Great Expectations

Holding 

Ourselves and 

Our Schools 

Accountable 

For Results

U.S. Department of Education 
Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

January 2009

Great Expectations

Holding 

Ourselves and 

Our Schools 

Accountable 

For Results
Executive Summary

v

Introduction1

A History of Expectations5

The Search for Accountability9

Education as a Civil Right: The No Child Left Behind Act 15

Doing What Works 23

Recognizing and Rewarding Teachers 35

Higher Education That Aims Higher 43

New Choices for a New Century 55

What’s Next? A Future of Reform and Results 65

Contents

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

January 2009

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part 

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation 

should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Great Expectations: 

Holding Ourselves and Our Schools Accountable for Results, Washington, D.C., 2008.

To order copies of this report:

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, 

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: 301-470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). Those who use 

a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 

1-877-576-7734. If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 

(1-800-USA-LEARN);

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.ed.gov.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large 

print or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s 

Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

For full citation version please visit http://www.ed.gov.
Executive Summary
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

v i

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

v i i

As public officials—and as taxpayers and parents—we must not be afraid to ask hard questions. 

We should expect the best from our schools. Are we getting it?

Finding the answer means taking an honest look at the people who shaped public education, the 

forces that changed it, and the reforms that will save it.

Great Expectations, named for the common denominator of all successful schools, provides this look.

In these pages, you will read about education’s evolution in America from a privilege for a few 

to a necessity for all. You will learn about the people working to promote high standards and 

accountability in the classroom. And you will see how our universities and colleges are rising to the 

challenge to innovate and compete in a “flat,” fast-paced world.

A History of Expectations traces the history of the public school in America and its shift in the 

20th century away from academic achievement.

The Search for Accountability focuses on our nation’s response to declining test scores and a 

widening achievement gap, and the growing coalition of parents and business and community 

leaders demanding change.

Education as a Civil Right describes the bipartisan passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and 

how it is helping at-risk students realize their potential.

Doing What Works shows how annual testing and data-based accountability are helping us 

identify what works and fix what does not.

Recognizing and Rewarding Teachers outlines our support for qualified and effective teachers, 

the key to academic achievement.

Higher Education That Aims Higher details efforts to ensure college students are prepared to 

learn from day one and our universities and colleges are accessible, affordable, and accountable.

New Choices for a New Century looks at how charter schools, choice, and other innovative 

options are giving kids a lifeline and driving schools to improve.

What’s Next? A Future of Reform and Results offers a vision of a brighter, opportunity-filled 

future for our children and a roadmap to get us there.

A quality education is never more valuable than in uncertain times. As the world becomes more 

competitive, our public school systems must become more rigorous and responsive. We have 

invested a record amount of federal dollars in our schools. We must insist on more accountability, 

not less.

The past eight years have been a consequential time, filled with action and accomplishments. We 

made a promise that no other nation has made: to provide a quality education to every one of our 

citizens. And we are doing our level best to keep that promise.

The next few years will determine whether reform is more than just a passing phase. They will 

determine whether we listen to the bipartisan coalition for reform and build a public school system 

that is ready to lead in the 21st century.

A decade ago, then-Governor George W. Bush decried the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” We 

have raised those expectations. Dedicated teachers and principals are turning around schools and 

lives. But we have not yet reached our goal of grade-level proficiency for everyone.

We cannot turn back or slow down; in fact, we must pick up the pace. That’s what Great 

Expectations is all about.

 hildren receive an education, but adults are 

responsible for it. This makes education one of the 

C

most unique and important of all public trusts.
Introduction


G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

 

 ur public education system has long been 

a model for the world. It has lifted millions out

of poverty, unlocking the doors to the

American Dream and powering the 20th century.

O

But as we headed into a new century, a closer look revealed that all was not well.

Test scores were flat or falling.

High schools could not solve their dropout problem—or even determine how great the 

problem was.

While schools rightly celebrated diversity, a sizable “achievement gap” between minority and 

white students stubbornly persisted.

Many students were “socially promoted” to the next grade without knowing the material, 

producing graduates who were not prepared for entry-level employment.

Universities and employers resorted to expensive, time-consuming remedial courses 

and training.

Millions of children suffered silently from the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Parents and policymakers demanded change. But barriers stood in the way: a lack of 

accessible and reliable data; massive, slow-moving bureaucracies; and few choices and 

alternatives for those dissatisfied with the education system. Within that system, little was 

expected, and so little changed. 

