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

35–664 PDF 2008

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY

AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT:

CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE FLEXIBILITY

UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

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 WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 7, 2007

Serial No. 110–46

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 June 7, 2007 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

submission for the record: 

Prepared statement of the Coalition Promoting School Success for 

All Children ............................................................................................ 20

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Submissions for the record: 

Prepared statement of Eva L. Baker, distinguished professor, 

director, UCLA, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, 

and Student Testing (CRESST) ..................................................... 6

Prepared statement of Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. 

Ducommun professor, Stanford University School of Education 12

Statement of Witnesses: 

Finn, Chester E., Jr., president, Thomas B. Fordham Institute and chairman, Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, Hoover Institution, Stanford University .............................................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Jennings, Jack, president, Center on Education Policy ................................ 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Johnson, Dr. Carol, superintendent of the Memphis City Schools ............... 37

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39

Melmer, Hon. Rick, South Dakota Secretary of Education ........................... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Straus, Hon. Kathleen N., president, Michigan State Board of Education . 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY 

AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT: 

CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE FLEXIBILITY

UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 

Thursday, June 7, 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 2:30 p.m., in Room 

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

of the subcommittee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Kucinich, Davis of California, 

Payne, Sarbanes, Loebsack, Hirono, Hare, Woolsey, Castle, Hoekstra, Ehlers, Biggert, Bishop of Utah, Wilson, Kuhl, and McKeon. 

Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior 

Education Policy Advisor (K-12); Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont 

Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications 

Director; Danielle Lee, Press Outreach Assistant; Jill Morningstar, 

Education Policy Advisor; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Alex Nock, 

Deputy Staff Director; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; 

James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; 

Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative Assistant; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director; Taylor Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Chad Miller, 

Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief 

Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director. 

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

subcommittee will come to order. First of all, I love being in the 

majority, but on a day like this the minority seems rather attractive. I have got three things going on and you are one of the major 

ones here, so I literally ran over from the other building. Good to 

see all of you. You are all friends of mine and I have known most 

of you for many, many years and welcome you. 

2

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a) any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. I would now recognize myself followed by Ranking 

Member Castle for opening statements. 

I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the 

public and our witnesses to this hearing on 

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

We very often use the term ‘‘expert witnesses.’’ today the table 

speaks for itself. We have expert witnesses here today. 

I would like to talk about the current and prospective flexibility 

of No Child Left Behind. This is the eighth hearing that this subcommittee has held on No Child Left Behind this year. The full 

committee of course has held many hearings as well. I think it is 

safe to say there is no subject we hear more about than flexibility. 

As written, the law provides for certain flexibilities and the Department of Education has provided others. But many State and 

local educators have told us that while they strongly support the 

law’s goals and the discussion about accountability that it has fostered, better flexibility would help them to reach those goals. I take 

their comments very seriously because I always have believed that 

education is a local function, and Jack Jennings used to hear me 

say this all the time years ago, a State responsibility but a very 

important Federal concern. 

As our society and the world have become more mobile and more 

interconnected that national concern has grown. People educated in 

one State wind up in another and we are competing in a global 

economy and education and training will give us the edge in that 

competition. And regardless of where in the United States students 

live, they ultimately will compete with students from around the 

world. But a greater national concern does not mean less emphasis 

on State responsibilities and local functions. 

And so I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and how 

flexibility under No Child Left Behind has been implemented and 

how we can improve that flexibility. Their testimony as well as the 

countless conversations that I know each member has had with 

educators and parents in their district and here in Washington will 

play a critical role in the committee’s efforts to understand how we 

can best help to provide every student with a world class education, a goal we all share. 

I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Jennings about his center’s recent studies on trends and student achievement since No 

Child Left Behind took effect. The title of that study, ‘‘Answering 

the Question That Matters Most, Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind,’’ is well chosen since in the 

end the point of all this is student achievement. 

Of course one factor that has not increased enough under No 

Child Left Behind has been funding. We owe it to our children to 

ensure that their schools have the resources and support to provide 

them with the education they need and deserve. 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 the law by another $15 billion for a total of $71 billion. 

However, I am hopeful that with the changes in Washington this 

year we will start to do better. Our budget resolution calls for that. 

3

But I look forward to continuing to work with my ranking member, Mr. Castle, our full committee chairman and ranking member, 

Mr. Miller and Mr. McKeon, and with all the members of the committee on a bipartisan reauthorization of No Child Left Behind this 

year. And I yield to my friend and the ranking member, Governor 

Castle. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

I’m pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the public, and our witnesses, to this hearing on ‘‘Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Current and Prospective Flexibility Under No Child Left Behind.’’

This is the eighth hearing that this subcommittee has held on No Child Left Behind this year. 

The full committee, of course, has held many hearings as well. 

And I think it’s safe to say that there is no subject we hear more about than flexibility. 

As written, the law provides for certain flexibilities, and the Department of Education has provided others. 

But, many state and local educators have told us that while they strongly support 

the law’s goals and the discussion about accountability that it has fostered, better 

flexibility would help them to reach those goals. 

I take their comments very seriously, because I always have believed that education is a local function, a state responsibility and a national concern. 

As our society and our world have become more mobile and more interconnected, 

that national concern has grown. 

Many students from the home state of each member of this subcommittee will one 

day move to the home states of every other member of the subcommittee. 

And regardless of where in the united states students live, they ultimately will 

compete with students from around the world in the global economy. 

But, a greater national concern does not mean a lesser emphasis on state responsibilities and local functions. 

And so, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how flexibility under 

NCLB has been implemented and on how we can improve that flexibility. 

Their testimony, as well as the countless conversations that I know each member 

has had with educators and parents in their district and here in Washington, will 

play a critical role in the committee’s efforts to understand how we can best help 

to provide every student with a world-class education—a goal we all share. 

I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Jennings about his center’s recent study 

on trends in student achievement since NCLB took effect. 

The title of that study ‘‘Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student 

Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?’’ is well chosen, since in the 

end, the point of all this is student achievement. 

Of course, one factor that has not increased enough under No Child Left Behind 

has been funding. 

We owe it to our children to ensure that their schools have the resources and support to provide them with the education they need and deserve. 

Since 2002, Congress and the President have underfunded No Child Left Behind 

by $56 billion. 

The president’s proposed budget for 2008 would underfund the law by another $15 

billion, for a total of $71 billion. 

However, I am hopeful that with the changes in washington this year, we will 

start to do better. 

But, I look forward to continuing to work together with my ranking member, Mr. 

Castle, our full committee chairman and ranking member, Mr. Miller and Mr. 

McKeon, and with all the members of the committee, on a bipartisan reauthorizaton 

of NCLB this year. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Castle for his opening statement. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for holding today’s hearing. As far as your comments and et 

cetera being in the majority and the minority, having a busy extremely day myself in the minority, I don’t think it makes much 

4

difference in terms of how busy we are around here. And if you 

want to switch at any time just let me know and we’ll try to work 

out political party differences. 

This is the latest in a series of hearings on No Child Left Behind. 

Some of you out in this audience have followed that. One thing nobody can ever accuse this committee of is not having sufficient 

hearings on No Child Left Behind. We seem to have had them almost on a weekly basis last year and this year as we get ready to 

go up to the reauthorization. 

We obviously welcome all the witnesses here today. I look forward to your testimony. No Child Left Behind represents a comprehensive overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act and was passed to adjust the achievement gap that exists between low income and minority students and their more affluent 

peers. 

Earlier this week the Center on Education Policy released the results of a study of trends and State test scores since No Child Left 

Behind became law, and I am pleased to have the President of CEP 

with us today to discuss these findings in greater depth because 

the results are promising. For instance, students are doing better 

on State reading and math tests since the No Child Left Behind 

was enacted. And the greatest is being made on elementary school 

math tests. While these findings are encouraging additional flexibility for States in school districts which have differing priorities 

will help a greater number of their students reach proficiency. 

Flexibility is already a key element within No Child Left Behind. 

Currently individual States are given the flexibility to determine a 

variety of student achievement factors, including the definition of 

proficiency, the starting point for progress measurement and the 

amount of progress that must be made from year to year. States 

also have the flexibility to develop their own tests to determine if 

existing teachers should be deemed highly qualified. 

Additionally, No Child Left Behind includes a number of new 

and existing flexibility provisions that aim to increase the ability 

of States and local school districts to use Federal assistance to 

meet their own priorities, including the transferability of Title I 

funds, school-wide programs to improve services to all students and 

State and local flexibility demonstration programs. 

In addition to the valuable information each of our witnesses will 

share with us today about flexibility provisions under No Child 

Left Behind, Mr. McKeon, the senior Republican of the full committee recently introduced the State and Local Flexibility Improvement Act. This legislation builds upon the success of No Child Left 

Behind by further strengthening flexibility under the laws for 

States and local school districts. As an original cosponsor of this 

legislation, I believe this legislation gives States and local school 

districts the freedom to target Federal resources to best serve the 

needs of their students, while maintaining strong accountability 

standards to measure would allow States to waive certain statutory 

or regulatory requirements under law, consolidate Federal education programs and use an alternative method for making allocations in local school districts instead of their current formula if 

their new proposal targets funds more effectively to those areas 

with high concentrations of low income families, measure indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
5

vidual student growth, including through well-designed growth 

models, expand the poverty threshold for school-wide programs and 

most notably allow States and school districts to transfer 100 percent of their Federal programs within certain programs, up from 50 

percent under current law, into the Title I program. 

As I said, I believe strongly in No Child Left Behind. The importance of closing the achievement gap cannot be overstated and I believe Mr. McKeon’s bill will help States and local school districts 

close that gap even more quickly. I look forward to hearing from 

today’s witnesses about flexibility under No Child Left Behind as 

Congress begins to reauthorize this law, and I thank you all very 

much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Castle follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good Afternoon. I’d like to thank Chairman Kildee for holding today’s hearing, the 

latest in our series of hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act. I also would like 

to welcome our witnesses and thank you all for being here to testify today. 

NCLB represents a comprehensive overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act and was passed to address the achievement gap that exists between 

low-income and minority students and their more affluent peers. 

Earlier this week, the Center on Education Policy released the results of a study 

of trends in state test scores since NCLB became law. I am pleased we have the 

president of CEP with us today to discuss these findings in greater depth because 

the results are promising. For instance: • Students are doing better on state reading and math tests since the No Child 

Left Behind Act was enacted • And the greatest progress is being made on elementary school math tests. 

While these findings are encouraging, additional flexibility for states and school 

districts, which have differing priorities, will help a greater number of their students reach proficiency. 

Flexibility is already a key element within NCLB. Currently, individual states are 

given the flexibility to determine a variety of student achievement factors, including 

the definition of proficiency, the starting point for progress measurement, and the 

amount of progress that must be made from year to year. States also have the flexibility to develop their own tests to determine if existing teachers should be deemed 

highly qualified. 

Additionally, NCLB includes a number of new and existing flexibility provisions 

that aim to increase the ability of states and local school districts to use federal assistance to meet their own priorities including the transferability of Title I funds, 

school-wide programs to improve services to all students, and state and local flexibility demonstration programs. 

In addition to the valuable information each of our witnesses will share with us 

today about flexibility provisions under No Child Left Behind, Mr. McKeon, the Senior Republican of the Full Committee, recently introduced the State and Local Flexibility Improvement Act. This legislation builds upon the success of NCLB by further 

strengthening flexibility under the law for states and local school districts. 

As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe this legislation gives states 

and local school districts the freedom to target federal resources to best serve the 

needs of their students. 

While maintaining strong accountability standards, the measure would: 

• Allow states to waive certain statutory or regulatory requirements under law, 

consolidate federal education programs, and use an alternative method for making 

allocations to local school districts instead of their current formula if their new proposal targets funds more effectively to those areas with high concentrations of lowincome families; 

• Measure individual student growth, including through well-designed growth 

models; 

• Expand the poverty threshold for school-wide programs; and 

• Most notably, allow states and school districts to transfer 100 percent of their 

federal funds within certain programs, up from 50 percent under current law, into 

the Title I program 

6

*Note: In the interest of brevity, I will not discuss aspects of the legislation that may be regarded as positive and rather focus on areas that I believe need attention. I attach a draft of 

my AERA presidential address, which spells out a justification for my recommendations. Because the presentation is intended to be oral, it does not contain the research citations you may 

want. If you desire citations, I can provide them upon my return to Los Angeles the week of 

April 15. 

As I have said, I believe strongly in No Child Left Behind. The importance of closing the achievement gap cannot be overstated, and I believe Mr. McKeon’s bill will 

help states and local school districts close that gap even more quickly. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about flexibility under NCLB as Congress 

begins to reauthorize this law. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. Without objection, all 

members will have 7 calendar days to submit additional materials 

or questions for the hearing record. 

[The prepared statement of Eva L. Baker, submitted by Mr. Kildee, follows:]

Prepared Statement of Eva L. Baker, Distinguished Professor, Director, 

UCLA, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) 

I thank Chairman Miller for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Below is a summary of the main ideas of testimony related to No Child Left 

Behind* 

1. Reduce the number of subject matter tests required, keeping the focus on elementary education. 

2. If multiple measures are to be used, involving student performance, consider 

they are compensatory rather than conjunctive use in elementary school, so they do 

not add risk to schools AYP. 

3. Provide incentives for States to develop and use valid tests that assess students’ ability to transfer and apply knowledge. Encourage flexibility to determine 

the relative value that should be accorded broadly sampled knowledge compared to 

evidence of depth of study. 

4. Consider multiple studies of the validity of measures now in use, sampling over 

States. 

5. Provide incentives for States to experiment and validate ‘‘opportunity to learn’’ 

in classroom practice, to determine the breadth and range of teaching. 

6. Conduct validity studies related to the performance and types of instruction experienced by groups such as English learners and low scorers on State Examinations. 

7. Change achievement criteria for secondary school by immediately authorizing 

the use of qualifications for students to be completed by their graduation. These 

qualifications are not single tests, but provide integrated choices for students to acquire and demonstrate expertise in subject matter, in tasks related to societal needs, 

e.g., environmental studies, or in topics such as the performing arts. Qualifications 

may be relevant to future work or postsecondary study but not restricted to them. 

They must count in accountability formulae. (Note that excellent examples may be 

seen in Web sites of education ministries in other countries, for instance, in the New 

Zealand system: See http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications/index.html) 

8. Revise the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements to permit more flexibility. 

Flexibility may be attained by recording performance on subsets of examinations, 

that could be taken at various times during the year, by considering periods longer 

than a year or two for the computation of sanction-related AYP performance, and 

by reducing the artifacts (such as number of groups) that influence AYP. 

Take a moment and consider the following question. What needs to change in 

your life? I have a confession to make. You may be surprised to learn that I want 

a life with more balance. Over the years, I’ve asked many AERA members to name 

a professional who lives a balanced life and always with the same result. Long 

stares and no names. For most of us, however, balance is victim of competing values, looming obligations, unfulfilled ambitions, and in my case, wearable media. I 

think it no accident that balance is a metaphor for justice. The lack of balance takes 

different forms but is found across the entire economic spectrum—for all groups and 

all kinds of people—for the old, for the young, and relevant here, for those in 

schools. 

7

In particular, U.S. adults consistently report in surveys that their lives are out 

of whack. I think we have inadvertently projected this imbalance onto the lives of 

schools. 

So this talk—The End(s) of Testing—is about balance—what we have now, and 

ways to move to a new equilibrium—where we reconnect achievement to learning, 

equity to more than equal test scores, and students to their own paths. With advance apologies, I’ll use a few examples from other countries and liberally incorporate ideas from research here and around the world, without oral citation because 

of time. 

Consider Jerome Bruner’s statement ‘‘Life in culture is, then, an interplay between the versions of the world that people form under its institutional sway and 

the versions of it that are products of their individual histories.’’ Accountability tests 

have swung education strongly toward institutional goals and away from those of 

the individual. We need common goals and measures to identify and fix inadequacies and inequities. But these accountability indicators have dramatic effects on 

teaching and learning. Cramped by requirements, we harden instruction, drop electives, and shorten time for in-depth engagement. Students’ voices and choices are 

fainter. Since the world is flat in testing, too, test results everywhere strongly affect 

classroom realities and public perceptions of learning and schooling. 

Balance is a goal, and a fundamental design principle essential to quality itself. 

Balance invariably involves trade-offs, so what do we give up to gain educational 

balance? Let’s start with what we have. 

On Current Standards and Accountability Measures 

Daily, or more often, researchers and education writers bemoan the technical 

shortfalls of tests now used in accountability, contending that the content of these 

tests is off, their sampling is odd, and deep cognition is lost. Nor do the institutional 

tests seem to matter much to students. I add to that litany that these tests virtually 

ignore learning research and transfer of knowledge, that is, the application of learning to something other than to another test. Tests only dimly reflect in their design 

the results of research on learning, either of skills, subject matter, or problem solving. These test properties matter to researchers, but rarely to others. Many professionals, and I would guess, most of the public, don’t make fine distinctions. They 

see tests on the same topic as interchangeable, and a high score on any test as sufficient evidence of learning. 

To my mind, the evidential disconnect between test design and learning research 

is no small thing. Think about it. It means, at worst, the tests may not actually 

be measuring the learning for which schools are responsible, thus gutting the basic 

tenet of the accountability compact. So set aside learning-based design, and ask, 

‘‘How well do any of our external tests work?’’ The answer is that we often don’t 

know enough to know. We have little evidence that tests are in synch with their 

stated or de facto purposes, or that their results lead to appropriate decisions. In 

other words, we act as if tests were valid, in the face of weak or limited evidence. 

Notwithstanding, we make heavy and far-reaching decisions about schools and students, talk about gaps, and applaud progress. This excitement takes place with only 

fragments of evidence called for by the Test Standards of AERA, NCME, and APA. 

Educational researchers conduct validity studies, when possible, and have called for 

high-quality, evidence-based tests for years. We know the importance of right inferences by teachers, administrators, and the government. We should be at least queasy about the quality of the interpretations, the meaning of gaps and improvement, 

and the resultant classifications of schools. Yet, test validity languishes as a largely 

unexamined, prior question because of inexorable schedules and budget constraints. 

With tests of uncertain validity, adequate yearly progress (AYP), value-added, or 

other growth modeling analyses will have limited meaning in accountability interpretations. 

So how did we get here? The wave of U.S. reform was stimulated, in part, by lackluster performance on international comparisons more than two decades ago. Not 

surprisingly the reform plan was to follow the international lead and design a quasinational system of standards and assessments. Despite awareness of huge differences in context and traditions (our 50-State autonomy in education, distributed 

curricula, independent teacher education institutions, and waning respect for those 

working in education), sets of State and Federal legislation enabled state standards 

and related tests. 

We see once more how tests exert power. Research in both schools and laboratories shows that testing improves learning of what is tested, even in the absence 

of feedback, and that with feedback, learning improves more. When results are 

linked to sanctions, teaching moves to conform to the content boundaries of the 

tests. Because topics on tests are represented inequitably, to avoid sanctions it is 

8

efficient to practice TEST-LIKE items. Practice them a lot. Dan Koretz calls this 

score inflation. You may call it smart. In either case, it is likely that test-specific 

content and formats are learned through test practice at the expense of the intended 

content and skill domains promised by standards. But some learning takes place. 

Now a new kind of test anxiety uses up all the instructional oxygen in the classroom. 

Coping Strategies and ‘‘Accountabalism’’

While accepting the importance of accountability, educators in the U.S. and internationally have anticipated negative consequences of hyper test consciousness. 

David Weinberger, in the Harvard Business Review, describes a process called 

‘‘Accountabalism’’ (think of Hannibal Lector with a checklist). Weinberger illustrates 

the consequences of a repair mentality that deals serially with each successive difficulty in accountability systems as if we could perfect the system. Although not focused on schools, his analysis of accountability suggests that a chronological, piecemeal fix does really not improve systems. Over time, repeated patching and spackling consumes all remaining flexibility. Sound familiar? 

Mitigations 

In attempting to head off some of the negative side effects of accountability while 

still accepting its value, educators advocate six tactics. The first tactic is to add 

more or different measures or indictors to accountability, in shorthand, to use ‘‘multiple measures’’ (although the original intent of the term was to allow students different ways to show their competence). One approach adds a periodic test, say, of 

history, with rotating content to the system, to be incorporated into the accountability calculation. 

A second type calls for measures of opportunity to learn or OTL as part of accountability models. OTL was early thought of as a check both on the fair access 

to test-relevant instruction and as a shield to protect non-tested content and activities, such as different courses. Scalable, valid methods for routinely assessing inside-the-classroom OTL remain an ongoing research quest. When there are efficient, 

replicable, and valid procedures for its measurement, the role of OTL is clear in accountability. 

‘‘Having tests worth teaching to,’’ despite its grammatical failure, is the mantra 

of the third approach, performance assessment. Change the test and legitimate test 

preparation. Serve good rather than evil. Performance assessment calls for multistepped activities, usually imbued with some realism. More significantly, performance assessment design originally reflected research from teaching, from cognitive 

psychology, and from subject matter learning. In its heyday, models from abroad 

were emulated, and tasks were sometimes directly copied. After handsome financial 

support, popularity waned and only vestiges of performance assessment, such as 

written composition, can be found on mandated tests—and in higher education. Why 

the demise? The list includes lack of political acceptance and structural integration, 

feasibility, technical quality, struggles in longitudinal use, credibility (because of 

overselling), and cost. 

These three examples of multiple measures, unless done wisely, offer schools the 

scary option of more ways to fail. 

A fourth and currently ‘‘hot’’ mitigating tactic is formative assessment. Assessment to support learning has been continuously in play since writing by Vygotsky, 

Skinner, and Lindquist, and before. Black and Wiliam, James, and Heritage, all 

from abroad, by the way, now invoke a process where teachers ask penetrating 

questions, pinpoint errors, give insightful and timely feedback, and use innovative 

teaching to help students. Not surprisingly, has been the entry of commercially supplied benchmark or interim tests are in use, carrying the rationale for formative assessment, if not its spirit. For use at intervals during instruction, interim or benchmark tests give previews of coming results, based on test segments similar to the 

main assessment. The validity of these measures is rarely cited, other than similar 

items predict results on similar items. Although, their results are intended to influence teaching, because of strict instructional pacing, some teachers have little or no 

time to use these interim results and must move on. Even with adequate time, 

teachers need expertise in their subject matter understanding of their students, and 

fluency in alternate ways of teaching. Teachers with these skills are in short supply 

where they are needed most. 

A fifth tactic limits the number of standards to be tested by setting clear priorities. A less-is-more stance. The Commission on Instructionally-Supportive Testing, 

prepared a report arguing that fewer, but more powerful standards will lead to valid 

measurement, more coherent teaching, and deeper student learning. Their proposal 

directly confronts the political bargains that underlie expansive lists of standards. 

9

A sixth approach is technology, and it is my favorite. I’m the one, after all, with 

a Blackberry and a Treo, waiting anxiously for the iPhone, to complement my 4 

iPods, 5 computers, and the Slingshot TiVo. Intelligent tutoring systems show us 

how to link assessment and learning models. Yet, technology-linked tests have not 

yet stepped up to early expectations. In large-scale testing, they serve efficiency 

without capitalizing on their potential to leverage higher fidelity experience (like 

simulations), or exploit students’ ease with technology. 

