U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–123 PDF 2008

EXAMINING LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON

THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN KING OF PRUSSIA, PA, MAY 14, 2007

Serial No. 110–35

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on May 14, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

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

Sestak, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania .......................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abrutyn, Leslye S., Ed.D., superintendent, Penn Delco School District ...... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Hershberg, Theodore, professor, public policy and history director, Center 

for Greater Philadelphia, and Operation Public Education, University 

of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Howell, Joe, principal, Norristown Area High School ................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18

Kozol, Stephen, social studies teacher and department chairman, Upper 

Merion Area High School ............................................................................. 20

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

Stevenson, Anthony C., incoming principal of Radnor Middle School, 

Radnor Township School District ................................................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

(1)

EXAMINING LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON

THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Monday, May 14, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

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

High School, Radnor, Pennsylvania, Hon. Dale Kildee [Chairman of 

the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Kildee and Sestak. 

Staff present: Julius Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Chairman KILDEE. A quorum being present, the hearing of the 

Subcommittee with come to order. Pursuant to Committee Rule 

12A, any member may submit an opening statement in writing 

which will be made part of the permanent record. For those of you 

who are not on today’s panel but would like to submit written testimony for the printed record of this hearing, you may do so by emailing it to Lloyd Horwich by the close of business Monday, May 

21, to our Subcommittee Counsel. He will provide you with his email address upon request. So we welcome any input that will be 

made part of the official Congressional record which becomes part 

of the documents we study and part of the archives of the United 

States. 

I am pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses here today 

for this hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, examining local perspectives on the 

No Child Left Behind Act. 

First of all, I would like to thank Superintendent Cooper and 

Principal Cannella for the use of this fine facility. I am Congressman Dale Kildee from Flint, Michigan, and I am Chairman of this 

Subcommittee. I have been in Congress now, this is my 31st year. 

I am thinking of making a career out of it, though not sure, when 

I grow up. 

I am especially pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague, 

Congressman Joe Sestak. In a very short time, Congressman 

Sestak has become a strong voice in Congress on issues affecting 

our national security, small business and, of course, education. He 

sits right in front of me at the hearings there in Washington and 

2

he is there regularly. His attendance is—I think you’ve got perfect 

attendance so far, Admiral. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a Head Start Bill that I authored to provide 

comprehensive early childhood education and developmental services for millions of low income children and their families. Because 

quality teachers are critical to a good Head Start program, Congressman Sestak introduced an amendment on the floor. He had 

amendments also adopted in committee. But an amendment on the 

floor to provide for loan forgiveness to Head Start teachers. His 

amendment passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 212 to 107 

and, hopefully, will become law soon. I also value Congressman 

Sestak’s input as a member of this subcommittee on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. As Chairman, one of my priorities 

is to work with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and 

educators in Washington and around the country to improve and 

reauthorize No Child Left Behind this year. That is the intention 

of George Miller, the Chairman of the Full Committee, and the intention of Edward Kennedy, the Chairman of the Senate counterpart Committee, so that probably will be done. Our country’s success in the 21st century economy will be directly tied to our ability 

to continue to produce a high-quality and educated people and 

work force. Inevitably that is, of course, directly tied to our ability 

to provide every child with a world class education. Since 2002, 

Congress and the President have underfunded No Child Left Behind by $56 billion. And the President’s proposed budget for 2008 

would underfund it by another $15 billion for a total of $71 billion. 

I have been in Congress a long time and that is one of the largest 

unfunded mandates that Congress has enacted. 

However, I am hopeful that with this year’s new Congress and 

the budget resolution which we passed, that we will start to do better. The budget resolution calls for increased funding in education 

and in health. But funding is only part of improving No Child Left 

Behind. I expect that the law’s basic structures, standards and 

testing, the disaggregation of data, adequate yearly progress or 

some form of that, which I am sure we will have great comments 

on that today, and the effects of not reaching AYP, I suspect that 

structure, talking to both Mr. Miller and Mr. Kennedy, will remain 

in place. But I am also, as are they, very open to suggestions of 

how we can improve the law. Some flexibility on the state and local 

level. And we are here in Pennsylvania to find out how you feel 

that law should be changed and please don’t hold back. I am sure 

you will not. I have been talking to some of you out in the lobby. 

You have a great deal of knowledge and some very strong feelings 

on this. That is why I have held hearings in Washington on how 

No Child Left Behind has worked for English language learners, 

students with disabilities and in the area of supplemental educational services. And this is our fourth hearing outside of Washington. We have been to Michigan, California, Arizona and now 

Pennsylvania. And Field Hearings are important, not only for Congress to hear from those who work to implement the law day in 

and day out, but also because they remind us that this law was 

written on Capitol Hill and not Mount Sinai. And even on Mount 

Sinai, Moses did go up a second time. Sometimes that is called a 

motion to recommit but we recognize that all wisdom is not in 

3

Washington. The wisdom is out here in Pennsylvania, California, 

Michigan and Arizona. 

In Michigan and California we heard from superintendents, principals, teachers, parents and other experts. In Arizona we heard 

from Indian educators. Today’s panels include an expert in school 

reform, a superintendent, two principals and a teacher. I look forward to hearing their perspectives on how No Child Left Behind 

has worked or has not worked and what we can do to make it work 

better. I am confident that their testimony will play an important 

role in the Committee’s understanding of how the law has impacted 

not only Delaware, Montgomery and Chester Counties and other 

parts of Pennsylvania, but also places like them all around the 

country. And I look forward to working together with Congressman 

Sestak, along with my Senior Republican Member Mr. Castle, Full 

Committee Chairman Mr. Miller, and Senior Republican Mr. 

McKeon and all the members of the committee on a bipartisan reauthorization of this bill. 

I thank you very much for your presence here and I now yield 

to Representative Sestak for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Admiral, you are on. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. Is this on? I very much appreciate you, 

Mr. Chairman, being here today. I say that because I consider Mr. 

Kildee a mentor. As he says, he sits right behind me. I sometimes 

think about Sister Urbannet saying Heaven’s down the road here, 

sitting right behind me, you know, to make sure I do things right. 

But I asked him early on if he would come up here to the district 

and a short time later he handed me a piece of paper and said 

would this date work out and here we are. 

Thank you so very much for that. Because I have learned in Congress that the most valuable thing I have is time and so, therefore, 

I know the most valuable thing the Chairman has is time. I 

thought commanding a carrier battle group with 15,000 sailors in 

a war with 30 ships was demanding on time. It is nothing like this. 

You have so many things to do and for him to take the time out 

to come here, I am very touched. Thank you, sir. 

I want to thank, again, Dr. Cooper and Principal Cannella. This 

has been a great place to hold—this is a great place to hold it. 

Some of the students who are here came down and visited me in 

Washington and now they are sitting here in the audience. I think 

if there is anything that should be taken out of today is democracy 

works. It really does. This is the third education event that we 

have had. I am particularly taken with this one because it is formal. It will be in the record. It must be considered. The first two 

were education summits we had where George Miller had come up, 

Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hinojosa had come up for Advanced and Higher Education. And as Mr. Kildee mentioned, out 

of that summit, three amendments were considered. They actually 

got to be part of the Head Start reauthorization and that is why 

I emphasize, this is not just a walk through. We listen. Clarence 

Tong and others are taking notes down here and we very much appreciate your input. 

I ran back then, as many people here know, on the themes that 

national security begins at home in the health, the education and 

4

the economic promise of our people. I saw that every day in the 

military. We were good because teachers, administrators, doctors, 

physicians took care of the youth to give us a very healthy educated individual. It is why I asked to be on the three committees 

that Chairman Kildee mentioned. Small Business, Education and 

Labor, Armed Services, and also two subcommittees on health. I 

am particularly taken that so many have responded and continue, 

after the summits we have had, to continue to give me input. They 

are all looked at and they are all reviewed. 

To the panelists, thank you for coming today. A number of you 

I have met for the first time but a number of you I have worked 

with before and I am very honored to have you here. 

This is another opportunity and a great one on No Child Left Behind which we will begin reauthorizing. I have always said over 

the past year, there is wonderful value in No Child Left Behind. 

But now to listen to those who are on the deck plates and working 

with it day in and day out, to have your input make a good idea 

be a great policy that can help you do your job better is what this 

is all about. 

So the topics we will go through will be how well is adequate 

yearly progress, the main accountability measurement we use considered by you on the deck plates. I am interested in hearing, 

again, the value that some seem to say that we need to consider 

what is called the growth or value-added models or testing, so that 

we are not just teaching to a test. Second, the consequences in 

interventions that are there presently for those schools that are determined to improve student performance. Are we doing it right? 

What should change? And then finally a topic that I know is dear 

to everybody’s heart, even here at Radnor where there was an incident recently, is the feeling of school safety. I know just from my 

own background and 31 years in the military, if young men and 

women felt comfortable in what they were doing and in the environment they were in, they were able to be attendant to what we 

were talking to them about better than if there is a feeling of 

unease. 

And so thank you very much, Chairman, for hosting this today 

and I am very much looking forward to listening and the questions 

that will ensue afterwards. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you for my time. 

Chairman KILDEE. I generally say this wherever I go, is that, all 

of us like to see our published works and this hearing will be published, will be printed, and it takes a while to do that. We will get 

copies right away and the members will get copies right away but 

they become part of the national archives. So in a short time when 

that is done, have your Congressman send you a copy of your testimony here. 

I would like now to—first of all, all members of the committee 

will have seven calendar days to submit additional materials or 

questions for the hearing record. 

I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel of witnesses that are here with us this morning. 

Dr. Ted Hershberg is Professor of Public Policy and History and 

Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia at the University 

5

of Pennsylvania. In 1996, Professor Hershberg organized a consortium of 31 public school districts to work collaboratively on standards based reform. In 2000, he founded Operation Public Education 

to develop a new set of roles and incentives for K-12 education. 

OPE is now introducing its model for comprehensive school reform 

to education stakeholders across the nation. I will now yield to 

Congressman Sestak to introduce our other witnesses who are from 

his district. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first introduce Principal Stevenson. He will testify on the topic of school 

safety without disrupting the educational environment, which I 

spoke about as I closed my opening comments. He is the incoming 

principal of Radnor Middle School and currently serves as the assistant principal of Radnor High School. In his career, Mr. Stevenson has experience both as a teacher and as an administrator and 

has served in the Radnor School District as administrator for the 

past three years. His undergraduate degree is from South Carolina 

State University and Master’s is from the Indiana University of 

Pennsylvania. We are glad to have you, Principal Stevenson. 

Dr. Leslye Abrutyn is the superintendent of the Penn-Delco 

School District for the last ten years. And she will testify and we 

have spoken about her thoughts and experience with growth models and differentiated interventions for schools not meeting the adequate yearly progress, the AYP. We are very pleased to have her. 

She holds a Doctor of Education Degree from Temple and she is a 

pioneer in recognizing the importance of the collection and analysis 

of data. One of the real bright spots, I think, No Child Left Behind 

can help us have. If you read her article, The Most Important Data, 

which was published nationally and internationally in educational 

leadership, you will see very much about what her ideas hold for 

us. She has also co-hosted All About Education, which is a weekly 

community radio show discussing various educational topics. Doctor, we are very pleased to have you here. 

The third witness here that I would like to mention would be Mr. 

Joseph Howell. He has been serving as the principal of Norristown 

Area High School since 2004 and he has served as a teacher and 

administrator in the Norristown Area School District since 1972. 

From 1979 until 2004, he has served as the principal of Stewart 

Middle School in Norristown. He holds a Bachelor of Science and 

Education from Pittsburgh and a Masters of Arts from Villanova 

University. And I think you are going to find his testimony quite 

compelling. I am glad to have you here, sir. 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. SESTAK. And finally, the last witness I would like to introduce who will testify on differentiated interventions, what do you 

do when a school is not meeting the requirement set forth, is Mr. 

Stephen Kozol. And I am very pleased to have him from Upper 

Merion High School where he is the Department Chair of the Social Studies Department and where, obviously, he is serving as a 

teacher. But he is also President of the Upper Merion Area Education Association and brings a diverse background. Prior to entering the education field, which I always think is of value, where he 

served both at Pricewaterhouse and later as an attorney at Drinker, Biddle and Reath. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from 

6

Brandeis University and a Law Degree from George Washington 

University Law Center and a Masters of Arts Degree and Certification in Secondary Education from West Chester University. We 

are glad to have you all here. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. We want to welcome 

all our witnesses here today. For those who have not testified before this subcommittee before, I will explain our lighting system 

and the five-minute rule we have. 

Everyone, including members, is limited to five minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light will be illuminated when 

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

have one minute remaining and when you see the red light, it 

means your time has expired, you need to conclude your testimony. 

However, there is no ejection seat there and no trap door, so if you 

are in the middle of a brilliant statement, I am not going to bring 

the gavel down. You may certainly finish up your statement. 

Please be certain as you testify to make sure your mic is turned 

on, turn on your mic and speak into the microphone in front of you 

and turn it off when you are finished. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Principal Stevenson. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY STEVENSON, ASSISTANT 

PRINCIPAL, RADNOR HIGH SCHOOL 

Mr. STEVENSON. Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Congressman 

Sestak and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. I am 

pleased to appear before you today to testify on The Impact of Student Safety and No Child Left Behind. I would be remiss, however, 

if I did not also on behalf of the 1269 students at Radnor High 

School welcome you as well. 

Ever since the tragedy of Columbine High School, school districts 

have been working to address the question of how to keep our students safe at schools. The recent shootings of the Amish students 

in Lancaster and even the recent incident in our school here, in 

which a student brought a gun to school, have impressed upon us 

that school safety is a constant priority. 

Schools have a difficult task of ensuring that the school setting 

is safe on a daily basis. However, we also have to ensure that the 

school environment is not so overwhelming that true education 

cannot take place. 

The physical plant of a school building is the first area of defense 

for school safety. Most schools that were built before Columbine 

were not designed with adequate safety for doors, cameras, escape 

routes and other equipment that support school safety. As a result, 

schools were forced to redesign their buildings in a way that would 

improve the security of their buildings. 

However, the physical plant of a school is only one component of 

creating a safe school. The true way to create a safe school is 

through the school climate. School climate can be understood as the 

frequency and quality of interactions among and between staff, students, parents and the community throughout the school area. Research shows that schools with a positive and welcoming school climate increase the likelihood that students succeed academically 

and socially and help them disengage and avoid high-risk behaviors 

7

like substance abuse and violence. This type of climate can only be 

enhanced by having educators spend time designing prevention and 

intervention plans, well-organized crisis teams and maintaining 

clear lines of communication related to school safety among all appropriate stakeholders in the school community. 