Meanwhile, the world was busy learning from our mistakes. Other nations have abandoned 

the old six-hours-a-day, 180-days-a-year industrial-age model of education. Not surprisingly, 

many foreign countries outscore the U.S. in international tests.

The rising demands of the global economy and rapidly shifting demographics require us to 

educate a greater number of students to a higher level than ever before.

Can public education keep up with the demand? Can we go from a system based on 

aspiration to one based on accountability and achievement?

Can more be done to ensure a brighter future for all children, no matter who they are or 

where they live?

The answer is “yes.” But it will take real change—starting with changed expectations—of 

ourselves, our schools, and our students.
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s



A History of Expectations
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s



“Every Pupil Treated Alike”

That elite view of education would change. After the Civil 

War, African-Americans freed from slavery eagerly sought the 

education that was once off-limits to them. “Schools, both day 

and night, were filled to overflowing with people of all ages and 

conditions, some being as far along in age as sixty and seventy 

years,” wrote educator and author Booker T. Washington.

A massive influx of immigrants, coupled with reforms such 

as child labor laws, further boosted enrollment in public and 

private schools.

Dozens of new land-grant universities were founded, opening 

up the world of higher education to the emerging middle class.

In the 1890s, about 6 percent of children aged 14 to 17 

attended secondary school. By 1930, over half did.

Attempts were made to set standards. In 1892, the Committee 

of Ten was formed, chaired by Harvard President Charles W. 

Eliot, with U.S. Commissioner of Education William T. Harris 

as a member. The committee endorsed an academic curriculum 

familiar to us today, including English, mathematics (including 

geometry and algebra), physics, chemistry, Latin, history, 

and geography.

Equally important was how students were to be taught. 

Students “should all be treated alike,” the committee 

emphasized. “Every subject should be taught in the same way 

and to the same extent to every pupil ... no matter what the 

probable destination of the pupil may be.”

Relaxed Standards

Not everyone in the education establishment agreed. What 

some saw as egalitarian, others saw as unrealistic.

In 1918, the National Education Association (NEA), which 

represented teachers, principals, and administrators, released 

its Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. The seven 

principles de-emphasized academics in favor of vocational 

and “life skills” classes. Not one of the principles mentioned 

academic achievement.

Leading educators rebelled against the academic requirements 

of colleges and universities. In 1942, a study by the Progressive 

Education Association was published that analyzed college 

students from high schools with experimental curricula. The socalled Eight-Year Study concluded that “units, grades, rankings, 

and diplomas” were mere “outworn symbols,” and that college 

preparation should not depend on “the study of certain 

prescribed subjects in the secondary school.”

This attitude culminated in 1945 with “life adjustment 

education,” a movement launched by educator Charles Prosser, 

who claimed that most students—60 percent—should expect 

a future without higher education or employment in “desirable 

skilled occupations.”

Prosser’s theory was embraced by dozens of states and the U.S. 

Office of Education.

But it was a direct rebuke to Horace Mann’s vision.

“Teachers found that far too many of their students were 

having trouble with traditional school subjects,” recounted the 

National Education Association of the United States and the 

American Association of School Administrators Educational 

Policies Commission in 1944, and so the high school “gradually 

and perhaps unconsciously relax[ed] its academic standards.”

“Not every child has to read, figure, write, and spell. ... We shall 

some day accept the thought that it is just as illogical to assume 

that every boy must be able to read as it is that each one must be 

able to perform on a violin.”

A.H. Lauchner, junior high school principal, Urbana, Ill., 1951



Public education in America began with lofty ideals. One of its founding fathers, Horace Mann of 

Massachusetts, advocated a system of free schools open to everyone. He rejected the idea that “men 

are divided into classes,” instead believing that “all are to have an equal chance for earning, and 

equal security in the enjoyment of what they earn.”

In 1853, Massachusetts passed the nation’s first compulsory education law.

Other states soon followed. Still, many young people left school early to work in the fields 

or factories.

A complete secondary school and college education was viewed as a luxury reserved for the elite.

How did we get here? 

 How were expectations allowed to fall so far?
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s



Fads or Phonics

The timing could not have been worse for this lowering of 

expectations. The post-war baby boom was packing classrooms. 

New immigrants continued to arrive, seeking to learn English 

and assimilate.

And in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of 

Education decision rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine, 

eventually enabling millions of African-American children to 

attend their neighborhood schools.

