 

Mr. Vollmer, has that been a problem in Georgia? 

Mr. Vollmer. It has been a problem. There is no denying that, sir. But I think what you 

are seeing now is where are the problems at in our state, how do we address them in 

terms of, as the Governor mentioned, 20 extra days of the school year, remediation from 

K through 5. So you are seeing the state really focusing on where can we best put some 

extra money. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. This panel has raised about a thousand questions in 

my head and I have got five minutes. 

 I do not want to cut anybody off, but just quickly, do you have enough experience 

yet with Reading First that, you know how the youngsters who have gone through 

Reading First are doing on NAPE or will this be the first year for fourth graders? 

Ms. Biggerstaff. Well, I can only speak from my experience as reading specialist and I 

have had 29 years of experience in the classroom teaching children how to read. 
31

Chairman Boehner. You are qualified. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. We have had Reading First in our school for three years, starting with 

kindergarten, first and second. This is our third year, so this is a product of three years of 

Reading First in our school. 

Mr. Miller. I understand. So they have not gone on to take the NAPE.

Ms. Biggerstaff. No. 

Mr. Miller. That has not happened anywhere in the state yet? 

Ms. Biggerstaff. Not yet. 

Mr. Miller. I did not know. Obviously the fourth grade scores you do have on the 

NAPE. We have to assume everybody in the state wants to raise scores, but we have not 

subjected this program to assessment. As I understand it, this is not a State mandate, this 

is a program that you have expanded to about 600 schools, but schools can still choose 

another reading program, is that correct? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes, sir. Reading First is a grant and you have to apply for it, you have 

to agree to go through the training, you have to agree to test your children. It is entirely 

voluntary on the part of local systems. 

Mr. Miller. So if a school took Reading Recovery or wanted to do Accelerated Reader, 

they could do that. Would they all then be tested on the same state test as to proficiency? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. As to proficiency? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. So at some point, you will be able to establish how these programs are 

translating in terms of the state standards. 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Miller. You consider both of those programs, Accelerated Reader and Reading 

First, would both be aligned to that state exam? 

Ms. Schrenko. That is right. That is what we are preparing to do with the testing. 

Mr. Miller. I assume then the state would be doing some assessment down the road to 

compare these different approaches to reading. 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes. We are in the second year of a three-year evaluation of Reading 

First and this year, as we add Reading Recovery, Voyager, some of the other programs, 

they will too enter that process and the CRCT, the same test, will be used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the different programs. 
32

Mr. Miller. There is some discussion or a fair amount of discussion suggesting that we 

are actually getting better and better at teaching young children to read by grade three.

We have not done it as a nation yet, but we think we now know more how to do this. 

And you are obviously evidence of that in what you believe this program will be able to 

deliver.

 The second part of that equation is then as these children move on, are we capable 

of teaching them how to read to learn? 

Ms. Schrenko. Right. 

Mr. Miller. How do they read in context, how do they appreciate and comprehend. You 

mentioned, our student reading here, that she is also very good at comprehension. And 

reading just for the sense of understanding that this is what you are going to have to do 

the rest of your life. Sometimes, it seems to appear because again we get these scores up, 

we get to the fourth grade and then they start to level off. This is not just in Georgia, it is 

all over the country. The scores fall again. And we wonder why are we losing these 

students at that point. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. I would like to respond to that. At our school in our system, teachers 

teaching at the third, fourth and fifth grade level cannot believe that these students can 

read as well as they do. So their curriculum is somewhat watered down in that they are 

preparing for children that they had several years ago that were not proficient readers. 

Mr. Miller. That would be encouraging. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. Excuse me, sir? 

Mr. Miller. I said that would be encouraging. 