As a way forward to revitalize performance assessment, technology offers some 

hope to find more effective ways to assess validity with regard to learning, and to 

reduce the cost of design and use. There is excellent progress in computer scoring 

of open-ended written responses; with optical character reading, students’ handwritten work can be scanned and directly marked by computer. Speech recognition 

technologies process oral language, so discourse of learners of all ages and language 

backgrounds can be partly analyzed. Expect to see more computer games and virtual worlds as assessment contexts, as well as assessment embedded in common devices such as cell phones and game platforms—first to reduce gaps in computer access, and second to leverage motivation with fun and the familiar. A second use of 

common devices is to permit ‘‘anytime, any where’’ or ‘‘just-in-time’’ assessment. To 

speed and improve assessment design, look to computer-assisted assessment authoring systems that can improve assessment design with built-in knowledge to assist 

users to make, mark, and manage tests. 

International Comparisons 

If our showing on international comparisons started us down this path, what do 

recent international tests tell us? The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and 

Development (OECD) has fielded the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), examinations that include cross-curricula content and the application 

of cognitive skills, such as problem solving. Their results are worth reflection. The 

vertical bars show great performance variation between the best and poorest performing students in most countries on some 21st century skills. This variation applies almost independently of average score, except for size and homogeneity of national populations. Why? Are current curricula not sufficiently attuned to future requirements, are students not taught to transfer learning, or to apply cognitive skills 

to new situations? Don’t all students deserve to learn these skills? 

CRESST POWERSOURCE©—A U.S.-International Collaboration 

I will now briefly touch on our own integration of a balanced formative assessment system, with design based on learning research, including schema development, explanation, narrative, and transfer. Based on about 40 earlier studies, 

POWERSOURCE©, funded by our Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Center 

award, is our major experimental project in middle-school, pre-algebra, and rests on 

multiple interim assessments of problem solving and explanation. POWERSOURCE© development begins with analyzing cognitive demands, then representing 

the relationship of these intellectual skills in a content ontology. The content includes ‘‘big Mathematics ideas,’’ the power principles, which we construe as schema, 

to be applied flexibly across topic and problem type. The ontology controls sampling 

and sequence, and also serves as a learning performance aid to help teachers and 

students map where they are during instruction. Our assessments are based on research by Sweller, Mayer and their colleagues on schema acquisition and worked 

examples, on explanation studies (by Chi and by our own team), and on transfer 

research (by Bjork and Holyoak and others). Assessments are embedded in a kidfriendly narrative theme. We predict in this 3-year longitudinal study improved 

teacher content and pedagogical knowledge. We expect superior student performance on state assessments, and, because of their schema acquisition, higher performance on transfer tasks drawn both from the Key Stage 3 maths tests in England and from the PISA examination. This experiment is being replicated in Korea 

at that country’s own expense, to generate comparative information about the use 

of learning research in designing assessment. With POWERSOURCE©, we illustrate 

assessment balance with a method that transfers to different subjects and ages of 

students. 

The International Stage of Examinations 

An obvious question given their initial impetus, is how closely do U.S. tests resemble examinations from abroad, such as those in New Zealand, or Hong Kong, 

or Finland? The quick answer is they don’t, despite, in some countries, the use of 

similar test formats. But response format aside, most national testing differs substantially from the U.S. versions. These countries make far greater investment in 

integrating curriculum, professional development, and assessment, thus removing 

the need for post hoc rationalization of alignment. Extensive care is given to the 

10

content of the test questions, and to model answers used to guide marking. (Of 

course, national testing systems are themselves subject to continuing and sometimes 

scathing debate.) 

Visit Web sites of education departments and ministries around the world and 

you will see great variety. Notice the range existing within many examination systems. Whether workforce or university paths, secondary school students in other 

countries have many options. They select from a wide range of course-based examinations, in some countries close to 50 choices. Some options look like the familiar 

Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; other choices encourage high school students to pursue interests unconnected to traditional university 

or work requirements, for instance, in the visual and performing arts or environmental studies. 

Before the Future 

Before I sketch a way to attain balance for students and schools, let’s return to 

current accountability practice. First, the tests—I say let’s leave them alone. They 

are resilient, embedded in our traditions, and changes to them are always temporary (they snap back like a rubber band), with at best trivial residue. To attain 

better balance, I’d have fewer tests, locating them during skill building in elementary schools. Even if their numbers were reduced, we still must demand studies of 

validity inferences and the tests’ multiple purposes. With current accountability systems, in the U.S., I say fix the elements of AYP to minimize harm, by considering 

the raw probabilities of failure related to numbers of groups by partitioning of tests 

into passable components, and by aggregating results in larger units than a year 

or two. It is appealing to consider new indicators or multiple measures to balance 

testing, but their integration in accountability numbers must avoid artifacts that 

put schools inappropriately at risk. 

Change 

‘‘The scientific revolution that began 300 years ago has accelerated exponentially. 

It is moving so fast that the spread of knowledge defines our times.’’

‘‘There will be more change in the next ten years than in the previous 100 years.’’

Fareed Zakaria, 2006, 2007.

‘‘640K ought to be enough for anybody.’’

Bill Gates, 1981.

If our accountability system stays locked on producing only common (and needed) 

achievement, we will continue to open wider the chasm between what is sanctioned 

and what student futures demand. So the matter of balance returns. Can we have 

balance and deal with the students we have now, without wishing they were different? We can’t wait until all high school students have developed proficient language skills, attended innovative preschools, or learned number facts from amazing 

third-grade teachers. So here and now, can we offer students options better suited 

to a new and changing work environment, to a life in a real-time society with 

amped-up connectivity? And can we teach them in a way that models flexibility and 

problem solving? Researchers Glaser, Simon, O’Neil, and Perez, among others, have 

listed skill-sets for a future brimming with choices and expectations: 

• Adaptive problem-solving abilities; 

• Capacity to assess and respond to risk; 

• Managing distraction, and giving mindful, rotating attention to tasks; 

• Solitary work, with self management; 

• Changeable roles in real or virtual teams and groups. 

Posit these as a beginning of new 21st century definition of educational quality. 

Start in secondary school where we all have unresolved and growing problems. 

There we should create rapidly a system of Qualifications to reflect 21st century 

needs, to be available to all students, whatever their status on standards-based 

tests. My image of a Qualification is validated accomplishment, obtained inside or 

outside of school. A Qualification means just that: at different levels of challenge, 

that a student has attained a certified, trusted accomplishment. Warmed-over performance assessment? I think not. Each Qualification is not a new test, but an integrated experience with performance requirements. It might look like a course, or a 

collection, or a musical or sports performance. Some Qualifications may demand 

shorter, intense involvement like securing a certification in CPR, or network management. They come aligned, with integrated goals, tasks, learning experiences, criteria and tests. Merit badge metaphors, like one proposed many years ago by Al 

Shanker, may help you get the idea. It is a truth in advertising approach; instead 

of a set of ‘‘scores,’’ a student possesses demonstrated accomplishments. 

11

Qualifications seem to have many benefits. They give clear venues for high school 

students to improve skills, apply and adapt knowledge, and acquire new learning. 

They support and credit emerging maturity to develop desired personal expertise. 

To presage construction, an ontology of Qualifications will give structure to their 

features. Let me illustrate an ontological dimension of Qualifications related to 

learning. For example, as design criteria, each Qualification could represent: 

a. Complex problem solving and reasoning; 

b. Flexibility and adaptive performance; 

c. Rich knowledge base; 

d. Schema or principle learning; 

e. Metacognition and self-monitoring; 

f. Communication, either explanatory or interactive. 

The Qualifications chosen by students should span a range of personal goals, and 

with any luck help them to develop a passion in at least one area. 

What could Qualification topics include? Certainly disciplinary inquiry, exemplified in different ways, perhaps in science fairs, competitions, or projects; then there 

are the performing or visual arts, community service, healthcare, interning in business, environmental studies, teaching the young, mentoring peers, and helping the 

old. 

Who will offer these options? Some may be available in high schools, in afterschool programs, in community colleges, or in universities. I expect that the Web 

delivery, with its entrepreneurial brainpower and finance will be a powerful and 

welcome source of creative Qualifications. Public and private spaces, such as museums, businesses, government, advocacy, private and service organizations, can help 

too. 

How to begin? Our international colleagues have wonderful Qualifications that we 

can adapt. If we want to take this reform path, it will be a national challenge of 

commitment. At the very least, the expectations and rhythms of secondary school 

will change. Although Qualifications will need to be understood, energized and partly managed by teachers, expertise outside of school will matter, too. 

Is this rebalancing of secondary school curricula feasible? Yes, if four benchmarks 

are met within a reasonable time. 

First, the framework(s) for these Qualifications must reside in one or more politically credible national or State organizations. Achieve, Inc. has a great start in its 

American Diploma Project with more than half of the states participating. Or see 

the State Department of Instruction in North Carolina for another example. Benchmark 2 is quality control. What evidence of quality is needed for a Qualifications 

adoption? Forms of evidence could include empirical comparisons or expert judgment. 

Benchmark 3, acceptance by business and universities in their selection processes, 

is essential for the Qualifications to matter to students. Benchmark 4, and of extraordinary importance, is that Qualifications be made a part of State and Federal 

accountability systems and linked to other politically powerful structures. With that 

role, we need protections against phony performance, plagiarism, and overzealous 

parental help. 

How fast? As a lover of 10-year funded research grants, I’m sorry to say our 

timelines in this area must be unusually brief. No years of trials and pilots, but concurrent validity studies. By starting with examples and data from other countries 

or adopting existing Qualifications from our own business and arts sectors, we can 

have a pool of 40 Qualifications available by 2008, but only as a start. We should 

use systematic R&D models from other national ventures and invest in parallel development of Qualifications in different areas. The federal government, along with 

the private sector, can be a financial catalyst. A modified NCLB should phase in 

Qualifications NOW. 

Unless we begin right now to fix educational balance, with a strong focus on secondary schools, we will have stark questions to answer. Who decided to triage large 

numbers, and particular groups of secondary school students? Why don’t we care 

that many will not find a life of contribution and meaning? A goal of balance in the 

revitalization of secondary schooling will develop generations of students to be far 

better prepared than we are. 

Research Agenda 

The research agenda is long, and at this hour our attention is short (I’ll make 

a complete list in the written version of the paper). Yet, opportunities traverse theories of learning and validity, explorations of equity, individual and group differences, definitions of adaptability, studies of transfer within and across fields, expertise, narrative, efficacy, self-management, and motivation. For both students and 

12

teachers. We can look at second or third chances, mobilizing community and business interests, and of course, cost. 

So to return to the beginning, can we find ways to get balance into the schools 

and promote a different quality of learning—within the essential framework of accountability? Can we take on the high school substantively? Let’s cross over to a 

new path, built on previous research, and reinvest in learning, where accomplishments come with validity, and the balance is redressed between what we think high 

school students need and what they think they need. The paths of Qualifications 

shift attention from school work to usable and compelling skills, from school life to 

real life. With pride our students can assemble their unique collection of Qualifications, to show to their families, adults in university and workforce, and to themselves. With collaboration of both the international community and our own communities, we can enable education to prepare our students far better for the future. 

As you know, when we are balanced, each of us is able to move easily in a range 

of directions. So with balance, and help from the world community, our students 

succeed, and fulfill their not yet imagined dreams. 

[The prepared statement of Linda Darling-Hammond, submitted 

by Mr. Kildee, follows:]

Prepared Statement of Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun 

Professor, Stanford University School of Education 

I thank Chairman Miller and the members of the Committee for the opportunity 

to offer testimony on the re-authorization of ESEA, in particular the ways in which 

we measure and encourage school progress and improvement. My perspective on 

these issues is informed by my research, my work with states and national organizations on standards development, and my work with local schools. I have studied 

the implementation of No Child Left Behind,1 as well as testing and accountability 

systems within the United States and abroad.2 I have also served as past Chair of 

the New York State Council on Curriculum and Assessment and of the Chief State 

School Officers’ INTASC Standards Development Committee. I work closely with a 

number of school districts and local schools on education improvement efforts, including several new urban high schools that I have helped to launch. Thus, I have 

encountered the issues of school improvement from both a system-wide and local 

school vantage point. 

I am hopeful that this re-authorization can build on the strengths and opportunities offered by No Child Left Behind, while addressing needs that have emerged 

during the first years of the law’s implementation. Among the strengths of the law 

is its focus on improving the academic achievement of all students, which triggers 

attention to school performance and to the needs of students who have been underserved, and its insistence that all students are entitled to qualified teachers, which 

has stimulated recruitment efforts in states where many disadvantaged students 

previously lacked this key resource for learning. 

The law has succeeded in getting states, districts, and local schools to pay attention to achievement. The next important step is to ensure that the range of things 

schools and states pay attention to actually helps them improve both the quality of 

education they offer to every student and the quality of the overall schooling enterprise. In order to accomplish this, I would ask you to actively encourage states to: 

• Develop accountability systems that use multiple measures of learning and 

other important aspects of school performance in evaluating school progress; 

• Differentiate school improvement strategies for schools based on a comprehensive analysis of their instructional quality and conditions for learning. 

Why Use Multiple Measures? 

There are at least three reasons to gauge student and school progress based on 

multiple measures of learning and school performance: 

• To direct schools’ attention and effort to the range of measures that are associated with high-quality education and improvement; 

• To avoid dysfunctional consequences that can encourage schools, districts, or 

states to emphasize one important outcome at the expense of another; for example, 

focusing on a narrow set of skills at the expense of others that are equally critical, 

or boosting test scores by excluding students from school; and 

• To capture an adequate and accurate picture of student learning and attainment that both measures and promotes the kinds of outcomes we need from schools. 

13

Directing Attention to Measures Associated with School Quality 

One of the central concepts of NCLB’s approach is that schools and systems will 

organize their efforts around the measures for which they are held accountable. Because attending to any one measure can be both partial and problematic, the concept of multiple measures is routinely used by policymakers to make critical decisions about such matters as employment and economic forecasting (for example, the 

Dow Jones Index or the GNP) and admission to college, where grades, essays, activities, and accomplishments are considered along with test scores. 

Successful businesses use a ‘‘dashboard’’ set of indicators to evaluate their health 

and progress, aware that no single indicator is sufficient to understand or guide 

their operations. This approach is designed to focus attention on those aspects of 

the business that describe elements of the business’s current health and future prospects, and to provide information that employees can act on in areas that make a 

difference for improvement. So, for example, a balanced scorecard is likely to include 

among its financial indicators not only a statement of profits, but also cash flow, 

dividends, costs and accounts receivable, assets, inventory, and so on. Business leaders understand that efforts to maximize profits alone could lead to behaviors that 

undermine the long-term health of the enterprise. 

Similarly, a single measure approach in education creates some unintended negative consequences and fails to focus schools on doing those things that can improve 

their long-term health and the education of their students. Although No Child Left 

Behind calls for multiple measures of student performance, the implementation of 

the law has not promoted the use of such measures for evaluating school progress. 

As I describe in the next section, the focus on single, often narrow, test scores in 

many states has created unintended negative consequences for the nature of teaching and learning, for access to education for the most vulnerable students, and for 

the appropriate identification of schools that are in need of improvement. 

A multiple measures approach that incorporates the right ‘‘dashboard’’ of indicators would support a shift toward ‘‘holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement’’ as has been urged by 

the Forum on Education and Accountability. This group of 116 education and civil 

rights organizations—which include the National Urban League, NAACP, League of 

United Latin American Citizens, Aspira, Children’s Defense Fund, National Alliance 

of Black School Educators, and Council for Exceptional Children, as well as the National School Boards Association, National Education Association, and American Association of School Administrators—has offered a set of proposals for NCLB that 

would focus schools, districts, and states on developing better teaching, a stronger 

curriculum, and supports for school improvement. 

Avoiding Dysfunctional Consequences 

Another reason to use a multiple measures approach is to avoid the negative consequences that occur when one measure is used to drive organizational behavior. 

The current accountability provisions of the Act, which are focused almost exclusively on school average scores on annual tests, actually create large incentives for 

schools to keep students out and to hold back or push out students who are not 

doing well. A number of studies have found that systems that reward or sanction 

schools based on average student scores create incentives for pushing low-scorers 

into special education so that their scores won’t count in school reports,3 retaining 

students in grade so that their grade-level scores will look better,4 excluding lowscoring students from admissions,5 and encouraging such students to leave schools 

or drop out.6

Studies in New York,7 Texas,8 and Massachusetts,9 among others, have showed 

how schools have raised their test scores while ‘‘losing’’ large numbers of low-scoring 

students. For example, a recent study in a large Texas city found that student dropouts and push outs accounted for most of the gains in high school student test 

scores, especially for minority students. The introduction of a high-stakes test linked 

to school ratings in the 10th grade led to sharp increases in 9th grade student retention and student dropout and disappearance. Of the large share of students held 

back in the 9th grade, most of them African American and Latino, only 12% ever 

took the 10th grade test that drove school rewards. Schools that retained more students at grade 9 and lost more through dropouts and disappearances boosted their 

accountability ratings the most. Overall, fewer than half of all students who started 

9th grade graduated within 5 years, even as test scores soared.10

Paradoxically, NCLB’s requirement for disaggregating data and tracking progress 

for each subgroup of students increases the incentives for eliminating those at the 

bottom of each subgroup, especially where schools have little capacity to improve the 

quality of services such students receive. Table 1 shows how this can happen. At 

‘‘King Middle School,’’ average scores increased from the 70th to the 72nd percentile 

14

between the 2002 and 2003 school year, and the proportion of students in attendance who met the proficiency standard (a score of 65) increased from 66% to 80%—

the kind of performance that a test-based accountability system would reward. 

Looking at subgroup performance, the proportion of Latino students meeting the 

standard increased from 33% to 50%, a steep increase. 

However, not a single student at King improved his or her score between 2002 

and 2003. In fact, the scores of every single student in the school went down over 

the course of the year. How could these steep improvements in the school’s average 

scores and proficiency rates have occurred? A close look at Table 1 shows that the 

major change between the two years was that the lowest-scoring student, Raul, disappeared. As has occurred in many states with high stakes-testing programs, students who do poorly on the tests—special needs students, new English language 

learners, those with poor attendance, health, or family problems—are increasingly 

likely to be excluded by being counseled out, transferred, expelled, or by dropping 

out.

TABLE 1.—KING MIDDLE SCHOOL: REWARDS OR SANCTIONS? 

The Relationship between Test Score Trends and Student Populations 

2002–03 2003–04

Laura ................................................................................ 100 90

James ............................................................................... 90 80

Felipe ............................................................................... 80 70

Kisha ................................................................................ 70 65

Jose .................................................................................. 60 55

Raul ................................................................................. 20 ...................................................

Ave. Score = 70

% meeting standard = 66%

Ave. Score = 72

% meeting standard = 80%

This kind of result is not limited to education. When one state decided to rank 

cardiac surgeons based on their mortality rates, a follow up investigation found that 

surgeons’ ratings went up as they stopped taking on high-risk clients. These patients were referred out of state if they were wealthy, or were not served, if they 

were poor. 

The three national professional organizations of measurement experts have called 

attention to such problems in their joint Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, which note that: 

Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to consider potential unintended 

effects that may result from large-scale testing programs. Concerns have been 

raised, for instance, about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on the objectives 

tested, restricting the range of instructional approaches to correspond to the testing 

format, increasing the number of dropouts among students who do not pass the test, 

and encouraging other instructional or administrative practices that may raise test 

scores without affecting the quality of education. It is important for those who mandate tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to identify and minimize 

the potential of negative consequences.11

Professional testing standards emphasize that no test is sufficiently reliable and 

valid to be the sole source of important decisions about student placements, promotions, or graduation, but that such decisions should be made on the basis of several different kinds of evidence about student learning and performance in the classroom. For example, Standard 13.7 states: 

In educational settings, a decision or characterization that will have major impact 

on a student should not be made on the basis of a single test score. Other relevant 

information should be taken into account if it will enhance the overall validity of 

the decision.12

The Psychological Standards for Testing describe several kinds of information that 

should be considered in making judgments about what a student knows and can do, 

including alternative assessments that provide other information about performance 

and evidence from samples of school work and other aspects of the school record, 

such as grades and classroom observations. These are particularly important for students for whom traditional assessments are not generally valid, such as English language learners and special education students. Similarly, when evaluating schools, 

it is important to include measures of student progress through school, coursework 

and grades, and graduation, as part of the record about school accomplishments. 

15

Evaluating Learning Well 

Indicators beyond a single test score are important not only for reasons of validity 

and fairness in making decisions, but also to assess important skills that most 

standardized tests do not measure. Current accountability reforms are based on the 

idea that standards can serve as a catalyst for states to be explicit about learning 

goals, and the act of measuring progress toward meeting these standards is an important force toward developing high levels of achievement for all students. However, an on-demand test taken in a limited period of time on a single day cannot 

measure all that is important for students to know and be able to do. A credible 

accountability system must rest on assessments that are balanced and comprehensive with respect to state standards. Multiple-choice and short-answer tests that are 

currently used to measure standards in many states do not adequately measure the 

complex thinking, communication, and problem solving skills that are represented 

in national and state content standards. 

Research on high-stakes accountability systems shows that, ‘‘what is tested is 

what is taught,’’ and those standards that are not represented on the high stakes 

assessment tend to be given short shrift in the curriculum.13 Students are less likely 

to engage in extended research, writing, complex problem-solving, and experimentation when the accountability system emphasizes short-answer responses to 

formulaic problems. These higher order thinking skills are those very skills that 

often are cited as essential to maintaining America’s competitive edge and necessary 

for succeeding on the job, in college, and in life. As described by Achieve, a national 

organization of governors, business leaders, and education leaders, the problem with 

measures of traditional on-demand tests is that they cannot measure many of the 

skills that matter most for success in the worlds of work and higher education: 

States * * * will need to move beyond large-scale assessments because, as critical 

as they are, they cannot measure everything that matters in a young person’s education. The ability to make effective oral arguments and conduct significant research 

projects are considered essential skills by both employers and postsecondary educators, but these skills are very difficult to assess on a paper-and pencil test.14

One of the reasons that U.S. students fall further and further behind their international counterparts as they go through school is because of differences in curriculum and assessment systems. International studies have found that the U.S. 

curriculum focuses more on superficial coverage of too many topics, without the 

kinds of in-depth study, research, and writing needed to secure deep understanding. 

To focus on understanding, the assessment systems used in most high-achieving 

countries around the world emphasize essay questions, research projects, scientific 

experiments, oral exhibitions and performances that encourage students to master 

complex skills as they apply them in practice, rather than multiple-choice tests. 

As indicators of the growing distance between what our education system emphasizes and what leading countries are accomplishing educationally, the U.S. currently 

ranks 28th of 40 countries in the world in math achievement—right above Latvia—

and 19th of 40 in reading achievement on the international PISA tests that measure 

higher-order thinking skills. And while the top-scoring nations—including previously low-achievers like Finland and South Korea—now graduate more than 95% 

of their students from high school, the U.S. is graduating about 75%, a figure that 

has been stagnant for a quarter century and, according to a recent ETS study, is 

now declining. The U.S. has also dropped from 1st in the world in higher education 

participation to 13th, as other countries invest more resources in their children’s futures. 

Most high-achieving nations’ examination systems include multiple samples of 

student learning at the local level as well as the state or national level. Students’ 

scores are a composite of their performance on examinations they take in different 

content areas—featuring primarily open-ended items that require written responses 

and problem solutions—plus their work on a set of classroom tasks scored by their 

teachers according to a common set of standards. These tasks require them to conduct apply knowledge to a range of tasks that represent what they need to be able 

to do in different fields: find and analyze information, solve multi-step real-world 

problems in mathematics, develop computer models, demonstrate practical applications of science methods, design and conduct investigations and evaluate their results, and present and defend their ideas in a variety of ways. Teaching to these 

assessments prepares students for the real expectations of college and of highly 

skilled work. 