Many of these new students were greeted by an experiment in 

reading instruction. Prior to World War I, reading instruction 

had been largely based on phonics, the decoding of sounds 

represented by the letters of the alphabet.

But in the post-war era, a theory called “meaning emphasis” 

caught on with educators.

Children who could not read were taught to “guess” or identify 

unknown words based on their contexts.

The fad swept public school classrooms, despite research 

showing that phonics instruction was more effective in 

the early grades, particularly for children from low 

socioeconomic backgrounds. 

In 1955, concerned parents made the pro-phonics book Why 

Johnny Can’t Read a nationwide best seller.

Frustrated teachers hid traditional reading and spelling books 

from watchful administrators’ eyes.

The anti-phonics movement proved difficult to stop. In the 

1980s, a wholesale switch to “whole language” instruction 

helped sink California’s reading scores to the bottom of the 

nation, ahead of only Mississippi and Guam.

Mathematics, too, fell victim to lowered expectations. One 

of its most influential voices belonged to William Heard 

Kilpatrick, a professor at Columbia University’s Teachers 

College. He decried the traditional teaching of math 

and suggested that algebra and geometry no longer be 

universally taught.

Math “had little in it to serve the needs and interests of 

children, or for that matter grownups,” he said.

Kilpatrick got his wish. Student enrollment in high school 

algebra declined from 56.9 percent in 1909-10 to 24.8 percent 

in 1954-55, while enrollment in geometry classes fell from 

30.9 percent to 11.4 percent during the same period.

In 1955, the College Entrance Examination Board’s 

Commission on Mathematics urged K–12 schools to adopt a 

more rigorous curriculum.

Little was done, however, until the Soviet Union launched the 

Sputnik I satellite in 1957.

The following year, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 

National Defense Education Act into law, strengthening science, 

mathematics, and foreign language curricula, increasing 

support for student loans and graduate school fellowships, 

and boosting education research. He termed it “an emergency 

undertaking” whose purpose was “to bring American education 

to levels consistent with the needs of our society.”

The education establishment was undeterred, however. In 

the 1960s, the New Math curriculum was introduced to 

classrooms, gaining widespread notoriety.

In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 

(NCTM) proposed national standards that would downplay 

“long division,” “paper-and-pencil fraction computation,” 

“written practice,” and “finding exact forms of answers.” 

The NCTM would update and strengthen its math standards 

in 2000 and 2006. Still, recovery would not happen overnight. 

By 2003, American high school students ranked 28th out of 40 

countries in mathematics.

Curiously, however, our schools did not seem to notice. 

Seventy-two percent of U.S. students said they got good grades 

in mathematics, compared to 25 percent of students in top 

performer Hong Kong.

The Search for Accountability
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

1 0 1 1

There were few tools to hold public schools accountable. For decades, tests measuring academic 

achievement—results—were eclipsed by tests measuring aptitude—assumed potential.

Administrators separated students into different learning tracks, which had a disproportionately 

adverse effect on poor and minority children. 

“Black students are more often tracked into lower ability groups involving general education and 

vocational education,” wrote the authors of Beating the Odds: Raising Academically Successful African 

American Males. 

Social promotion—the practice of passing a student on to the next grade-level whether he or she 

had learned the material of the current grade level—also hurt students, especially low-income and 

minority students.

“Social promotion has been a cancer on public education,” said former Chicago schools chief Paul 

Vallas. He noted that 96 percent of Chicago public school graduates who attended city colleges in 

1995 had to take remedial reading and math.

Washington Responds

As standards declined, an achievement gap grew between 

minority and low-income students and their peers.

Washington did respond. In 1965, President Lyndon B. 

Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) into law. It was designed to “provide financial 

assistance” to meet the “special educational needs of children of 

low-income families.”

While the law was being considered, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy 

(D-NY) led the call to introduce accountability measures into 

it. He proposed periodically reporting to communities student 

progress based on test scores. But his effort did not succeed.

ESEA would become the most far-reaching—and most 

expensive—education law in history. Despite vast increases 

in spending, however, the achievement gap failed to close. 

“Educational needs” were still not being met.

In 1969, the accountability movement received a boost from 

a young presidential aide and future senator named Daniel 

Patrick Moynihan. He proposed the creation of a National 

Institute of Education (NIE), a precursor to the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES), established in 2002. 

The NIE would, in Moynihan’s words, “develop the art and 

science of education to the point that equality of educational 

opportunity results in a satisfactory equivalence of 

educational achievement.”