According to the National School Safety Center, from a student’s 

perspective, school climate depends upon and is affected by the following. Number one, school involvement. To the degree in which 

students are involved in and enjoy classes and extra curricular activities in school. Student relationships. The level of comfort students feel in relating to another and the ease in which to make 

new friends. Teacher support. The amount of help and care that 

teachers direct toward students. The physical environment. The extent to which the school buildings reflect the caring attitude of the 

school, the school buildings are clean, well-cared for, supervised 

and safe. Conflict resolution. Whether students are clear about the 

rules and feel that conflicts are resolved fairly and rules are consistently enforced. Participation in decision-making. The extent to 

which students, administrators and teachers share in making decisions about school improvement. Curriculum. The extent to which 

students feel that what is taught in classes meets their needs. 

Counseling services. Whether students feel counselors are accessible and able to help with personal problems, jobs and career information and concerns about drugs, alcohol and sex. Recreation alternatives. Whether students are satisfied with existing recreational activities and teachers support all of these activities. Personal stress. The amount of pressure students feel they are under 

and the resources they have to cope with. 

Here in the Radnor Township School District, we make all attempts to create a school climate that creates a balance of creating 

a safe setting while maintaining a strong academic and social atmosphere for our students. In Radnor, we have several programs 

that are included, but not limited to, a crisis management team 

that coordinates the plans for responding to violent and traumatic 

incidents on school grounds and various emergency drills. The district also works in conjunction with the Radnor Education Foundation in establishing a drug and alcohol task force that meets 

monthly to discuss drug and alcohol issues that impact our school 

community. They also provide various programs that address 

issues related to substance abuse. The Radnor Township School 

District also collaborates with local law enforcement officials to create an environment that welcomes officials into schools and allows 

them to be a part of our school culture. Each school also has a Student Assistance Program that identifies students at risk. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, any school, 

whether suburban or urban, small or large, racially segregated or 

diverse, wealthy or poor, would benefit from an increase in additional appropriation funds to assist their schools in safety efforts. 

Additional funding would give schools an opportunity to provide an 

expanded version of intervention activities that I outlined. This 

support will also provide schools with the opportunity to create a 

culture that can provide a feeling of safety while providing an endless possibility of academic success for the students they serve. 

I thank you for your time. 

8

[Statement of Mr. Stevenson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Anthony C. Stevenson, Incoming Principal of 

Radnor Middle School, Radnor Township School District 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, Congressman Sestak and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, I am pleased to appear before you today to testify on ‘‘The Impact 

of School Safety and NCLB.’’

Every since the tragedy at Columbine High School, school districts have been 

working to address the question of how to keep our children safe at schools. The 

recent shootings of Amish students thirty miles from here in Lancaster and even 

a recent incident in our school where a student brought a gun to school have impressed upon us that school safety is a constant priority. 

Schools have the difficult task of ensuring that the school setting is safe on a daily 

basis. However, we also have to ensure that the school environment is not so overwhelming that true education cannot take place. 

The physical plant of a school building is the first area of defense for school safety. Most schools that were built before Columbine were not designed with the adequate safety doors; cameras; escape routes; and other equipment that support school 

safety. As a result, schools were forced to redesign their building in a way that 

would improve the security of their building. 

However, the physical plant of a school is only one component of creating safe 

schools. The true way to create a safe school is through the school climate. School 

climate can be understood as the frequency and quality of interactions among and 

between staff, students, parents, and the community throughout the entire school 

community. Research shows that schools with a positive and welcoming school climate increases the likelihood that students succeed academically and socially, and 

helps them disengage or avoid high risk behaviors like substance abuse and violence. 

This type of climate can only be enhanced by having educators spend time designing prevention and intervention plans, well-organized crisis teams and maintaining 

clear lines of communication related to school safety among all appropriate stakeholders in the school community. 

According to the National School Safety Center (1990), from a student’s perspective, school climate depends upon and is affected by the following: 

• Student involvement: The degree to which students are involved in and enjoy 

classes and extracurricular activities at school. 

• Student relationships: The level of comfort students feel in relating to one another and the ease with which they make new friends. 

• Teacher support: The amount of help and care that teachers direct toward students. 

• Physical environment: The extent to which the school building reflects the caring attitude of the school, the school buildings are clean, well cared for, supervised, 

and safe. 

• Conflict resolution: Whether students are clear about the rules and feel that 

conflicts are resolved fairly and rules are consistently enforced. 

• Participation in decision-making: The extent to which students, administrators, 

and teachers share in making decisions about school improvement. 

• Curriculum: The extent to which students feel that what is taught in classes 

meets their needs. 

• Counseling services: Whether students feel counselors are accessible and able 

to help with personal problems, job, and career information, and concerns about 

drugs, alcohol, and sex. 

• Recreation alternatives: Whether students are satisfied with existing recreational activities and teachers’ support of these activities. 

• Personal stress: The amount of pressure students feel they are under and the 

resources they have to cope with it. 

Here in the Radnor Township School District, we made all attempts to create a 

school climate that creates a balance of creating a safe setting while maintaining 

a strong academic and social atmosphere for our students. In Radnor, we have several programs that include but are not limited to: 

• Each school has a Crisis Management Team that coordinates the plans for responding to violent or traumatic incidents on school grounds and various emergency 

drills. 

• The District works in conjunction with the Radnor Education Foundation in the 

establishment of a Drug and Alcohol Task Force that meets monthly to discuss drug 

9

and alcohol issues that impact our school community. They provide various programs that address issues related to substance abuse. 

• Radnor Township School District collaborates with the local law enforcement officials to create an environment that welcomes our local officials into schools and 

allows them to become part of our school culture. 

• Each school has a Student Assistance Program (SAP) which identifies those students who are at risk and implement programs that can help meet their needs. 

• Various sports and extra curricular opportunities for students to participate in. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, any school, whether suburban or 

urban, small or large, racially segregated or diverse, wealthy or poor, would benefit 

from an increase in additional appropriation funds to assist their schools with safety 

efforts. Additional funding would give schools the opportunity to provide an expanded version of intervention activities that can prevent and reduce violence in our 

schools. By supporting the current and proposed safe school programs, schools will 

have the opportunity to maintain a safe school setting without disrupting the educational environment that is imperative to meet the requirements of NCLB. This 

support will also provide schools with the opportunity to create a school culture that 

can provide a feeling of safety while providing the endless possibility of academic 

success for the students they serve. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Right in time. Good. 

Ms. Abrutyn, up here. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LESLYE ABRUTYN, SUPERINTENDENT, 

PENN–DELCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Kildee. It is an honor to be here with you, as well as with Congressman Sestak who represents our area so effectively in Washington. 

I am Leslye Abrutyn, Superintendent of the Penn-Delco School 

District. I am honored to testify today about the current AYP accountability measures and to offer my conclusion on whether they 

are too rigid to account for individual student achievement and improvement. 

I am in my 34th year as an educator and have served ten years 

as superintendent of the Penn-Delco School District. My goal as an 

educational leader is to find out the answer to the question everyone asks, what really works in education? I have some answers and 

the results of my school districts speak for themselves in answering 

that question. 

Here in Delaware County there are 15 school districts, some of 

them among the wealthiest in the Commonwealth. When these districts are compared by social economic standards, the Penn-Delco 

School District ranks in the middle. Yet, our students far outscore 

their predicted berth according to social economic predictors. In 

some categories, instead of scoring seven out of 15 school districts, 

we have scored at number two or three. Also, we are outscoring 

districts that spend up to twice as much per pupil as Penn-Delco. 

No Child Left Behind calls for 100 percent proficiency in 2014. 

I am proud to say that this year, the third grade in one of PennDelco schools reached 100 percent proficiency in math. No other 

school or district in our entire county had 100 percent proficiency 

in any other category at all. 

How can our success in Penn-Delco help with the reauthorization 

of No Child Left Behind? As with any successful organization, our 

success starts with a vision. My vision for Penn-Delco has been, in 

10

Penn-Delco we move every child forward every day. This is a vision 

I created more than a decade ago and still promote daily. 

How does one put this vision into action? We rely upon robust, 

current and accurate data on individual students. Over the years, 

as technology has permitted, we have gotten better and better at 

creating, compiling, analyzing and utilizing that data. This data 

and its successful use have been vital in allowing us to move every 

child forward every day. 

Contrast my vision with the practicality of what happens at most 

schools under the current assessment system. Most states use either a status model or a criterion-referenced model to assess students, which is not particularly helpful in describing the achievement level of individual children or in prescribing a plan to help 

improve student achievement. 

This is the limitation of the so-called status model under AYP. 

I hope my value to this committee today will be to describe in real 

terms what actually happens under No Child Left Behind. 

As in most districts, we spend a lot of time preparing students 

for and administering the state test. What do we have when the 

results come back? Disaggregated data, which in my opinion, has 

been very useful in motivating districts to look much more carefully at low-performing subgroups and has been the catalyst for 

much of the improvement we have seen across the nation. However, the disaggregated data from the current model alone is not 

enough to move every child forward every day. Disaggregated data 

is just one of the tools we use in Penn-Delco to assess and then 

guide instruction. 

We add an entire additional layer of assessment over the state 

assessment. That layer consists of a technology-based system that 

would be correctly defined as a growth model because it measures 

students periodically throughout the school year and provides robust, current and accurate data that describes needed areas of improvement for each student. Our practice of using this growth 

model is what has made us more successful than many other districts. 

Members of the committee, I propose to you that we have before 

us a strategic opportunity during this period of reauthorization of 

No Child Left Behind. Why strategic? Because in the truest definition of the term strategic, there are threats, as well as opportunities, before us. As you know, we are fast approaching the year 

2014, the deadline for 100 percent proficiency. 

In the early years of No Child Left Behind, there were significant 

and incremental gains in proficiency across the country. But the 

concept of a point of diminishing returns is becoming a reality. It 

is becoming increasingly more challenging to reach the lofty goal 

of 100 percent proficiency. This, I propose to you, is the threat. We 

are set up for failure. 

What is the opportunity before us? We can change from a status 

model of measuring achievement to a growth model and thus accomplish three significant things. One, provide robust data on individual students throughout the school year thus allowing all children to continually improve. Two, allow for a more realistic way to 

describe how districts are leaving no child behind. And three, provide more efficiency and effectiveness in student achievement. 

11

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences with you this morning. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[Statement of Dr. Abrutyn follows:]

Prepared Statement of Leslye S. Abrutyn, Ed.D., Superintendent,

Penn Delco School District 

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

the subcommittee. It is an honor to be here with you, as well as with Representative 

Sestak, who represents our area so effectively in Washington, D.C. 

I am Leslye Abrutyn, Superintendent of the Penn Delco School District, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. I am honored to testify today about the current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability measures under No Child Left Behind 

(NCLB), and to offer my conclusion on whether they are too rigid to account for individual student achievement and improvement. 

I am in my 34th year as an educator, and have served 10 years as superintendent 

of the Penn Delco School District. My goal as an educational leader is, and has always been, to find out the answer to the question parents, educators, and legislators 

are asking: ‘‘What REALLY works in education?’’ I have some answers, and the results in my school district over the past 10 years speak for themselves in answering 

that question. 

In Delaware County, there are 15 school districts. When these districts are compared by socioeconomic standards, the Penn-Delco School District ranks in the middle. Yet, our students far outscore their predicted berth according to these aforementioned, and usually accurate, socioeconomic predictors. In some categories instead 

of scoring 7th out of 15 school districts, we have scored at number 2 or 3. We are 

outscoring districts that spend up to twice as much per pupil as Penn Delco. No 

Child Left Behind calls for 100% of students scoring proficient in 2014; I am proud 

to say that this past year there was only one grade level, in one subject area, in 

one school, in one school district, in all of Delaware County where 100% of the students scored proficient on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). 

That grade was the 3rd grade in Parkside Elementary School, one of Penn Delco’s 

schools. 

How can our success in Penn Delco help you understand the intricacies and the 

consequences of the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind? 

First, I along with most educators applaud and support the goals of the law: to 

leave no child behind. We hold it as a point of personal and professional pride to 

be accountable for the job we do. But, we do not want to be, nor is it fair to be held 

accountable when there are multiple factors beyond our control. 

So, allow me to elaborate on how we have been successful and, on how you can 

reauthorize the law in a form that could replicate our successes for the benefit of 

all students in our nation. 

As with any successful organization, our success starts with a vision. My vision 

for Penn Delco has been, ‘‘In Penn Delco we move every child forward every day.’’ 

This is a vision I created many years ago, and talk about often. How does one put 

this vision into action? The successful implementation of my vision relies upon robust, current, and accurate data on individual students. Over the years, as technology has permitted, we have gotten better and better at creating, compiling, analyzing, and utilizing that data. This data and its successful use have been vital in 

allowing us to move every child forward every day. 

Contrast my vision with the practicality of what happens at most schools under 

the current system. Most states use either a status model or a criterion referenced 

model to assess students. This means that data on students is determined once per 

year. That data is then used to determine whether a school has met AYP. But, it 

is not particularly helpful in describing the achievement level of individual children, 

or in prescribing a plan to help improve student achievement. This is the limitation 

of the so called status model. 

How is this limitation addressed in Penn Delco? I hope my value to this Committee today will be to describe in real and practical terms what actually happens 

under NCLB. As a district, we spend a lot of time preparing students for, and administering the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). Contrary to 

some popular, but uninformed opinions on this subject, preparing for the test is not 

a bad thing. ‘‘Preparing’’ means teaching students critical thinking skills, reading, 

and math. What do we have when the results come back? We have disaggregated 

data which in my opinion has been very useful. This aspect of the law has motivated 

12

districts to look much more carefully at low performing groups and has been the 

catalyst for much of the improvement we have seen in our nation. 

However, the disaggregated data from the current model alone is not enough to 

‘‘move every child forward every day.’’ Disaggregated data is just one of the tools 

we use to assess and then guide instruction in Penn Delco. We add an entire additional layer of assessment over the state assessment. That layer consists of a technology-based system that would be correctly defined as a growth model because it 

measures students periodically throughout the school year, and provides robust, current, and accurate data that describes needed areas of improvement for each student. Our practice of using this growth model is what has made us more successful 

than many other districts. 