These assessments are not used to rank or punish schools, or to deny promotion 

or diplomas to students. In fact, several countries have explicit proscriptions against 

such practices. They are used to evaluate curriculum and guide investments in professional learning—in short, to help schools improve. By asking students to show 

what they know through real-world applications of knowledge, these nations’ assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
16

ment systems encourage serious intellectual activities on a regular basis. The systems not only measure important learning, they help teachers learn how to design 

curriculum and instruction to accomplish this learning. 

It is worth noting that a number of states in the U.S. have developed similar systems that combine evidence from state and local standards-based assessments to ensure that multiple indicators of learning are used to make decisions about individual 

students and, sometimes, schools. These include Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming, among others. However, many of these elements of state systems are not currently allowed to be used to gauge school progress under NCLB. 

Encouraging these kinds of practices could help improve learning and guide 

schools toward more productive instruction. Studies have found that performance 

assessments that are administered and scored locally help teachers better understand students’ strengths, needs, and approaches to learning, as well as how to meet 

state standards.15 Teachers who have been involved in developing and scoring performance assessments with other colleagues have reported that the experience was 

extremely valuable in informing their practice. They report changes in both the curriculum and their instruction as a result of thinking through with colleagues what 

good student performance looks like and how to better support student learning on 

specific kinds of tasks. 

These goals are not well served by external testing programs that send secret, secured tests into the school and whisk them out again for machine scoring that produces numerical quotients many months later. Local performance assessments provide teachers with much more useful classroom information as they engage teachers 

in evaluating how and what students know and can do in authentic situations. 

These kinds of assessment strategies create the possibility that teachers will not 

only teach more challenging performance skills but that they will also be able to 

use the resulting information about student learning to modify their teaching to 

meet the needs of individual students. Schools and districts can use these kinds of 

assessments to develop shared expectations and create an engine for school improvement around student work. 

Research on the strong gains in achievement shown in Connecticut, Kentucky, 

and Vermont in the 1990s attributed these gains in substantial part to these states’ 

performance-based assessment systems, which include such local components, and 

related investments in teaching quality.16 Other studies in states like California, 

Maine, Maryland, and Washington,17 found that teachers assigned more ambitious 

writing and mathematical problem solving, and student performance improved, 

when assessments included extended writing and mathematics portfolios and performance tasks. Encouraging these kinds of measures of student performance is critical to getting the kind of learning we need in schools. 

Not incidentally, more authentic measures of learning that go beyond on-demand 

standardized tests to look directly at performance are especially needed to gain accurate measures of achievement for English language learners and special needs 

students for whom traditional tests are least likely to provide valid measures of understanding.18

What Indicators Might be Used to Gauge School Progress? 

A key issue is what measures should be used to determine Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP) or the alternative tools that are used for addressing NCLB’s primary 

goals, e.g. assuring high expectations for all students, and helping schools address 

the needs of all students. Current AYP measures are too narrow in several respects: 

They are based exclusively on tests which are often not sufficient measures of our 

educational goals; they ignore other equally important student outcomes, including 

staying in school and engaging in rigorous coursework; they ignore the growth made 

by students who are moving toward but not yet at a proficiency benchmark, as well 

as the gains made by students who have already passed the proficiency benchmark; 

and they do not provide information or motivation to help schools, districts, and 

states improve critical learning conditions. 

This analysis suggests that school progress should be evaluated on multiple measures of student learning—including local and state performance assessments that 

provide evidence about what students can actually do with their knowledge—and on 

indicators of other student outcomes, including such factors as student progress and 

continuation through school, graduation, and success in rigorous courses. The importance of these indicators is to encourage schools to keep students in school and provide them with high-quality learning opportunities—elements that will improve educational opportunities and attainment, not just average test scores. 

To these two categories of indicators, I would add indicators of learning conditions 

that point attention to both learning opportunities available to students (e.g. rigVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
17

orous courses, well-qualified teachers) and to how well the school operates. In the 

business world, these kinds of measures are called leading indicators, which represent those things that employees can control and improve upon. These typically 

include evidence of customer satisfaction, such as survey data, complaints and repeat orders; as well as of employee satisfaction and productivity, such as employee 

turnover, project delays, evidence of quality and efficiency in getting work done; reports of work conditions and supports, and evidence of product quality. 

Educational versions of these kinds of indicators are available in many state accountability systems. For example, State Superintendent Peter McWalters noted in 

his testimony to this committee that Rhode Island uses several means to measure 

school learning conditions. Among them is an annual survey to all students, teachers, and parents that provides data on ‘‘Learning Support Indicators’’ measuring 

school climate, instructional practices, and parental involvement. In addition, Rhode 

Island, like many other states, conducts visits to review every school in the state 

every five years, not unlike the Inspectorate system that is used in many other 

countries. These kinds of reviews can examine teaching practices, the availability 

and equitable allocation of school resources, and the quality of the curriculum, as 

it is enacted. 

Ideally, evaluation of school progress would be based on a combination of these 

three kinds of measures and would emphasize gains and improvement over time, 

both for the individual students in the school and for the school as a whole. Along 

with data about student characteristics, an indicator system could include: 

• Measures of student learning: both state tests and local assessments, including 

performance measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, 

including student work samples, projects, exhibitions, or portfolios. 

• Measures of additional student outcomes: data about attendance, student gradeto-grade progress (promotion / retention rates) and continuation through school (ongoing enrollment), graduation, and course success (e.g. students enrolled in, passing, 

and completing rigorous courses of study). 

• Measures of learning conditions, data about school capacity, such as teacher 

and other staff quality, availability of learning materials, school climate (gauged by 

students’, parents’, and teachers’ responses to surveys), instructional practices, 

teacher development, and parental engagement. 

These elements should be considered in the context of student data, including information about student mobility, health, and welfare (poverty, homelessness, foster 

care, health care), as well as language background, race / ethnicity, and special 

learning needs—not a basis for accepting differential effort or outcomes, but as a 

basis for providing information needed to interpret and improve schools’ operations 

and outcomes. 

How Might Indicators be Used to Determine School Progress and Improvement Strategies? 

The rationale for these multiple indicators is to build a more powerful engine for 

educational improvement by understanding what is really going on with students 

and focusing on the elements of the system that need to change if learning is to 

improve. High-performing systems need a regular flow of useful information to 

evaluate and modify what they are doing to produce stronger results. State and 

local officials need a range of data to understand what is happening in schools and 

what they should do to improve outcomes. Many problems in local schools are constructed or constrained by district and state decisions that need to be highlighted 

along with school-level concerns. Similarly, at the school level, teachers and leaders 

need information about how they are doing and how their students are doing, based 

in part on high-quality local assessments that provide rich, timely insights about 

student performance. 

Some states and districts have successfully put some of these indicators in place. 

The federal government could play a leadership role by not only encouraging multiple measures for assessing school progress and conditions for learning but by providing supports for states to build comprehensive databases to track these indicators 

over time, and to support valid, comprehensive information systems at all levels.19

If we think comprehensively about the approach to evaluation that would encourage fundamental improvements in schools, several goals emerge. First, determinations of school progress should reflect an analysis of schools’ performance and 

progress along several key dimensions. Student learning should be evaluated using 

multiple measures that provide comprehensive and valid information for all subpopulations. Targets should be based on sensible goals for student learning, examining growth from where students start, setting growth targets in relation to that 

starting point, and pegging ‘‘proficiency’’ at a level that represents a challenging but 

realistic standard, perhaps at the median of current state proficiency standards. 

18

Targets should also ensure appropriate assessment for special education students 

and English language learners and credit for the gains these students make over 

time. And analysis of learning conditions including the availability of materials, facilities, curriculum opportunities, teaching, and leadership should accompany assessments of student learning. 

A number of states already have developed comprehensive indicator systems that 

can be sources of such data, and the federal government should encourage states 

to propose different means for how to aggregate and combine these data. In addition, many states’ existing assessment systems already provide different ways to 

score and combine state reference tests with local testing systems, locally administered performance tasks (which are often scored using state standards), and portfolios.20

For evaluating annual progress, one likely approach would be to use an index of 

indicators, such as California’s Academic Performance Index, which can include a 

weighted combination of data about state and local tests and assessments as well 

as other student outcome indicators like attendance, graduation, promotion rates, 

participation and pass rates or grades for academic courses. Assessment data from 

multiple sources and evidence of student progression through / graduation from 

school would be required components. Key conditions of learning, such as teacher 

qualifications, might also be required. Other specific indicators might be left to 

states, along with the decision of how much weight to give each component, perhaps 

within certain parameters (for example, that at least 50 percent of a weighted index 

would reflect the results of assessment data). 

Within this index, disaggregated data by race/ethnicity and income could be monitored on the index score, or on components of the overall index, so that they system 

pays ongoing attention to progress for groups of students. Wherever possible these 

measures should look at progress of a constant cohort of students from year to year, 

so that actual gains are observed, rather than changes in averages due to changes 

in the composition of the student population. Furthermore, gains for English language learners and special education students should be evaluated on a growth 

model that ensures appropriate testing based on professional standards and measures individual student growth in relation to student starting points. 

Non-academic measures such as improved learning climate (as measured by 

standard surveys, for example, to allow trend analysis over time), instructional capacity (indicators regarding the quality of curriculum, teaching, and leadership), resources, and other contributors to learning could be included in a separate index on 

Learning Conditions, on which progress is also evaluated annually as part of both 

school, district, and state assessment. 

Once school progress indicators are available, a judgment must be made about 

whether a school has made adequate progress on the index or set of indicators. If 

the law is to focus on supporting improvement it will be important to look at continuous progress for all students in a school rather than the ‘‘status model’’ that has 

been used in the past. A progress model would recognize the reasonable success of 

schools that deserve it. Rather than identifying a school as requiring intervention 

when a single target is missed (for example, if 94% of economically disadvantaged 

students take the mathematics test one year instead of 95%), a progress model 

would gauge whether the overall index score increases, with the proviso that the 

progress of key subgroups continues to be examined, with lack of progress a flag 

for intervention. 

The additional use of the indicators schools and districts have assembled would 

be in the determination of what kind of action is needed if a school does not make 

sufficient progress in a year. To use resources wisely, the law should establish a 

graduated system of classification for schools and districts based on their rate of 

progress, ranging from state review to corrective actions to eventual reconstitution 

if such efforts fail over a period of time. States should identify schools and districts 

as requiring intervention based both on information about the overall extent of 

progress from the prior year(s) and on information about specific measures in the 

system of indicators—for example, how many progress indicators have lagged for 

how long. This additional scrutiny would involve a school review by an expert 

team—much like the inspectorate systems in other countries—that conducts an inspection of the school or LEA and analyzes a range of data, including evidence of 

individual and collective student growth or progress on multiple measures; analysis 

of student needs, mobility, and population changes; and evaluation of school practices and conditions. Based on the findings of this review, a determination would 

be made about the nature of the problem and the type of school improvement plan 

needed. The law should include the explicit expectation that state and district investments in ensuring adequate conditions for learning must be part of this plan. 

19

The overarching goal of the ESEA should be to improve the quality of education 

students receive, especially those traditionally least well served by the current system. To accomplish this, the measures used to gauge school progress must motivate 

continuous improvement and attend to the range of school outcomes and conditions 

that are needed to ensure that all students are educated to higher levels. 

ENDNOTES

1See, e.g. L. Darling-Hammond, No Child Left Behind and High School Reform, Harvard Education Review, 76, 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 642-667. http://www.edreview.org/harvard06/2006/

wi06/w06darli.htm 

L. Darling-Hammond, From ’Separate but Equal’ to ’No Child Left Behind’: The Collision of 

New Standards and Old Inequalities. In Deborah Meier and George Wood (eds.), Many Children 

Left Behind, pp. 3-32. NY: Beacon Press, 2004. 2Linda Darling-Hammond, Elle Rustique-Forrester, & Raymond Pecheone (2005). Multiple 

measures approaches to high school graduation: A review of state student assessment policies. 

Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School Redesign Network. 3 Allington, R. L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in 

New York, Educational Policy, 6 (4): 397-414; Figlio, D.N. & Getzler, L.S. (2002, April). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system? National Bureau of Economic Research. 4W. Haney (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (41): Retrieved Jan. 24, 08 from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/ 5Smith, F., et al. (1986). High school admission and the improvement of schooling. NY: New 

York City Board of Education; Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The Implications of Testing Policy 

for Quality and Equality, Phi Delta Kappan, November 1991: 220-225; Heilig, J. V. (2005), An 

analysis of accountability system outcomes. Stanford University. 6For recent studies examining the increases in dropout rates associated with high-stakes testing systems, see Advocates for Children (2002). Pushing out at-risk students: An analysis of 

high school discharge figures—a joint report by AFC and the Public Advocate. http://

www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/pushout-11-20-02.html; W. Haney (2002). Lake Wobegone 

guaranteed: Misuse of test scores in Massachusetts, Part 1. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 

10(24). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n24/; J. Heubert & R. Hauser (eds.) (1999). High stakes: 

Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. A report of the National Research Council. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; B.A. Jacob (2001). Getting tough? The impact of 

high school graduation exams. Education and Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (2): 99-122; D. 

Lilliard, & P. DeCicca (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across 

time. Economics of Education Review, 20(5): 459-73;G. Orfield, D. Losen, J. Wald, & C.B. Swanson (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate 

crisis. Retrieved January 24, 2008 from: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410936; M. Roderick, A.S. Bryk, B.A. Jacob, J.Q. Easton, & E. Allensworth (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research; R. Rumberger 

& K. Larson (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American 

Journal of Education, 107: 1-35; E. Rustique-Forrester (in press). Accountability and the pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale from England. Education Policy Analysis Archives; A. 

Wheelock (2003). School awards programs and accountability in Massachusetts. 7 Advocates for Children (2002), Pushing out at-risk students; Heilig (2005), An analysis of accountability system outcomes; Wheelock (2003), School awards programs and accountability. 8 Heilig, 2005. 

9Wheelock, 2003

10 Heilig, 2005. 11 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, Washington DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999, p.142. 12 AERA, APA, NCME, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing., p.146. 13See for example, Haney (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle; J.L. Herman & S. Golan 

(1993). Effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement: 

Issues and Practice, 12(4): 20-25, 41-42; B.D. Jones & R. J. Egley (2004). Voices from the 

frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 

(39). Retrieved August 10, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39/; M.G. Jones, B.D. 

Jones, B. Hardin, L. Chapman, & T. Yarbrough (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on 

teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3): 199-203; Klein, S.P., Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., & Stetcher, B.M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa 

Monica: The RAND Corporation; D. Koretz & S. I. Barron (1998). The validity of gains on the 

Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, MR1014-EDU; D. Koretz, R.L. Linn, S.B. Dunbar, & L.A. Shepard (1991, April). The effects of highstakes testing: Preliminary evidence about generalization across tests, in R. L. Linn (chair), The 

Effects of high stakes testing. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago; R.L. Linn (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4-16; 

R.L. Linn, M.E. Graue, & N.M. Sanders (1990). Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that ‘‘everyone is above average.’’ Educational Measurement: 

Issues and Practice, 9, 5-14; W. J. Popham (1999). Why Standardized Test Scores Don’t Measure 

Educational Quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6): 8-15; M.L. Smith (2001). Put to the test: 

The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5): 8-11. 14 Achieve, Do graduation tests measure up? A closer look at state high school exit exams. Executive summary. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. 

20

15L. Darling-Hammond & J. Ancess (1994). Authentic assessment and school development. 

NY: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University; B. Falk & S. Ort (1998, September). Sitting down to score: Teacher learning 

through assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1): 59-64. G.L. Goldberg & B.S. Rosewell (2000). 

From perception to practice: The impact of teachers’ scoring experience on the performance 

based instruction and classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 6: 257-290; R. Murnane & 

F. Levy (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. NY: The Free Press. 16 J.B. Baron (1999). Exploring high and improving reading achievement in Connecticut. 

Washington: National Educational Goals Panel. Murnane & Levy (1996); B.M. Stecher, S. Barron, T. Kaganoff, & J. Goodwin (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom 

practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing. CSE Technical Report. Los Angeles: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, 

Standards, and Student Testing; S. Wilson, L. Darling-Hammond, & B. Berry (2001). A case of 

successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 17 C. Chapman (1991, June). What have we learned from writing assessment that can be applied to performance assessment?. Presentation at ECS/CDE Alternative Assessment Conference, Breckenbridge, CO; J.L.Herman, D.C. Klein, T.M. Heath, S.T. Wakai (1995). A first 

look: Are claims for alternative assessment holding up? CSE Technical Report. Los Angeles: 

UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; D. Koretz, 

K., J. Mitchell, S.I. Barron, & S. Keith (1996). Final Report: Perceived effects of the Maryland 

school performance assessment program CSE Technical Report. Los Angeles: UCLA National 

Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; W.A. Firestone, D. 

Mayrowetz, & J. Fairman (1998, Summer). Performance-based assessment and instructional 

change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20: 95-113; S. Lane, C.A. Stone, C.S. Parke, M.A. Hansen, & T.L. Cerrillo (2000, April). 

Consequential evidence for MSPAP from the teacher, principal and student perspective. Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New 

Orleans, LA; B. Stecher, S. Baron, T. Chun, T., & K. Ross (2000) The effects of the Washington 

state education reform on schools and classroom. CSE Technical Report. Los Angeles: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. 18Darling-Hammond, Rustique-Forrester, and Pecheone, Multiple Measures. 19M. Smith paper (2007). Standards-based education reform: What we’ve learned, where we 

need to go. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. 20 At least 27 states consider student academic records, coursework, portfolios of student work, 

and performance assessments, like research papers, scientific experiments, essays, and senior 

projects in making the graduation decision. Darling-Hammond, Rustique-Forrester, and 

Pecheone, Multiple Measures. 

[The prepared statement of the Coalition Promoting School Success for All Children, submitted by Mr. Hare, follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Coalition Promoting

School Success for All Children 

Schools today are facing two significant challenges: to improve academic achievement, including meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 

and to foster a school climate that promotes learning and that will reduce discipline 

problems. These issues are linked. Research shows that academic, social and behavioral problems are so connected that interventions targeting one often affect the others. Consequently, effective schools support and foster both high academic and high 

behavioral standards. 

Integrated efforts to address academic and non-academic barriers to learning are 

more likely to help schools meet academic requirements than efforts that focus on 

academics alone. Amendments to the No Child Left Behind Act that encourage 

schools to improve the climate for learning, such as by adopting school-wide positive 

behavior supports (PBS) will help schools to address both students’ social and emotional needs and lead to improvements in academic outcomes. 

Both educators and the general public cite disciplinary issues (including a perceived increase in drugs, violence, gangs and weapons) as the number one problem 

in schools, and teachers say they feel unprepared to manage problem behaviors. In 

efforts to improve school safety, many school officials react by taking a tough approach using suspension or expulsion extensively or trying to remove persistent 

troublemakers from school. But research shows that rigid and inflexible approaches 

to discipline do not work and, further, that they disproportionately harm students 

of color and students with disabilities. In contrast, positive and relational approaches can improve the school environment without resorting to exclusionary 

practices. 

To address discipline problems, help children learn and meet today’s demands for 

high academic standards, schools should improve the learning environment for all 

students and provide the supports needed by those with more significant problems. 

One effective approach now being adopted by education systems around the country 

21

is school-wide PBS. PBS improves student behavior by reinforcing desired behavior 

and eliminating inadvertent reinforcements for problem behavior. This requires understanding the reason for the behavior and addressing the underlying cause. 

Schools implementing school-wide PBS programs can experience anywhere from 

a 20-60 percent reduction in disciplinary problems, as well as improved social climate and academic performance. Research shows increases in both reading comprehension and math test scores on standardized tests in schools implementing PBS 

well. In addition to improved academic outcomes, school-wide PBS improves other 

variables related to student success, including increased student attendance, fewer 

expulsions and suspensions, increased classroom instructional time and academic 

engagement. There is more time for student instruction and a reduction in hours 

spent by teachers and administrators addressing problem behavior. With effective 

academics and behavior intertwined, school-wide PBS is instrumental in changing 

school climate and allowing for more effective instruction. 

School-wide PBS is not a program, but a system, based on decades of behavioral 

and biomedical research. Using an approach adapted from the public health field, 

PBS uses a three-tiered system of prevention and support that addresses the spectrum of behavioral needs and serves all children—from those with behavior issues 

that are typical of their developmental stage, as well as those at risk for or already 

exhibiting challenging behaviors. For the general student body—roughly 80 percent 

of students—universal implementation of PBS in the school (known as Tier One) 

may be sufficient. Tier One focuses on changing environmental stimuli that contribute to disruptive behavior and on changing adult behavior in school so that all 

staff are supportive and consistently teach, reinforce, and model expected behaviors. 

Five to 15 percent of students who do not respond to universal methods do respond to more specialized attention, an example being a group intervention. These 

children fall into PBS Tier Two. An intervention in Tier Two might involve group 

sessions where students problem-solve and come up with strategies to prevent the 

problem behavior. 

Finally, some children with the most challenging behavior need individualized 

services (Tier Three). Often these are children with serious emotional disorders and 

extreme functional impairment. They represent three to seven percent of all schoolage children. These students should be involved in a comprehensive home, school 

and community plan using individualized services and techniques coordinated 

across agencies. 

Training is an integral part of a PBS initiative and must be continual as new staff 

are hired or as additional schools in the district adopt PBS. PBS uses in-school 

coaches to help translate training into practice and to support staff who are implementing school-wide PBS. These in-school coaches are often school psychologists, social workers or counselors who must themselves be trained in school-wide PBS. In 

addition, external coaches are employed, who typically work with a number of 

schools, collaborating with the in-school coach and providing feedback to the state 

and region/district, as well as providing guidance to individual schools. 

It is important for best practices, including particularly family involvement and 

social-emotional learning, must be followed. School-wide PBS provides a strong platform for related programming, such as specific social-emotional learning programs 

and other youth-development practices. It also requires family buy-in, participation 

and support. Families play a crucial role in implementation of school-wide PBS. 

Two examples of statewide PBS initiatives are Illinois and Colorado. These initiatives are well-established and continue to grow and reach more schools throughout 

each state. 

• The state of Illinois is a pioneer in creating a statewide comprehensive PBS initiative. In eight years, Illinois has built and sustained the Illinois PBIS Network, 

providing assistance in implementation of PBS to 600 schools, or around 14 percent 

of all public schools in the state. Research in Illinois shows that implementation of 

school-wide PBS is linked to improved perception of school safety, as well as an improved proportion of third graders meeting state reading standards. 

• The Colorado School-Wide PBS Initiative is a joint venture between the Prevention Initiatives and Exceptional Student Services Unit in the Colorado Department 

of Education. The initiative began providing support and assistance to schools implementing PBS in the 2002/2003 school year. They are now in 405 schools in the 

state, operating in eight regions and 48 school districts. They continue to work toward their goal of establishing and maintaining effective school environments maximizing academic achievement and behavioral competence for all learners in Colorado. 

Although many of the early school-wide PBS initiatives were initiated under the 

special education umbrella, the approach is more effective when implemented in a 

systematic, school-wide effort. PBS is not just helpful for students in special eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
22

cation or those with disabilities. Instead, it is a means for all students to increase 

academic achievement, improve social behavior and learn self-management. 

School-wide PBS complements the academic standards articulated in NCLB. The 

following amendments to the NCLB Act would create avenues for schools to more 

easily implement school-wide PBS. 

• Encourage states to use Title I funds to support school-wide PBS 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) promotes Early Intervening Services by allowing local education agencies (LEAs) to use up to 15 percent 

of IDEA Part B funds to implement services for students not identified as needing 

special education, but who do need additional academic and behavioral support to 

succeed in the general education environment. Such funds have been used by a 

number of districts to support school-wide PBS. These IDEA funds may be used in 

coordination with funds from ESEA to carry out these activities and services. 