How could we have tolerated this 

lowering of expectations?

Also in 1969, a new test—the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the Nation’s Report 

Card—began to measure performance for students in reading, 

mathematics, and science at the national level, with scores 

disaggregated by student group.

In the coming years, Congress would pass several major pieces 

of legislation affecting schoolchildren, including Title IX 

of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Education for All 

Handicapped Children Act (later called the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) in 1975, and legislation to 

create the U.S. Department of Education in 1979.

But the expanding federal footprint hid the fact that 

accountability for results was still largely absent.

“I have great expectations of what this law will mean for all of 

our young people. ... I believe deeply no law I have signed or will 

ever sign means more to the future of America.”

President Johnson, signing the ESEA into law, April 11, 1965
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

1 2

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

1 3

“Risk” and “Results”

In the 1980s, a number of studies were released advocating 

standards-based reform.

In 1983, the landmark A Nation At Risk report was published 

by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, a 

blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. secretary of education. 

It captured national headlines with its charge of a “rising tide of 

mediocrity” in our schools.

The report warned that, due to declining academic 

performance, “our once unchallenged preeminence in 

commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is 

being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.”

More important than its rhetoric was its prescription for 

education reform. “Standardized tests of achievement (not to be 

confused with aptitude tests) should be administered at major 

transition points from one level of schooling to another and 

particularly from high school to college or work,” the report 

stated, adding that they should be “part of a nationwide (but 

not Federal) system.”

A Nation At Risk recommended that high school graduation 

requirements be strengthened, “more rigorous and measurable 

standards” be adopted, teacher salaries be “performance-based,” 

and the school day or year be lengthened.

The nation’s governors had also watched the decline of their 

public schools with alarm. In 1986, the bipartisan National 

Governors Association published Time for Results. The report 

advocated fewer regulations and more freedom for schools in 

exchange for clear goals and accountability for results.

It recommended testing to “identify student strengths and 

weaknesses relative to achievement.”

“School personnel must be taught how to use data to assess 

effectiveness of instructional programs,” the report added.

Three years later, at the Charlottesville (Virginia) Education 

Summit, the nation’s governors agreed to a set of “clear, 

national performance goals” that included “improvement of 

academic performance, especially among at-risk students,” and 

improvements on international achievement tests, “especially in 

math and science.”

They also pledged a greater effort at accountability, including 

regular reports on schools’ progress.

Coalition for Reform

A unique and growing grassroots coalition of educators, 

parents, and business and civil rights leaders embraced 

these recommendations.

They made the moral and economic case for education reform. 

And their voices began to reach the ears of policymakers, who 

proceeded with reform—slowly.

At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education began 

ranking states by their education performance using the limited 

statistical data available, such as ACT and SAT scores (state-bystate assessments in the NAEP did not begin until 1990).

In 1988, Congress passed the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments, 

authorizing state-level trial assessments based on NAEP 

standards in math and reading.

Participation, however, was voluntary. 

The 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, the Improving America’s 

Schools Act (IASA), went further, calling for “improv[ed] 

accountability” through the use of “State assessment systems” 

and “challenging State student performance standards.”

“The school has again but one 

way, and that is, first and last, 

to teach them to read, write 

and count.”

W.E.B. DuBois, civil rights advocate, 1935

“Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.”

President John F. Kennedy, 1961
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

14

However, states were not required to administer assessments 

meeting the law’s standards until 2000, and then only for three 

different grade levels. The IASA also did not call for full gradelevel proficiency by a certain date and did not require student 

subgroups to make yearly progress.

Meanwhile, many in the education community fought against 

these changes. “The Association believes that there should be 

no single or statewide accountability system,” the NEA stated 

in 1992.

By the end of the Clinton Administration, only 11 states 

had fully approved standards and assessment plans in place 

under IASA. 

Eighteen states required students to take a basic competency or 

skills test or exit exam—just seven more than in 1983.

Academic standards varied widely, and few were aligned with 

workforce or college readiness.

And three decades after its creation, nine states still did not 

participate in the Nation’s Report Card.

“The work begun in 1965 is not complete. It will never be 

complete—as long as one child in America is denied equal 

educational opportunity.”

Mary Hatwood Futrell, former president, National Education Association (NEA Today, June 1, 1985)

Years of fads, goals, and voluntary measures had not 

significantly raised achievement levels or narrowed the 

achievement gap. By the year 2000, just 12 percent of black 

fourth-graders were able to read at a proficient level, compared 

to 40 percent of white students. 