Members of the Committee, I propose to you that we have before us a strategic 

opportunity during this period of reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Why strategic? Because in the truest definition of the term ‘‘strategic’’ there are threats as 

well as opportunities before us. As you know, we are fast approaching the year of 

2014; the deadline for 100% proficiency. In the early years of NCLB there were significant and incremental gains in proficiency across our country. But, the concept 

of a point of diminishing returns is becoming a reality. It is becoming increasingly 

more challenging for schools to make those increases to meet AYP, and to reach the 

lofty goal of proficiency for every child in our nation. This, I propose to you is the 

threat. We are set up for failure. 

What is the opportunity before us? We can change from a status model of measuring achievement to a growth model. This shift in thought and assessment will accomplish three significant things: 

1. A growth model will provide robust data on individual students throughout the 

school year, thus allowing all children to continually improve. 

2. A growth model will allow a more realistic way to describe how districts are 

‘‘leaving no child behind’’. 

3. A growth model will be more effective and efficient. You will recall how I described that we are required to participate in the PSSA, which is a status model 

assessment system, and how we supplement this data with our own in-house growth 

model assessment system in Penn Delco. If the reauthorization shifts to a growth 

model assessment system, the required standardized tests will be a more efficient 

use of time and resources. The data collected will be more meaningful and effective, 

because it will allow curriculum to be directed by the individualized needs of students, thereby helping students become more successful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences with you 

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

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. And Dr. Hershberg. 

STATEMENT OF THEODORE HERSHBERG, PROFESSOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND HISTORY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR GREATER PHILADELPHIA AND OPERATION PUBLIC EDUCATION, 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Congressman Kildee, Congressman Sestak, 

thank you for the invitation. I am honored to be able to accept it. 

The best interest of our nation will be served by including growth 

models in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. They provide a much fairer way than the status model used in current law 

to measure the performance of schools that differ greatly across the 

socio-economic and demographic profiles. Second, these models 

produce unprecedentedly valuable diagnostic data to help teachers 

improve their instruction and to help principals deploy teachers 

more strategically. Third, they add a fair and accurate empirical 

component to improve the evaluation, remediation and compensation of individual educators, both teachers and administrators. Finally, because they provide a direct measure of teacher effectiveness, what students learn rather than an indirect measure, such as 

whether a teacher is experienced or certified, that can better identify highly-qualified teachers. I believe when historians record the 

13

history of school reform efforts at the turn of the 21st century, they 

will identify growth models as the most important analytic breakthrough of the era. 

I would like you to go to Figure 1a because the critical understanding here is to know what is the difference between achievement and growth. We have all grown up with the notion of achievement. That is how we expressed the learning results. So at a single 

moment in time on a vertical scale, we can show achievement 90, 

70, 50. We could call it status. We can call it raw score. We can 

call it proficiency. The point is, where do our—on that vertical scale 

at one moment in time, is always best predicted by family income. 

Go to Figure 1b. Growth. We are tracing individual children, no 

longer cohorts. When you measure the student’s progress from September to June, that progress is best predicted by the quality of instruction. That is why—in fact, it is 15 to 20 times more powerful 

than income or race or gender in predicting student progress. When 

Coleman and Jenks did their important studies that said schools 

are not responsible for the performance of kids, they were right because they were measuring it with achievement. But they didn’t 

have the data sets and the technology we now have available that 

link the scores of kids on every subject and grade to the teacher 

or teachers who taught them. With this new technology in place, 

a whole new era opens up in American education. 

Now, let me use this distinction between achievement and 

growth to explain the shortcomings in AYP. So if you go to Figure 

2, you will see a little matrix with four cells. Achievement is the 

vertical axis, growth is the horizontal axis. The bottom left-hand 

cell are schools that have both low achievement and low growth. 

They are doing a disservice to their children. They deserve to be 

sanctioned under No Child Left Behind. Go to the diagonal cell, the 

upper right. These are schools that are giving their children high 

growth and high achievement. The law is silent on these schools. 

To me this is the Tom Friedman cell. Raising the bar for everybody 

in the tense of global economy. 

The unfairness of No Child Left Behind is visible in the remaining two cells. In the upper left, our schools with high achievement 

but low growth. These are typically found in affluent communities. 

They come from good families, wealthy families, they have high 

test scores but they are not getting the academic progress they are 

entitled to. We call these schools slide and glide schools. Many superintendents from the affluent school communities are opposing 

growth because they fear they will be shown to be underperforming. And the second part of the unfairness of No Child Left Behind are communities that have children with—the schools give 

them high growth but low achievement. They have come to school 

so far behind, they do not know their colors, their numbers and 

their letters. The schools are growing them but because they are 

still not to proficiency, they are sanctioned. That is terribly unfair 

to those educators. 

The last thing I would like to say is that we put in place growth 

models where we trace individual kids and we have data now that 

links the scores. We now have, not only an enormously rich set of 

diagnostic data to help teachers improve their instruction, but we 

14

have the basis for the first time at the classroom level of evaluating 

individual teachers and administrators. 

And this, I submit, is the single most important breakthrough 

that we will face. There is much that is complicated. You got to 

pick the right growth models. There are a series of technical issues 

we don’t have time to get into. But I urge you, you will end up with 

a vastly more fair system if we shift to growth models. 

[Statement of Dr. Hershberg follows:]

Prepared Statement of Theodore Hershberg, Professor, Public Policy and 

History Director, Center for Greater Philadelphia, and Operation Public 

Education, University of Pennsylvania 

THE IMPORTANCE OF INCLUDING GROWTH MODELS IN NCLB

Introduction 

The best interests of the nation will be served by including growth models in the 

reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. They provide a much fairer way than the 

status (AYP) model used in NCLB to measure the performance of schools that differ 

greatly in their socioeconomic and demographic profiles. These models produce 

unprecedentedly valuable diagnostic data to help teachers improve their instruction 

and to help principals deploy teachers more strategically. They add a fair and accurate empirical component to improve the evaluation, remediation and compensation 

of educators, both teachers and administrators. Finally, because they provide a direct measure of teacher effectiveness—what students learn rather than an indirect 

measure such as whether a teacher is experienced or certified—they can better identify highly qualified teachers. I believe historians of school reform at the turn of the 

21st century will identify growth models as the most important analytic breakthrough of the era. 

1. The Difference Between Achievement and Growth 

Achievement describes the levels attained by students in their end-of-year tests. 

Whether referred to as proficiency, status, absolute or raw scores, these points on 

a vertical scale at a single point in time are best predicted by family background 

(income and values about education) (see Figure 1a). 

Growth, in contrast, describes the progress made by each student over the course 

of the school year and is best predicted by the quality of instruction (see Figure 1b). 

Good instruction is 15-20 times more powerful than family background and income, 

race, gender, and other explanatory variables in predicting student progress or 

growth. 

When James Coleman (1966) and Christopher Jenks (1972) issued their famous 

studies concluding that the level of academic achievement is determined largely by 

factors beyond a school’s control, they did not have the computer technology to permit the tracing of individual students over time nor the data sets to record their 

test scores in every subject and link this data to the teacher(s) who taught them 

With this new technology and growth models, we now have a fair and accurate 

way to include student-learning results in educator evaluation, remediation and 

compensation (discussed separately below). 

2. Using Achievement and Growth to Understand Shortcomings in No Child Left Behind 

At the heart of this problem is that AYP focuses on achievement to the exclusion 

of growth. The four cells in Figure 2 help us identify and understand AYP’s deficiencies. Proficiency (achievement), high and low, is tracked on the vertical axis, 

while growth, high and low, is tracked on the horizontal axis. 

In the bottom left cell are schools that are clearly not serving the needs of their 

students—providing them with low proficiency and low growth—and thus deserve 

to be sanctioned. 

Schools in the top right cell are performing wonderfully. They are doing what we 

want all schools to do: provide their students with both high proficiency and high 

growth. I think of this cell as responding to the challenges Tom Friedman identified 

in The World is Flat. Yet NCLB does nothing to encourage schools to reach these 

goals other than the absence of sanctions. 

Schools in the top left cell are meeting their AYP goals—that is, they have high 

achievement—but low growth. Most often found in affluent communities where 

high-test scores go hand-in-hand with family income, these schools are often called 

‘‘slide and glide’’ because they appear to be resting on the laurels of their students. 

15

It is important to understand that NCLB does nothing to hold these schools accountable for providing their students with the annual growth to which they are entitled. In a global economy characterized by fierce competition for demanding jobs 

that pay high salaries and benefits, this is a highly significant shortcoming. 

Schools in the bottom right cell create high growth, but low achievement. They 

have succeeded in academically ‘‘stretching’’ or ‘‘growing’’ their students, but given 

how far behind these students were when they entered school, they have not yet 

been able to raise them to proficiency. These schools, while not bringing their students to AYP-required levels, are clearly helping students improve their academic 

performance, yet still face sanctions under current law. 

NCLB reauthorization should remedy the shortcomings I have addressed here by 

embracing the philosophy of growth: all children, regardless of whether they are 

low, average, or high achieving, deserve a year’s worth of growth in a year. Schools 

should be rewarded or sanctioned based on this principle. 

3. Growth Models Provide Invaluable Diagnostic Information and Enable New Approaches to Educator Evaluation, Remediation and Compensation 

In order to track student growth, states must have data systems that include a 

unique identifier for each student and each teacher and to record for every student 

the test scores in each grade and subject and the teacher(s) who taught them. NCLB 

reauthorization should mandate or provide incentives for states to develop such systems. 

When collected at the classroom level, the data have uniquely powerful diagnostic 

value that reveal the focus of a teacher’s instruction (on previously low-, averageor high-achieving students) and the impact of their instruction (highly effective, effective or ineffective). When students have two or three consecutive teachers from 

the last of these categories, they never reach the absolute level of accomplishment 

they would have achieved had they had teachers from the top two categories. When 

principals are provided with these diagnostic data, they can deploy their teachers 

so that students are never exposed sequentially to ineffective teachers. 

Growth models can also make an important empirical contribution to teacher 

evaluation, remediation and compensation. As recent reports from RAND, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the Educational Testing Services (ETS) make clear, growth models can be used to identify the highest and lowest 

performers, but should never be used as the sole or principal criterion of teacher 

effectiveness. The data yielded by growth models should be used as part of a balanced system (inputs, or observation, and outputs, or student learning results), with 

multiple measures such as those contained in the sophisticated teaching frameworks 

developed by Charlotte Danielson covering planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities, as well as appropriate safeguards, such as review panels composed of teachers and administrators, to ensure 

fair treatment for individual educators. 

The Congress should also add to the definition of a ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ 

those identified as effective by growth models—that is, the lack of credentials notwithstanding, the fact that the students in their classrooms are learning at appropriate levels should be sufficient to earn the ‘‘highly qualified’’ designation. 

4. Fixing AYP Without Abandoning Proficiency Through ‘‘Growth to Standards’’

The essence of the ‘‘Growth-to-Standards’’ approach is to identify schools that are 

putting their students on growth trajectories to reach proficiency in the future and 

to credit these schools for that achievement. 

Schools could do this by using a growth model that converts the static achievement scores of their students to dynamic growth scores. If students currently performing below their AYP targets are on track to reach proficiency by the time they 

graduate, they would be counted among those meeting their AYP target in the current year. If a school were to place enough of these students on growth-to-standards 

trajectories, it could meet its AYP goal for the year. Using a growth-to-standards 

approach, in other words, would reduce the proportion of schools failing AYP, but 

without abandoning the commitment to proficiency. 

This approach may be criticized for the same reason that the existing definition 

of AYP is criticized: it creates what many call a ‘‘perverse incentive’’ for educators 

to focus like a laser beam on one group of students to the exclusion of all others: 

those close to but below proficiency. Schools choose to ignore students far below proficiency as well as those whose scores already exceed proficiency, the argument goes, 

because the prime directive in NCLB is for schools to hit their annual AYP targets. 

While this is clearly the logic of the incentive, we do not yet know if this is supported in fact. The growth-to-standards approach described above, like AYP, might 

simply illuminate the pattern—the gains made by those who start just below proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-35\35123.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
16

ficiency are coming at the expense of those who start the year above it—rather than 

exacerbate it. 

We know this pattern long pre-dates NCLB and has been widespread in poor communities, whether in inner-cities or Appalachia. It explains, for example, the observation made by elementary school teachers that the proportion of precocious students in kindergarten and first grade is sharply reduced by fifth and sixth grades. 

Faced with so many low performing children, the explanation goes, teachers focus 

on the bottom of the student distribution so that previous low-achievers get high 

growth while previous high-achievers get low growth. Sustaining this focus in the 

early years explains why so few high achieving, low-income children are found in 

middle school. 

When Dr.William Sanders applied his growth-to-standards approach to all Tennessee schools in the 2002-03 school year, he learned that 13 percent more schools 

would meet their federal goals if this alternative means of calculating AYP were accepted by the U.S. Department of Education. But when Sanders looked more closely 

at its effects—he examined nine Memphis schools all of whose students were minority and low-income (on free and reduced price lunch)—he discovered some troubling 

results. While some schools met their AYP through the growthto-standards alternative without denying any of their students adequate yearly growth, others did so 

at the expense of students who had achieved at higher levels in the past. Seeing 

no sense in a trade-off that benefits one group of poor minority kids at the expense 

of another, Sanders proposed a ‘‘net’’ approach: schools would receive credit for students placed on a growth-tostandards trajectory and debits for formerly higher 

achieving students denied adequate growth in the process. 

The U.S. Department of Education has given approval to Tennessee to use this 

approach in determining if schools meet their AYP goals. NCLB should provide incentives to expand the use of this model in other states. 

6. A Cautionary Note: Not All Growth Models Are Equal 

This is not the place to discuss the complex statistical issues embedded in the use 

of different kinds of growth models, such as the ‘‘projection’’ model used in growthto-standards or the ‘‘expectations’’ model used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual teachers. Some models that are described as ‘‘simple and transparent’’ are 

actually statistically flawed and will yield specious and erratic results. Suffice it to 

say that much attention must be paid to the details in order for growth models to 

be used fairly and effectively. 

ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1a: Achievement Figure 1b: Growth Figure 2: Identifying AYP’s Shortcomings 

Appendix: Theodore Hershberg, ‘‘Value-Added Assessment and Systemic Reform: 

A Response to the Challenge of Human Capital Development,’’ Phi Delta Kappan 

(December, 2005). Paper prepared for the Aspen Institute’s Congressional Institute, 

The Challenge of Education Reform: Standards, Accountability, Resources and Policy (Cancun, Mexico: Feb. 22-27, 2005). 

Chairman KILDEE. I think at this point it is time for the students 

to change classes, so we will take a two-minute break while they 

do that. Thank you, Dr. Hershberg. Thank you very much. Thank 

you for the chart, it is very interesting. 