However, there is no comparable language in the ESEA to allow Title I funds to 

be used for Early Intervening Services. Authorization to use ESEA funds for Early 

Intervening Services, including specifically school-wide PBS, would facilitate expansion of these extremely promising approaches. Since this is not a mandate, LEAs 

would have flexibility as to whether or not to use the funds for these purposes. 

Section 1003 of NCLB authorizes states to reserve up to two to four percent of 

Title I funds for school improvement to meet state responsibilities under Section 

1116 and 1117. Amending Sections 1003, 1116 and 1117 to include implementation 

of school-wide PBS will permit states to use their Title I state reserve funds to promote and support such initiatives. 

Encourage LEAs to address school climate issues 

Schools must promote an environment that is safe and conducive to learning, providing the foundation on which other programming and support can be built. Schoolwide PBS contributes to attitudinal change, creating a culture where there is a 

shared sense of responsibility. The positive school climate that comes from a school 

implementing school-wide PBS promotes learning by reducing discipline problems 

and addressing the social and emotional development of students. 

Section 1114 authorizes LEAs to use funds for school-wide programs. Adding 

school-wide PBS to this section increases the likelihood that Title I funds will be 

used for this purpose. 

Establish an Office of Specialized Instructional Support Personnel 

To raise the visibility of critical issues and to coordinate across the various departmental agencies, an Office of Specialized Instructional Support Personnel 

should be established in the Office of the Deputy Secretary in the Department of 

Education. The purpose of the Office should be to administer, coordinate and carry 

out programs and activities concerned with providing specialized instructional support services in schools, delivered by trained, qualified specialized instructional support personnel. 

Activities governed by such an office would include: 

• Improving academic achievement and educational results for students through 

improved instructional support services in schools, including provision of early intervening services to general education students and of the related services required 

under IDEA; 

• Administering, coordinating and carrying out programs and activities concerned 

with providing specialized instructional support services in schools; 

• Promoting a trained, qualified specialized instructional support workforce in 

schools; and 

• Providing technical assistance to local and state education agencies in provision 

of effective, scientifically-based specialized instructional support services. 

Amend the Safe & Drug Free Schools and Communities Program 

The Safe & Drug Free Schools and Communities Program should be amended to 

incorporate the concept of creating a safe and effective school climate that is conducive to learning. Specifically, this program should be amended by: 

• Changing the title to expand the purpose of the program to address school climate in general. The amended title would read: Creating a Safe and Effective 

School Climate Conducive for Learning. The short title would read: The Safe and 

Effective Schools Act. 

• Clarifying that the purpose of Part A is to address whole school climate and 

to prevent violence and illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. 

• Adding to paragraph (1), the list of purposes for which states may use funds 

under this part, grants to states or LEAs and consortia of such agencies for the establishment, operation and improvement of local programs relating to improving the 

23

school-wide climate (including the implementation of school-wide PBS and other 

programs). 

The Coalition Promoting School Success for All Children commend you for your 

ongoing leadership and commitment to education and ensuring no children are left 

behind, including those with mental health needs. We look forward to working with 

you to strengthen and protect the provisions in No Child Left Behind by including 

school-wide positive behavior supports that will be beneficial to all students. 

The Coalition Promoting School Success for All Children includes the following organizations: 

Advocacy Institute 

American Counseling Association 

American School Counselor Association 

American Occupational Therapy Association 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Children & Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders 

Council for Exceptional Children 

Easter Seals 

Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health 

Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development 

Mental Health America 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

National Association of School Psychologists 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education 

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors 

National Down Syndrome Congress 

School Social Work Association of America 

The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law chairs the Coalition. Please contact 

Laurel Stine for any additional information. 

Chairman KILDEE. I would now like to introduce the very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this afternoon. John ‘‘Jack’’ 

Jennings is President of the Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C., the center promotes school improvement through various publications, by assisting States and school districts, and by 

arranging national meetings and conferences. From 1967 through 

1994, as a staff member and Chief Counsel of this committee, Mr. 

Jennings was deeply involved in virtually every major national 

education debate. I learned the word ‘‘disaggregated data’’ from Mr. 

Jennings at that time. 

Mr. Rick Melmer is South Dakota Secretary of Education and 

President-Elect of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Previously he served as school superintendent in Watertown, South 

Dakota and Sioux City, Iowa. Dr. Melmer has said that his role as 

Secretary is to shine a spotlight on the future of education in South 

Dakota. 

And the Honorable Kathleen Straus, who I have known forever, 

is President of the Michigan State Board of Education. She has 

dedicated her career to improving public education and community 

services in Michigan. Prior to serving on the State board, Ms. 

Straus was President of the Center for Creative Studies, a nationally recognized arts education institution in Detroit. She also has 

worked for the Michigan Association of School Boards and the 

Michigan Senate Education Committee. 

Dr. Carol Johnson has been Superintendent of the Memphis, 

Tennessee City Schools since 2003 and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Council of the Great City Schools. In 2006, 

for the first time since No Child Left Behind was passed, the Memphis schools were declared to be in good standing by the State. The 

Memphis City Schools also have been recognized as a model for 

24

middle school student engagement and is one of the top districts 

for music education. 

And Dr. Chester Finn, whom I have known for a long, long time, 

and good to see you again, is President of the Thomas B. Fordham 

Foundation, which supports education reform research and 

projects. Dr. Finn also is Chairman of the Hoover Institution’s Task 

Force on K-12 Education. Among his other positions he served as 

Assistant Secretary of Education for Research and Improvement 

under President Reagan and as a Professor of Education and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University. 

And welcome to all our witnesses. For those of you who have not 

testified before this subcommittee I will explain to you our lighting 

system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members on the 

dais up here, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. 

The green light will be illuminated when you begin to speak. When 

you see the yellow light, it means that you have one minute remaining. When you see the red light it means your time has expired and you need to conclude your testimony. But there is no 

ejection seat there, so I will allow you to finish your thought anyway. Please be certain as you testify to turn on 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, Mr. Jennings. 

STATEMENT OF JACK JENNINGS, PRESIDENT, CENTER ON 

EDUCATION POLICY; ACCOMPANIED BY DIANE STARK 

RENTNER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PROGRAMS AT CEP; 

NANCY KOBER, CEP’S PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT; AND SUNNY 

BECKER, PRINCIPAL STAFF SCIENTIST OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 

Mr. JENNINGS. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and Congressman 

Castle and other members of the committee. I spent nearly half my 

life in this room or around this room or with the committee, and 

so I feel like I am coming home. They say you can never come 

home, but at least for this afternoon I will be home, and I think 

I will be home once I hear the questions coming from all different 

directions. Then I will know. 

I am accompanied by Diane Stark Rentner, who is sitting behind 

me. She is the Deputy at the Center on Education Policy, and she 

worked for the committee for 6 years. And then behind me on the 

other side is Nancy Kober, who worked for the committee for 12 

years. And she is the principal consultant for us. And in the middle 

is Sunny Becker, who is with the Human Resources Company Corporation, HumRRO, that was our contractor on this project. I know 

you have strict time restraints, so let me just shortly summarize 

our report. 

First of all, the Center on Education Policy is an independent 

body. We get all our money from charitable foundations. We have 

no connection with the government, no connection with any other 

organization, any teachers group, any business group, any other organization. We are totally independent. And we have been reviewing No Child Left Behind since 2002. 

But 2 years ago we decided that the key questions involved with 

No Child Left Behind were two. One was has student achievement 

in reading and math increased since No Child Left Behind was enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
25

acted? And secondly, have achievement gaps between different subgroups of students narrowed since No Child Left Behind was enacted? Those are the key questions. 

And sometimes too often we spend time on a mechanism such as 

how many children are getting tutoring, how many children are 

getting school choice without looking at the fundamental purposes. 

So we decided to design a study that would answer these questions. 

And we have five unique features in our study. 

First of all, we asked all States to participate. And every State 

participated and every State verified their data so we know this is 

correct data. 

Secondly, we only use comparable test results from year to year. 

If a State changed its test we would not use the test results. These 

have to be comparable results. 

Thirdly, we use pre and post-NCLB test scores so that we could 

go as far back as we could to see the effects of the legislation. 

Fourthly, we use two different types of statistical analysis. One 

is looking at proficiency scores, the other is looking at net effects 

scores. And one analysis makes up for the deficiencies of the others 

so that you get a more complete picture. 

And lastly, we use consistent rules in looking at the data across 

all States. Another unique feature was that we ensured that we 

had a group of experts that was balanced. So we have five experts, 

several of them have written articles and books against No Child 

Left Behind, several of them have supported No Child Left Behind. 

In fact, one of them heads up one of the administration’s committees dealing with No Child Left Behind. This group is not only varied in its point of view, but it also has great expertise in terms of 

assessment, research and policy, and they were of great assistance 

to us. 

The five major conclusions we reached are these. First, in most 

States with 3 or more years of comparable test data student 

achievement in reading and math has gone up since 2002. 

Secondly, there is more evidence of achievement gaps between 

groups of students narrowing since 2002 than of gaps widening. 

Still the magnitude of the gaps is very substantial. It is common 

to have gaps of 25, 30 percent between different groups of students. 

Thirdly, we can only get comparable data from 13 States going 

back to 1999, but nine of those States showed that they had greater increases in test scores after 2002 rather than before 2002. 

Fourthly, and this is a very important point, it is very difficult, 

if not impossible, to determine to the extent to which these trends 

in test results have occurred because of No Child Left Behind. 

Since 2002 States, school districts and schools have simultaneously 

implemented many different, but interconnected policies to raise 

achievement. In other words, we cannot show direct causality between increased test scores and No Child Left Behind because all 

the other things have been going on at the same time. 

Fifthly, although NCLB is premised on the idea that there 

should be public information and there should be test score data 

available to policy makers, the press and the public so they will understand the effectiveness of education, we found gaps and holes in 

terms of the information that was available. And it took us a considerable effort in order to obtain this information. 

26

As cooperative as the States were, they are very overburdened, 

they are very pressed for personnel and time, and it is difficult for 

them to keep up. 

Now, let me mention what we think the possible explanations 

are for these increased test trends, and these are four possible reasons. And we cannot attribute direct causality in whatever proportion to any of these reasons but these are the logical reasons. 

One, in fact students have increased learning. That sounds so obvious but in today’s cynical environment you have to say well, students may know more. And that is probably a major factor. 

Secondly, there is teaching to the test. Especially in the poorest 

school districts, the schools with largest percentages of children of 

color there is teaching to the test. 

Thirdly, there are subtle changes made in tests that make it 

easier to have gains. And lastly there is changes in populations 

tested. 

I will finish by just asking that you consider the data that is required from the States for No Child Left Behind. And we have a 

recommendation on page 81 of the report. I hope you rip that page 

out and put it into the law. The public deserves to know test data, 

they deserve to know as much information as they can about the 

schools, and you can help to ensure that by enacting those provisions. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Jennings follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jack Jennings, President,

Center on Education Policy 

Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on trends in student achievement and the No 

Child Left Behind Act. I am accompanied by Diane Stark Rentner, director of national programs at the Center, Nancy Kober, CEP’s principal consultant, and Sunny 

Becker, principal staff scientist of the Human Resources Research Organization, 

CEP’s contractor for this project. 

The Center on Education Policy, a private non-profit organization, is an independent national advocate for effective public schools. We principally accomplish our 

mission by analyzing policies to determine whether they are in fact helping public 

schools to become better. A principal focus of our work for the last five years has 

been the No Child Left Behind Act, since that policy is so significant for public education. Since NCLB was enacted, we have monitored its effects and issued both comprehensive and special reports. Today, I will discuss our latest report which we released this Tuesday at the National Press Club. 

Since 2002, NCLB has spurred far-reaching changes in elementary and secondary 

education, all aimed at accomplishing the same fundamental goal—to improve students’ academic achievement. As the Congress prepares to reauthorize the Act, two 

related questions matter most: 

1. Has student achievement in reading and math increased since NCLB was enacted? 

2. Have achievement gaps between different subgroups of students narrowed since 

NCLB was enacted? 

To answer these questions, the Center on Education Policy conducted the most 

comprehensive study of trends in state test scores since NCLB took effect. We carried out this study with advice from a panel of five nationally known experts in educational testing or policy research, and with extensive technical support from 

HumRRO. Although we collected data from all 50 states, not every state had enough 

consistent data to do a complete analysis of test score trends in reading and math 

before and after 2002. Based on the data that states did provide, we reached five 

main conclusions. 

27

Main Conclusions 

1. In most states with three or more years of comparable test data, student 

achievement in reading and math has gone up since 2002, the year NCLB was enacted. 

2. There is more evidence of achievement gaps between groups of students narrowing since 2002 than of gaps widening. Still, the magnitude of the gaps is often 

substantial. 

3. In 9 of the 13 states with sufficient data to determine pre-and post-NCLB 

trends, average yearly gains in test scores were greater after NCLB took effect than 

before. 

4. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which these 

trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB. Since 2002, states, school districts, and schools have simultaneously implemented many different but interconnected policies to raise achievement. 

5. Although NCLB emphasizes public reporting of state test data, the data necessary to reach definitive conclusions about achievement were sometimes hard to 

find or unavailable, or had holes or discrepancies. More attention should be given 

to issues of the quality and transparency of state test data. 

The study that produced these conclusions had several unique features, designed 

to address the limitations of past research on achievement since 2002. We went to 

great lengths to gather the most current results on state reading and mathematics 

tests from all 50 states and to have all states verify the accuracy of their data. Within each state, we limited our analyses to test results that were truly comparable 

from year to year—in other words, that had not been affected by such factors as 

the adoption of new tests or changes in the test score students must reach to be 

considered proficient. We also compared trends before and after 2002 to see whether 

the pace of improvement has sped up or slowed down since NCLB took effect. We 

supplemented our analyses of the percentage of students scoring at or above the 

proficient level—the ‘‘magic number’’ for NCLB accountability—with analyses of effect size, a statistical tool based on average (mean) test scores that addresses some 

of the problems with the percentage proficient measure. And we analyzed all of the 

data—which in a typical state included as many as 16,000 individual numbers—as 

objectively as possible, using a consistent set of rules that were developed without 

regard to whether they would lead to positive or negative findings. 

The rest of this testimony summarizes the findings that led us to the five main 

conclusions. Further detail can be found in our full report which appears on our 

Web site, CEP-DC.org. 

Gains in Reading and Math Since 2002

To reach national conclusions about reading and math achievement, we first determined the test score trends in each state, looking at both the percentages of students scoring proficient and effect sizes where available. The state trends were then 

aggregated into a national picture of achievement that included these and other 

findings: 

• The number of states showing gains in test scores since 2002 is far greater than 

the number showing declines. For example, of the 24 states with percentage proficient and effect size data for middle school reading, 11 demonstrated moderate-tolarge gains (average gains of at least 1 percentage point per year) in middle school 

reading, and only one showed a moderate or larger decline. Five of the 22 states 

with both percentage proficient and effect size data at the elementary, middle, and 

high school levels made moderate-to-large gains in reading and math on both measures across all three grade spans. In other words, these five states showed gains 

according to all of the indicators collected for this study. In reading alone, seven 

states showed moderate-to-large increases across all three grade spans on both 

measures. In math alone, nine states showed similar gains across all three grade 

spans on both measures. The rest of the states had different trends at different 

grade spans. 

• Elementary school math is the area in which the most states showed improvements. Of the 25 states with sufficient data, 22 demonstrated moderateto-large 

math gains at the elementary level on both the percentage proficient and effect size 

measures, while none showed moderate or larger declines. Based on percentages 

proficient alone, 37 of the 41 states with trend data in elementary math demonstrated moderate-to-large gains, while none showed moderate or larger declines. 

• More states showed declines in reading and math achievement at the high 

school level than at the elementary or middle school levels. Still, the number of 

states with test score gains in high school exceeded the number with declines. 

• Analyses of changes in achievement using effect sizes generally produced the 

same findings as analyses using percentages proficient. But in some cases, the effect 

28

size analysis showed a different trend. In Nevada, for instance, the percentage proficient in high school math decreased, while the average test score increased. In 

New Jersey the percentage proficient in middle school reading rose slightly, while 

the average test score dropped. • When the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on state tests 

is compared with the percentage scoring at the basic level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), states show more positive results on their 

own tests than on NAEP. Moreover, the states with the greatest gains on their own 

tests were usually not the same states that had the greatest gains on NAEP. The 

NAEP tests, however, are not aligned with a state’s curriculum as state tests are, 

so NAEP should not be treated as a ‘‘gold standard’’ to invalidate state test results 

but as an additional source of information about achievement. 

Narrowing Achievement Gaps 

We analyzed trends in test score gaps for major racial-ethnic subgroups of students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and limited-English-proficient 

(LEP) students. 

We looked at both percentages proficient and effect size data where available; effect size data were harder to come by for subgroups than for students overall. We 

considered a narrowing or widening of the achievement gap to be a trend for a specific subgroup if it occurred in the same subject (reading or math) across all three 

grade spans (elementary, middle, and high school). We compiled trends from the 50 

states to arrive at these and other national findings: • Among the states with sufficient data to discern trends by subgroup, the number of states in which gaps in percentages proficient have narrowed since 2002 far 

exceeds the number of states in which gaps widened. • For the African-American subgroup, 14 of the 38 states with the necessary data 

showed evidence that gaps have narrowed in reading across all three grade spans 

analyzed, while no state had evidence that gaps have widened. In mathematics, 12 

states showed these gaps narrowing, while only one state showed the gaps widening. Results were similar for the Hispanic and low-income subgroups. • As with the percentage proficient, the states in which effect size gaps have narrowed outnumbered the states in which effect size gaps have widened. However, for 

states with both types of data, there were a number of instances where gap closings 

in terms of percentages proficient were not confirmed by effect size. Effect sizes 

seem to give a less rosy picture of achievement gap trends. • Even for subgroups that showed evidence of gaps narrowing, the gaps in percentages proficient often amounted to 20 percentage points or more, suggesting that 

it will take a concerted, long-term effort to close them. 

Gains Before and After NCLB 

Many states had reforms well underway before NCLB, so it is useful to know 

whether the pace of improvement has picked up since NCLB took effect. Only 13 

states supplied enough years of data to make this determination—too few to know 

whether the findings for this sample represent a true national trend. In nine of 

these states, test results improved at a greater average yearly rate after 2002 than 

before. In the other four states, the pre-NCLB rate of gain outstripped the postNCLB rate. 

Difficulty of Attributing Causes for Gains 

This report focuses on whether test scores have gone up since the enactment of 

NCLB. We cannot say to what extent test scores have gone up because of NCLB. 

It is always difficult to tease out a cause-and-effect relationship between test score 

trends and any specific education policy or program. With all of the federal, state, 

and local reforms that have been implemented simultaneously since 2002, it becomes nearly impossible to sort out which policy or combination of policies is responsible for test score gains, and to what degree. In a similar vein, this report does 

not take a position on how well specific components of NCLB are working or whether the requirements in the current law are the most effective means to raise 

achievement and close test score gaps. 

One more caveat should be emphasized: test scores are not the same thing as 

achievement. Although tests are often viewed as precise and objective, they are imperfect and incomplete measures of how much students have learned. Still, state 

tests are the primary measure of achievement used in NCLB and are the best available standardized measures of the curriculum taught in classrooms. 

Need for More Transparency in Test Data 

The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to report a massive amount of test 

data and attaches serious consequences to these data for districts, schools, and eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
29

cators. But the data on which so much rests are not easy to access in some states 

and are sometimes inconsistent, outdated, or incomplete. Moreover, the data needed 

to calculate effect sizes or determine which subgroups were small or rapidly changing were unavailable in some states, even though these data are integral to all testing systems. Reasons for these shortcomings include overburdened state departments of education, ongoing corrections in test data, and technical or contractual 

issues with test contractors. These shortcomings are not necessarily the fault of 

state officials—who were generally cooperative in providing or verifying data when 

asked—but these problems complicated our efforts to reach definitive conclusions 

about student achievement. 

It took many months of effort to gather all the data needed for this study and 

have state officials verify their accuracy. Our experience suggests how difficult it 

would be for the average citizen to get information about test score trends in some 

states, and points to the need for greater transparency in state test data. States 

could improve transparency by taking the following steps: • Posting test data in an easy-to-find place on state Web sites • Providing clear information and cautions about breaks in the comparability of 

test data caused by new tests or changes in testing systems 

• Reporting standard deviations, mean scale scores, numbers of test-takers, and 

other important information listed in chapter 7 of our report. 

State-By-State Achievement Trends on the Web 

The trends highlighted in this testimony and in our report have been drawn from 

an extensive set of data on each state. Complete profiles of test results and other 

information for individual states can be accessed on the CEP Web site at 

www.cepdc.org/pubs/stateassessment. We encourage anyone who is interested in 

trends for a specific state to visit the Web site and find that state’s profile. 

Future Phases of This Study 

This report describes the findings from phase I of what will be a three-phase 

study of student achievement. Phase II, which will be completed this summer, involves on-site interviews with state officials in 22 states. Phase II investigates in 

more detail the trends uncovered during phase I of the study and the factors that 

affect comparability or availability of test data; it also reports information from 

state officials about how well specific requirements of NCLB are working and how 

the law could be improved. Phase III, which will be carried out in the fall and winter of 2006-08, examines student achievement at the school district level in three 

states. 

Thank you, Chairman Kildee, and we are available to answer any questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF RICK MELMER, SECRETARY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. MELMER. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Rick Melmer from the 

State of South Dakota. I have been serving as the chief school officer in South Dakota for 4 years. I am grateful for the opportunity 

to come and talk to you about a topic that I know you care deeply 

about and we certainly do in the State of South Dakota. I also represent the Council of Chief State School Officers and this topic has 

been high on our agenda, as you can imagine, over the past year 

and a half. 

Since 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act has challenged schools, 

districts and States across this country to ensure the best education possible for students. Since that time I think you can all 

agree that States, schools and districts have made significant 

progress, both in implementing policies and, as Mr. Jennings’ report suggests, improving achievement scores and closing achievement gaps. We are grateful for that news. We are excited to hear 

about it. And it is really proof that the foundation has been laid 

with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 for some good things 

30

in the future. Our hope is that we can take advantage of this opportunity now to reauthorize this act and make it even better as 

we look ahead 5 to 7 years down the road. 

The Council of Chief State School Officers has worked for the 

past 3 months in three primary areas: One, the development of a 

policy statement; two, eight specific recommendations in how the 

law can be improved; and, finally, specific legislative language that 

can be used when you are considering reauthorization. The purpose 

of my remarks today though is going to be focusing on three primary areas where flexibility could benefit States across this country. 

The first area is the promotion of innovative models in reinventing the peer review process. We have all heard about growth 

models. In fact, there are seven States today that have been approved by the Department to implement growth models. There are 

many more States out there like South Dakota that would like to 

be one of those States. At times we are challenged, especially in 

rural States, to have the expertise we need to build the capacity 

to create growth models. It would be my hope that as we look 

ahead to the future that the NCLB reauthorization would include 

the ability to help States, all States if they want to reach a goal 

of growth models or other innovative testing systems that could 

benefit students in their State. 

We spend a lot of time talking about growth models, but I hope 

we don’t forget that there could be other ways to assess kids, especially when you are looking at 21st century skills, ways like portfolios, project-based learning and possibly even computer simulations that would test whether the young people of today have the 

skills they need to be successful. 

The second part of my comment is reinventing the peer review 

process. Currently the peer review process is based almost exclusively on compliance. And frankly when the law was instituted in 

2002 that was probably the right model to implement because the 

U.S. Department of Education had an obligation to ensure that 

every State complied and set the right foundation. The good news 

is almost every State in the country has been approved under the 

Standards and Assessment Program. So the need for the compliance peer review is less today than it was in 2002. So we are suggesting a peer review process that is a lot more transparent and 

a lot more collaborative in its efforts in working with the States. 