In 1998, in high-poverty schools (defined as schools in which at 

least three-fourths of the students qualified for free or reducedprice lunches), 68 percent of all fourth-graders could not read 

at the most “basic” level. 

Too often, children were not learning, schools were not 

teaching, and public officials were not adequately addressing or 

even measuring the problem.

“More and more, we are divided into two nations, separate 

and unequal,” then-Governor George W. Bush said in 1999. 

“One that reads, and one that can’t. One that dreams, and one 

that doesn’t.”

“All children can learn,” he added, “and no child should be 

left behind.”

Education as a Civil Right: The No Child Left Behind Act
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

1 6 1 7

This was not just an education issue, but also a civil rights issue. Decades after Brown v. Board of 

Education, a quality public education was still being denied to many Americans who were largely 

disadvantaged, minority, or living in inner cities.

“Some say that schools can’t be expected to teach, because there are too many broken families, too 

many immigrants, too much diversity,” said then-Governor George W. Bush in 1999. “That myth is 

disproved by good schools every day. Excuse-making must end before learning can begin.” 

The grassroots coalition demanded action. From different perspectives, its members all saw that 

something was wrong that would soon affect this country’s economy and future.

There is a “widespread propensity of school officials to maintain and tolerate a permanent 

underclass of low-achieving students who are disproportionately poor and minority,” charged the 

Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.

Our schools preserve “the routines, culture, and operations of an obsolete 1930s manufacturing 

plant,” stated the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

No Child Left Behind

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left 

Behind Act into law. The law was designed to hold schools 

accountable for teaching all students to the highest standards.

The law provided for accountability through annual testing, 

investment in proven instructional methods, new choices 

and options for parents, and flexibility for states and school 

districts. States would have the freedom to institute standards, 

choose tests, and spend federal funds in exchange for 

showing results.

“I believe it (NCLB) is not just an education law,” U.S. 

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings told the National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 

in 2007. “It’s a civil rights law, designed to make America’s 

promise a reality for all its citizens.”

A bipartisan majority in Congress had come together behind 

the president’s plan, passing it by an overwhelming margin.

“This is a serious effort about turning around the educational 

experience of poor minority children in this country,” said Rep. 

George Miller (D-CA).

“These reforms will bring purpose to a federal law that has 

lost its focus and never met its promise,” said Rep. John 

Boehner (R-OH).

“If the child is failing in school, help is on the way,” said 

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

Perhaps most heartening was the response from the civil rights 

community, which saw the goal of equality as inseparable from 

the promise of a quality education.

“My husband believed that expanding educational opportunity 

was essential for social and economic progress for all of 

Americans,” said Coretta Scott King, widow of the late Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. “So I want to congratulate you, Mr. 

President, for your leadership in securing a bipartisan consensus 

for educational reforms.”

Accountability is built into the No Child Left Behind Act. For 

the first time, all 50 states and the District of Columbia: 

have state-designed accountability plans in place; 

test their public school students annually (in grades 3-8 

and once in high school) to determine if improvements 

have been made in grade-level proficiency, called 

adequate yearly progress (AYP); 

disaggregate data so that the progress of all children can 

be measured, compared, and improved; and 

participate in the Nation’s Report Card.

•

•

•

•

An achievement standard is 

“a radical notion that is not 

radical anywhere else in 

the world.”

Albert Shanker, former president of the American 

Federation of Teachers, 1994

A merica could no longer ignore declining 

test scores or the growing achievement gap.

“I’m a huge proponent [of No Child Left Behind].

The most important thing is that it has set up 

an accountability system for students, and it 

emphasizes teacher quality.” 

Michelle Rhee, Chancellor, D.C. Public Schools, 2008
1 8

G REAT EXPECTATIONS : H o l d i n g O u r S c h o o l s A n d O u r s e l v e s A c c o u n t a b l e F o r R e s u l t s

1 9

Closing the Achievement Gap

A major purpose of NCLB is to close the nation’s pernicious 

achievement gap. The law shines a needed spotlight on the level 

of achievement of several categories of historically underserved 

students, including minority children, children from lowincome families, limited English proficient (LEP) children, and 

children with disabilities.

In the past, many of these students were hidden by the 

averages, their academic needs undiagnosed and unmet as they 

fell through the cracks.

Many dropped out of school or graduated without the skills to 

succeed in the workforce or higher education.