Now, I want to thank the students, by the way, for your presence 

and for your great attention you have given to the hearing. 

Mr. Howell. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HOWELL, PRINCIPAL,

NORRISTOWN AREA HIGH SCHOOL 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you. Good morning. 

Norristown Area High School serves approximately 1,800 students who come to us from the borough of Norristown, the Montgomery County seat, and the townships of East and West Norriton. 

According to a formula developed by the Philadelphia Inquirer 

Newspaper for its annual report card on the schools, Norristown is 

the most diverse public high school in the region. Currently we are 

17

in Corrective Action I after failing to meet AYP in one or more of 

the 12 reporting categories assigned to us for four years in a row. 

We are subject to the same penalties and interventions assigned 

to all schools with the same designation. We also received $9,500 

in state and federal funds for the current school year because we 

are in Corrective Action. 

This morning I respectfully suggest to you that there are two 

ways in which the implementation of No Child Left Behind could 

be of greater benefit to me and of much greater consequence to my 

constituents, students, parents and the community. 

First, include a value-added reporting system. Value-added analysis is a statistical method used to measure the influence of a district and school on the academic progress rates of individual students and groups of students from year-to-year. PVAAS, Pennsylvania’s value-added system, offers an objective and more precise 

way to measure student, cohort and subgroup progress. It also has 

a predictive component that is useful in helping to determine efficient employment of support resources. 

While I know how my students performed against the arbitrary 

2005 to 2007 No Child Left Behind AYP targets, I do not know reliably how they should have performed. 

For example, I know that 60 percent of my total 11th grade population was advanced or proficient on the 2006 PSSA in reading. 

Is that a remarkable achievement on my part about what it should 

have been or did attending Norristown High do some students 

harm? Students who would have scored higher had they gone to 

school somewhere else. Without this additional data, the practice 

of comparing schools under the current system is invalid in my estimation unless all schools have the exact same student population. 

No Child Left Behind contains a school choice component based on 

the comparisons of schools created by the AYP designations. The 

presumption is that a student who scores at the basic level in a 

Corrective Action school would benefit from transferring to a school 

that has met AYP because it is a better school. If all of my students transferred to a school that has met AYP and all that 

school’s students transferred to Norristown High, would the outcomes be the same? Do the schools we are compared to enjoy the 

diversity that we do and do their scores include significant subgroups as well? 

A value-added system ends that discussion and perhaps results 

in a more accurate account of student and school performance. Second, I encourage the Committee to consider adding a policy of differentiated reporting, consequences and interventions, particularly 

if a value-added system is not included in the new measure. 

In the school year 2005-2006, Norristown High met three of the 

four targets, reading, graduation rate and participation rate. While 

we met the overall math goal, we did not meet the math target for 

our four subgroups. Since 2004-2005, we have aggressively met the 

performance gap challenge through a variety of reform efforts. 

Through our partnership with the Panasonic Foundation, we have 

attained the services of the Institute for Research and Reform in 

Education and adopted their high school reform program, First 

Things First. 

18

We have received a Pennsylvania Project 720 grant and are in 

the second year of implementation. We have doubled the amount 

of time for English and math for our freshmen and sophomores and 

created our own quarterly testing in those two subjects. We have 

dramatically increased student access to technology-supported instruction through a Pennsylvania Classrooms for the Future grant 

and added an instructional enhancement team, in large part, 

thanks to our federal Small Learning Communities grant. We have 

eliminated tracking and study halls and created more sheltered 

learning opportunities for our ESL population and will be instituting a rigorous internship program in the fall. We have substantially improved the quality and quantity of our professional development, supervision and evaluation. 

Unfortunately, our Corrective Act I status overshadows our efforts. I propose that a school be able to request an amended No 

Child Left Behind status based on verifiable efforts to reform. This 

would allow for an accurate accounting of student performance 

while acknowledging that a school has employed a set of best practices in order to improve. Even a designation such Corrective Action I, school is actively engaged in an approved reform effort, 

would be a source of encouragement for students and teachers engaged in such an effort. In addition, consequences and interventions must be differentiated to account for the percentage of students tested who fall into one or more significant subgroups. 

I would also suggest that $9,500 is not going to move any school 

from Corrective Action to a more positive place. 

I would like to thank Congressman Kildee and Congressman 

Sestak for the opportunity to appear this morning and for providing our region with an opportunity to weigh in on these deliberations. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Howell follows:]

Prepared Statement of Joe Howell, Principal,

Norristown Area High School 

Mr. Chairman and members of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, good morning. 

My name is Joe Howell and I am the principal of Norristown Area High School 

in nearby Norristown, PA. Our school serves approximately 1800 students who come 

to us from the borough of Norristown and the townships of East and West Norriton. 

According to a formula developed by the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper for its annual Report Card on the Schools, Norristown is the most diverse public high school 

in the region: 47% African American, 38% white, 12% Hispanic, 62% free and reduced lunch. I have been a principal in the district since 1978 and have been at 

the high school since April, 2004. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

In its current form of implementation, all 11th grade students at Norristown High 

spend three days in March taking the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment 

(PSSA) exams. During the summer we receive individual and school reports that 

provide us with sufficient data to identify individual student needs as well as the 

need for curriculum and program revisions. This data is also used to assign one of 

four categories of performance to our individual students: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced in both reading and math. Student performance is further 

disaggregated into our significant sub-groups: Black, Hispanic, IEP and Economically Disadvantaged. 

In that same time frame, the reading and math data are combined with graduation rate and test participation information and a final score is determined for our 

school: we either met AYP in all twelve categories or we didn’t. 

In our case, we have not and find ourselves in Corrective Action I after failing 

to do so four years in a row and subject to the same penalties and interventions 

19

assigned to all schools with the same designation. We also received $9,500 in state 

and federal funds for the current school year because we are in Corrective Action. 

This morning I respectfully suggest to you that there are two ways in which the 

implementation of NCLB could be of greater benefit to me, and of much greater consequence, to my constituents: students, parents and community. 

First, include a value added reporting system. Value-added analysis is a statistical method used to measure the influence of a district and school on the academic 

progress rates of individual students and groups of students from year-to-year. 

PVAAS, Pennsylvania’s value added system, is a reliable measure of growth/ 

progress and is intended to serve as a complement to existing achievement measures to use for local decision-making as seen appropriate by the school district. 

Value-added analysis offers an objective and more precise way to measure student, 

cohort, and subgroup progress as the value schools and districts add to students’ 

educational experiences. It also has a predictive component that is useful in helping 

to determine efficient deployment of support resources. 

While I know how my students and school performed against the arbitrary 2005-

2007 NCLB/AYP targets, I don’t know reliably how they should have performed 

based on their previous performance. For example, I know that 60% of my total 11th 

grade population was advanced or proficient on the 2006 PSSA in reading. Was that 

a remarkable achievement on my part, about what it should have been given the 

education the students received for the three years since their last PSSA, or did attending Norristown High do some students harm, students who would have scored 

higher had they gone to school somewhere else? Without this additional data, the 

practice of comparing schools under the current system is invalid in my estimation 

unless all schools have the exact same student population. If a school that has met 

or exceeded the AYP targets is underachieving and a school in Corrective Action is 

shown to have ‘‘added value’’, is the reporting system meeting the goals established 

by the law? 

NCLB contains a school choice component based on the comparisons of schools 

created by the AYP designations. The presumption is that a student who scores at 

the basic level in a Corrective Action school would benefit from a transfer to a school 

that has met AYP, because it is a better school. If all of my students transferred 

to a school that has met AYP and all of the receiving school’s students transferred 

to Norristown High, would the outcomes be the same? Do the schools we are compared to enjoy the diversity that we do and do their scores include significant subgroups as well? A value added system ends the discussion and, perhaps, results in 

a more accurate account of student and school performance. Including a value added 

system in the reauthorization of NCLB may be more acceptable nationally if school 

districts had the option of designating in advance whether to be rated on a value 

added or traditional system. 

Second, I encourage the committee to consider adding a policy of differentiated reporting, consequences and interventions, particularly if a value added system is not 

included in the new measure. 

For school year 2005-2006, Norristown High met three of the four targets: reading, graduation rate and participation rate. While we met the overall math goal, we 

did not meet the math target for our four sub-groups. 

Since the 2004-2005 school year we have aggressively met the performance gap 

challenge through a variety of reform efforts. Through our partnership with the 

Panasonic Foundation we have attained the services of IRRE (Institute for Research 

and Reform in Education) and have adopted their high school reform program, First 

Things First (small learning communities, family advocacy, curriculum and instruction professional development). We have received a Pennsylvania Project 720 grant 

and are in our second year of implementation (small learning communities, family 

advocacy, curriculum and instruction revision and dual enrollment). We have doubled the amount of time for English and math for our freshmen and sophomores 

and created our own quarterly testing in those two subjects. We have dramatically 

increased student access to technology supported instruction through a Pennsylvania Classrooms for the Future grant and added an instructional enhancement 

team (four instructional coaches) in large part thanks to our federal Small Learning 

Communities grant. We have eliminated tracking and study halls and have created 

more sheltered learning opportunities for our ESL population and will be instituting 

a rigorous internship program in the fall. We have substantially improved the quality and quantity of our professional development, supervision and evaluation. 

Unfortunately, our Corrective Action I status overshadows our efforts. I propose 

that a school be able to request an amended NCLB status based on verifiable efforts 

to reform. This would allow for an accurate accounting of student performance while 

acknowledging that a school has employed a set of best practices in order to improve. Even a designation such as ‘‘Corrective Action I—school is actively engaged 

20

in an approved reform effort’’ would be a source of encouragement for students and 

teachers engaged in such an effort. In addition, consequences and interventions 

must be differentiated to account for the percentage of students tested who fall into 

one or more significant sub-group. 

I would also suggest that $9500 is not going to move any school from Corrective 

Action to a more positive place. 

Finally, it has been my experience that the provisions of NCLB have had little 

or no impact on school safety and discipline in my school. While providing our diverse population with a safe and encouraging school climate remains a daily priority, the majority of the NCLB provisions have already been in place in our district 

for many years. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Howell. Mr. Kozol. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KOZOL, CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL 

STUDIES DEPARTMENT, UPPER MERION HIGH SCHOOL 

Mr. KOZOL. Thank you. Good morning. 

As Congressman Sestak indicated, I am a social studies teacher 

and department chairman at Upper Merion Area High School, 

where I, myself, graduated some years ago. 

Before I entered teaching, I was a practicing attorney for some 

five years. I became a teacher because I wanted to have a direct 

impact on tomorrow’s youth, helping them to compete in and even 

lead the global economy of the future. Besides my Undergraduate 

Degree in American Studies, I completed an Undergraduate major 

in African American Studies and I care deeply about children of 

color who have been all too frequently left behind. I am also proud 

to say that I am the father of a first grader, who attends Upper 

Merion Schools, that I teach advance placement courses and that 

I have instructed a variety of courses at three universities. Finally, 

I am, as the congressman stated, the president of the Upper 

Merion Area Education Association and a member of the board of 

directors for the Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies. I give 

you this background not to glorify myself. I do so to show that I 

have been part of what some commentators refer to as the real 

world, the world outside of schools. 

Let me state at the outset, I believe that NCLB was enacted with 

a core of admirable intentions. Like its supporters, I believe that 

as a country, we must ensure that all of our children receive a 

quality education. My concern is not with the existence of NCLB 

but rather with some of its side effects if you will. Because of these 

side effects, this well-intentioned legislation has become what Stanford Education Professor Linda Darling-Hammond has accurately 

labeled a law that wastes scarce resources on a complicated test 

score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum and uprooting successful programs. 

Let me give you some examples of this. I work very closely with 

English and math teachers in my building. This year, approximately one month before the state standardized tests were to be 

administered, one of these colleagues informed me that he would 

have to deviate from both the district’s regular curriculum, as well 

as his own instructional methods, in order to prepare our students 

for the upcoming tests. In fact, curriculum is being rewritten all 

over Pennsylvania to reflect what is being tested by PSSA and even 

to coach students on the prompts they will face. Districts have even 

21

lowered themselves to giving students free breakfast, tee shirts and 

class trips in a disturbing effort to bribe them to take the tests seriously, since the results do not count toward their grades or graduation. 

I have also become aware of a new and troubling attitude toward 

social studies, history and any other subject that is not tested. We 

have entered a dangerous era of significant de-emphasis with respect to those subject areas that do not have a test. While I sincerely believe this was not the original intent of NCLB, it is, in 

fact, exactly what is happening all over Pennsylvania. 

NCLB also concerns me greatly as a parent. My first grader truly 

enjoys and excels at school but I worry about whether this can continue with NCLB as it is currently written. Her classwork and 

homework are clear indicators that she is already being prepared 

to take the PSSA test in third grade, to the exclusion of numerous 

topics and skills I believe are critical to her intellectual and social 

development. This truly takes teaching to the test to the extreme 

but I do not in any way blame the teachers or administration of 

her school. Rather, I recognize that it is the inevitable and sad outcome of high-stakes and standardized testing. 

Let me comment briefly about such testing and the evaluation of 

schools and school staff. I am neither a researcher nor a statistician but PSEA has researched the subject of growth, value-added 

models and has reached two significant conclusions. First, while 

they can serve as a better indicator of student academic growth, 

they cannot necessarily isolate the impact of teachers on student 

performance. Secondly, they can serve as signals but they cannot 

substitute for an in-depth, on-site evaluation by educational experts if the goal really is to meaningfully evaluate the performance 

and effectiveness of teachers. 

To me the bottom line is this. As an AP teacher, I acknowledge 

that standardized tests definitely have their place in education. 

But I must request that you revise NCLB before high-stakes testing takes over our schools. Instead, let us allow schools to be places 

where original thought and creativity flourish. Places that produce 

enthusiastic children ready to take on the world. 

As a final note, I ask you to consider the effect of high-stakes 

testing on student and teacher morale. The current system makes 

it virtually certain that all public schools, including high-quality 

districts like mine, will inevitably fail AYP and become failing institutions. The consequences in the current law are virtually all punitive rather than supportive. I can tell you from first-hand observation that this can turn a positive, productive faculty, that is, in 

fact, succeeding, into a fearful and hopeless one overnight. 

Therefore, as you consider its reauthorization, please revise 

NCLB to make it less punitive and more supportive. Please focus 

those scarce resources we now have on and dedicate new resources 

to the districts that need them most. 