You may know this, but we have no opportunity to even talk to 

our peer review members when they are reviewing our State’s 

Standards and Assessment Program. The best peer review process 

is an interactive process where you can sit at the table and have 

dialogue about your concerns and issues and the peer review members can get a better feeling from a State as to what the issues 

really are. 

The second area I wanted to emphasize is differentiated consequences. In South Dakota we have 700-plus schools in about 168 

school districts. As you can imagine, some of our schools in our 

State do very well. We also have some that hit—for example, in our 

largest district of Sioux Falls, there are three schools in Sioux Falls 

that hit 17 of 18 of their academic targets under No Child Left Behind. And yet those schools are treated the same as a school that 

31

hits 0 of 18 academic targets. We lack the ability at the State level 

of treating individual schools differently based on their academic 

performance. If you hit 18 of 18 you are treated the same as someone that hits 0 of 18. Differentiated consequences have to be a part 

of reauthorization as we move into the future. 

And finally, teacher quality. We would all agree on the need for 

teacher quality and the importance of it. But in rural States like 

South Dakota where you have 45 districts with less than 200 kids 

high school teachers oftentimes teach many different disciplines 

and oftentimes five, six and even seven preps in a day. It is difficult to recruit high school teachers in our State when we are expecting them to take tests in three different content areas in five 

or six specific course content areas. So the Highly Qualified Teacher Act, even though I know its intentions are honorable and important, makes it increasingly difficult for us to recruit high school 

teachers and make sure that they are highly qualified in all other 

content areas. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today and look forward to the question and answer period that will follow. 

[The statement of Mr. Melmer follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Melmer,

South Dakota Secretary of Education 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on providing appropriate flexibility 

in the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). My name is 

Rick Melmer, and I am the Secretary of Education in South Dakota, a position I 

have held since 2003. I am also the president-elect of the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO) and have previously been a local superintendent in Watertown, South Dakota and in Sioux City, Iowa. 

Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) appropriately challenged states 

and school districts to redouble their efforts to ensure the success of all students. 

During the last 5 years, states have made tremendous strides in implementing the 

policies and programs needed to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps. In fact, every state has implemented state standards, state assessments, 

state accountability plans, and state teacher quality plans. Now the question is how 

do we use the opportunity presented by reauthorization to form a new state-federal 

partnership designed to build-on, and effectively use, the strong foundation laid by 

states and districts during the last few years. Working together I believe we can 

make a difference for each and every child in this country. 

CCSSO and its members worked for nearly a year and a half in preparation for 

reauthorization by developing a policy statement, eight specific recommendations, 

and then legislative language that codified the eight recommendations into current 

statute. We also partnered with the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Boards of Education to deliver a separate, joint reauthorization statement to Congress. 

CCSSO’s membership believes that reauthorization should emphasize three principles (1) innovation, (2) capacity building; and (3) research and dissemination of 

best practices. These principles, and our specific recommendation for achieving 

them, have been delivered to the Committee through the testimony of nearly a halfdozen of my state colleagues who participated in recent hearings on adequate yearly 

progress, growth models, students with disabilities, and supplemental education 

services. I am here today to reinforce our recommendations and to talk about their 

specific importance in the rural context. I ask that you keep these concepts at the 

forefront of your internal discussions as you begin to craft the changes to the ESEA 

that will guide the education reform process for the next five years. 

This hearing focuses appropriately on examining the proper level of state and 

local flexibility needed to ensure that the reauthorized ESEA helps, not hinders, the 

education reform process during the coming years. Congress must continue to hold 

states accountable for improving student achievement and closing achievement gap, 

while also providing them with the flexibility needed to implement innovative models for accomplishing these vital national goals. States are chomping on the bit to 

32

move forward with creative, innovative solutions to many challenging problems, but 

the current framework is inhibitive and too rigid to recognize unique state and local 

challenges and opportunities, particularly in rural areas. 

Given the pace of change and the dramatic improvements we need in student 

achievement to make every child a graduate ready for college, work, and citizenship, 

the question is: How do we build a federal law that promotes state action and innovation, with continuous improvement over time? Flexibility and support are core 

strategies to achieving this goal. But what we need is a culture shift in federal law. 

Flexibility should not be understood as bending the rules, but should rather be 

available whenever it makes the best educational sense for students. Innovation 

should be the hallmark of federal law, in which states are encouraged to build better education systems that improve student achievement in their particular state 

contexts and may provide promising models for other states. This approach is particularly important in small and rural states like South Dakota, but also to my state 

colleagues who are moving towards innovations such as the use of formative and 

web-based, embedded assessments. 

How can federal law codify such innovation without undercutting core principles? 

We have several concrete recommendations that build on NCLB. 

I. Promote Innovative Models and Reinvent Peer Review 

States should be encouraged to implement innovative education reform models, so 

long as they can demonstrate, through a revised peer review process, that their approach is educationally sound and is designed to raise, not lower, the achievement 

bar. The new system must also better recognize when schools and districts are making real progress. Rural states like South Dakota know what needs to be done to 

move forward, and could benefit significantly by having greater flexibility to address 

the unique problems they face. 

NCLB properly focused the nation’s attention on improving basic skills for all students. Now the new law should take the next step forward by fostering a ‘‘culture 

of innovation.’’ Implementing this new approach will require incentives for encouraging innovation and a transformed peer review process. The current peer review 

process is a challenge not only for states, but also the U.S. Department of Education. South Dakota is now in the middle of its standards and assessment peer review and is currently labeled as ‘‘approval pending.’’ We admittedly have work to 

do to make our system better, but the current peer review framework does not always facilitate improvement. For example, a revamped peer review system supported by greater resources would enable the Department to provide more timely 

communication to us and to other states. The current process would also be more 

effective if it included a strong technical assistance component that informed our 

work. Rigid penalties are also a problem. For example, even though all interested 

parties acknowledge that we have made significant progress over the past year in 

improving the state’s assessment system, 25% of our Title I administrative funds 

may be withheld. Such withholding will make it even more difficult for us to accomplish our objectives. I believe the new law should reward or acknowledge improvement, and avoid rigid penalties for states, like mine, that are making good faith efforts to improve. 

In sum, we believe a revised peer review process should grant states a role in the 

selection of qualified peers, focus on technical assistance, full transparency, real 

communication and dialogue with states, consistency in peer review standards and 

outcomes across states, timeliness of feedback and results, dissemination of best 

practices, and more. 

II. Improve Accountability Determinations 

States should be able to use a variety of accountability models, including growth 

models and compensatory data that build on AYP, to promote more valid, reliable, 

educationally meaningful accountability determinations. 

South Dakota applied to be a growth model pilot state for the testing year 2006. 

Unfortunately, the Department denied our application and many other states’ applications. More states might have been able to take advantage of this important flexibility if the law placed a greater emphasis on fostering innovation and provided increased resources and strong technical support. For example, many rural states do 

not have the ‘‘in-house’’ expertise (i.e., psychometricians) to develop and evaluate 

their own assessment systems. In this instance, an enhanced peer review process 

that includes technical assistance and provides incentives for innovation could have 

had powerful results. Therefore, while we strongly urge you to encourage growth 

models as part of ESEA reauthorization, we also ask that you ensure the new law 

encourages states to pursue such innovations and provides proper financial and 

technical supports needed to help them succeed. 

33

III. Differentiated Consequences 

The reauthorized ESEA should encourage a full range of rewards and consequences for districts and schools that differ appropriately in nature and degree. 

Based, for example, on whether schools miss AYP by a little versus a lot. In that 

context, the new law should permit states to exercise appropriate judgment and differentiate both accountability determinations and consequences based on sound evidence. 

This is particularly important in rural areas where the rigid consequences of 

NCLB often do not fit the needs of the school or district struggling to make improvements. For example, the Sioux Falls School District in South Dakota is our largest 

district. The Sioux Falls district is currently on Level 2 of District Improvement 

even though the district has reached over 80% of the academic targets (180 of 224). 

Furthermore, there are three schools in Sioux Falls that reached 17 of 18 academic 

targets and yet remain ‘‘in improvement.’’ This designation is the same as a school 

that reaches 0 of 18 would receive. The ‘‘all or none’’ approach to school and district 

improvement must change to reflect an accurate assessment of educational progress 

or lack thereof. Unless a school in improvement reaches a perfect score two years 

in a row, the school remains ‘‘in improvement.’’

IV. Enhance Teacher Quality 

Incentives should be put in place for states to create the best teaching force by 

continuously improving teacher quality, by supporting best-in-class professional development, and by using multiple individual pathways to pedagogical and subject 

matter expertise. 

South Dakota has 45 school districts with less than 200 students in the K—12 

districts. High school teachers are expected to teach in multiple disciplines in order 

for the small high schools to meet the state’s graduation requirements. As a result, 

the highly qualified teacher guidelines, which tend to favor large districts with specialized teachers, can hamper a rural district’s ability to meet the intent of the law. 

The highly qualified expectations for high school special education teachers have 

made a challenging circumstance even more difficult. South Dakota currently has 

a shortage of special education teachers, especially at the high school level. The current law that requires a special education teacher to be highly qualified in all content areas is unrealistic and problematic in rural states. 

I mentioned only a few of the areas where rural states like South Dakota have 

felt most challenged by the rigidity of the current framework. We have learned a 

lot in just the past few years about what is working in our schools and what is not. 

It’s fair to say that the federal government, nor states, nor districts, nor schools 

have all the answers, so the law must provide room for continuous improvement and 

states and districts should be able to use their judgment about how to accomplish 

NCLB’s core objectives. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN STRAUS, PRESIDENT,

MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

Ms. STRAUS. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle 

and members of the subcommittee. I am delighted to be here and 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and discuss 

flexibility in the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or the No Child Left Behind Act. I am particularly pleased and honored to be here with Chairman Kildee in 

the position he is in because, as he said, we go back a long way 

to when he was in the State Senate in Michigan and I was a Staff 

Director for the Senate Education Committee at that time. So we 

are very proud to have you in your position and very proud of you. 

And I am privileged to be here today to represent not only the 

State of Michigan as President of the State Board, which in Michigan is an elected statewide body, bipartisan, but I am also speaking on behalf of the National Association of State Boards of EduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
34

cation and my colleagues who serve on State boards throughout the 

country. 

I want to make it clear that Michigan State Board of Education 

and indeed all the State boards across the country embrace the 

philosophy and the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is our 

belief that the fundamental aspects of the law are positive and 

well-intentioned. 

As State education leaders we have championed the theory for 

many years that all children can learn. But it is also our belief of 

State boards generally, and in particular the entire State Board of 

Michigan, all eight members, Republicans and Democrats alike, 

that modifications to NCLB are necessary to reach these goals. 

In the initial phases of implementation there was no aspect of 

the law that was more welcome than flexibility, nor more touted 

I might add. We were soon to learn, however, that the flexibility 

existed more in theory than in application. What we inherently 

knew as State board members at the State level and throughout 

the country was that we have 50 separate distinct State education 

systems. A one-size-fits-all approach is difficult if not impossible to 

apply throughout the country. 

Speaking from personal experience, this became painfully clear 

as we in Michigan parsed through the law page by page all those 

many, many pages and provisions and tried to make it fit into the 

academic frameworks, assessment schedule and the accountability 

system that we had previously and so successfully established in 

Michigan. We came to the conclusion that while we are meeting the 

spirit of the law we clearly needed more flexibility to help our good 

faith efforts in meeting the letter of the law. 

As a result, I am here today to reaffirm the NASBE recommendation, the National Association of State Boards of Education recommendation, that we need to move from a law of absolutes to one that incorporates the following principles: 

One, provide adaptation in State assessment requirements, particularly for testing of special needs students, such as students 

with disabilities and limited English proficient students. 

Two, to permit the use of growth model measures in all States. 

Three, to provide accommodations in teacher qualifications, deferring to well-established State licensure procedures, recognizing 

in particular the challenges of staffing in rural areas and high 

needs subjects. 

Fourth, to recognize the enhanced role of States in education 

leadership, technical assistance and school improvement with a 

solid, consistent Federal investment for State capacity that reflects 

the State-Federal partnership in improving low performing schools. 

All the States are providing a great deal of technical assistance but 

need the capacity to do so. 

And fifth, promote fair, consistent and equal treatment in all 

dealings, negotiations and approvals between State and Federal officials supplemented by peer review, as Rick just said, consisting 

of accomplished, credentialed, well-trained professionals knowledgeable in State and Federal education policy and law. 

As you know, these issues surrounding ESEA reauthorization are 

of such concern to State educational leaders that NASBE, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School 

35

Officers included these things, among others, in a recently proposed set of joint reauthorization recommendations that were submitted to Congress. Perhaps the most important suggestion I could 

make today on behalf of State policy makers is to give States that 

have served as the laboratories of innovation and reform the latitude to address their unique circumstances. States should be extended the freedom to development and implement policies that 

meet their specific needs while remaining within the spirit and letter of the law. 

Admittedly, some areas have been addressed but clearly many 

more aspects need attention and collaboratively developed resolutions. In Michigan’s accountability workbook submissions, for example, to the Department of Education that serve as our current 

day annual plans we have asked for such latitude. But I regret to 

say that a fair amount of what we have thoughtfully compiled and 

presented has been rejected, often after months of delay and sometimes having been accompanied in the first and subsequent instances by what we thought were encouraging commentaries of acceptance. 

Unfortunately, our experience in Michigan has not been unique. 

As a State that is generally recognized as a national leader in education and as one of some 18 States that have received full approval for our assessment system, what would we specifically request. 

You have our whole statement, but I will be glad to answer any 

questions you have. So thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Ms. Straus follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathleen N. Straus, President,

Michigan State Board of Education 

Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle and Members of the Subcommittee, please 

accept my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to testify today on flexibility in 

the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child 

Left Behind Act. I am privileged to appear before you today, representing not only 

the State of Michigan as President of the statewide, elected, bipartisan State Board 

of Education, but also speaking on behalf of the National Association of State 

Boards of Education (NASBE) and my colleagues who serve on state boards of education throughout the United States. 

Initially I want to make it abundantly clear that the Michigan State Board of 

Education and, indeed, all state boards of education embrace the philosophy and 

goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is our belief that the fundamental aspects 

of the law are positive and for the most part well intentioned. As state education 

leaders, we have championed the theory for many years that all children can learn. 

But it is also our belief—of state boards generally and the entire Michigan State 

Board of Education, all eight members, Republicans and Democrats alike in particular—that modifications are necessary to the amendments made in the 2001 reauthorization. 

In the initial phases of implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, there 

was no aspect of the new law more welcome than flexibility, nor more touted, I 

might add. We were soon to learn, however, that the flexibility existed more in theory than in application. What we inherently knew as state board members at the 

state level and throughout the country, was that we essentially have 50 separate, 

distinct state education systems. A one-size-fits-all approach is difficult if not impossible to universally apply throughout the country. Speaking from personal experience, this became painfully clear as we parsed through the law page by page and 

provision by provision, and tried to make it fit into the academic frameworks, assessment schedule, and accountability system we had previously and so successfully 

established in Michigan. We came to the conclusion that while we are meeting the 

spirit of the law we clearly needed more flexibility to help our good faith efforts in 

meeting the letter of the law. As a result, I am here today to reaffirm the NASBE 

36

recommendation that we need to move from a law of absolutes to one that incorporates the following principles: 

Provide adaptation in state assessment requirements, particularly for testing of 

special needs students such as students with disabilities and Limited English Proficient (LEP) students; 

Permit the use of growth model measures in all states; 

Provide accommodations in teacher qualifications, deferring to well-established 

state licensure procedures, recognizing in particular the challenges of staffing in 

rural areas and high-need subjects; 

Recognize the enhanced role of states in education leadership, technical assistance, and school improvement with a solid, consistent federal investment for state 

capacity that reflects the new state-federal partnership in improving low-performing 

schools; 

Promote fair, consistent and equal treatment in all dealings, negotiations, and approvals between state and federal officials, supplemented by peer review teams consisting of accomplished, credentialed, well-trained professionals, knowledgeable in 

state and federal education policy and law. 

As you know, these issues surrounding ESEA reauthorization are of such concern 

to state educational leaders that NASBE, the National Governors’ Association, and 

the Council of Chief State School Officers included these themes among others in 

a recently-proposed set of joint reauthorization recommendations submitted to the 

Congress. 

Perhaps the most important suggestion I could make today on behalf of state policymakers is to give states that have served as the laboratories of innovation and 

reform the latitude to address their unique circumstances. States should be extended the freedom to develop and implement policies that meet their specific needs, 

while remaining within the spirit and letter of the law. Admittedly some areas have 

been addressed, but clearly many more aspects need attention and collaborativelydeveloped resolutions. 

In Michigan’s accountability workbook submissions to the U.S. Department of 

Education (USED) that serve as current day annual plans we have asked for such 

latitude. Some of what we have sought has been accepted. But I regret to say that 

a fair amount of what we have thoughtfully compiled and presented has been rejected, often however after months of delay, and sometimes having been accompanied in the first and subsequent instances by encouraging commentaries of acceptance. Unfortunately, our experience in Michigan has not been unique. 

As a state that is generally recognized as a national leader in education, and as 

one of some 18 states that have received full approval for our assessment system, 

what would we specifically request? Let me briefly provide you with our priorities: 

Graduation Cohorts of More Than Four Years Recognizing that time is the variable for some students to achieve the more rigorous graduation requirements recently adopted in Michigan and across the nation, we must have the flexibility to 

use graduation cohorts of more than four years under some circumstances. This is 

especially necessary for alternative education programs that accept and embrace 

students who are far behind grade level and are punished by the current system 

when they are unable to graduate the individual students with a four-year cohort. 

Use of Best Score Through Grade 12 in Adequate Yearly Progress Calculations 

(AYP) Michigan would like to incorporate the student’s best score, including senior 

retests, in AYP determinations. The best score for students in calculating high 

school AYP would be used through Grade 12. We recommend the use of alternate 

assessments measured against alternate/modified achievement standards based on 

individualized growth expectations across grade levels, as needed for some students. 

Identification of School or School District for Improvement It would be preferable 

to identify a school or school district for improvement only if the school or school 

district does not make AYP for the same content area in the same subgroup for two 

consecutive years. 

Proxy Calculation for Students with Mild to Moderate Cognitive Impairment 

Allow the ‘‘standard number of years’’ for graduation to be more than four under 

special circumstances. 

Permit the Development of Appropriate Assessments for Students with Disabilities An assessment between the current ‘‘1 percent assessment’’ and the newly-permitted ‘‘2 percent assessment’’ would help states assure that all students with disabilities are assessed appropriately. 

Limited English Proficient Students and AYP Allow schools and school districts 

to expand flexibility for English Language Learners (ELLs) in their first year of 

school in the United States to their first two years of school in the U.S. Allow ELL 

students to reach proficiency in English before testing in English; allow standard 

number of years for graduation to be more than four. Permit states to properly inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
37

clude new immigrant ELL students in school accountability, based on multiple 

measures for several years (no fewer than three), where educationally appropriate. 

Allow a full range of alternative assessments, and a system that values individualized growth. Recognize the positive performance of students who have recently 

transitioned out of the ELL student subgroup accountability determinations for an 

appropriate period. 

Consistency with Approvals of Exceptions Among States In Washington, the current terminology is transparency. In Michigan we would refer to it as equity, fairness, and respect. In the creation of state plans and the approval of accountability 

workbook modifications, USED should maintain a policy of consistency. Uniformly 

sharing information about approvals openly among states would foster great mutual 

respect and trust, and at the same time assist states in resolving similar difficulties. 

Some examples of inconsistency have been approval of various N sizes, confidence 

intervals, and assessment of ELL students. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to offer Michigan’s State Board of Education 

perspective and that of our national association. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have, or provide background information to support the issues 

I have raised today. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much and your entire statement will be included in the record. 

Miss Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL JOHNSON, SUPERINTENDENT, 

MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Kildee, Congressman 

Castle, and members of the subcommittee. I am Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools. I have been in Memphis 

for 4 years and 6-1/2 years in Minneapolis, Minnesota before that 

as Superintendent. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

flexibility issues and on No Child Left Behind. 

This school year I am really proud to say that the State of Tennessee declared Memphis City Schools to be in good standing under 

No Child Left Behind. It was the first time since No Child Left Behind has been put in place. In 2004, we had about 62 schools that 

were deemed a high priority by the State. And indeed we have a 

lot more work to do, but today we have about half that number, 

about 36 schools. 

The Council of the Great City Schools in their Beating the Odds 

report reported that our school district was making faster progress 

than the State. And we believe that flexibility means different 

things to different people. And so my comments today will really 

focus a great deal on where we think the flexibility should occur. 

But before I begin let me just say that I think that No Child Left 

Behind is at a critical juncture where failure to address concerns 

about the implementation threatens to undermine its original and 

noble purpose of creating academic success for all students. So I 

hope today, and as you review the bill, that you will certainly look 

at ways to enhance the flexibility that I think is desperately needed. 

Today I would like to briefly summarize five key points: School 

intervention and improvement framework, a little bit about the 

growth model and data systems, transferability and staffing high 

priority schools. 

We believe, and if you look on page 7 of my remarks you will see 

that the Council has outlined a modification of the school intervention and improvement framework. The chart attached to my testiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
38

mony on page 7 illustrates our proposal and how it compares with 

the current law. This revision will allow the accountability timeline 

for schools to begin immediately. It focuses on improvement and acknowledges a sustained change happens over a multi-year period, 

not one year at a time, and shifts the sanctions from cascading and 

changing every year to helping schools to stay focused on the improvement strategy long enough to see real results. And further in 

the red boxes, it separates, and I think this is consistent with Secretary Melmer’s comments, it separates those schools that are pervasive and persistent failures to those schools that have maybe one 

subgroup having difficulty. It does retain the parental choice that 

will remain and it moots the effects of receiving late test data from 

the State and gives schools additional flexibility in the use of 

funds. 

The Council’s emphasis on good and best teaching strategies during this initial intervention period I believe is consistent with what 

we are seeing in Memphis that really works. The focus on restructuring strategies is something I am familiar with in my experience 

both in Minneapolis and in Memphis. Over the past three years we 

have restructured, or fresh started as we call it, eight schools in 

Memphis and we begin restructuring for additional schools this 

fall. Of the eight schools that have been restructured six now have 

made adequate yearly progress after failing to make AYP for 6 consecutive years. 

The Memphis City Schools restructuring model is known as 

Fresh Start and before we decide to restructure a school we don’t 

just rely on the test score data; we have a team of external examiners come in and work with us to look at all aspects of the data, 

including survey data and other things about the school climate. 

Our restructuring program begins first by replacing the principal 

and then we have flexibility in our collective bargaining agreement 

to hire teachers out of seniority order and as well to alter the compensation structure so that they can get rewarded for actual results. 

The growth model, and of course Tennessee is one of those States 

that has had extensive experiences with the growth model, and we 

agree with most educators that a growth model should be incorporated into the accountability system. I believe that what teachers 

want is teachers want to get credit for showing progress with students who may come not being English speakers, but who teachers 

teach to read, write and think in English. That progress, though 

it may be significant, sometimes it is not enough for them to make 

the adequate yearly progress that is needed. 

All of us are working to improve our tracking system so that we 

know what works and we know who is achieving. In Memphis we 

have a formative assessment system to monitor student progress 

and we use that every 6 weeks. 

Transferability, we believe that we need greater flexibility, keeping Title I and Title III separate, since they are very student focused, but in the other categories asking for greater flexibility. 