Under NCLB, they are invisible no longer. “This law finally 

puts muscle behind the attempt to close that gap,” said New 

York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. “We can no longer 

mask the deficiencies of some students with outsized gains 

by others.”

Today, gains are being made across the board.

Reading scores for fourth-graders in 2007 were the highest in 

the history of the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP).

According to the NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment, among 

nine-year-olds, more reading progress was made in five years 

(1999–2004) than in the previous three decades.

Writing skills have also improved. The 2007 NAEP Writing 

Assessment found that scores for eighth-graders in writing 

improved by 3 points over 2002 levels and 6 points over 

1998 levels. Scores for 12th-graders rose by 5 and 3 points, 

respectively. A higher percentage of both groups of students 

performed at or above the “basic” level compared to 2002.

The story for mathematics is even better. Scores for fourth- and 

eighth-graders rose to record highs in 2007, according 

to NAEP.

The improvement among fourth-graders between 2003 

and 2007 added up to the equivalent of an extra half-year 

of instruction.

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia either improved 

or held steady in all academic categories.

The emphasis on fundamental skills may be improving 

performance in other subjects as well. According to NAEP’s 

2006 U.S. history assessment, scores in history improved in all 

three grade levels tested—fourth, eighth, and 12th.

Driving the academic improvements has been the performance 

of boys and girls once left behind.

Average reading scores for fourth-grade students with 

disabilities improved by 23 points between 2000 and 2007. 

Some of the largest gains in the 2007 Nation’s Report Card 

came from Hispanic and African-American students.

And children in large urban school districts have generally 

made faster gains in reading and math than have students in 

the nation as a whole. 

This is especially important at a time when Hispanics are the 

fastest-growing population in America and when minorities are 

expected to make up a majority of Americans by 2050.

Having inspired its creation, the civil rights community has 

given its support to No Child Left Behind.

“The civil rights community has been consistent and clear in its 

support of NCLB,” a coalition of civil rights groups, including 

the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, wrote in 

a letter to Congress on June 13, 2008. The law is “designed 

to ensure that all students receive the academic preparation 

necessary to pursue higher education and become productive 

members of the workforce,” the groups added. 

“Now is not the time to turn back the clock on accountability 

for results in education,” said Wade Henderson, president of 

the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. “Access to quality 

education is a fundamental civil right that should be guaranteed 

by the federal government for all children, regardless of their 

race, national origin, economic status, or disability—and since 

2002, NCLB has been the primary federal law for ensuring 

that right.”

“Since enactment of the No Child Left Behind law, students from poor families in 

the Washington [D.C.] area have made major gains on reading and math tests and 

are starting to catch up with those from middle-class and affluent backgrounds.”

Needy Students Closing Test Gap Under ‘No Child,’ Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2008

--- Not available. 

\1\ Data are for fall 2001. 

\2\ Data for the number of 5- to 17-year-olds 

who spoke English with difficulty. 

\3\ Data are for fall 1979. 

\4\ Data are for fall 1989.

Fall enrollment in public and private elementary and secondary schools

Selected statistic Fall 1960 Fall 1980 Fall 1990 Fall 2000 Fall 2005 Fall 2017 

(projected)

Enrollment, total 42,181,000 46,208,000 46,864,900 53,373,000 55,187,000 60,443,000

 Public schools 36,281,000 40,877,000 41,217,000 47,204,000 49,113,000 54,087,000

 Private schools 5,900,000 5,331,000 5,648,000 6,169,000 6,073,000 6,356,000

Percentage distribution of public school 

enrollment, by race/ethnicity, total

--- --- 100.0 \1\ 100.0 100.0 ---

 White --- --- 67.4 \1\ 61.2 57.1 ---

 Black --- --- 16.4 \1\ 17.2 17.2 ---

 Hispanic --- --- 11.8 \1\ 16.3 19.8 ---

 Asian/Pacific

 Islander --- --- 3.4 \1\ 4.1 4.6 ---

 American Indian/Alaska Native --- --- 1.0 \1\ 1.2 1.2 ---

Students with disabilities --- 4,144,000 4,710,000 6,296,000 6,713,000 ---

Federal reduced-price lunch (FRP) --- --- --- --- 20,333,000 ---

Limited English proficient (LEP)\2\ --- 1,300,000 

(1979)