And finally, please help me and my colleagues reach our ultimate 

professional goal, to teach our children the best way we know how. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Kozol follows:]

22

Prepared Statement of Stephen Kozol, Social Studies Teacher and 

Department Chairman, Upper Merion Area High School 

Good morning. My name is Stephen Kozol, and I’m proud to say I am a social 

studies teacher and department chairman at Upper Merion Area High School. I myself attended Upper Merion from Kindergarten through 12th grade, a school district 

generally recognized as one of the best in our region. In fact, many Upper Merion 

teachers also attended our schools, and that is a tribute to their effectiveness, as 

well as to the loyalty of parents, students, and the surrounding community. 

After graduating from Upper Merion Area High School, I majored in American 

Studies at Brandeis University and received a law degree from George Washington 

University. Before I entered teaching, I worked for the accounting firm of Price 

Waterhouse, and for one of Philadelphia’s most prestigious law firms, Drinker, Biddle and Reath. 

I decided to become a teacher because I wanted to have a direct impact on the 

youth of tomorrow. I wanted to help them compete in the global economy we know 

they will lead. Since I also completed an undergraduate major in African-American 

Studies, I also care deeply about children of color, who have been all too frequently 

left behind. 

I am also proud to say that I am the father of a first-grader who attends Upper 

Merion’s schools, that I teach Advanced Placement courses at Upper Merion, and 

that I have instructed a variety of courses as an adjunct at three universities. Finally I should note that I am the president of the Upper Merion Area Education 

Association and a member of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Council for 

the Social Studies. 

I give you this background not to glorify myself; I do so to show that I have been 

part of what some commentators refer to as ‘‘the real world:’’ the world outside of 

schools. I do so also to emphasize that I take my continuing professional development seriously, and so do my teaching colleagues, and that, together, we work as 

hard and do as much for our country as our counterparts in the private sector. Yet 

my colleagues and I are frequently denigrated as wanting to avoid accountability. 

That is a complete falsehood. In fact, teachers pride themselves on their accountability and responsibility every day. The belief that teachers do not want to be held 

accountable has been perpetrated in some sectors of the media as fact, and that misinformation has unfortunately been intensified by the law labeled No Child Left Behind. 

Let me state at the outset my belief that NCLB was enacted with a core of admirable intentions. Like its sponsors and supporters, I believe that, as a country, we 

must ensure that all of our children receive a quality education. My concern is not 

necessarily with the existence of NCLB, but rather with some of its ‘‘side effects,’’ 

if you will. Because of these side effects, this well-intentioned legislation has become 

what Stanford Education Professor Linda Darling-Hammond has accurately labeled 

‘‘a law that wastes scarce resources on a complicated test score game that appears 

to be narrowing the curriculum (and) uprooting successful programs.’’

Let me give you some examples of this. I work very closely with the English and 

Math teachers in my building. This year approximately one month before the state 

standardized tests were to be administered, one of these colleagues informed me 

that he would have to deviate from both our school board-approved curriculum, 

which is based on the latest education research, and his customary form of instruction, solely for the purpose of preparing our students to take the upcoming PSSA 

tests. In fact, curriculum is being re-written all over Pennsylvania to reflect what 

is being tested by PSSA, and even to coach students on the prompts that students 

see on the tests. Districts have even lowered themselves to giving students free 

breakfasts, T-shirts, and class trips, in a disturbing effort to bribe them to take the 

tests seriously, since the results do not count toward their course grades or even 

graduation. 

I myself am increasingly aware of a new and troubling attitude toward social 

studies, history and any other subject that is not tested. We are quickly entering 

an era of significant de-emphasis with respect to those subject areas that do not 

have a test. While I sincerely believe this was in no way the intent of NCLB, it is, 

in fact, exactly what is happening. What is more, it is not just happening in my 

district; I have spoken with numerous colleagues across Pennsylvania, and they all 

recount the same experiences. 

This law also concerns me greatly as a parent. My first-grader truly enjoys and 

benefits from school, but I worry about whether this can continue with NCLB as 

it is currently written. Her classwork and homework make it clear to me that she 

is already being prepared to take the PSSA test in third-grade, to the exclusion of 

numerous topics and lessons I believe are critical to the intellectual and social develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-35\35123.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

opment of a young child. This truly takes ‘‘teaching to the test’’ to the extreme, but 

I do not in any way blame the teachers or administration of her school. Rather I 

recognize that it is the inevitable and sad outcome of high-stakes standardized testing—whether it is federally or state-mandated. 

The aspect of NCLB that most urgently needs revision is another cited by Darling-Hammond. She says, it ‘‘has misdefined the problem. It assumes that what 

schools need is more carrots and sticks rather than fundamental changes.’’ The law 

is based on the fallacious, and, frankly, insulting, notion that educators have been 

almost willfully doing bad things to children, and that the federal government can 

fix that alleged problem. Both assumptions are wrong. 

As I stated at the outset, teachers want to prepare young people as best they can 

for our world. They want students to have the best curriculum we can provide, not 

tests that often have little to do with today’s realities. I have taught students who 

failed my course but received the top possible score on an AP test. Conversely, I 

have taught students who succeeded in my course but were disappointed in their 

AP score. The point is, tests are admittedly one valid measure of the academic success of both students and teachers, but they are only one measure. Good classrooms 

use many varied means to assess the progress and mastery of our students, and federal and state government should do the same with respect to our schools. After all, 

while standardized tests have their place in education, one might ask: how many 

students will face standardized tests when they go out in the world after school? 

Or rather, will they face real-life situations where they need to think critically and 

act and react rationally and responsibly? 

A brief word about testing and evaluation of schools and school staff: I am neither 

a researcher nor a statistician. But PSEA has researched the subject of growth/

value-added models and has reached these two conclusions: • Growth/value-added models can serve as a better indicator of student academic 

growth. However, many of the foremost experts in educational measurement have 

written that growth/value-added models cannot isolate the impact of teachers on 

student performance. • Growth/value-added models can serve as signals, but they cannot substitute for 

an in-depth, onsite evaluation by educational experts if the goal is to meaningfully 

evaluate the performance and effectiveness of teachers. 

My bottom line is this: I urge you to revise NCLB before tests take over our 

schools. We do not want to turn out great test takers who will be helpless when 

they have to think through complex problems and situations. Instead we should 

allow schools to be places where original thought and creativity flourish, places that 

produce enthusiastic children ready to take on the world. 

As a final note, I ask you also to consider the effect of this kind of testing on student and teacher morale. The system, as currently designed, makes it virtually certain that all public schools, including high quality districts like Upper Merion, will 

inevitably fail ‘‘AYP’’ and thus be described as a ‘‘failing institutions.’’ The consequences in the current law are virtually all punitive rather than supportive. I can 

tell you from first-hand observation that this can turn a positive, productive faculty 

that is in fact succeeding into a fearful and hopeless one overnight. 

Schools do not need punishment; we need support. We need more relevant professional development for teachers, and solid mentoring programs for new and young 

teachers. We, as a nation, need to rely less on property taxes to fund our schools, 

because they discriminate against poor communities and those on fixed incomes. 

As you consider its reauthorization, please revise NCLB in a couple of critical 

ways. Make it less punitive and more supportive. Focus those scarce resources—and 

come up with new resources—on the districts that need the most help. 

Finally, let me and my colleagues do what we want so much to do—teach our children the best way we know how. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

We now will begin the questioning of the witness. I yield myself 

about five minutes for that purpose. 

Professor Hershberg, you mentioned the need for states to have 

quality data systems in place in order to implement growth models. 

Do you know how many states currently have such a system and 

what would the cost of implementing them be? 

Dr. HERSHBERG. I believe 15 states have committed to this. I am 

not sure if all 15 have everything in place and I do not have a dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-35\35123.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
24

lar amount that you could attach. But, again, if you think of the 

iron rail that—you know, you would have one rail which is the 

unique identifier for every student, so you are really tracing individual children. And two, you need an individual ID number for a 

teacher and then you need to link these two files so that the teachers who teach the kids each subject and the grades are on the same 

record. 

Chairman KILDEE. If we had the—just asking because one of my 

criticisms of No Child Left Behind is the underfunding. If we didn’t 

have a $71 billion shortchanging, which is taking place, do you 

think we could develop that? Could that go a long ways in developing—helping these states develop growth models? 

Dr. HERSHBERG. I think unquestionably more money would facilitate the development of the data systems. But it has not broken 

the bank in the 15 states that are committed already. I do not believe the expense there is that substantial. I believe the resistance 

is more of a political nature than it is a funding nature. 

Chairman KILDEE. And we do that for special education children, 

the IEP follows the child wherever they may go, so there is already 

a historical pattern for having the growth models follow the child. 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Absolutely right. Special ed has had this conceptually and operationally in place for a very long time. The very 

name, No Child Left Behind, and we are not tracing kids, we are 

doing cohorts. That is why this changes, so it is so indispensably 

important. 

Chairman KILDEE. The one thing that has always bothered me 

is that we test the third grade in school and then the following 

year we test the third grade and find they may not be reaching 

AYP but it is different kids. 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Absolutely. It makes no sense at all. We now 

can do what we could not do before. We have the technology. We 

know how to link these files. We know how to analyze the data. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Kozol, you mentioned that tests are one 

valid measure but only one of students’ and teachers’ success. What 

are some other measures that we might include in No Child Left 

Behind as measures of success? 

Mr. KOZOL. I am glad you asked that, Congressman, because as 

a teacher, I would not want to rely solely on a test to evaluate my 

students. As you know, we look at their work at home and their 

classwork and, perhaps, their writings, their research, their analysis of books. It seems to me that good assessment is part of good 

teaching and good assessment is also part of good evaluation of our 

schools. I do and I hope I was clear in my testimony that I think 

that tests should be part of it, standardized tests certainly can be. 

But we might also use, for example, portfolios and that is not just 

limited to written portfolios. Also art work and music, presentations, research projects, perhaps interviews of both students and 

teachers. So you have probably five or six right there that can be 

used. As I said, not necessarily excluding tests entirely. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. Dr. Abrutyn, can you elaborate on 

what a growth model would look like in a typical classroom? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Yes, I would. I would be happy to. 

25

There is a little bit of terminology that is associated with picturing what this is all about and it is terminology that really is 

central to the whole issue. 

The status model that we use today is most closely associated 

with what we call summative assessment, which means that students are tested at the end of the year, so we have a summation 

of what they have learned for the year and we only test them at 

the end. 

In contrast to that, the growth model is associated with what we 

call in education formative assessment, which means that we are 

testing students throughout the school year. And so teachers start 

off in a regular classroom, the teacher starts off at the beginning 

of the year getting a baseline picture on every child as to where 

that child is. And then there is the opportunity to test throughout 

the school year and test against benchmarks to see how that child 

is growing. And the teacher in the classroom has an idea of 

strengths and weaknesses and has the ability to adapt instruction 

throughout the school year. So that is what we call formative assessment. And in a classroom that uses that kind of instruction, 

there is a much greater likelihood that every child is going to be 

able to succeed. We are not waiting until the end of the year to find 

out that the child made it or did not make it. So that is what we 

are hoping to do with the growth model. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. Thank you very much for a very 

clear answer. I now yield to my colleague, Admiral Sestak for his 

five minutes. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. And I will come back for another round as I 

am sure he will too. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. 

May I follow up on that question? Do you also believe or not believe that it is not just throughout the school year but over the 

school years? Do you track the individual throughout the school 

years? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Thank you for asking that question. Absolutely. 

This was referred to earlier. The growth model is a model that has 

a lot of promise because we have the technology today to be able 

to follow students from the time they enter school throughout all 

of their educational years. And we can track them against a standard—there is a way to do this with standard numbers so that we 

see growth over time. 

Mr. SESTAK. Do you presently do that? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. We do in Penn-Delco. We use a technology-based 

system that is out there and it tracks the students using what is 

called a RIT score and this is an absolute number that grows with 

the child over the years. 

Mr. SESTAK. You make a great statement in your testimony 

about test preparation and you are talking about a series of tests 

here. Would you speak to that issue and those that say tests take 

away from valuable teaching time. 

Dr. ABRUTYN. What I was alluding to in my testimony is the fact 

that we do prepare students for the test and, you know, we are 

speaking here today in practical terms about what actually happens in school districts. And that in and of itself, as I said in my 

26

testimony, is not necessarily a bad thing. The test is about reading 

and math and writing, in Pennsylvania anyway, and those are 

things that we want kids to do. So when I say that we are preparing students, we are for the standards that are tested. But it 

is—the data that we get through the state test only gives us so 

much information and my suggestion is that we shift to a growth 

model, move away from the state test and go to a growth model 

where we are looking at individual students throughout their 

school career. 

The law is called No Child Left Behind, not no school left behind. 

When you look at the legislation or the way the tests are done 

today, we are getting information on a school as a whole, we are 

getting disaggregated data on groups of students and subgroups 

but we are not getting information from the state test on individual 

students. 

So what we are saying today is we have the opportunity to look 

at individual growth and the type of technology that we use in our 

school district does track the students individually and frequently 

and gives the kids the opportunity and the teachers the opportunity to teach. 

Mr. SESTAK. And not to keep coming to you but if I could then—

if you would answer this question, Dr. Hershberg, also but first, if 

you don’t mind, superintendent is, the comment was made at the 

first education summit we had by a teacher that said that the 

present way we do testing, standardized testing, is that it appears 

to force the attention to be not on those who are highly proficient 

or those that are likely to fail but on that middle element that, just 

with a lot of focus and attention, you can get them over the cusp 

of passing. Is there something to that and is this part of the issue? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Absolutely. In my testimony, I referred to my vision for our school district, which is to move every child forward 

every day. So the idea is whether a child is at the highest level relatively speaking or the lowest level or in the middle, we want every 

child to achieve and to move forward. 

So the idea is that with the technology and the growth model, 

every child, when he or she walks in at the beginning of the year 

or the third month of school or the fifth month of school, we know 

where that child is and we are continually moving them forward. 

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Hershberg. 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Yes. The unintended consequence of No Child 

Left Behind is to create an incentive. As you just said correctly, to 

focus on those students who are as close to proficiency as possible, 

that if we get them over that hump will make AYP. So like a laser 

beam, we focus on those kids. Contrast that with the core philosophy of the growth model which says every child, regardless of 

whether they start the year below grade, on grade, above grade, is 

entitled at least to a year’s worth of growth at a year. 

Mr. SESTAK. If I might, Mr. Kozol, would you comment upon that 

with regard to the last series of questions with regard to some of 

the items that you had raised in your testimony? 

Mr. KOZOL. Specifically in terms of test preparation, is that what 

you mean? 