Ms. Biggerstaff. Well, as these children come up and they are showing their teachers 

that they can read and they are ready to do the research projects and to get involved in the 

love of learning on their own, then I think we will see an improvement there. And we do 

stress comprehension, because we were very worried that this would be a group of 

students that would be word callers and that would be all, and especially with students at 

our school that come from a very limited background; to have the vocabulary to move 

forward, you know, was very important. And in my packet that I gave you, it shows the 

increases not only at kindergarten but first and second grade level for language and 

reading and reading comprehension and vocabulary, and all of those have skyrocketed.

So we are very excited. 

Mr. Miller. Let me ask you, Superintendent Schrenko, you obviously have a great deal 

of faith in Reading First. I was talking to one of your very talented professors from 

Georgia State and as I understand it, so far there has not been an attempt to try to align 

the training of the teachers with this program. It would seem to me, especially in a low 

income school where you get high teacher turnover, it would be kind of a good idea if 

this is what you were going to use in those schools, that they would be trained and sort of 

hit the ground running. 

Ms. Schrenko. That is right. 
33

Mr. Miller. So you could just integrate them into that program, and I assume if people 

wanted to choose another reading program, that there would be some effort to train 

teachers at that. 

Ms. Schrenko. That is right. 

Mr. Miller. It seems to me the local districts would be kind of ahead of the game there, 

if there was that kind of alignment. Has that been done or is there consideration of 

consulting with the universities about this? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes. One, we have consulted with the universities and some of the 

universities, colleges of education, have implemented this balanced reading approach. 

Others have not yet agreed to do that. But our principals now are trained to evaluate a 

teacher on how well that teacher can teach a reading lesson. And so we are sort of 

drawing a line in the sand and saying if you do not train them in research-based, we do 

not care if it is Reading First, Reading Recovery, but research-based, something that 

works, we are not going to hire you to teach. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Vollmer, I am a big fan of disaggregating data, but let me ask you this. 

Maybe, Ms. Loe, you can help me. When I get done reading this, can I find out how my 

child is doing in Berkeley Lake School? 

Ms. Loe. That is a school accountability report. We do give to each parent though how 

their child did and that would tell them how the school did in relation to the district and in 

some of those examples, the state and the nation. 

Mr. Miller. So I would be able to walk my child all the way through the state system. 

Ms. Loe. All the way through by having that and their individual scores which would be 

mailed home to you as a parent or given to you at a parent conference. 

Mr. Miller. That is good, I am glad to hear it. I like that. 

 Thank you very much. I thank all the members for your contribution. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 In reference to Congressman Miller's question, Linda, when I went to the State 

Department and we first met, is it correct, and anybody in the audience can respond if this 

is wrong, but there is an academic bias in favor of Reading Recovery and some other 

programs and somewhat of an academic bias against phonics that has been going on in 

the academic community. 

Mr. Miller. California led those wars. 

Mr. Isakson. I know. And John's question was so good about who is responsible. The 

university systems are responsible to be more open-minded in teaching more different 

methodologies so the teachers are better prepared. I am kind of making a statement and 

not asking a question. But it is not a teacher's fault that comes out of the University of 
34

Georgia or Georgia State, and I know Georgia State is big on Reading Recovery, if I 

remember my stuff well. 

Ms. Schrenko. That is right. 

Mr. Isakson. But if they come out of a bias-based instruction, then they are going to be 

instructed that way. President Bush's program, and correct me if I am wrong, Linda, 

President Bush's program says look, I do not care if it is Reading Recovery, I do not care 

if it is Reading First. I care that both are available and that the same test measures the 

child and made the child win; is that not correct? 

Ms. Schrenko. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. Isakson. And so on that who is responsible, the university systems? And I am a big 

fan of ours in Georgia, but some of the colleges of education need to get into the 21st 

century in terms of what the teachers at Fair Oaks are dealing with, and we would have a 

better student. 