And then just finally we believe that it is really important that 

we are able to use a range of tools to incent and support putting 

and keeping the best teachers with our most vulnerable students. 

We are using Teach for America induction and mentoring proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
39

grams, a teacher incentive grant to reward performance and connect good teaching practices with reward systems. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Carol Johnson,

Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools 

Good morning Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on flexibility issues under the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB), legislation that we have worked hard to implement. 

The Memphis City Schools (MCS) is a large urban school district comprised of 191 

schools and 118,000 students. Approximately 77 percent of our students receive a 

free or reduced-price lunch. We serve a predominantly African-American student 

population, but have a growing enrollment of English language learners who now 

number over 4,800 students from a variety of countries. Some 14.4 percent of our 

students are enrolled in special education programs, of which about 12 percent are 

gifted. We are very proud to serve this diverse group of young people. 

We are also proud of the work of our administrators, teachers, and community 

leaders. They are striving every day to improve the academic achievement of our 

students. This school year, the State of Tennessee declared our district to be in 

‘‘Good Standing’’ under No Child Left Behind for the first time. In 2004, we had 

62 schools that were deemed ‘‘High Priority’’ by the state, i.e., in need of improvement. Today, we have about half that number—36. 

Our academic gains, in fact, were highlighted recently in the Council of the Great 

City Schools’ latest Beating the Odds report. The report not only recognized our 

progress but also pointed out that we are improving at a rate that far out paces 

statewide improvements. Nevertheless, we know that we still have considerable 

work to do. 

I am pleased to be testifying today on the issue of flexibility under NCLB. Flexibility, of course, means different things to different people. To a school superintendent, flexibility can mean the ability to move human and financial resources 

around to meet specified needs. But it can also mean the freedom to give the wrong 

contract to an unqualified group. To a principal, flexibility can mean the ability to 

hire the team he or she wants in order to meet AYP targets. It can also mean the 

latitude to hire a workshop speaker he or she heard at a recent convention. To a 

teacher, flexibility can mean trying a new pedagogical technique. It can also mean 

closing the classroom door and doing whatever he or she feels like that day. To a 

state, flexibility can mean experimenting with alternative assessments for English 

language learners. It can also mean excluding those students by setting high N 

sizes. Or it can mean defining one’s own definition of academic proficiency. 

What gives flexibility its meaning and power is accountability, and the ability to 

hold people responsible for attaining expected goals—often in exchange for that latitude. 

I am a strong believer in flexibility and the accountability that should accompany 

it. The Council of the Great City Schools on whose Executive Committee I sit also 

believes in this general principle. As a group, we continue to support NCLB and 

have developed a series of recommendations for its reauthorization that expands 

maximum flexibility while retaining strong accountability. We have also proposed 

ways to fix the law’s operational problems, and shift funds into activities with greater promise for raising student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps. We 

have retained the overall framework of the Act, but have suggested modifying its 

internal operating gears so that its initial promise is better realized. 

1. Proposed Intervention and Improvement Framework 

I would like to take a few minutes to describe how the nation’s urban schools 

would modify the ‘‘school intervention and improvement’’ provisions of the law. The 

chart attached to my testimony illustrates our proposal and how it compares with 

current law. 

We propose that a school not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) would 

begin school improvement planning immediately, rather than waiting another year. 

The school plan would have to focus on low-performing students, particularly those 

in low-performing subgroups. A school with large numbers of students who were not 

proficient would have a more extensive plan than a school with a lesser numbers 

or percentages of low-performing students. During this one-year planning phase, 

schools would have the flexibility to begin staff development immediately and the 

40

latitude of using Title I funds to acquire necessary instructional materials or technical assistance. 

We would then consolidate the current School Improvement I, School Improvement 2, and Corrective Action phases of the current law into a single, three-year 

school intervention and improvement period. This three-year period would allow a 

school to use its funds for well-researched instructional strategies that have been 

shown to raise student achievement—such as differentiated instruction, coaching, 

research-based reading programs, tiered interventions, benchmark testing, professional development, and the like. The school would be required to use up to 30 percent of its Title I funding for professional development, choice, and supplemental 

educational services, but would have the flexibility to fund these activities at a variety of levels as long as parents retain the option of transferring to another school 

or pick an external, private SES provider. We would follow this initial improvement 

period with serious but more differentiated consequences than the law currently 

provides. 

This overall approach would have a number of advantages over current law. First, 

it would allow schools the time to pursue promising instructional programming 

under the direction of the school districts without changing activities each year in 

pursuit of the cascading sanctions the law now requires. Second, it would allow 

enough time for the instructional strategies to work before sanctions were levied. 

Third, it would give schools additional flexibility in the use of funds. Fourth, it 

would mute the effects of late test data from the states because the school’s status 

would be determined for a multi-year period. Fifth, it would retain parental choice. 

Finally, it would keep the most serious sanctions but place them at the end of a 

process that was devoted to raising achievement and narrowing gaps. 

The Council’s emphasis on good instructional strategies during this initial intervention and improvement period is consistent with what we are doing in Memphis 

to raise student achievement, and what the organization has learned from its highly 

successful Strategic Support Teams. In Memphis, we use a series of strategies to 

assist and support our ‘‘High Priority’’ schools, including——

Districtwide Strategies for All Grade Levels 

• Administrative leadership training 

• School monitoring and ‘‘walkthroughs’’

• Cross-functional instructional teams 

• DATA (Directing Achievement through Accountability) 

• Formative assessments 

• Professional learning communities to sustain improvement and change 

• Behavioral supports (Blue Ribbon Initiative) 

Elementary School Strategies 

• Literacy academy at selected schools 

• Voyager interventions—Grades 2-5 districtwide 

Middle School Strategies 

• Read 180

• Striving Readers (eight schools) 

• Increased honors—level courses 

• Making Middle Grades Work (district implementation) 

High Schools 

• High Schools That Work 

• Small Learning Communities (9th grade academies) 

I also have made a number of organizational changes to increase support for students, teachers, and schools by establishing an Office of Academic Affairs, an Office 

of Student Engagement, an Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, and establishing a new associate superintendent’s position to lead professional development. 

2. Differentiated Consequences and Restructuring 

The Council’s proposals follow this initial period of intervention and improvement 

with a series of differentiated consequences, a concept that has received much attention as of late. We would distinguish between two types of schools: schools that persistently and pervasively fail to make progress with a majority of its students, and 

schools that fail to make progress with students who comprise fewer than half their 

students. Schools in the first category would be required, after a planning year, to 

comprehensively restructure or close. Schools in the second category would be required, after a planning year, to pursue a restructuring strategy that was more exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
41

plicitly focused on the students or subgroups that were not making progress and 

staff members delivering services to them. 

The first category of schools under our plan would warrant comprehensive restructuring or closure if they could not make any academic progress. The second category of schools would not necessarily warrant closure if the majority of its students 

or subgroups were making AYP targets or showing progress. These schools, instead, 

would have to focus their efforts and strategies—under the supervision of the district—on the students not making headway. We would cap the number of these 

schools in either category at a manageable 10 percent of all schools in a large district. 

In the past three years, I have restructured eight schools in Memphis, and will 

begin restructuring four additional schools in 2007-2008. Of the eight schools that 

have been restructured, six have now made Adequate Yearly Progress after having 

failed to make AYP for six consecutive years. 

Before deciding to restructure a school, our Memphis staff have to document the 

specific intervention and support strategies that have been implemented. If these 

measures prove unsuccessful, the district then contracts with an external group to 

conduct a management and instructional review of the school. The results of this 

review are used to determine whether restructuring is in the best interest of students. If restructuring is called for, then wed engage school staff, parents, and the 

school community to support the restructuring and reform efforts. 

The Memphis City Schools restructuring model is known as ‘‘Fresh Start.’’ Our 

program begins by replacing the principal of the identified school. The new principal 

is then given the authority to appoint a new administrative support team that will 

work together to interview and hire an entirely new faculty and school support staff. 

Teachers in ‘‘Fresh Start’’ schools are paid for two additional weeks of professional 

development—one before the school year starts and one later. Teachers in ‘‘Fresh 

Start’’ schools are eligible for financial bonuses based on the school’s progress toward student achievement goals. 

This overall restructuring approach is not easy or free of controversy, but it can 

be more effective. The Council’s proposal also makes sense because it matches the 

sanction more closely to the severity of the problem without letting schools with 

small numbers of subgroups off the hook. Finally, this proposed approach more fairly balances an emphasis on instructional improvement and budgetary and programmatic flexibility with the need for strong accountability at the end of the day. 

That balance is out of kilter under current law because of its overemphasis on punishment and under-emphasis on what it takes to meet the Act’s goals—good instruction. 

3. Other Areas of Flexibility, Authority, and Reduced Restrictions 

a) Growth Models. Virtually every commentator on NCLB suggests that the law 

include a growth model that would consider academic progress as part of the Act’s 

accountability system. We agree with adding this feature to the law. Because not 

every state will want to use this flexibility, however, the Council recommends that 

school districts with the data capability be allowed to use an approved growth model 

from another state as part of that district’s accountability system under NCLB. For 

example, Denver or Omaha could adopt the Tennessee or North Carolina model to 

assess progress and determine AYP. 

We in Memphis have benefited from participation in the Tennessee Growth Model 

Pilot Program. It has given us a more accurate picture of the impact of the school’s 

educational program on individual student academic growth. And it has given us 

better data to inform instruction. Still, Congress should know that growth models 

are not the panacea for long lists of ‘‘failing’’ schools if the models are based on a 

‘‘universal proficiency trajectory’’ tagged to 2013-14. Less than a dozen schools made 

AYP using the Tennessee Growth Model. Even fewer did using the North Carolina 

Growth Model because both models are simply variations on the current status 

model and do not provide much credit for actual growth across the range of student 

achievement. The Council has made a number of recommendations for the ‘‘safe harbor’’ provisions that would give more credit for growth even if the school and students remained below the target proficiency levels. We think this would help improve flexibility. 

b) Improved Data Systems. An essential component of any growth model is the 

state and local data system necessary to implement and support it. The Council suggests that local school districts have the flexibility to use up to 1 percent of their 

federal education funds for improving local data systems. 

c) District Provision of SES or Extended Learning Programs. The Council has recommended retaining NCLB’s SES program but proposes making it part of the 

schools’ intervention and improvement program. With that change would come the 

42

flexibility to use dollars on efforts that are more likely to boost the overall academic 

performance of children. Data collected by the Council also indicate that the numbers of participating students increase when the school district itself is a provider. 

The Council is urging that school districts be allowed explicitly the flexibility to provide those services. 

d) Recruitment, Support, and Deployment of Staff in High Poverty Schools. The 

Council acknowledges that there is a serious national problem with the disproportionate placement of inexperienced teachers in high poverty schools. We would urge 

that school districts have the flexibility to use their ESEA funds for teacher recruitment, induction, mentoring, and other strategies to recruit, deploy, and support experienced and effective teachers in high poverty schools rather than mandating 

more requirements that schools cannot comply with. 

e) Restrictions on ESEA Transferability. The Council proposed the transferability 

of ESEA funds in 2001 as part of the original NCLB authorization. We made this 

recommendation to allow school districts the flexibility to concentrate funding on a 

particular problem area while protecting the funding for the child-centered programs under Title I and Title III. Congress reduced this flexibility, however, when 

it limited the percentage of funds that could be transferred and further limited the 

flexibility for districts in improvement status under section 1116. Some school districts previously using funds for school improvement activities are currently being 

prohibited from continuing these initiatives. Moreover, regulatory restrictions from 

the Department of Education have discouraged districts from transferring funds into 

Title I. The reauthorization should remove the percentage restrictions and regulatory constraints and encourage the use of the transferability provisions for school 

improvement purposes. 

I—like most of my urban colleagues—have supported No Child Left Behind from 

the outset, although I see all the same problems with the law that its detractors 

see. NCLB’s focus on disadvantaged and minority student achievement is precisely 

the role that the federal government envisioned when it passed the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. Unfortunately, it has taken until the beginning of the 21st century and the passage of NCLB for federal policy to get serious 

about the unconscionable achievement gaps that persist in our country. I hope that 

my comments today and the pragmatic recommendations from the Council of the 

Great City Schools will assist the Committee in revising the law in a way that will 

recapture the nationwide, bipartisan support that NCLB enjoyed at its enactment. 

Thank you.

43

Chairman KILDEE. Very good. We have votes on the floor of the 

House, but if you take 5 minutes we can make it over there and 

come right back, but we will hear from you first. 

STATEMENT OF CHESTER E. FINN, JR., PRESIDENT,

THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION 

Mr. FINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Castle, members of the 

committee. It is nice to be invited. I feel as if I should be dragging 

a large national membership organization with me today to keep 

up with my colleagues, but in fact I am here on behalf of myself 

and my colleagues at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, three of 

whom came along today, including Mike Petrilli, who runs our national programs, recently spent 4 years at the Department trying 

to implement NCLB and currently is the Chief Editor of The Education Gadfly. 

We believe that flexibility isn’t a program or an amendment, it 

is actually a core principle, and it is a principle at the heart of the 


johnson.eps
44

most important question that Congress needs to answer with respect to the next go-around on NCLB. Namely, in K-12 education 

what should the Federal Government be tight about and what 

should it be loose about, when should Uncle Sam be proscriptive 

and when should he be flexible. I tend to view NCLB as a good first 

draft. And now you have a chance to edit it, revise it, hand it back 

to its students and make them improve what they were doing 

under the first draft. 

How to fix it? Under the heading of the principle of flexibility 

these debates quickly become ideological. Conservatives tend to 

argue that States are in charge and the Federal Government 

should leave them alone. Liberals are apt to argue that States can’t 

be trusted and that only strong Federal enforcement of specific actions will cause good things to happen. Neither of these views is 

right. Each leads to a bad outcome. The challenge is to strike an 

intelligent balance here. 

I want to suggest that there are three guidelines worth following. 

First, whenever possible the Federal Government should be tight 

with respect to results and loose with respect to process and procedure. 

Second, the Federal Government should figure out what it is actually good at and where it is apt to be most effective and only do 

those things, not try to do things it is not good at doing. 

And thirdly, Washington should encourage States, districts and 

schools to earn more autonomy on the basis of strong performance 

and successful results. 

My written statement elaborates on all three of those guidelines 

and offers a number of suggestions for specific measures that might 

be taken under each of them. If you all don’t have to run, I will 

go over a few. If you want to run, I am happy to wait for questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. You can finish up. 

Mr. FINN. What does it mean to be tight as to results and loose 

as to process? This is of course Management 101. Any large, complex organization sets expectations for its units and then gives 

them freedom as to how to attain those expectations and what results to produce. And yet Federal policy has so often gotten it backwards, obsessing about process and actually paying minimal attention to results. 

I think NCLB’s architects in 2001 believed they had gotten this 

straightened out and that NCLB really was about results. But in 

fact it turned out to be backwards. NCLB turned out to be proscriptive with respect to a number of procedures and inputs in schools 

and actually surprisingly laid back about results leaving it to each 

State to decide what results it wanted and how to measure them. 

And we have seen a whole number of reports and studies, including 

JACS, but also NCES. And we see that State standards are incredibly variable, literally all over the place with respect to what States 

are expecting of young Americans. This is not good and it has led 

Washington instead to try to control interventions, teacher qualifications, a whole bunch of inputs and procedures. And that part 

is not going very well. What would work far better is for you all 

to be quite proscriptive with respect to standards and tests and use 

that as an opportunity then to rein in the regulatory and superVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
45

visory impulses of the Federal Government with respect to how 

schools ought be run and staffed and intervened in and operated. 

I think, for example, spending restrictions should be lifted in return for results. I think that Mr. McKeon’s thought on this point 

is spot on. I think staffing restriction should be lifted with respect 

to highly qualified teachers. It is far better to focus on student 

achievement than to focus on teacher credentials. 

And third, the NCLB is very proscriptive in terms of the interventions that districts are supposed to make in schools year by 

year by year. It would be far better to let those who actually have 

to engage in the interventions figure out what sequence and what 

timetable is likely to work best as long as they are all being held 

to account for performance against a common timetable and results 

which in turn are illuminated by an enormous amount of sunlight, 

comparable sunlight, that everybody’s results with respect to each 

other can be seen and observed. 

I have got a number of examples under my second maxim, figure 

out what the government is good at and only do those things. And 

I have got a bunch more examples under the third maxim that you 

should encourage States, districts and schools to earn greater autonomy on the basis of their performance. 

This might be the most novel point we are making here today. 

A number of cities have figured out that successful schools ought 

to actually have greater freedom to continue to succeed. This is a 

principle that could be applied to States and districts as well. The 

better they do, the more freedom they get to innovate and do 

things their own way and the less they have to conform to process 

and input requirements or regulations. 

I could, as you know, go on but in deference to your clock as well 

as your vote, I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you 

very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Finn follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chester E. Finn, Jr., President, Thomas B. Fordham 

Institute and Chairman, Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, Hoover Institution, Stanford University 

Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle, members of the subcommittee: thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. I am heartened to see you take up the issue 

of ‘‘Current and Prospective Flexibility Under No Child Left Behind,’’ though I am 

also aware that this is one of the last hearings currently scheduled before you start 

work on legislation. I hope it’s a case of saving the best for last, not some sort of 

afterthought. 

That’s because ‘‘flexibility,’’ properly conceived, shouldn’t be considered an ‘‘addon,’’ a separate program, or a sideshow. Rather, it is at the heart of the most important question the Congress must answer with respect to the next iteration of NCLB 

and ESEA. Namely: in elementary-secondary education, what should the federal 

government be ‘‘tight’’ about, and what should it be ‘‘loose’’ about. When should 

Uncle Sam be prescriptive, and when should he be flexible? 

A few weeks ago, at a National Press Club panel, Hartford Superintendent Steve 

Adamowski commented that ‘‘high-achieving organizations eventually, in some way, 

get this right: what do you hold tight, what do you hold loose.’’ As a local superintendent, he wrestles with this question all the time. What should be done uniformly, with strong central office control? And what should be delegated to principals? Too much flexibility and schools can founder. Too much prescription and innovation is sunk. 

In Washington, these debates about prescription versus flexibility and the proper 

federal role quickly become ideological. Conservatives tend to argue that states have 

constitutional authority for schooling and the federal government should simply 

leave them alone. (Never mind that plenty of states have an abysmal record of proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
46

viding a decent education, especially for poor and minority kids.) Liberals are apt 

to insist that states can’t be trusted and that only strong federal enforcement of specific measures will lead to a narrowing of the achievement gap. (Never mind that 

plenty of states were making decent strides in raising achievement and narrowing 

gaps sans federal prodding.) 

Neither view is right. Each leads to a bad outcome: Either ‘‘put the money on the 

stump,’’ let states and schools do whatever they want, and hope for the best; or 

micromanage fifty states, 15,000 districts and tens of thousands of schools through 

miles of red tape. Neither approach works, not, at least, if stronger student achievement is the metric by which success is judged. 

Is there a way to transcend these tired and predictable arguments? Let me propose three pragmatic rules to determine when Uncle Sam should be ‘‘tight’’ (i.e., prescriptive) and when he should be ‘‘loose’’ (i.e., flexible): 

1. Whenever possible, the federal government should be tight about results and 

loose about process. 

2. The federal government should figure out what it’s good at, where it’s most apt 

to be effective, and only do those things. 

3. The federal government should encourage states, districts, and schools to ‘‘earn’’ 

even more autonomy on the basis of strong performance. 

Let’s take a closer look and consider what these rules would mean for a revamped 

NCLB. 

Rule #1: ‘‘Tight’’ as to Results, ‘‘Loose’’ as to Process 

This principle comes straight from Management 101: excellent bosses give their 

employees clear direction and specify the results to be achieved. But then they cut 

their charges plenty of slack to use their own creativity, innovation, and resourcefulness to achieve those results as they see fit. In a corporate setting, CEOs are ‘‘tight’’ 

about the bottom line, but ‘‘loose’’ as to how a particular unit achieves it. 

This idea is the driving force behind the past twenty years of standards-based reform. It’s related to former Vice President Gore’s efforts to ‘‘reinvent’’ government. 

It’s standard practice in large organizations around the globe. It’s also the essential 

theory behind site-managed schools and charter schools. 

And yet in federal education policy, we usually get it backwards. We obsess about 

process and pay minimal attention to results. 

NCLB’s architects believed, I think sincerely believed, that they were straightening this out, that NCLB was, above all, about results, with plenty of interventions 

and sanctions for those states, districts, and schools that didn’t produce them. But 

they didn’t get it right. I would even say they made a fundamental mistake. Rather 

than setting a common standard for school performance across the land and then 

encouraging states, districts, and schools to meet that standard in the ways that 

each judges best, they instructed states to define ‘‘proficiency’’ in reading and math 

as they saw fit—and then got very prescriptive about timelines, calculations of 

progress, and year-by-year interventions. 

Instead of regulating ends, in other words, Washington once again found itself 

regulating means, prescribing a hundred aspects of what states and districts should 

do when, by their own lights, their schools don’t do an adequate job. That means 

way too much regulation on the one hand and, on the other, plenty of incentive for 

states to define ‘‘proficiency’’ downward and make Swiss cheese out of NCLB’s accountability provisions. Already many states, in order to explain the discrepancy between their passing rates on state tests and their students’ performance on NAEP, 

are claiming that observers should equate state ‘‘proficiency’’ with NAEP’s ‘‘basic’’ 

level. In other words, they are satisfied to get their students to ‘‘basic,’’ proficiency 

be damned. A system that allows such cheese-paring and redefining puts the entire 

enterprise of standards-based-reform in peril. 

The surest way to end this such questionable practices—and keep Washington 

from playing a cat-and-mouse game with recalcitrant states—is to move to a system 

of national standards and tests, while simultaneously freeing states, districts, and 

schools to achieve those standards as they see fit. 

To be very clear, federal officials do not themselves need to, and in my view 

should not, create such national standards and tests themselves. But the federal 

government could require or encourage their use. 

What does this have to do with flexibility? Perhaps counter-intuitively, I see national standards and tests as an opportunity to rein in Uncle Sam’s more dictatorial 

and bureaucratic impulses. For forty years, Washington has sought to improve 

schools by regulating what they do. NCLB’s mandated cascade of interventions into 

low-performing schools, for example—a different one each year for seven consecutive 

years—illustrates this pattern of behavaior. (As for the parallel cascade of state 

interventions into low-performing districts, the less said the better. It’s a complex 

47

mandate that may best be described today as ‘‘ignored’’.) Another example: by requiring testing in just two subjects and resting its entire intervention-and-accountability edifice on those results, No Child Left Behind has exerted definite pressure 

on schools to restructure their curricula, emphasizing math and reading skills to the 

detriment of other subjects. To date, we can find scant evidence that this strategy 

works—and some hints that it’s backfiring. Schools are narrowing their curricula, 

neglecting already-proficient kids, lowering standards, and finagling test results. 

Common standards and tests would allow Uncle Sam to back away from his topdown, regulatory approach and settle instead for clarifying the objectives to be 

achieved, then measuring (and publicizing) whether states, schools, and students 

are in fact meeting them. 

If states were in fact willing to sign up for tougher national standards and tests, 

what process-type regulations would I be willing to trade? Here are three categories:I21• Spending restrictions. School principals rightfully want control over 

their budgets. Yet current federal policy sends dollars into a myriad of silos, categorical programs that may or may not meet the needs of individual communities. 

NCLB’s ‘‘transferability’’ provision began to address this problem by allowing states 

or school districts to shift funds from one silo to another, or into Title I. But it set 

a cap at 50 percent. President Bush and Congressman McKeon have it right when 

they call for expanding transferability to 100 percent, allowing states or districts to 

send all of their dollars into the Title I program and then ignore all rules and regulations for the other programs. This will cut red tape while also driving more federal 

dollars toward the needy students who need them the most. (I also favor Mr. 