Mr. SESTAK. Overall the value attendant to switching from 

standardized testing to growth that would still have testing but 

27

you are able now to focus on the individual child and hopefully 

across the board and they will all be able with this differentiating 

data, be able to focus better upon them as you go forward with curricular whatever? 

Mr. KOZOL. Well, once again, I want to caution you that statistics 

and growth-value models are not necessarily my expertise but I can 

tell you that we desire as educators to focus more on individual 

students rather than on individual tests. And I think one gets the 

feeling, you know, in our setting that with AYP as it is currently 

stated that the goal is to have the school and the school district 

and all of the individual subgroups satisfied. The tests, indeed, as 

I said, what happens is curriculum can be sacrificed because you—

in fact, you said yourself, time is at a premium and that is certainly true in the school as well. 

So we would—I think the average teacher would certainly be in 

favor of any model that allows them to focus, not just on curriculum, but also the social and intellectual growth of the child 

more than on the test as of itself. I think we would like to see that, 

perhaps, the test as a means or any tester model as a means but 

not as the end. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Mr. Stevenson, you 

testified to the relationship between student stress and a safe 

school environment. What are the various sources of stress? It has 

been 42 years since I taught so I know things have changed a great 

deal. What are the sources of stress that students face and how has 

it changed over the years in your experience? I know you have not 

been around 42 years but in your own years. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, one of the things when you talk about a 

school climate and in relationship to the school setting is that students bring a lot more of their social and culture dynamics into the 

school setting and it is not in the relationship to stresses at home. 

One of the biggest things that we are dealing with is the social 

component of the influence of their peers, in which they are—and 

so those dynamics that bring into the school is that the school’s 

teachers and administrators now have to make a shift from being 

just a teacher but social workers to address those issues in relationship to whether it is financial issues that they deal with at 

home, it is the peer pressure or whatever the social dynamic is at 

home. Teachers are forced now to take care of those issues in the 

classroom and to create an academic and a social balance. 

So the whole concept of my testimony is that the school has to 

be a place where kids feel safe and they feel that when they come 

into school that the school is meeting some of those particular 

needs. That they are getting their appropriate counseling for those 

outside stresses. That they are getting the type of support in which 

to help them navigate their way through academically and socially. 

Chairman KILDEE. In addition to the cognitive education, is there 

a value we should place upon—let me use the term although it is 

controversial at times—affective education where to help the student have a better feeling about him or herself where they can relate better to the process of education? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Most definitely. I mean, a person’s self concept 

is probably the best way to help them excel academically, socially 

28

and to inspire occupationally. When a student has a sense of hope, 

they have a sense of a drive to more forward. And if a school setting is in a place and they feel a climate where that is a place that 

helps them grow with their self-esteem, that is only an added component to their success. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Mr. Howell, can you 

discuss the impact that the No Child Left Behind public school 

choice provision has? At the end of two years of not reaching AYP, 

you are a public school choice and the third year you would have 

supplemental educational services. Have many students used that? 

What has the effect been of the public school choice? 

Mr. HOWELL. Congressman, it has been very interesting. A school 

in our situation is required to contact the surrounding school districts and ask if they will accept our students as a part of the provision of choice and all of them annually say no. We at times wonder about that. We do have the extended opportunity, the after 

school programs that a growing number of our students are taking 

advantage of. But school choice per se, there is virtually no impact 

on my school 

Chairman KILDEE. Is it because most parents or students want 

to remain in their own area or neighborhood or locale? 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, I would like to think in part that. They stay 

with us because they see the value in our school. But quite frankly, 

the other side of it is, there is no place for them to go. 

Chairman KILDEE. So really it is very often more theoretical? 

Mr. HOWELL. Each of the surrounding school districts has the opportunity to say no to our question, will you accept our students, 

and they do. 

Chairman KILDEE. Ms. Abrutyn, you talked about the law diminishing returns. I have experienced that in golf. I gave up golf. I 

reached the point where I was not getting any better. I had 

reached my peak. Could you talk a little bit about the law of diminishing returns? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Not in terms of golf but in terms of education, yes, 

I believe it is true. I think it was a lofty goal. I think we have to 

have high standards and I think the law, by setting the goal 100 

percent proficiency, that was admirable. But as we try to approach 

it, I think we need to look for different ways of defining success for 

every child. And that is why I think the shift towards the growth 

model makes more sense because we can look at success in terms 

of individual children and if we—rather than 100 percent proficiency. So the shift would be towards looking at every child growing every year and setting a realistic goal for every child in terms 

of what that growth should be. And in that way we can assure that 

no child is being left behind but in a more realistic sense so that 

we are not labeling schools as failing when, in fact, they could have 

the opportunity to move the children forward. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Congressman Sestak. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I might, Principal Stevenson, do you find that students actually take advantage of your services or is there any data to say? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, yes, they do take advantage of it. In fact, 

at the middle school today, there is what they call an adolescent 

day where we have some—in conjunction and partnership with the 

29

Radnor Education Foundation, we are bringing in speakers talking 

about social and culture dynamics to help students navigate their 

way through. And what we do with that is that we have breakout 

sessions and then we have follow-up throughout the year, through 

the remaining year, and as they go to high school, through our SAP 

team to follow up on instances of drug and alcohol abuse and to 

look at those statistics. And we found that in some instances they 

have been very helpful. 

Mr. SESTAK. Do you see any areas for legislative action, not just 

monies, funding to assist in the——

Mr. STEVENSON. I think that it has to be a balance between both. 

I mean, as I said, we at Radnor are fortunate to have the support 

of organizations like the foundation who have helped us with bringing those social issues. But those dynamics, those needs of kids to 

have understanding of how to improve their social and academic 

ways throughout society has to be a balance in places not only at 

Radnor but a place where I started off, Coleman Elementary in 

Baltimore. And so if there is a mandate that requires those types 

of things to be in place and the financial support to back it, all 

those kids would also have the same opportunities our kids have. 

Mr. SESTAK. Do you find progress impeded at all or it is not the 

job of the schools with regard to the issue that there is a documented shortage of mental health workers for younger children and 

the lack to have them more readily available in an area where 

male parity has become more of a concern as we go forward? Is this 

an issue? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Most definitely. I think that there has been in 

some places a resistance and then other places lack of funding. I 

mean, schools have to make choices. Whether you add a new teacher in relationship to make sure that you have covered the basic 

support so they make AYP or you bring in a social worker or a 

mental health expert to help with the dynamic needs of the school. 

And I think most schools would choose the academic issue because 

of funding. But if there was a clear understanding of the basic 

needs for the youth for mental experts to come help support their 

needs, I think that you find a correlation where kids are healthier, 

not only physically and mentally, you find the correlation between 

their academic support and success. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. Principal Howell, these are questions 

about special accommodations and alternative assessments for children that have identified learning disabilities has been something 

that we have listened a lot to, whether it is a hearing down in Congress or at previous education summits. And recently, the Secretary of Education has changed to three percent those that we 

might look at for alternative testing. Do you think this figure is 

sufficient to address this issue——

Mr. HOWELL. Sorry, I interrupted. 

Mr. SESTAK [continuing]. Or further adjustments need to be 

made and if so what are they? 

Mr. HOWELL. Quite frankly, I don’t understand the notion of a 

Secretary of Education defining a number. Roughly 18 percent of 

the students that took the PSSA last year at Norristown High had 

a learning disability, IEP. We were permitted to test one percent 

of them in the alternate assessment based on a decree. 

30

Clearly, a definition of which students should be based on performance or based on their IEP, should be eligible to take the state 

assessment or the alternative assessment is attainable. At that 

point, we identify which percentage of my students qualify for the 

alternative assessment and administer it. We clearly would exceed 

the three percent. 

Mr. SESTAK. If I might, the question I wanted to ask, I guess Dr. 

Hershberg, cohorts sizing, they differ throughout the nation. Pennsylvania, I think, is 40 for the size of the subgroup minimum. 

Texas is 200. Is this of concern as we—some say to be no more 

than 20. Is this a concern as you are trying to look at this nationally that we are impacting subgroups by the size of them? 

Dr. HERSHBERG. This is all part of a set of finding a way around 

AYP. Whether it is lowering the quality of the tests, whether it is 

backloading the progress rates, whether it is manipulating the size 

of the groups you are talking about. Any way to kind of stay away 

from the consequences of failing to meet AYP. 

Yeah, it is a concern. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. If I could then, Principal, I would like 

to get back to one other question. It is an interesting comment you 

made that you go around and ask another school district if they 

could take a student and every school district has a challenge. But 

my question is, what is the answer then? Should there be consideration, I mean, is it more SES focus? Some people say we should 

look at vouchers so that you can take them for private tuition. 

What does that do to your school budget then? What is the issue 

for this? 

Mr. HOWELL. Congressman, I think the most important point 

that I could make this morning is that you do not know the caliber 

of Norristown Area High School or any other school, in particular, 

based on the data that we collect in No Child Left Behind. And 

that in order to meet the goals of No Child Left Behind you need 

to. So in my proposal, if the data suggests we are failing, that 

ought to require a next step, to come in and see, in fact, if that is 

so. There are a lot at this point of recognized high school reform 

programs that are having a positive impact for which there is data 

to support. 

My point is you don’t know based on the data that you now have. 

Mr. SESTAK. So your answer and Dr. Hershberg’s answer, when 

I hear some of these questions that are being asked like cohorts or 

having another school take a child, they are really symptoms of a 

disease. I mean, I don’t mean to say—in other words, if you were 

able to have appropriate growth model testing, the fact of the matter is your school could potentially be better, as your testimony alluded to, than some school that is actually meeting the requirements. We just don’t know. 

Mr. HOWELL. We absolutely believe that but talk is cheap. The 

value-added system would answer that question. 

Mr. SESTAK. And so some of these—if we don’t get the testing 

correct with the data, we will just be patchworking certain—a system that is on the whole not appropriate. And that is what I am 

hearing from here, correct? If I could then, I take a school—you 

know, you see that like up in Darby High School. Not to comment, 

they are—there are 43 different languages. I mean, it is just a couVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-35\35123.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
31

ple miles down the road and there are 43 different languages spoken at that school. They are one of 15 relocation districts for the 

Justice Department in Pennsylvania. So they get 150 refugees 

every year that will come in and they get graded on and that is 

the challenge here. Should there be? And so as you begin to get the 

proper growth, it also seems you can not just have mixing with the 

growth model. Would it also be wrong to say, you just do not want 

to say those that are highly proficient? I mean, because you could 

still have some ranking at the end of the road, and those that are 

not making it, should there be a middle category of those that are 

trying or something? You know, briefly what I am getting at? 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes, it is very simple in concept. Is Radnor High 

School better than Germantown High School in inner-city Philadelphia? And the answer is——

Mr. SESTAK. In my district, absolutely. 

Mr. HOWELL. Right. And the answer is we don’t know because 

the question should always be, how do you deal with the kids that 

you get. This is the—society deals the cards. Schools don’t control 

who lives in their community. Under current law, if you live in an 

affluent community, you get high test scores, you look great. If you 

live and work in the inner-city, you have low test scores. That is 

a totally wrong way to understand and compare their performance 

in schools. How do you do with the kids that you get? Exactly what 

the superintendent said a moment ago, you see how they start the 

year, you measure them—you can measure them in formative assessment throughout the year but certainly you want to know the 

growth over the year. Then you have leveled the playing field and 

you can say, we are a pretty darn good school because we grow our 

kids. They started well behind but we did a good job with them. 

They should not be sanctioned under current law. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. This has been—it is 

and will continue for a while yet. We are getting such good responses. I really appreciate this panel. This is why going out of 

Washington is extremely important for the Congress and that is, 

again, the reason why your testimony will be used as we reauthorize this bill. 

Superintendent Abrutyn, you testified that test preparation is 

not necessarily a negative, could you expand on that? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Yes. People will often say that it is bad. It has a 

negative connotation to teach to the test or prepare for the test. I 

maintain that if you look at the test, the test if about reading and 

writing, math. These are things that our students do need to know 

and that it does have critical thinking skills and the state standards, that is what is being tested. So we certainly want our students to be able to do those things. 

And I do maintain that in all of the different subjects that we 

teach in school, we need to be able to have kids read critically. It 

is more important today in the world that we live in, with the technology that we have, with the internet. Reading is back big time. 

You know, students need to read critically. They have unfiltered 

types of information on the internet, so we feel that these are very 

important skills. And we don’t discount the types of things that are 

being asked on the state test. So I would like to balance that with 

people who are critics of the idea that we need to hold kids acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-35\35123.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
32

countable and we do not, as superintendents by in large—no, we 

do believe that we should be accountable but we want to level the 

playing field. We want to have the proper opportunities. We want 

to have the proper funding. But we don’t think that it is a bad 

thing or I would speak for myself personally, I think, and say that 

we do feel that kids should be able to do the things that are on 

the test. 

Chairman KILDEE. Could you answer this, is AYP defective or 

just not as good as growth model? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. I think that we have, as I said in my testimony, 

an opportunity to go to something that will serve all students in 

the nation better. And I think that the concept of AYP at this juncture—defective is a strong word but I think it is not doing what 

the spirit of the law says. No Child Left Behind means we want 

to move every child forward. We cannot tell that with adequate 

yearly progress because the unit of measure is a school and at best 

it is a subgroup. So there is a mismatch between what the spirit 

of the law is, which is to leave no child left behind. The unit of 

measure is the child, so there is a mismatch between the spirit of 

the law and the way we are measuring it. And we want to move 

to a growth model which is much more in conjunction with the 

spirit of the law, which is the growth model measures individual 

children. And then you have a true match between what the law 

is asking for and a way to truly measure that. And it gets us totally away from the idea of labeling schools as failing when they 

have been dealt the cards that Dr. Hershberg mentioned, you 

know, a very challenging group of kids or a very high socio-economic group. We don’t deal with those things anymore. We are 

dealing strictly with the ability of the school to educate every single 

child and demonstrate that that child got a year’s worth of growth 

in one year. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Stevenson, did you have some comment 

that—okay, again we will take a two-minute break for the students, and again, I appreciate the students being here, to go back 

to your regular class. Thank you very much. We will take a twominute break. Okay, we will reconvene. It is very appropriate that 

we have these hearings, right, in an educational environment and 

with the people who are really so concerned with education. The 

Admiral and I were talking, this is just a great panel. It has been 

very helpful to us and we are carrying ideas, not just their written 

ones but some ideas up here we are carrying back to Washington. 