 I guess this is also a comment, but it is for the benefit of all the members of 

Congress who did not have the great luxury I had of working with these people in 

Georgia. I would encourage everybody to look inside this Gwinnett book. Cindy Loe 

took me to a meeting somewhere years ago when they were getting ready to do this 

Gateway program and so you all will know, Alvin took more hits than were given at the 

Battle of the Bulge, all the opponents of testing, you know, teaching to the test, 

everything else. But if you look at this book, it has the desired achievement in the eighth 

grade in each course, and then in parentheses, it has references whether it is in the QCC, 

it is on ITBS, it is on CRCT or it is on PSAT. 

 President Bush received some criticism for the TAS, the Texas Assessment 

vehicle, whatever it was called, saying it taught to the test. Well, the fact of the matter is, 

if you have a curriculum and if your teacher is given instruction units as to what the 

desired knowledge is, the only way to measure it is to give them a test. And if you are 

teaching to the test but the test is based on the curriculum, you are a winner. And at 

Gwinnett, you all are now in the fourth year, the first mandatory, but the fourth year 

running? 

Ms. Loe. Yes, actually into our fifth, this spring will be our fifth year. 

Mr. Isakson. So the longitudinal evidence is there. I just wanted to really commend 

Cindy and Alvin because I saw this work and this book is what brings the parent, this 

book and the report card.

 I do have one question. Mike. 

Mr. Vollmer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Isakson. Mr. Hammond said the following: ``Give us accountability, but not on the 

back of the teacher alone.'' Is that not the quote? And Chairman Boehner asked you, 

who is responsible. 
35

 Now I worry, I am big on accountability, as you know, and big on testing and 

raising expectations, but in that statement, it is more than just the teacher and do we not 

sometimes cop out on the teacher and not get into the entire system? And I would like 

your comment on that. 

Mr. Vollmer. Yes, we do and that is why, Mr. Chairman, your question was difficult. I 

usually do not beat around a horse, as many folks know. But it is almost like the 

Chairman of GE, asking him who is ultimately responsible for this jet engine. Well, 

obviously when he meets with his vice presidents once a quarter, he is going to be 

looking at the vice president who is in charge of that division, but ultimately the 

responsibility for building those jet engines goes to the individuals that are on that line.

And that is really what we are getting down to in this accountability system. 

 It does fall on a teacher's lap. But we have got to make sure when we talk about 

accountability that our teachers understand it is just not them, it is the building, it is the 

parents, it is the state bureaucracy, it may be people up in Washington as well. But we are 

all in this as a team. 

 And unfortunately, the way some states have gone about it, everything falls on the 

lap of the teacher in terms of accountability and I think that unfairly corners our teachers. 

Chairman Boehner. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. Isakson. Sure. 

Chairman Boehner. That was the point I was trying to get to, that I do believe 

eventually it is the teacher in the classroom who has the ultimate responsibility. Yes, the 

principal has the responsibility for bringing all the resources, the atmosphere together, but 

it is the teacher and in many of the schools who have the students who need the most 

help, you do not have, typically, the most experienced teachers. 

Mr. Vollmer. Correct. 

Chairman Boehner. You do not have the best teachers and you do not have, typically, 

the resources that you do in the better schools. And you are putting that teacher, in that 

particular case, in a horrendous position. 

 And so while I think the country is certainly moving and growing toward 

accountability, we have got to respect the fact that there are front line people who are 

going to end up with the responsibility and who need the help and the resources to have 

any chance of success. 

Mr. Vollmer. That is so correct, and that is why I believe what we are going to try to do 

in Georgia is give more emphasis to gains rather than meeting absolute bars. And the 

reason for that, sir, is this, that if you just have an accountability system with an absolute 

bar, you are going to have teachers, very dedicated teachers, in lower performing schools 

saying, why should I stay here, I am going over across town to a higher achieving school, 

and get my bonus there. So we have got to provide incentives, at least in Georgia, to 

those good teachers that are in our lower performing schools; and secondly, also to be 

able to attract good teachers into those lower performing schools. 
36

 That is why over the past six or seven months, I think we have come down to the 

conclusion that more emphasis will need to be placed on performance gains and 

providing support into those schools rather than just those schools meeting absolute 

targets, sir. 