\3\ 1,800,000 \4\ 2,900,000 2,800,000 ---

Teachers, total 1,600,000 2,485,000 2,759,000 3,366,000 3,593,000 4,244,000

 Public schools 1,408,000 2,184,000 2,398,000 2,941,000 3,143,000 3,704,000

 Private schools 192,000 301,000 361,000 424,000 450,000 540,000

Pupil/teacher ratio, public schools 25.8 18.7 17.2 16.0 15.6 14.6

Pupil/teacher ratio, private schools 30.7 17.7 15.6 14.5 13.5 11.8

Expenditures and revenues for public elementary and secondary schools

Statistic 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2005-06 2017-18 

(projected)

Current expenditure per student in public elementary/

secondary schools in constant 2006-07 dollars

$4,328 $5,438 $7,472 $8,604 $9,391 $11,882 

Percentage distribution of revenues for public elementary/

secondary schools, by source of funds

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---

 Federal 8.4 9.2 6.2 7.3 9.1 ---

 State 39.1 47.4 47.2 49.7 46.5 ---

 Local 52.5 43.4 46.7 43.0 44.4 ---

Fall enrollment in colleges and universities

Statistic Fall 1980 Fall 1990 Fall 2000 Fall 2005 Fall 2008 

(projected)

Fall 2017 

(projected)

Total enrollment 12,097,000 13,819,000 15,312,000 17,487,000 18,200,000 20,080,000

Percentage distribution, by race/ethnicity, total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 White 81.4 77.6 68.3 65.7 64.6 60.6

 African American 9.2 9.0 11.3 12.7 12.9 14.3

 Hispanic 3.9 5.7 9.5 10.8 11.5 13.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.4 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2

 Nonresident alien 2.5 2.8 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.0

Percentage of students in public colleges 74.9 78.2 78.5 76.8 74.5 74.4

Percentage of high school graduates going to college 51.7 49.3 60.1 63.3 68.6 ---

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of 

Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-022), Condition of Education, 2008 (NCES 2008-031); 

and Projections of Education Statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008-078).
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

2 0

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

2 1

“We should not render the nation’s commitment to 

achievement for all students meaningless by eviscerating 

accountability,” Michael Wotorson, director of the Campaign 

for High School Equity, wrote in the New York Times. 

“Instead, a stronger, reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act

must include higher standards of accountability and clear, 

consistent requirements for reporting graduation rates and 

student progress.”

There is still much more work to be done to close the gap. For 

example, African-American 17-year-olds read, on average, at 

the proficiency level of 13-year-old white students.

Simply measuring the performance of students is not good 

enough. We must work to get students once left behind the 

resources, attention, and intervention they need to surge ahead.

Limited English Proficiency Partnership

In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols

that public schools must provide assistance to limited English 

proficient students so they can learn English and receive a 

quality education.

Carrying out this responsibility has never been more important. 

LEP students are expected to make up one of every four 

students by 2025.

States must be prepared to help them learn English and other 

core subjects.

Under No Child Left Behind, schools must teach LEP children 

to “meet the same challenging state academic content and 

student academic achievement standards as all children are 

expected to meet.”

What are the results? Reading scores for LEP fourth-graders 

increased by 20 points from 2000 to 2005, more than three 

times better than their non-LEP classmates performed.

LEP fourth- and eighth-graders achieved higher math scores 

than in any previous year.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education formed the LEP 

Partnership to provide technical assistance to states seeking to 

improve their standards and assessments for educating English 

language learners.

States are now able to compare their accountability frameworks 

with the partnership’s own draft framework in order to 

improve them.

“If NCLB is gone, America’s poor 

kids will again be forgotten.”

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), 2006

SPOTLIGHT

In the 2004–05 school year, the 

Garden Grove (Calif.) School District 

experienced newfound success. All 

but two of the district’s schools met 

or exceeded their AYP goals. Threefourths of the district’s students 

did not speak English as their first 

language, and nearly six in 10 were 

from low-income families. “We use 

the data behind No Child Left Behind

to set the targets we want to hit,” 

said Superintendent Laura Schwalm. 

“We align all our actions and 

resources to hit those targets. And our 

teachers believe the kids can do it.”

Helping Students With Disabilities

The No Child Left Behind Act has been especially beneficial to 

the nation’s 6.5 million students with disabilities, providing 

them with more classroom time and attention than ever before 

and putting their educational needs at the forefront.

As a result, students with disabilities have posted some of the 

greatest academic gains in the country.