Dr. Hershberg, I was fascinated by your chart here, it is very interesting, and I love charts. My counsel here knows that. Can you discuss how Congress can reauthorize No Child Left Behind to help 

schools in that bottom left cell of your Figure 2, those who have 

both low proficiency and low growth? 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Well, you know, there is a perverse incentive debate that says if you give more money to failing schools, you are 

rewarding failure and if you take the money away, then you are 

punishing. How is that going to help the kids? So neither of those 

approaches are the way to go on this one. Those schools are failing 

and something has to change. Now, there are a variety of different 

comprehensive school reform models. In some cases, they might as 

well close the school or if not close the school, then reconstitute the 

33

faculty. The reality is that they are not providing the children in 

their community with the education to which they are entitled. 

So one solution that I would propose would be to have technical 

assistance teams that would be composed of outstanding teachers 

and administrators on a voluntary basis—they could pay but they 

volunteer to be in the program. They are regionally based. They 

would parachute into a struggling school and they would be given 

the decision-making authority and the discretion to use the money 

on a per capita basis to turn that school around. So you are not 

putting the money in the hands of the same people that have failed 

but you are bringing needed resources, both intellectual and financial, so that children can benefit from the change. 

Chairman KILDEE. You want to comment on that? 

Mr. HOWELL. I did, thank you. I would simply ask Dr. Hershberg 

to name a place where that worked. 

Dr. HERSHBERG. Well, we have very little evidence that has accumulated but in North Carolina, technical assistance teams are in 

place and they are getting some success but I think it is just beginning. We would use in Pennsylvania—take the regional, take the 

intermediate unit and have—if you can get high quality—what is 

the alternative is the question that I would put to that. 

Mr. HOWELL. I certainly support the concept of the technical support. And Pennsylvania does have the—I forget the term now—gifted scholar or something like that, experienced scholar—that are 

made available to school districts. I just have not seen any evidence 

where allowing those teams to make the decisions for those communities has had any positive impact at all. And, in fact, there is 

a sizeable school district, pretty close to where we sit, that is living 

proof that turning that over to the outsiders is not accomplishing 

much. 

Chairman KILDEE. I thank both of you. Admiral? 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, you wrote a book 

back in 1997 called, Introduction to Using Portfolios in the Classroom. Could you talk just a moment on what you mean by portfolios, so everybody gathers it and tell me, do you really think that 

we can do this and can it possibly be legislated? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. That book was written in, I believe, about 1997, 

so that was far before technology had the ability or we had the capability to do what we can do today. And the idea of portfolios just 

goes along with my vision, again, of moving every child forward 

and being able to understand where every child is and have rigid 

information. And today I think that portfolios have a place because 

we can store the information electronically and be able to document 

what the child has accomplished throughout the year. 

Mr. SESTAK. Just to make sure we are on the same page, when 

you say portfolios, you mean? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. When I wrote the book, it was talking about any 

type of information, reading or math, and it was storing samples 

and we still do this in our school district today. What we are looking at is we keep the portfolio through the child’s career, so it is 

all another version of a growth model. It all ties together. And so 

I think there is a place for it. I do not know that we would necessarily have to legislate it and I think some of the components of 

34

the growth model that we talked about earlier this morning would 

suffice. 

But the idea that you have a portfolio of some sort stored electronically for children, so that we can see through the course of 

their career in a school district what kind of growth they have had 

and track it from year to year. It is very valuable. We do not want 

to have to start over every year with a new teacher and have the 

teacher wonder what they did the previous year. So I appreciate 

the question very much because we want to continue to keep going 

and not spin our wheels at the beginning of the school year. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. You know I joined the military during 

Vietnam and it was ranked 22 percent as far as the lowest of all 

15 institutions the Gallup Poll does every year as far as respect. 

Now it is ranked number one and I went to Congress and it is 

ranked next to last. So we are working on it. But the point is I 

have not—whether it was in the military or the Congress, in both 

places and in government that I served in 31 years, people would 

throw bombs at us, government bureaucrats. I was always taken 

by how much, including, I mean, in Congress how hard they work. 

I feel the same way about the teachers and administrators. People say, well, you know, when you rank us as a failing school, it 

really does have an impact. And I can imagine that particularly if 

no one is taking your children and all. Could you both speak to 

that shortly because it is an intangible but having lived it in the 

military where people were not welcomed as they came home and 

even if people questioned politicians, would you speak the importance of this? 

Mr. HOWELL. Certainly I would be happy to. I mentioned the reform efforts that we began two years ago. Every teacher at Norristown High for the past two years has become a first-year teacher 

again. Nobody did last year what they did the year before. Now, 

we knew that we were not going to turn the scores upside down 

in one year but we worked awfully hard and by a lot of other measures, had a very good year. Yet we are a Corrective Action I. That 

is one step worse than we were last year. 

It is a frustration for the teachers. It is a morale issue. But it 

is also for the students as well because they also—I have invested 

in this reform and no one requires more immediate ratification 

than they do. So my proposal is simply that, while I do not want 

you to report my scores any differently. I am okay with that. But 

I want there to be a next step where someone comes in and takes 

a look to see which of those four quadrants of Dr. Hershberg’s that 

we are, in fact, in. 

Mr. KOZOL. Yeah, I agree with many of the things, in fact, that 

Mr. Howell is saying and I think that our building principals would 

probably echo that sentiment even though they may not be at the 

same stage of the AYP game. 

The reality is that as currently structured, all public schools will 

eventually be failing and that is a very sobering thought for us in 

this field. And that is what leads to the narrowing of curriculum 

that I spoke about in my testimony. The preparations that include 

things like free breakfasts and tee shirts and class trips, not that 

it is not great to take a class trip but not really for this purpose. 

The idea that a curriculum of a young child does not include social 

35

studies or science. You know, as a member of the Pennsylvania 

Council of Social Studies, I have been part of a debate which some 

of our directors have said to me, we need to have a test so that our 

subject will be taken seriously. To me, that alone indicts the law 

as it is structured very much. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. Again, I am taken by the word data all 

the time. When I visit various high schools whether it is Springfield or Upper Darby, the teachers all say this, good thing we have 

this No Child Left Behind. This data we will be getting to focus 

upon and here all the heads are nodding when you have done this. 

If you do not mind, Mr. Stevenson and doctor, to some degree if you 

go—say, well, wait a minute, I am not going to throw more money 

in the school system. That is just throwing more money down. The 

thing I have become taken with is—and I come from a background 

where we invested in our sailors but we held them accountable. It 

seems to me that data now has the ability for us to measure the 

value outcome of putting more investment in education. In other 

words, it is not just throwing monies to school boards, the superintendents, the teachers, you can actually measure what they are 

doing with it now because of No Child Left Behind has given us 

a data to measure. Is that a wrong way to think about this when 

people say you are just going to throw more money into this issue? 

Mr. STEVENSON. I will speak from the school climate and school 

safety perspective but the data, it helps a lot and we are making 

a shift now academically but socially too to show the data. For instance, you know, in relationship to our drug and alcohol task 

force, data helps us to show that only the students and the teachers but the school community what our basic needs are and how—

by implementing certain programs, how those things have helped 

address and bring a remedy to it. Socially, when you talk about 

kids who have had needs for substance abuse counseling, students 

who have had need for a mental health support and also look at 

the data relationship of the funding and the relationship that is required to keep the physical plant safer compared to pre-Columbine. 

Those kind of things are important to show that this is not just we 

need money, it is for the basic safety of our children. 

And I will just also talk briefly about the academic piece. The 

same thing in relationship to—because, you know, we are—reality 

is No Child Left Behind is a part of our school setting and we are, 

as I say, we are slaves to the test and we have to make sure that 

we have incorporated all the necessary standards and the necessary supports to make sure that students have the best academic 

testing scores possible. 

Having said that, then we also show the data of saying, what 

things do we have in place that improved, what things that if we 

do not have them in place, if we had the appropriate funding, could 

help us improve those things? 

Mr. SESTAK. Doctor, did you want to shortly add to that? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Yes. I think the question, and I appreciate the 

question, I think it has to do with, is it worthwhile to spend money 

on what it would cost to get this rich information to districts and 

I say absolutely yes. 

Mr. SESTAK. It is yes but it is actually a little different. Is to 

some degree, is it also that if you have this data, you are now able 

36

to say to the person who is giving you the money, not just us or 

the taxpayer, wait a minute, I can show you if it is going to have 

value? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Yes, you are able to show that. And I think that 

some people might feel threatened by it, so I would say that it is 

all in the implementation of how you use it. And we have to be 

very careful about the implementation of using that data. It has 

the opportunity to be very motivating because it allows our teachers to have a roadmap and they find out they are being given extra 

tools to move kids forward, so that they have a better idea of how 

they need to structure their lessons. We actually use that data for 

the children. They find it motivating and they set their own targets, so they are very highly engaged in their learning. And our 

kids can tell you what their target is throughout the year. And parents, we are starting to let them use that information. They have 

access to the data, so that that is true parent involvement. So there 

are a lot of opportunities with this data. 

Mr. SESTAK. I would like to ask you a question I asked you earlier but just before I did, the reason I am taking with it is, we all 

saw the Philadelphia Inquirer article about three Thursday’s ago 

that was on the front page of the business section and it is not dissimilar to what I think we face in our district where we have lost 

670 small businesses and the concerns with the workforce and attracting and maintaining people here. As it said, why have not we 

been as successful as we think we should have in the Philadelphia 

region of attracting the types of industries—we have been somewhat successful but not quite as full as we might. And it has always come back to the issue of education and that is what the business section said why this is such an important issue. But it brings 

me to another group, you go to the Pathway School in Montgomery 

County or the Easter Seals School. You sit down at the intermediate units in Montgomery County or Chester County or Delaware County and talk about the disabled and you listen to those 

in the summit that talk about the need to address this issue but 

at times the burden to address this for whether we should have 

teachers that are now having to be highly qualified teachers to 

teach the disabled. And now if they teach just not a core subject, 

they teach several subjects, they got to get qualified in each of 

those. What is the best approach somehow to make sure that these 

children do not fall through the seams because we will be better 

for it if they do not and yet I hear consistently that this is an issue 

for school districts. So did you want to address this kind of——

Dr. HERSHBERG. We certainly welcome the issue of accountability 

with regards to all of our students, so those with our special needs, 

as well as our gifted and talented. The highly qualified issue that 

you raise is a serious problem in that area. We know what makes 

a good teacher of multiple handicapped students, for example, and 

just because that student or that child is 15 years old doesn’t mean 

that he needs someone who is highly qualified in math, for example. And we, quite frankly, are going to face some serious issues because there is simply someone who can pass the math test is probably going to be a math teacher. Someone who can pass the science 

test is going to be a science teacher and finding and encouraging 

37

those people who want to work with special needs students, for example, we are now hindering them with the highly qualified label. 

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, May I just follow up with one additional question? 

Chairman KILDEE. Sure. 

Mr. SESTAK. But is there a better way—I can see you want to 

drive this and you can—to link the IEPs to No Child Left Behind 

or is there a better way to address or different way to address this 

issue by and large? Is this where you were going? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. The question about highly qualified teachers——

Mr. SESTAK. Not just highly qualified. I mean the whole issue of 

the cohort group of disabled and the need to get them properly 

reaching out so that they are not left behind. Do you know where 

I am going? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. Well, if you are talking about achievement levels 

for those groups——

Mr. SESTAK. Yes, and the correct measurement of them. You 

talked about one to two percent, but what is the criteria? Is it more 

towards the IEPs again or is it——

Dr. ABRUTYN. It truly is. 

Mr. SESTAK. But yet if we felt as though it wasn’t working right, 

I gather, when this legislation was passed. Is there a stronger link 

between IEPs? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. The criticism was that you are trying to fit say a 

square peg into a round hole. The state test, for example, was not 

appropriate to measure their levels and, in some cases, there was 

an alternate test and some people were calling out for the IEP to 

be the sole measure. Their individual plan to be the sole measure 

of their progress. 

So I think it goes back again just to the growth model because 

special education children can be measured on a growth model as 

well as any other child. So the growth model would answer that 

question. 

Mr. SESTAK. It is again back to the cause of the disease. Thank 

you. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Principal Howell, you 

mentioned Pennsylvania’s value-added system. Could you describe 

this system and how it is used? 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, we do have access to it now and based on student performance over an extended period of time, particularly on 

standardized tests, we can measure that growth from year to year 

and as importantly we can predict it, so that I have not only a 

measure for myself but also the ability to identify students who 

might benefit from particular services that we have to offer. 

We have that right now for our students in third through eighth 

grade. I think we need one more year of that so that that will be 

applicable to our eleventh grade students as well. The issue is that 

while for us a PVA system is far more useful and a far better indicator of our performance. The No Child Left Behind, the AYP data 

tends to invalidate it. So that if a—we talked earlier about the people who were giving us money. If the people who are giving us 

money choose to say, we gave you all that money, you still did not 

make AYP. And my response to that can be, under the PVA system 

I can show you substantial growth for kids in third to eighth grade. 

38

I can show you quarterly testing and other things that shows it in 

high school and the answer always is, but the important score is 

AYP. 

So while we have these other things, we have the availability of 

them, we need to take the AYP scores off the altar and allow us 

to have the opportunity to use this other data as well. 

Chairman KILDEE. Let me ask you this also, you testified in support of differentiated interventions. Can you explain what sort of 

interventions we could change No Child Left Behind to support in 

order to help schools implement systemic reforms? 

Mr. HOWELL. Again, Congressman, my position really is that you 

do not know based on the data that you collect. If, in fact, the data 

consistently says that Norristown Area High School is underachieving as a school, then that ought to be to somebody coming 

in and seeing if, in fact, that is true. And if it is true, the things 

that Dr. Hershberg talked about are fine by me. The things that 

our governor’s commission suggested which includes coming in and 

removing me. That is okay with me too. I just want it to be based 

on a real assessment of our performance. I gave the PSSA test last 

year, the reading test, to 15 students who do not read English. 

Now, I knew what their score was going to be before I gave them 

the test. Yet when you—even though they are disaggregated in 

some reports, when you look at our scores, you see that a certain 

percentage of our kids did not score advanced or proficient. Hello? 

I knew that. So all I am asking—I am fine with the accountability. 

I am fine with the interventions. I just want the measure to be 

equal and to be relevant and then No Child Left Behind is fine 

with me. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Hershberg——

Mr. HOWELL. Except for that high stake testing thing. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howell. Dr. 

Hershberg, Pennsylvania has its test, the standards in this test, we 

have the state set their own standards and do their own testing. 