Mr. Isakson. If Mr. Chairman will yield back, I just want to say, what the Chairman said 

and what I heard you say was the point that I was trying to get to. If the teachers in the 

school, and we all know that the Title I schools are prototypical schools for what we are 

all talking about, it is where most of the students are and if we are not giving the teachers 

the training and professional staff development and the support and the incentives, then 

we cannot expect them to just do it because we said it. That is why I made the comment 

about the university system. They need to visit the classroom at Maxwell, your foreign 

language school, is it not Maxwell? 

Ms. Biggerstaff. We are Maxwell. 

Mr. Isakson. I know you are Maxwell. Is it not Maxwell, Cindy? 

Ms. Loe. Maxwell has many foreign language students, but actually we have so many 

ESOL students now that we have sites in every single Gwinnett County school, it has 

expanded that much in the past three years. 

Mr. Isakson. My comment to close, Mr. Chairman, is you are exactly right. It is the 

teacher's responsibility but it is the system's responsibility to see to it the teacher is 

getting the support, and I think the State's responsibility to provide opportunities for 

incentives. Because with expectations should come both accountability and reward. And 

the ultimate reward, of course, is that we are having improved test scores like Gwinnett 

is.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 You know, accountability is a good political buzz word, but I am afraid 

oftentimes it may be used to point fingers to those who we hold accountable and use them 

as scapegoats, and that should not be the process. 

 A lot has been said about it, Mike, you mentioned teachers moving from one 

school to another, from a lower performing school to a higher performing school. I hope 

our ultimate goal is we do not have any low performing schools. 

Ms. Biggerstaff, it seems as though you have taken the assembly line approach. You got 

your staff together because they are the ultimate ones that you are depending on to 

deliver your program to teach these students how to read. You pulled them together and I 

am sure you had the support of the principal and the superintendent of your schools all 

the way up through Ms. Schrenko. When you were assessing those who are on the 

assembly line, to prepare them for this program, how did you go about that? You must 

have done it with a very soft approach to get the results that you have here. How did you 
37

assess those teachers? 

Ms. Biggerstaff. It was a very straightforward approach. When we went into Maxwell, 

Hanna Fowler, the principal there, was a classroom teacher, as was I. So we knew some 

of the things that we thought would be needed there at the school, and one thing was to 

get everybody on the same page and to prepare those teachers. Part of Reading First says 

that teachers have to have some instructional hours. And so during that time, which we 

call in-service hours, we got our teachers together and went through the steps of what you 

would do with a directed reading lesson and how you would give the BLT, the basic 

literacy test, and then we streamlined everything and told the teachers that this is what we 

expected and that we loved them and if they wanted to do something else and did not 

agree, that we would support them in that. But if they were going to stay with us, this 

was the program we were going to use. And this was with a lot of love and a lot of 

morale building, but everybody knew where we were headed and we were headed for the 

top because we wanted these students to achieve. 

 In the packet that I gave you all, you have two sheets of accountability and this is 

the accountability for teachers and for students. One is called ``The Class Role for the 

BLT,'' and that is the basic literacy test that is required by Reading First. Every child's 

name is listed in the teacher's class and the teacher has a class profile so that we can tell 

what students are moving through the year. This test is given three times a year. We can 

also tell if a teacher is getting bogged down. If she has half her class not performing as 

you would like, then we can go in and have some interventions immediately, as opposed 

to waiting until the end of that year or the end of third grade to decide that there is a 

problem. 

 Then there is another profile sheet that indicates all of our assessments. This is 

the BLT, what we call an IRI or running record, which is like an individual test that we 

give to tell where a child is according to their instructional level. We give something 

called the Star, which goes hand-in-hand with the Accelerated Reader program, and we 

have an accelerated reader assessment as well. 