McKeon’s call to expand eligibility for ‘‘schoolwide’’ programs within Title 

I.)I21• Staffing restrictions. The impulse behind No Child Left Behind’s ‘‘highly 

qualified teachers’’ provision is understandable. Teacher quality matters a lot, and 

most states have set miserably low standards for incoming teachers. Still, the mandate has created oodles of unintended consequences that need addressing. Fundamentally, it’s worth asking whether the federal government should concern itself 

with teacher credentials or should stay focused laser-like on student learning. I prefer the latter. (For a compromise idea, see below.)I21• The ‘‘School Improvement’’ 

Timeline. Sure, states should take action when low-performing schools fail to improve year after year. What’s not clear is whether NCLB’s rigid sequence of prescribed annual interventions (including choice and tutoring, corrective action and restructuring) is any better than those that states might devise. In my view, such actions are far likelier to succeed if decided as close as possible to the problem and 

on timetables that make sense to those who will be responsible for implementing 

them. Moreover, ample sunlight shining down on school/district/state performance 

vis-a-vis clearly specified national standards will give state and local officials (and 

voters, taxpayers, parents, etc) good information by which to repair their own 

schools. 

Rule #2: The Federal Government Should Figure Out What It’s Good At, Where It’s 

Most Spt to be Effective, and Only Do Those Things 

Another key pragmatic question is whether Washington itself has the capacity, 

the infrastructure, and the know-how to implement NCLB’s lofty expectations and 

detailed plans in an effective manner. Regrettably, the evidence is overwhelming 

that it does not. Nor will a change in Administration make much difference. That’s 

because of a structural flaw in U.S. education federalism that NCLB inherited from 

earlier rounds of ESEA. 

Back in 1965, when lawmakers’ main goal was to disburse federal dollars to 

schools for additional instructional services for poor kids, it made sense, indeed was 

practically inevitable, to hand those dollars down the familiar institutional ladder 

from Washington to state education agencies to local education agencies. That was 

how state and local monies already flowed and there was no reason to create another mechanism to move federal funds. While SEAs and LEAs weren’t always diligent in following Uncle Sam’s rules, it was in their interest to comply, if only because they and their schools then got the money, which came without so many 

strings as to disrupt what they were already doing. 

Today, however, getting Washington’s dollars to the right places is the lesser mission of ESEA/NCLB. The law now deploys its funds and their attendant conditions, 

regulations, state plans, and oversight mechanisms to transform the system in fundamental ways, above all to boost student achievement and hold schools (and districts and states) to account for whether or not they accomplish this. 

Thus arises a great paradox: Washington still relies primarily on SEAs and LEAs 

to do its bidding, yet now the point of federal programs is not to ‘‘help’’ them do 

more but to change what they do, often in ways they don’t much want to be 

changed. In ways they judge contrary to their own interests. Ways that include adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
48

mitting failure. And ways they may not be competent to handle, albeit ways that 

the public interest demands. 

Why do federal policy makers assume that the very agencies that caused the system’s problems (or, at least, allowed them to fester) now possess the will and capacity to solve them? The truth is, Congress and the White House never gave this any 

thought. At least I don’t think you did. When crafting NCLB, I believe the 

craftspeople simply clung to the assumption that has ruled ESEA for four decades: 

that working down the familiar food chain is how Washington does business in the 

K-12 sector. 

Thus NCLB proceeds in the accustomed sequence, with Uncle Sam telling states 

what to do, states telling districts, and districts doing most of the work. That hierarchy remains the basic architecture of federal education policy today as in LBJ’s 

time. But its engineers never pictured it supporting a results-based accountability 

system, making repairs to faltering schools, or functioning in an education environment peppered with such disruptive, non-hierarchical creations as charter schooling, 

home schooling, and distance learning. It’s as if a high-tech firm was officed in an 

old foundry without anyone bothering to re-wire, re-plumb, or even fumigate the 

structure. 

This problem begins in Washington. Let’s consider what NCLB has taught us 

about federal capacity: 

1. The federal government is not good at nuance. Consider the law’s complicated 

accountability and AYP provisions, for instance. The various design problems are legion, but they exist because of the principle that states must all be treated the 

same. Because some states were considered to be untrustworthy and unwilling to 

hold their schools accountable, especially for the performance of poor and minority 

students, all states were treated with suspicion. Thus the decision to mandate required elements of AYP, rather than setting broad parameters, which has led to constant cries for more flexibility. When laggard states complain about these prescriptive requirements, it’s easy to label it ‘‘whining.’’ But when leading states with welldeveloped accountability systems complain too, it’s a sign that the federal hammer 

might be breaking some things that weren’t previously broken. 

2. The federal government can force recalcitrant states and districts to do some 

things they don’t want to do, but it can’t force them to do those things well. Yes, 

Uncle Sam has had plenty of practice at the compliance game and, on issues that 

are black or white (are states testing all students as required, for example), it can 

intervene and even take away dollars from misbehaving jurisdictions. But most of 

the important parts of NCLB are gray zones. Take ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ or 

‘‘public school choice’’ or ‘‘restructuring.’’ In each of these areas, we’ve seen states 

and districts go through the motions without actually living up to the spirit of the 

law. Yet Washington is toothless to do much about it. That’s not a legislative failure, it’s a fact of organizational life. The federal government doesn’t run the schools 

or employ their teachers; it has limited ability to make these complicated functions 

go well. But ‘‘going through the motions’’ isn’t enough if we actually want to transform schools, and it fosters more cynicism. 

3. States and districts do respond to carrots. What the federal government is actually good at—beyond distributing money, collecting statistics, investigating specific 

wrong-doing, and doing research—is funding promising reforms via competitive 

grant programs. Consider the Teacher Incentive Fund, for example. While controversial in some eyes, it has spurred several large school districts to experiment 

with merit pay for teachers. Something that would not have happened, in all likelihood, without federal dollars. Or look at the decade-old federal Charter School Program, whose funds are targeted to states with decent charter school laws. There’s 

little doubt that federal leadership (first from President Clinton) played a key role 

in the charter movement’s development. (That the charter program needs a 

makeover doesn’t detract from the difference it has already made.) 

What lessons should Congress take from NCLB’s experience with federal capacity? First, even if you choose to continue to prescribe specific policies (such as AYP 

or Highly Qualified Teachers), aim for being clear about the ends and loose about 

the means. Take accountability, for example. If you don’t accept the virtues of national standards, at least be more flexible about states’ accountability systems. 

Rather than prescribing the exact nature of AYP, offer key design principles instead. 

Let states prove that their systems measure up. Secretary Spellings’ growth 

model pilot is a good example here. While she published a clear set of design principles and made states engage in a rigorous screening process, she didn’t mandate 

a single uniform approach to measuring growth. Not doing so makes a lot of sense. 

The second big lesson is that, if you want to see movement in a particular area, 

consider offering dollars to willing states and districts rather than mandating a 

49

course of action for the entire country. When it comes to school choice, for example, 

adopt a version of President Bush’s recommendation for a grant program for cities 

interested in expanding choice options, rather than forcing all 16,000 districts to go 

through the motions of offering choice when it’s perfectly obvious that many of them 

lack the capacity as well as the will. Or when it comes to ‘‘Highly Qualified and 

Effective Teachers,’’ look to Education Trust’s recommendation to offer willing states 

extra cash to experiment with a ‘‘value added’’ system for measuring teacher quality, rather than adopting the No Child Left Behind Commission’s suggestion of a 

nationwide mandate. 

Rule #3: The Federal Government Should Encourage States, Districts, and Schools 

to ‘‘Earn’’ Even More Autonomy on the Basis of Strong Performance 

‘‘Earned autonomy’’ is an idea whose time has come. Increasingly superintendents 

(in Chicago, Las Vegas, New York City, etc.) are allowing schools to apply for greater freedom from central office. Those with a track record of improving student 

achievement qualify. 

This same idea has made inroads in the charter-school domain. While charters 

have always been about ‘‘accountability in return for autonomy,’’ increasingly their 

sponsors (including my own Fordham Foundation) understand that autonomy is 

something to be granted carefully. Once upon a time, some of us in the charter 

movement thought we should plant as many seeds as possible as quickly as possible 

and let a thousand flowers bloom; after all, we could always close them down. It 

turns out that closing schools is far harder than we thought. And we’ve witnessed 

many charter schools founder (or worse) because their leaders weren’t prepared to 

work with the autonomy they had been given. So now conscientious sponsors screen 

applicants very carefully, just as venture capital firms screen prospective business 

start-ups. And only when a founding team proves that it is worthy of a charter and 

the concomitant autonomy is the green light given. We also reward charter schools 

for good performance by granting longer charters, hassling them less, and encouraging their replication. (The leash is shorter for low-performing schools.) 

The appeal of this idea is obvious: It encourages good behavior (especially improved achievement), it recognizes that some entities are more capable of handling 

autonomy better than others, and it minimizes risk. 

How could this principle be imported into federal policy? Here’s what it might look 

like:I21• Grant greater flexibility to states that sign up for rigorous national standards and tests, or put their own rigorous system in place. As explained above, this 

flexibility could include expanding the funding ‘‘transferability’’ provision, waiving 

the school improvement timeline, etc.I21• Allow states with vigorous interventions 

greater AYP flexibility. Rather than trying to prescribe the exact sort of overhaul 

that states should serve up for failing schools, reward states that are engaging in 

effective reforms by giving them more leeway in defining their accountability 

metrics as they see fit. For instance, states that energetically provide school choice 

options to kids stuck in failing schools—by creating new charter schools for them 

to attend, or mandating inter-district transfers, or in other ways—might be allowed 

more discretion to differentiate sanctions for truly abysmal schools versus merely 

mediocre ones.I21• Allow schools that make AYP to ignore HQT. This is a particularly powerful idea. Improving teacher quality is necessary condition for boosting 

student achievement. But even the supporters of the ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ provision admit that it’s a poor proxy for school quality and classroom effectiveness, 

and that it’s overly focused on paper credentials. So reward schools for getting great 

results by allowing them greater flexibility around staffing. To continue making 

AYP, schools will continue to make good decisions around teachers, but with less 

red tape from Washington. (This is especially important for high-performing charter 

schools, which are supposed to be freed from regulations in return for results, but 

are wrapped in the law’s subject matter and certification requirements just like everyone else.) 

Conclusion 

You may have entered this hearing room contemplating some kind of new ‘‘flexibility program’’ for NCLB. I’m here to urge you to think more broadly, to ponder 

just where the federal government should be prescriptive and where it should be 

flexible. I hope you consider some of my specific proposals. I believe four of these 

have particular merit: 

1. Encouraging states to adopt rigorous national standards and tests, and in return granting them greater flexibility around spending (by expanding ‘‘transferability ’’) and staffing (by waiving ‘‘highly qualified teachers ’’). 

2. Moving federal requirements for state accountability plans away from prescriptive and pre-determined actions to more open-ended design principles. Be clear 

50

about the end-result you want, accountability-wise, but flexible in terms of the specifics. 

3. Reducing the number of mandates on states, districts, and schools, and instead 

offering competitive grants to entities willing to experiment with promising practices. In this category I would even include the law’s ‘‘public school choice’’ provisions. 

4. Allowing schools that make AYP to ignore HQT. At the end of the day you care 

about results, and good schools will ensure high-quality teachers. This show of goodwill and flexibility might go a long way. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. We will be right back. 

We have two votes. We will be right back. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman KILDEE. We should have an hour at least now without 

interruptions. Thank you, Checker, for finishing your testimony. 

Jack, you discussed the need to improve the quality of data 

under NCLB. Can you discuss what data a State would need to collect, to implement and evaluate a sound growth model? 

Mr. JENNINGS. I have to make a correction in my statement. It 

is page 82, not page 81. 

Chairman KILDEE. That is all right. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Alice Cain, Congressman Miller’s staff person, 

said what page can we rip out. 

Chairman KILDEE. That will be on the record now. 

Mr. JENNINGS. We have issued a report several weeks ago about 

State departments of education. And we think of State departments of education as the agencies that carry out Federal law. But 

they are primarily State agencies and they have enormous responsibilities that we don’t pay much attention to from the Federal 

level. And these State departments of education are severely restrained in terms of person power, in terms of funding. They just 

need much better support if they are going to help improve education. In fact, we find local school districts go to State departments of education more than any other agencies and yet they are 

handicapped because they don’t have enough personnel. And what 

is happening is State departments of education are being converted 

into assistive agencies where they are starting to help local school 

districts more to bring about improvement and they need help with 

this transition. So we recommended in this other report that States 

get just an encouragement grant from the Federal Government because they are State agencies and have State leaders to help 

rethink State departments of education because they are finding all 

sorts of problems like with data. What is happening is if they get 

some good data people the technology companies come in and hire 

those people away because they can pay them more money. And yet 

from the Federal level and even at the State level legislatures are 

telling State departments of education to have better data systems, 

collect more data, make more data available to the public, but they 

are severely restrained in trying to do that. 

So I would urge the Congress to pay some attention to the condition of State departments of education as the agencies that provide 

all this data and help them get up to the task, and that includes 

the growth model. The growth model if it is enacted, and it sounds 

like there is considerable support for it, is going to require the genVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
51

eration and use of a large amount of data. And if it is going to be 

used intelligently the States need help in using that data, but also 

local school districts and teachers are going to need help in interpreting that data to use it to the best effect. 

Chairman KILDEE. Right now under AYP we test at, say, the 

third grade in school A and then the next year we test the third 

grade but they are different students because the third graders are 

now for the most part fourth graders, and we say that the third 

grade has not reached AYP. To take one form of the growth model 

you would actually follow the child and see how much that individual child has grown. Is that feasible or possible to have a growth 

model where you actually see how much each individual has grown 

to determine whether the school is making progress? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, that is feasible. However, it costs money. Because you have to have data systems, computer systems, and so on, 

you have to have identifiers for students, you have to be able to follow the students through their career. But if we really think education is important we should pay attention to every individual student and try to help every individual student. And the best way to 

do that is to be able to follow that student as the student goes 

through his or her own career. And it is a much fairer way to judge 

a teacher’s performance to see how they have done with individual 

students as they go through school. 

Chairman KILDEE. Health care seems to be ahead of education 

on that, is it not? While not perfect, you can generally follow the 

patient and get the records and follow better than what we do with 

students? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, the trend now in health care is for doctors 

to have hand-held computers and bring up the records of their patients as they are visiting them and be able to go through all their 

records as they visit them. Teachers should be able to do the same 

thing. They should be able to use hand-held computers, use other 

technological advances and help kids in individualized instruction. 

One of the problems with all this accountability is that we are 

generalizing everything with accountability tests that we are not 

paying attention to the individual children to help them improve, 

and we have to rethink that. 

Chairman KILDEE. How much time do I have? I will ask one 

more question here. We have the NAPE test and each State has 

their own standards and their own test. And while probably this 

Congress would never want to apply the NAPE test across the 

board to every State to every student, can we use the NAPE test 

to test the State test. 

Checker, do you want to tackle that? 

Mr. FINN. Yes, sir. The new NCES report out today does a 

version of that using NAPE to compare State cut-off scores, State 

proficiency levels, in fourth and eighth grade reading and math. 

And it gives us a clearer calibration than I have ever seen before 

of relative levels of difficulty in State expectations on their own 

tests compared to NAPE. I think this kind of thing should be done 

all the time. If we are not going to have a national standard, which 

I think would be preferable, then at the very least we ought to 

have a whole lot of visibility of just how hard is Ohio’s fourth grade 

standard versus Indiana’s versus NAPE’s. 

52

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. Anyone else have any 

comment on that? I defer to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions actually, Mr. Jennings. Not so much a question. I guess a 

comment. I appreciate the fact that you said we should be very 

careful about some kind of causal relationship. I am a former college teacher. I used statistics in my dissertation. That doesn’t make 

me an expert by any means, but I am very aware of not drawing 

some kind of causal relationship. Just because some things are associated or whatever the case may be and using only 13 States out 

of 50 States, I am just very cautious about drawing conclusions. So 

I appreciate your caution as well. And that is just a comment more 

than anything else, but would you like to elaborate a little bit? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, let me point out that we drew conclusions 

about pre and post-NCLB results from 13 States because they were 

the only ones that had data. However, we had data on 50 States 

and we had varying amounts of data on 50 States. On 50 States 

we had proficiency data. On 41 States we would have proficiency 

data and elementary. On 48 States proficiency data and something 

else. So we had large amounts of data on many States. But what 

we did was very strictly apply rules so that we had comparable 

data across years. So we would eliminate some States if they 

changed their tests. Thirty-seven States since 2002 have changed 

their tests in some way or another, either adopted a new test, put 

in a different cut-off score or whatever. So we are very careful to 

use comparable data across States. 

Since you have somewhat of a scientific background or a research 

background, whatever you do you get criticized. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Of course. 

Mr. JENNINGS. On this we tried to be purer than pure and make 

sure that everything we said was sound, and then we were criticized because we didn’t use data that would have made us less 

pure because the data wasn’t comparable. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I think you stepped into a huge minefield just by 

trying to determine whether NCLB has had any effect or not. 

Mr. JENNINGS. One of the reasons we did that is that that is the 

important question. And we felt that if we didn’t try, and this was 

an ideologically mixed expert panel that had varying points of 

view, that had deep expertise, we got nearly $1 million that we 

used for this, we did it for 18 months, we got the cooperation of 

50 States, we felt if we didn’t do this and try to answer that question then anybody in the world could stand up and give their opinion without any necessary data and say whatever they wanted to 

say. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And they still will, as you know. 

Mr. JENNINGS. They still will, but I have been around for a long 

time and I felt that it was our duty to try to answer the question 

in the best way possible and put it out there. I hope it is not misused. But we tried our darnedest. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Secretary Melmer, as was already said, I am from Iowa, not 

much bigger than South Dakota, but we only have 3 million people 

and my wife was a long-time second grade school teacher. And the 

53

issue of teacher quality obviously came up in our house quite a bit 

and with a lot of her friends. And I could hardly go to a social 

event without hearing about NCLB and all the rest. That is why 

I am on this committee, by the way, in large part. 

But the whole teacher quality issue, can you elaborate on that, 

because obviously places like South Dakota, States in particular 

that might have smaller populations, a smaller population base, 

maybe rural areas, it is very difficult, is it not, to attract quality 

teachers? And if that is the case then how—I mean the challenges 

it seems to me presented by NCLB are just that much greater. Is 

that true? 

Mr. MELMER. Yes, it is true. As I mentioned in my testimony, 45 

districts with less than 200 students in the entire school district, 

which means that you are talking about high school teachers that 

have to teach more than one discipline, in some cases three disciplines, depending on their background and preparation, and then 

you turn that into probably three to four to five different what we 

call preps—your wife would be familiar with that term—and that 

just makes it very, very difficult to be highly qualified in all of 

those areas. 

At the same time we are having a hard time recruiting high 

school teachers anyway to come to a rural area to be paid a salary 

that sometimes some people would say is substandard, and then to 

throw on a bunch of additional requirements is challenging. At the 

same time we don’t want to run away from the idea. We want our 

teachers to be prepared and ready to go. There just may have to 

be some consideration given to a waiver or some sort of a provision 

for a State that is really struggling to make all ends meet to allow 

us to continue to do the best job we can without necessarily having 

to follow all the letters of the law. 

And Mr. Finn referenced the idea of if our results are good, 

maybe that should be some dispensation to say you don’t have to 

follow all the guidelines if you are getting all the results. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. My time has expired, but I just want to make one 

last comment. I was happy to see that the Iowa Department of 

Education did get its growth model approved by the Department of 

Education recently. But thanks to all of you for being here today. 

I appreciate it. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Johnson, can you 

tell us what the percentage of your administrative paperwork is attributable to the Federal education requirements and what to the 

State and local education requirements? And then what portion of 

the Federal paperwork that your staff has completed is related to 

student performance? Everybody is always complaining about all 

the increased paperwork for No Child Left Behind. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Congressman, members of the committee, I did 

not come prepared to calibrate for you exactly how much paperwork is involved in both either the Federal or the State. I will say 

that we certainly do a great deal of paperwork associated with submitting reports based on the report we have to give to the State 

for No Child Left Behind. And then because we have schools that 

have been a high priority we have to submit plans for each of those 

schools. Now, of course we would be doing that kind of accountVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
54

ability reporting about each school’s improvement plan probably 

with or without No Child Left Behind. But I think that there are 

some provisions that we have to report on, not just for regular ed, 

but I think especially special education where our staff would say 

the paperwork consumes a great deal of the time. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Secretary Melmer, could you address that? 

Mr. MELMER. In terms of the amount of paperwork, well, I have 

been in the State education agency for 4 years, and I am being told 

that it is by far more today than it was prior to my arrival at the 

department. In terms of the amount of time that we spend, the volume, I am unsure about that as well. I always have to be a little 

cautious about estimating because I am afraid I would be wrong. 

But I also understand because we at the State level do it to our 

local districts, I would assume if you had one of the superintendents from South Dakota here he or she would say the State gives 

us way too much paperwork and we don’t have time to do all of 

it. 

I understand at the Federal level if you expect results then you 

need to expect accountability to go with that. And as long as the 

Federal Government is continuing to provide dollars for State education, agencies are going to expect some accountability in return. 

So we try to balance all that out. But I think it is safe to say that 

the amount of Federal and State paperwork has increased over the 

last 3 or 4 years. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Dr. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I want to add one comment because if you looked 

on page 7 where we had revamped the school improvement, one 

thing that I think is a savings in paperwork, the way it is done 

now every year you are doing another school improvement plan as 

if you have got to start all over. The 3-year planning actually assumes that you are working with the same plan trying to make it 

better and you are focusing on those goals over time. So I think 

that some of the modifications that you can make even around the 

school improvement process that we have outlined would reduce 

the amount of teachers and principals having to resubmit a new 

plan every year. They are working on that same plan over a 3-year 

period to improve. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

In Illinois I have been holding some roundtables and talking to 

teachers and talking to superintendents and then actually just the 

public, and one of the issues that people seem to really want to 

know more about or that they would like to have in their schools 

is the growth models. Is there somebody here who already—I know 

it is only, I think, two States—is there somebody here that has had 

to develop the growth model? 

Ms. STRAUS. In Michigan we have not applied to use it. It has 

taken a very long time to develop the data system. As Mr. Jennings 

said, it is very complicated. And we have been working on this for 

a number of years and we are at the point now where we would 

be ready to apply for the growth model, and we would like to use 

it because we think it is a much better way of measuring. But it 

has taken us a long time. And I think a big State with so many 

students, we have 1.7 million students. Each individual record in 

55

that system is much more difficult to develop than any of us 

thought would be the case. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Just one last thing. 

The NAPE test. Have your schools been taking that test? I would 

just like to know what you think of it. Was it what you expected 

with the results versus the AYP? 

Mr. MELMER. Yes. The NAPE exam is administered to grades 4 

and 8 across the country. It is my understanding that all 50 States 

do participate in NAPE. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. But it depends on the schools? 