Michigan is changing from what is called the MEAP test. So each 

state, and they vary. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, I 

think, has set pretty high standards for itself and pretty tough 

tests for itself. Some states have lower standards and easier tests, 

so that creates a little confusion when people compare schools in 

various states. Should we somehow not use the NAEP test to test 

the students but use the NAEP test to see whether the state tests 

have reached a certain standard or level of——

Dr. HERSHBERG. Congressman, that is a critically important 

question. The coming crisis in education is that even when students graduate from high school meeting the proficiency standards 

set by their state, they are almost everywhere, there are several 

exceptions, falling well short of what is now required for success. 

After high school, that is whether you go into the military, whether 

you go into higher education or whether you enter the workplace, 

there has been a convergence of the requirements for success and 

the gap between what kids are leaving at proficient levels and this 

reality. That is the coming crisis. 

I think all but three states have standards well, well below 

NAEP. The rough averages—you will see twice as many kids proficient on their state tests as on the NAEP. The range—the latest 

39

NAEP data show that only between 27 percent and 35 percent of 

fourth and eighth graders in all tested subjects are proficient or 

higher in the United States of America. 

Now, I would much prefer the NAEP standards [tape cut off] by 

states in my mind are how much failure will the tax paying public 

tolerate. That is the legislature’s question. They are fearful. But 

the NAEP standards themselves are not set in a way that meets 

the crisis I just alluded to at the beginning. 

We ought to be asking—instead of asking a set of experts what 

their professional judgment is, let us set the tests that cut scores 

here, we should be going to those three arenas, the military, the 

workplace and higher education and say, what do kids need to 

graduate with to succeed in these three arenas? That is the way 

we should be doing this in the future. But if we do not speak to 

it right now, we are going to be in a deep and deeper hole because 

the state standards are watered down and totally inaccurate in 

terms of what is required for success in today’s world. 

Chairman KILDEE. Should we use the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress—should we use NAEP to test the 

students or to test the test? 

Dr. HERSHBERG. I think we need a better way. I think we need 

better tests and I also believe that this nation, as an issue of national security, is going to have to come up with national standards. Because what we have done with No Child Left Behind is create an enormous incentive to lower the bar. It is a race to the bottom. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Howell, you had a comment on that? 

Mr. HOWELL. Congressman, the problem with using the NAEP 

for anything is getting kids to take it seriously. We struggle to convince them that the PSSA test that they are about to take has a 

potential lifetime impact on them. And so with tee shirts and 

breakfasts and all those things, maybe we get them to do that. And 

then in a matter of months later we give them the NAEP and say, 

here this is real important too. They do not buy it. So I do not 

know that I would use the current NAEP results for anything. 

Chairman KILDEE. Could we use NAEP though to test the test 

to see whether the—I mean, we do know certain states have very, 

very—well, they have lower standards and easier testing. Could we 

use NAEP to test the test to see and at least report whether this 

state—and I know Pennsylvania, I know Michigan, Massachusetts 

have high standards and a good test. Some are rather old. Could 

we use NAEP to test the test to see how that state stands in relation to other states? 

Mr. HOWELL. And I would say no. 

Chairman KILDEE. You would say no, all right. Very good. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I thought this last discussion was extremely important. I really loved your comment on national security. Everybody thinks national security is about defense. They just do not understand true national security. It is how 

well educated and healthy our individuals are. And this is what 

this is all about. The value of No Child Left Behind is that it has 

become an ongoing debate about education. Not like Sputnik that 

did it for two or three years. This will go on for a long period of 

time. And it is why, it is just not my district but these inner-city 

40

ones, they are all part. It is a globalized world. It is certainly a 

globalized Philadelphia region. It is so important. I go down to 

Acker Shipyard. They cannot even find 180 tig welders. They import them from the Gulf Coast because we do not have the training 

attendant to the kids. Jerry Parker, President of Delaware Community College says I trained a couple hundred, I cannot get the 

skilled force to come and learn how to do mig and tig welding because you do not flop your helmet down, light an arc and lay a 

bead like 40 years ago when I had the HDs. But you now sit at 

a computer and have to lay that metal fabrication bead out, you 

have to have a higher level of education in science. This is not 

about going to college. This is about doing high-value manufacturing, the artisans skills and everything. So your points are very 

well taken and I am sorry to go on here. It is why next week we 

will have an education summit, another one. After our first two—

this can be an economic development summit. After our first two 

education summits, we had the first on the economic summit. We 

train kids or educate them, not just out of curiosity, but then provide quality of life. And I think your concept of the workforce and 

businesses, small business community to understand what is attendant to what they need. 

And I am sorry to go on but I thought this whole point is so important. Could I ask you a question on violence and come back to 

you, that you do not mind, you know, giving your test scores out. 

But we have heard in testimony that schools are loathe and districts are loathe to report the real violence that occurs. 

And so, therefore, we really do not have a grip upon that and 

there are lots of stats and studies that show that. Is there something to that and, if so, what do we need to change that? What is 

the criteria for what we call violence and there is study after study 

that shows that this is a significant issue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEVENSON. I think, first of all, in our district we are very 

open and clear with the annual state reporting for violence report 

that is required each year. But I think the larger question in relationship of schools reporting violence is some schools, who do not 

have the resources in order to keep their schools safe and secure, 

they sometimes may or may not report some things based on perception or some of what the media will report. 

Mr. SESTAK. Because it makes the school less attractive? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, it makes the school less attractive and I 

think there is an unfairness in relationship to how you view certain 

schools. I think that certain schools, depending on where they are 

located, whether it is urban, rural or suburban, get more attention 

than the others. And so, I think that the bigger question is how do 

we know one, ensure that all schools have safe facilities, they have 

the safe training on safety and then talk about what do you do 

when a school reports the violence. 

Mr. SESTAK. I understand. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Because I think that is the bigger thing. When 

a school——

Mr. SESTAK. Although if you——

Mr. STEVENSON [continuing]. Board says the issue——

41

Mr. SESTAK. Excuse me for interrupting. But if you do not have 

the data, you may not understand the depth of the resources needed. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, I agree with that. You have to have the 

data but, you know, there has to be a balance with reporting that 

data and also—so when a school reports that we have a high level 

of incidents of violence, do we then say to them they put them on 

this list or then we have intervention support to make it better. 

Mr. SESTAK. Do you have just a quick comment on that? 

Mr. HOWELL. I agree completely. It is not the collection of the 

data, it is what you do with it. 

Mr. SESTAK. But the studies seem to show we do not get the 

data. 

Mr. HOWELL. But that may be why. Two years ago our pupil 

services guy called me in a panic because he was doing the report 

and it looked like we were one felony over the line. That is an absurd way to think about it. We do what we need to do to serve our 

population and there are times that that means asking the police 

to support that. I am proud of that. I am not embarrassed about 

it. But if, at some point, that is going to get me put me on the bad 

guy list, then maybe the next time I report one less felony or I call 

the police one less time. 

Mr. SESTAK. One last question. I think I am out of time. Can 

we—actually that is fine. You have kind of actually answered my 

question which is already—can we really achieve 100 percent proficiency in our students? Again it goes back to the growth model, 

correct? Am I answering my own question? 

Dr. ABRUTYN. 100 percent proficiency would be measured against 

a state test, for example, so if it is a standardized test that has a 

finite number of questions and right answers or wrong answers 

and every child has to take it and that score is what gets reported 

and that is the status model. And we are saying that by the year 

2014, every child is going to get 100 percent of those questions correct. And that is the concept that we are doomed to failure on because it is just not possible. 

It is a lofty goal and it is a high goal and it was admirable but 

we just will not get there, everyone knows it. So we are saying instead that the growth model is a different and better way to go because it will let every child grow every year. And we will have a 

target that is realistic and we want every child to grow every year. 

And we have a more realistic way to do that now. And even more 

so because we have the technology that we did not even have when 

the federal law went into effect. Technology is at a place where we 

can actually do this today. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. I am going to ask this question. I probably 

should have asked it earlier so you could think about it but what 

would be the most important single change? And if somebody has 

already mentioned, you want to mention another one, you can do 

that but the most important single change we could make in No 

Child Left Behind that would move us in the right direction. Congressman Sestak or Congressman Kildee, what would you recommend? We will start down here and move down the line. Mr. 

Kozol. 

42

Mr. KOZOL. I was hoping you were going to ask that question, 

Congressman. There are a number of things, as I have indicated, 

that I think I would change but if I had to pick one, it would be 

to change the nature, the structure of the law from a punitive one 

to more of a supportive one. 

I think that that is what it really comes down to. I mean, whatever you are going to use, whatever model you are going to use to 

measure success, whether it be AYP or whether it be a growth 

model, I think there is too much to be gained on behalf of our children, not to mention the educators, by being in a educational institution that is supported and does not live in fear of failure. Especially where we have so many public schools that are, in fact, succeeding but are distortedly painted as failing because of the current 

structure of the law. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Howell. 

Mr. HOWELL. And that was stated eloquently. The only thing 

that I would add to that is that we need a way to acknowledge that 

many of the things that our public schools are called upon to do 

to enrich the quality of life for our students and things that we do 

well, do not fit on a standardized test. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Hershberg. 

Dr. HERSHBERG. I would like to begin by saying the notion that 

before No Child Left Behind, we had a really terrific public school 

system and this terrible federal law came in and screwed everything up is an absolute misstatement of reality. As flawed as No 

Child Left Behind has been, I do not know any superintendent who 

has not said something to the effect of, we have spent more time 

in the last couple of years thinking about how to make kids learn 

than we ever have in our career. 

Now, the single most important change is everything we talked 

about in terms of tracking individual kids and going to a growth 

model. Without any reservation, that is the single most important 

thing we could do. It will change everything we do. We collect the 

data secondly at the classroom level. Let me make a very important point. The unit accountability in No Child Left Behind is the 

school but the variation in the quality of instruction is much greater within schools than it is between schools. So when we get an average score, it obscures the outstanding teaching and the really terrible teaching, the kind of teaching that harms our children. So if 

I were to go a little further, I would say growth models at which 

the data is collected at the classroom level, then we will have the 

building blocks to understand what is actually going on in our 

buildings. 

Principals are running schools, they have accountability and they 

do not know empirically what is going on inside each of their classrooms. This has to change and it should change and this technology 

will enable us to change. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Abrutyn. 

Dr. ABRUTYN. The single most important thing that the reauthorization can do, I think, is level the playing field and give us a more 

accurate picture of success in the schools. So I would say moving 

away from the descriptor of adequate yearly progress and labeling 

schools as failing or not failing and moving towards the growth 

model would be the thing to do because it does level the playing 

43

field and gives us an idea of whether individual students are moving forward and it gives us the information through technology and 

this is the age of information. So we have the opportunity today to 

get that information and use it as a tool to help us move kids forward. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Stevenson. 

Mr. STEVENSON. I would just add to what the superintendent 

said but in a larger context of equity and funding. As a native of 

South Carolina who grew up in one of the poorest school districts 

in the state and then compare myself to working and had an opportunity to work in a place like Radnor. My niece and nephew, who 

attend that school, take the same test that the students at Radnor 

take. The highest math in that school district is Algebra I. There 

is no honors English. There is no AP. So when we are talking about 

taking tests, you have to take in account the equity in relation in 

backgrounds of the students where they come from and then have 

them to have the same expectations of students who in districts 

that have more resources. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. You were hoping I 

would ask that question, I am glad I did. I think it was very, very 

helpful. For a final round or a final statement, Admiral Sestak. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. One comment and then a statement. I 

would gather in the growth model we just have to make sure that 

the growth is sufficient particularly for those that are further behind. And so I gather whatever that marker or stalking horse is, 

is a very important part of determining not just the model but the 

standards in that. And that would have to be determined. 

I would just like to say before the Chairman summarizes, thank 

you again to the Radnor High School principal and superintendent, 

to the panelists, in particular to everyone who took the time out 

of the day to come. I know if this was not during the school day 

for it to come at many times teachers hold these on Saturdays and 

others. That shows how much interest there that people wanted to 

come out. Trying to get a schedule to have a Chairman up here was 

very much appreciated. I cannot say thank you enough to you, sir, 

and I very much think—I learn always something from this. So I 

think it was a great panel and, again, for everyone who is here, the 

comments and statements can be submitted and I am always open, 

as you know, to getting e-mails. Just thank you. It was a very 

worthwhile time spent. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. I concur with you. This 

has been—I think you can tell yourself, this has been an outstanding panel. It has been very, very helpful and this will be helpful to us in going back to Washington to reauthorize this. I cannot 

tell you for sure what the bill is going to be like but we certainly 

have learned a lot by coming to Pennsylvania and listening to you 

and I am very glad that Congressman Sestak asked me to come up 

here. I know we may phase in certain things, so we had a five-year 

reauthorization, that is when I first met the present President of 

the United States, on a formal basis in the cabinet room and he 

and I had a disagreement there. We have agreed on certain things 

since and disagreed on certain things since, as I have with all the 

six Presidents that I have served since I have been in Congress. 

But the President proposes and the Congress disposes and we come 

44

out and listen to people like yourself who are really on the front 

line of education. We have an enormous responsibility, the future 

of this country. It depends so much upon what you do. We are competing in a global economy and what will give us the cutting edge 

in that competition is an educated and trained workforce and that 

is very, very important. 

I have already said that education is a local function. You have 

your local boards of education. It is a state responsibility. I know 

the Michigan constitution says that the legislature shall provide for 

a system of free and public schools. And it is a federal concern. It 

is a federal concern for two reasons. First of all, we live in a very 

mobile society. A person educated in Michigan may wind up in Mississippi. A person educated in Pennsylvania may wind up in California, vice versa. We live in a very mobile society. Plus, as I said, 

we are competing in that global economy, so it is a federal concern. 

But ultimately, it is a local function. It is a state responsibility and 

we want our federal concern not to suffocate you but to help you. 

And that is my goal. We are not perfect. No Child Left Behind certainly is not perfect. Quite a departure from the federal role before 

but you have been very, very helpful to us today. 

So I will have to use our parliamentary procedure to close this 

up since this is an official hearing. First of all, those of you in the 

audience who wish to submit, as I mentioned earlier, testimony for 

inclusion in the official record, you will talk to counsel, Mr. 

Horwich. He will give you his e-mail. You may e-mail that or mail 

it to us. And as previously ordered also, members of Congress, of 

this Committee, will have seven calendar days to submit additional 

materials for the hearing record. Any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses, you may get 

some questions in writing, should coordinate with the majority 

staff within the requisite time. Without objection, this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