 So there are many, many assessments that a teacher gives throughout the year, 

plus the nationally known test, which is the ITBS. And during that time, that teacher's 

class profile is scrutinized by myself, by other members of the faculty and also by 

themselves, so that when we come to the end of the year, we can see where that teacher is 

and how far she has moved her class, and also compare it with what she did the year 

before and compare it with what her neighbor is doing. 

 We meet once a week with the teachers to discuss this very thing; how are our 

children doing, how are they moving. Our reading program is called Effective Reading 

Practices and we do not really have another name for it, because what we do is we take 

every child and teach them at their instructional level, one professional teacher to six 

children. And that is not just the lowest performing children, it is every child in the 

school.

 So we have a kindergarten teacher here and one thing that she has said to me 

many times was that she was scared to death when we came to that school, because she 

was teaching kindergarten children and she did not want them to have to take a nationally 

known standardized test. 
38

 Well, she is one of the ones responsible for that 92nd percentile reading total that 

the mighty mights met. So I think she would tell you now that she is no longer afraid, 

and that is an important part of her accountability and she is proud of it. 

Mr. Collins. Well, good. It sounds like you have got a good assembly line. 

Ms. Schrenko, I believe I heard you say there are 600 system or schools that are using 

this program? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Collins. Are you experiencing the same or similar results in the other 599? 

Ms. Schrenko. Overall, we are showing improvement in every grade level that uses the 

program. However, I have to say that schools like Maxwell that have embraced the 

whole training, use the materials, are willing to devote the three hours a day, are showing 

so much greater gain than those who just use it as a money source, who do not train their 

teachers very well, the more accurately it is implemented, the higher the results. 

 And if I could just go back to something that Congressman Miller asked about 

earlier when Governor Barnes was here. You all were commenting on ending Title I 

funds to the state and allowing the General Assembly to re-appropriate those instead of 

flow-through. Well, you all have already given us some flexibility in federal founding 

and this year when the Bush proposal came out and they said that there were going to be 

block grants back to the states. Within two weeks, our General Assembly had removed 

$7 million from school improvement teams with the idea that they were going to use 

federal funds in place of that. And I just think you are very wise to steer clear. The 

General Assembly is a dangerous body. 

Mr. Collins. One last question, Ms. Schrenko. 

 Do I recall that you have some type of report card system in the schools in the 

state? 

Ms. Schrenko. Yes, sir. In 1995, we started producing a report card through the 

Department of Education, every school gets an individual report, and it is on the Internet. 

On that report card we list everything from how many free and reduced lunch students 

there are, all the test scores, Iowa, CRCT, the drop-out rate, the completion rate, SAT 

scores, number of students that go on to college. And that has been available since 1995.

What we have not done is to grade the schools. We could because the scores are there, 

but we have not. 

Mr. Collins. This report card then would distinguish the performance; low, high, 

medium, whatever? 

Ms. Schrenko. Right, yes. 

Mr. Collins. Okay, would you do me a favor and send the Governor that website. They 

are looking for those low performing schools. 
39

Ms. Schrenko. I will be glad to. 

Chairman Boehner. Let me once again thank all of our witnesses and let me also thank 

those of you in the audience who came out to participate in our hearing today. We 

appreciate your interest and your involvement. I thank the principal and the staff here at 

Fair Oaks for their hospitality. 

 And if there are no more comments, this Committee meeting is adjourned. 

 Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Boehner, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 33, 35, 36, 39 

Governor Barnes, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 

Mr. Barr, 2 

Mr. Collins, 14, 15, 16, 36, 38 

Mr. Hammond, 18, 20 

Mr. Isakson, 3, 12, 13, 33, 34, 35, 36 

Mr. Miller, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 30, 31, 32, 33 

Mr. Vollmer, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 

Mr. Willbanks, 24, 29, 30 

Ms. Biggerstaff, 18, 20, 22, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37 

Ms. Burns, 22 

Ms. Loe, 26, 33, 34, 36 

Ms. Radloff, 3 

Ms. Schrenko, 16, 17, 18, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39