Mr. MELMER. Yes. Right. Correct. It is a sprinkling of students 

in every State. We certainly value the NAPE results in South Dakota. We think it gives us a third leg to the three-legged stool. We 

have our Dakota Step Test, which is our NCLB test. We have our 

ACT. In South Dakota, we give the ACT, which is sort of that regional postsecondary preparation exam. Then we look at the NAPE 

as being sort of that national comparison so that when we are at 

times criticized, saying ‘‘Your State test results look good, but how 

do you do at the national level?’’ we are prepared to come back and 

say, ‘‘Well, here at the NAPE, here are how our fourth and eighth 

grade students do.’’ it is just that we have to be cautious about the 

NAPE, and that it is not designed to match State standards; it is 

certainly just a different type of exam, and so we look at it that 

way, but it certainly is one more measure that a State can look at 

to determine whether, in fact, their students are getting a good 

education. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. In terms of the value-added model, Dr. Sanders’ 

model, it is used statewide. In addition to the status scores that the 

school districts get, each year we get graded in the core subject 

areas of the test based on value added, but what they do is they 

take a 3-year average, and so they look at the scores over a 3-year 

period, and they give you grades A to F, and that is reported on 

the State Web site per school. 

The other part of the value added is they track and try to connect student results with teacher effects, and so each year the 

teachers get a teacher effects’ score for how well the students—and 

again, this is over a 3-year period—have done. Principals have access to the data. One of the difficulties is that the teacher effects’ 

score, based on State law, is not allowed to be used as part of the 

teacher performance review process. 

We also use—we give or have in the past given the TSAT to all 

of our tenth graders, which is a preliminary SAT, and this year we 

are changing. We are giving the score tests at eighth grade, which 

is a preliminary ACT. We are giving planned tests at tenth, and 

then we are trying to get all of our students to take the ACT so 

that we have, in addition to the State assessment tools, some sense 

of how kids might do on another test. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the good hearing. 

It is nice to see you, Jack. 

Mr. JENNINGS. How are you? 

56

Ms. WOOLSEY. Fine, thanks. 

Jack—Mr. Jennings—I want you to answer this also and think 

about it, but I am going to start with Dr. Johnson. 

Because we are hearing how many school districts are cutting 

back on history and geography and art and music and PE, I am 

really concerned that No Child Left Behind has led us to ignore the 

whole child; but it appears that you have been able to maintain a 

vibrant music program in Memphis at the same time as improving 

your AYP performance scores. 

What can you tell us about how you have been able to sustain, 

and what can we learn from this important success? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, let me just say quickly that I think this is 

an area where President Straus and I do agree very strongly on the 

importance of having music and arts programs for student engagement. Also, if you look at the standards that have been set by the 

corporate community, they want people who are creative, who are 

innovative, who can think outside the box, and we believe that the 

arts and music programs give those skills preparations that are 

necessary. 

We use best practice, which is common planning time, and what 

we do is, in order to give teachers common planning time, we are 

employing people like music and art teachers to provide that release time so that those teachers, as a group of teachers who are 

working together with a group of students who are not doing well, 

can have the time to plan. And so we have not eliminated music 

and arts. In fact, we emphasize it as an important way to promote 

student engagement. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So, President Straus, would you just be saying, 

‘‘Me, too,’’ or do you want to add to that? 

Ms. STRAUS. Yes, thank you. 

We are very concerned about that. We think that the loss of creativity is really a great loss. And I was in China last year with a 

group of educators, and all they wanted to know is how do you 

teach creativity? And the restrictions that we put—and so much 

emphasis is put on testing and emphasizing the math and English, 

which is important, but it should not be to the exclusion of everything else, not only music and art and other arts, but what you 

raised about history and government and geography. I am a strong 

proponent—our whole board is—of social studies and the importance of civic education, and I have had the privilege of attending 

several of the congressional conferences on civic education, and I 

commend Congress for focusing on that because I think that is absolutely critical. It was one of the foundations of why we have public education, and I think that we put so much emphasis on the 

testing and on those major subjects that we do not have enough 

time for the others. But in Michigan, our own State accreditation 

system does test and does require social studies, and we do test in 

social studies as well. I know that is sort of contradictory, to test 

more, but we figure, if we do not test it, it is not going to get 

taught under the current system. So we are very concerned about 

that. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So, Mr. Jennings, you have some really important 

studies that you have referred to. Would those studies in any way 

indicate whether we are losing our whole child focus? 

57

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. In several weeks we are issuing another 

study where we ask a national sample of school districts how many 

minutes they spend on each curriculum subject and whether that 

has changed over the last number of years, and so we also ask 

them a number of other questions about instruction and curriculum, and we will issue that report towards the end of the 

month. We wanted to go beyond assertions to get data, and this is 

the same type of national sample of school districts. There are over 

400 school districts. It is the same type of sample the U.S. Department of Education uses and others use, and we ask them very precise questions at the elementary level, the middle level, and the 

high school level, by subject area, and estimate the number of minutes. So we will have information in a short while. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. We need that ASAP. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Kuhl. He passes. 

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all of you for being here as well. 

I wanted to go to you, Mr. Jennings, to just quickly talk about 

data collection, and I think you mentioned the need to be doing 

this. And yet at the same time, school districts and States are really strapped to do that. 

In California we have been pretty slow, actually, in data collection overall. So I am just wondering, how do we do that? Is it to 

require more of States that they need more resources to do that? 

What do you think ought to be done? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, you know, every time somebody in elected 

office says you have to have more accountability, it transfers into 

a form that a local official has to fill out, and so we just have to 

recognize that. As national leaders and, I hope, State leaders, if 

you think of what you want to demand from people to get accountability, you have to think of the consequences. So I would hope 

that—and this is a perennial problem with government programs, 

but it is also a problem in private industry, too. I would hope that 

you would look at the law and figure out what you really need and 

what you do not need. I think you need test data, and I think you 

need test data all the way down the line, but you also need to 

spend some money to help school districts collect this data in the 

correct way. You need money to help States to make sure that they 

do it in the correct way, and you need some money for teachers so 

that they can understand the data to bring about improvement. 

What is happening now with States is, with all this accountability, you know, testing in grades 3 through 8 and once in high 

school, some States have gone from higher-quality tests to lesser 

quality tests because they had to go from a few tests to a lot of 

tests, and they did not get the additional money they needed to 

have high-quality tests across the board. So you have to be aware 

of the fact that every time you ask for something, you have to think 

of the repercussions down the line. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Do you think that designating that 

money only for tests is a wise——

58

Mr. JENNINGS. Congress has made a good start in that it has 

designated a pot of money to the States for tests. But what is happening now is, as a consequence of all this accountability testing, 

you are leading to a booming in what is called a ‘‘formative testing’’ 

because teachers cannot use this accountability testing. The test results do not arrive in time for them to use it to change education. 

So what they are doing is they are putting in more testing during 

the school year, which is not for accountability but for diagnostic 

purposes, so that they can understand where kids are as they proceed along, so that by the time they hit the accountability test they 

will be ready. Which means they are spending more money for testing, but this is for testing they think is useful rather than just for 

accountability. 

So we have to think through the consequences of what we ask 

for, and once we ask for them as a Nation, we have to make sure 

that States and local school districts have the money to do it and 

that they do it in a way where they can use the information to improve education. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Do any of you want to comment on 

that? 

Ms. STRAUS. I mean one of the difficulties, too, is that I think in 

many cases, students are doing better on State tests than they are 

on NAPE, for example, and so there is a concern that there is a 

disconnect there. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MELMER. And I would agree that you are probably going to 

see students do better on the State tests, oftentimes because it is 

matched directly to the State standards, and teachers know the 

standards and are teaching to those standards in the classroom 

versus the NAPE, which is more of a general exam and does not 

match up as well. 

We do have a good model in place in our country right now in 

terms of addressing some of the things that Mr. Jennings mentioned. The NAPE program places a NAPE coordinator in every 

State, and that coordinator’s job is to help facilitate the administration of that test and also to work with the national NAPE office 

on how the test works and all the recruitment and articulation of 

that test. We think CCSSO has always had discussions, and I 

think the U.S. Department is actually open to discussions about 

this topic where a data collection person could be placed in every 

State education agency, funded at least in part by the U.S. Department of Education, so that way, uniform training could go on; at 

least a consistency in language could take place, and we could 

begin to coordinate that effort at the national level rather than allowing every State to kind of have its own set of rules and regulations. 

So we do see some potential solutions on the horizon. It is a matter of investing some dollars in that area. As Mr. Jennings said, 

if you expect it, then you have to sort of let the money follow that 

expectation. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Right. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Could I comment on the comparison between 

State test scores and NAPE? 

59

The reason you have a disparity is for two reasons, principally. 

One is any test is a reflection of a curriculum or of standards. The 

NAPE test is a reflection of national standards, which, in a way, 

is a national curriculum, and State tests are a reflection of State 

standards or State curriculum. The two do not match up. 

In Texas, for instance, they do not teach math in the way that 

is anticipated in the national math standards that are embedded 

in NAPE, and they get different results, therefore, because they are 

testing to something different. Texas has decided they want to test 

math ‘‘this way,’’ but the national assessment says they are going 

to measure it ‘‘this way.’’

The second reason you have a difference in results is that no one 

child takes a full NAPE test. You have NAPE tests taken by different groups of children. There are no consequences. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Do you see us ever aligning that? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, there are bills in Congress—Senator Kennedy has one, Senator Dodd has one—to give funding to States to 

encourage them to move in the direction of adopting national 

standards as part of this reauthorization. That is a debate you are 

going to have, and that is what Mr. Finn was recommending, some 

consideration of national standards or an encouragement towards 

a national direction. But if you do not do that, you have to understand you will always have a discrepancy because of the curriculum 

matter, but also because of the motivation. 

Kids know State tests count because teachers tell them, and 

there is all the pressure that is there to raise the State test scores. 

With NAPE, there is not that pressure, so kids do not put in the 

effort in NAPE that they put into State tests, and that is going to 

have an effect on results also. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Finn. 

Mr. FINN. He left out the other big possible explanation for this 

discrepancy, which is that a lot of States have made it very easy 

to pass their State tests. And if you are seeing in a given State that 

the State says 70 percent of its fourth graders are proficient and 

NAPE says 27 percent of its fourth graders are proficient in that 

same subject in that same State, it might be because the States 

made it really easy to be defined as ‘‘proficient.’’

This is not necessarily a good thing for the people of that State. 

It might even be termed ‘‘misleading’’ for the people in that State 

to be told that their kids are proficient when, by national or world 

standards, they actually are not. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Go ahead. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for not 

being here sooner. If these questions have been asked or discussed, 

I apologize for reasking, but I am very interested in this. 

One of the things I have heard universally back in my district 

from educators and from parents are the problems with our kids 

in special ed and the IDEA group. I guess I have a question for 

you, President Straus, and maybe also for you, Mr. Jennings, and 

maybe for the whole panel. And I think probably one of the biggest 

challenges that we have had on this committee is, you know, figuring out what to do and how we are going to change this and 

make it work. 

60

How do we ensure that this group, especially that 2 percent that 

has cognitive abilities, is not left behind and held accountable while 

appropriately being tested? Is the problem that we just do not have 

enough data for the subgroup of students? So I am just sort of interested in, from your perspective, if you were advising us—which 

you are—you know, what can we do to make this work better for 

that group of students and educators? 

Ms. STRAUS. Thank you. We are very concerned about that, because in Michigan we have special education from birth to age 26, 

and we want to keep that. But we also have people moving into our 

State with special needs children because we have a good program, 

so we have a higher percentage than many other States, and we 

think that the limit of 1 percent or 2 percent is not fair. It does 

not work right, and we would like to see that change. 

That is one of the recommendations that we have, that students 

with disabilities should be assessed appropriately. We do not think 

they are now. A higher percentage, maybe, than 2 percent should 

be allowed if you can justify it and if you can really show that you 

have that many students. So that is one of the things that we are 

concerned about. 

Mr. JENNINGS. If I could comment on that, too. 

You have hit upon a very sensitive issue, and this is what teachers complain about throughout the country, and it is hurting No 

Child Left Behind because they are saying that No Child Left Behind, by holding these two groups of students to these standards, 

is making the whole goal not accomplishable. And so I would spend 

a considerable amount of time thinking through what you are going 

to do with these two groups. With children who are learning 

English—but let me start out by saying, with both groups, No 

Child Left Behind has led to much greater attention to their academic performance than ever before. 

Children who are learning English are getting much greater attention in learning English and with academics than before. Children with disabilities are getting much greater attention. So what 

we have is a situation where there is a good being achieved—namely, these two groups are getting more attention—but they are being 

tested inappropriately, and teachers are complaining about the inappropriate testing. And so I think you are going to have to put 

much more flexibility in both of those areas. 

One possibility with the English-learning students is that you 

combine two objectives—one is learning English, and the other is 

learning academic content—and you take kids who are new to the 

country or who do not know English, and you put most of the 

weight on their learning English. And then as they stay in school, 

you gradually shift the weight towards the academic content so you 

have a combined index. So that by the time you have gone several 

years, they have not only been measured on how they have learned 

English, but they have also been measured on the academic content. But you do not measure them on the academic content when 

they do not understand English and, therefore, cannot do well on 

the test. That is one possibility. 

With children with disabilities, we had a meeting of the major 

organizations in Washington on the disability issue, and they told 

us there is no scientific basis for this 1 percent rule or this 2 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:30 Apr 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-46\35664.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
61

cent rule. These are just numbers that were chosen. I think in that 

area, you are going to have to give more flexibility so that individual children are given attention, so that there is more attention 

paid to the individual abilities of children to do well on tests, 

whether they should be held to the same standards or whether 

they should be tested the same way, and figure out some way so 

that it is more personalized than it is today. 

Otherwise, what you are going to have with this 1 percent/2 percent rule are States just putting enough children in to amount to 

1 percent or amount to 2 percent, and they will be called ‘‘2 percent 

children’’ and ‘‘1 percent children.’’ they are an arbitrary number. 

You have to pay attention to the individual needs of these kids 

much more, I think. 

Mr. HARE. Dr. Johnson, I was just wondering if you have any 

thoughts beyond any of the other panelists, because I know this is 

very important to me. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, I do think that, including special needs and 

ELL, students have improved significantly the focus—and that is 

an important focus—but I will say that in urban districts in particular, the higher number and higher percentage of students with 

special needs usually means that in the urban areas, we reach the 

threshold cutoff, and in some smaller districts they do not reach it. 

So it is more likely you will see that urban districts get identified 

more quickly in the way it is set up and not making adequate yearly progress for special needs students. 

I know in our county, even though we are not the only district 

in our county, as for the students with special needs, particularly 

the low-incidence population—if they are blind or deaf—we serve 

them all because some of the smaller districts cannot. 

What you do not want as an unintended consequence is, you do 

not want districts to refuse or act like they do not want to serve 

these kids because they do not want to be on the list when you can 

have some efficiency in serving deaf children in a more concentrated way than if every little district had to do that that is in 

close proximity. 

So I think it is important for you to be very careful about the 

sanctions when these kids deserve a good education, and you do 

not want to incent people not to be accepting of the diversity of students’ needs that exist in our community. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

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

Let’s see. President Straus, many educators have called for the 

use of multiple measures to assess school districts and schools 

under No Child Left Behind. 

Can you discuss additional factors that you believe ought to be 

taken into consideration in determining a school’s effectiveness, in 

addition to the test currently used? 

Ms. STRAUS. Thank you very much for that question. We think 

it is not right to measure schools and students based on one test 

on a given day, and we think there are other things that should 

be taken into account. 

62

In our own accreditation system, we look at what else is being 

taught, what is being taught in the school. Are they providing social studies? Are they providing arts? Are they looking at other—

are they looking at the other subjects that are being considered? 

What is the graduation rate? What is the dropout rate? Is there parental involvement? What is the relationship with the community? 

All of these things go into measuring a school. When you walk 

into a school, you do not know whether—you can tell whether the 

school is a good school when you walk into it, and partly it is because of the parental involvement; it is the quality of the teachers; 

it is all of these things that should be taken into account when you 

are measuring how good a school is. And it is not just a given test 

on a given day. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Would anyone else like to respond? 

I am trying to think back—and maybe you could think back, 

too—as to how we were assessed. I mean we had regular tests, but 

I do not remember too many of these high-stakes tests in the 

fourth grade or in the sixth grade or—you know, maybe out of elementary school, perhaps, or something like that. And all of my 

classmates seemed to have learned—I mean I am excluding me, 

perhaps—but they did well without these high-stakes tests. 

So I think there needs to be—I mean we are all for accountability, but it seems that there are other ways to measure achievement than that. 

But I just have another quick question for—Dr. Johnson, is it? 

Just rushing through everyone’s testimony here quickly, I did notice that you talked about flexibility and so forth, and you talked 

about recruitment support, employment of staff in high-poverty districts. And this is really something that I sound like a broken 

record with, about the opportunity to learn; that youngsters need 

the opportunity to learn, and they are not given the opportunity to 

learn when they have inexperienced teachers. And as we know, the 

system just tends to put good teachers or better teachers into a situation they feel is better because that’s what, you know, seniority 

does. 

So do you have any thoughts on how we could have incentives, 

or, to kind of turn that around so that the schools in most need 

do not continually get the least experienced teachers? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Congressman, what we have done in Memphis—

and I can speak to that—is we have fresh-started, reconstituted, 12 

schools. We negotiated a separate agreement with our collective 

bargaining group so that we could hire people totally out of seniority order. We created two incentives, a front-end incentive and a 

back-end incentive. 

The front-end incentive was to give people 2 more weeks of pay, 

but they had to participate in the professional development that we 

design to work in that school, and the principal was able to hire 

anybody whom he wanted to hire. We took very careful consideration of who the principal was, clearly. 

Then the back-end incentive was if they made progress, they could get anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 in additional compensation. Now, this was very targeted, in a pilot way, at the schools 

that were in high priority that we had reconstituted. 

63

I do think incentives matter. I do not think that teachers necessarily go into education to necessarily—they have never thought 

about these kinds of reward systems. But I think that it is important for us to rethink the connection between student performance 

and giving teachers rewards and recognition, especially as it relates to making sure that we have teacher induction and mentoring 

programs. The kind of flexibility that I think we are asking for, 

both in terms of transferability and in other ways within the No 

Child Left Behind, would give us the flexibility to spend dollars in 

ways that I think would create incentives and support for teachers 

in the profession. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KILDEE. I was talking to Mrs. Biggert here. I will 

maybe throw one more question out here, and all of you can answer it. 

I think both Dr. Finn and Jack, you have touched on it and 

talked about it, but NAPE and many or most State tests are testing to different standards or to a different curriculum. Should we 

in this reauthorization do some things to encourage States to bring 

their tests so they are testing against a more common curriculum 

or standard? 

We will start with you. 

Mr. FINN. ‘‘Yes, sir’’ is the answer. 

The variability in State standards has not led to good standards 

in America. My foundation reviews State academic standards approximately every 5 years and, to be perfectly honest, most of them 

are thoroughly mediocre in terms of what they actually expect kids 

to learn. Then you add to that the problem of variable State expectations on their own tests, and the result is something akin to 

chaos that a big, modern, competitive country should not tolerate. 

And while I doubt that you could or should even create a compulsory national standard or test, I think to have a voluntary version 

that you incentivize States to join in with, leaving them the option 

of staying out if they would rather, would be a very, very, very important reform in this next round of NCLB. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Jack, and then I will let the rest of you give your views. 

Mr. JENNINGS. My view is I do not think we are going to get a 

national curriculum in this country, and I do not think the Congress is going to be able to mandate a national curriculum or to 

mandate national standards. 

If you want the States to have higher standards, I think you are 

going to have to make it attractive to them by giving them financial incentives or by giving them regulatory relief. And you, at a 

minimum, will have to help them pay for rethinking their standards in order to align them with national standards, and that is 

what Senator Kennedy’s bill does; that is what Senator Dodd’s bill 

does. 

Chairman KILDEE. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Every one of our students will take a college entrance exam, either the ACT or the SAT, and if they go to a community college, 

they will take some kind of entrance exam that will place them either in a remedial or in a regular English course. So I think that 

64

from that perspective—that is the perspective I come with—not to 

prepare them to be able to enter college and be successful and have 

some notion that their diploma means something is problematic. 

So, while I do not think that I am talking about a national curriculum, I do think that a lot of the States—for example, when the 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics defined their standards, a lot of States modified their standards to be in alignment 

with them. And so I think we have to look at these things. 

Now, the Council of the Great City Schools has nine districts 

that are testing a larger sampling of NAPE so that there are more 

kids in those urban districts—New York, Boston. So I think that 

supporting some of those pilots where we would get a greater sampling, we would be able to do some comparability across State 

lines. But the kids are still going to have to get into college or postsecondary education, and there are not a lot of hoops that are different for them to get there. 

Chairman KILDEE. You know, Jack, you were here, I think, in my 

first term that I was here. We established——

Mr. JENNINGS. I welcomed you. 

Chairman KILDEE [continuing]. The U.S. Department of Education, and I think we put language in there actually saying that 

the Federal Government would not establish a national curriculum. 

Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct. 

Chairman KILDEE. That language is still in there. 

Mr. JENNINGS. And it was repeated in the reauthorization that 

is the No Child Left Behind Act. Federal officials cannot dictate 

curriculum at the local level. 

Chairman KILDEE. When you set standards, you are kind of moving towards touching curriculum, though, are you not? 

Mr. JENNINGS. What is happening now is we have an extremely 

decentralized system of public education. Almost every other industrialized country has a national curriculum or national standards, 

and they can anchor what they do around what is being taught. In 

the absence of a national curriculum or a national standard here, 

we have a fad of the day, local school-based management or something else, and then we twirl around, and we wonder why we do 

not have increases in achievement. It is because we are not paying 

enough attention to the curriculum, to what is being taught, to 

what should be behind the tests. 

If we are not going to have a national curriculum, what is happening now with the standards-based reform is that the States are 

gradually moving toward State curriculums. Some States are more 

up front about this than others. In North Carolina they are up 

front about this, that they have a State curriculum. In Maryland 

they have a voluntary State curriculum. So States are gradually 

saying, this is what we expect kids to know. 

You are probably best off encouraging States to move in that direction because they have enough trouble dealing with local school 

districts, even going in that direction, rather than talking about a 

national curriculum. But if you want more uniformity among the 

States with curriculum, you are going to have to do it through 

some incentive basis. 

Mr. Kildee, can I answer Mr. Payne? Let me leave one word or 

a couple words with you about teachers. 

65

I know everybody is worried about the quality of teachers in the 

poorest schools and in the schools with the highest numbers of children of color. And it is a serious national problem, but the tendency 

of the Congress will be to take one little solution and enact it, like 

a mentoring program for new teachers, and think that that is the 

answer. That is not the answer. 

We convened all of the major education organizations that deal 

in this area, and we asked them what should be done with this 

problem. The answer—and it was very strongly supported—was 

that it has to be a comprehensive approach, and it really should 

be done from a State level dealing with local school districts. And 

the comprehensive approach should deal with the pretraining of 

teachers so that they know what they are going to face when they 

meet kids who are culturally different. It should deal with higher 

pay for teachers who are going into schools that are very challenging. It should deal with mentoring programs that are of high 

quality. It should deal with changing the conditions of education 

for new teachers or the conditions of teaching so that they have 

more time to prepare. It should deal with a variety of different 

things, but if you cherry-pick and just do one little program, you 

are not going to add to this solution. 

It has to be a comprehensive approach, dealing with everything—

conditions of education, pretraining, mentoring, pay. It has to be a 

comprehensive approach, and it has to be approached, I think, from 

the State level, getting beyond individual school districts so that 

they can recruit more broadly. But I would hope you would pay a 

lot of attention to this issue, because the quality of teaching frequently determines how well kids do in school. 

Chairman KILDEE. I want to thank all of you. 

This has been an excellent hearing, a very good hearing, and I 

think we have gotten some solid information, some solid views that 

will help us, and this will become part of the body of knowledge 

that we will use in reauthorizing this bill. So I want to thank all 

of you. 

Again, as previously ordered, members will have 7 additional 

days, and any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions 

in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority 

staff within the requisite time. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