“We went through a period where we didn’t acknowledge that 

our special education students weren’t doing well, but No Child 

Left Behind helped us focus,” said former principal Cynthia 

Kuhlman of Centennial Place Elementary School in Atlanta, 

Ga. “We made sure that students with disabilities had access to 

all the programs and enrichment that other students have. And 

we made sure that classroom teachers and special education 

teachers had enough time to plan and consult together.”

“No Child Left Behind made it much easier to secure a highquality education” for her son, Stephen, said Ricki Sabia of the 

National Down Syndrome Society. “His teachers and principals 

have been more invested in his academic performance, and 

the assessments show that he is mastering far more grade-level 

content than anyone could have imagined.”

In 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

It revised the three-decades-old IDEA law and aligned it with 

the goals and purpose of No Child Left Behind.

The Department has also provided new flexibility and 

incentives to enable states to develop appropriate assessments 

that better serve students with disabilities.

This is intended to ensure that they are fairly included in state 

accountability systems, not left behind.

SPOTLIGHT

M. Hall Stanton Elementary School in Philadelphia 

has a student body that is nearly 100 percent 

African-American and over 90 percent eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunches. In 2002, it was 

plagued with truancy and discipline problems. Of 

its fifth-graders, just 13 percent were at gradelevel in reading and 20 percent were at grade-level 

in math in 2003. By 2006, those numbers had 

risen to 70 and 83 percent, respectively. Principal 

Barbara Adderley, who started in 2002, believes 

that “all children can learn at high levels,” and her 

teachers and students believe it, too. Said one 

parent: “The kids can’t wait to get to school now.” 
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

22

What Makes No Child Left Behind Different?

NCLB is the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. What 

makes it different from previous versions?

Annual Testing: Schools test all children in reading or language arts and mathematics annually in 

each of grades 3–8 and once more in high school, and are held accountable for making adequate 

yearly progress (AYP). Schools also test children in science once in each of three grade spans.

Choices: Parents with children in underperforming schools may choose to send them to another 

public or public charter school in the school district, with transportation costs paid by the district.

Disaggregated Data: Test scores are broken down by student groups, and schools are held 

accountable for improving the academic performance of all groups.

Flexibility: States and districts have unprecedented flexibility to invest funds in areas of greatest 

need, such as teacher training, reading instruction, classroom technology, and school safety grants, 

among others.

Funding: School districts and states are receiving more money than ever before to implement 

these reforms—including $500 million in FY 2008 to help fix schools in “improvement status.”

Grade-level Goal: Schools must educate all students to grade-level or better in reading and math 

by 2014. Schools must show annual improvements until they reach this goal.

NAEP: To compare progress, states agree to participate in testing and state-level comparisons for 

fourth- and eighth-graders in reading and math through the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), or Nation’s Report Card.

Report Cards: States and districts must issue annual report cards so parents and others can see 

which schools are succeeding and which are falling behind.

School Restructuring: A school that repeatedly does not make AYP may be restructured. It may 

reopen as a charter school, replace its staff, undergo state takeover, or face another fundamental 

management reform.

Teachers: All teachers who teach core academic subjects must be highly qualified, with a bachelor’s 

degree or better, state certification, and subject matter competency.

Tutoring: Children from low-income families in underperforming schools may qualify for free 

tutoring or after-school help (also known as Supplemental Educational Services, or SES).

What Works: Federal funds are focused on research-based, scientifically proven methods 

of instruction.

Doing What Works
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

24 2 5

We know this because the No Child Left Behind Act has lifted the veil from public education. Data 

collected from test scores are used to measure performance. Research-based practices are used to 

improve performance. Parents are given report cards, not just for their children but also for their 

schools, districts, and states.

It is a dynamic and systemic change from education based on aspiration—“teach, test, and hope for 

the best”—to education based on accountability—“what gets measured gets done.”

Accountability is a popular concept. It has been embraced by many members of the education 

establishment. At times, it has also been co-opted, redefined, watered down, and hollowed out.

Accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act means establishing high standards, assessing 

student performance, disaggregating the test score data, and basing policies on the results. 

The bottom line is that accountability works. Teachers and principals now use the wealth of 

new data to customize and improve instruction. States and districts that enacted accountability 

principles the earliest have shown some of the greatest academic gains.

“Now we’re moving from ‘I taught it’ to ‘they learned it,’” said Thomas Rogers, executive director of 

the New York State Council of School Superintendents. 

Data-based accountability is reforming a system that in the past hid problems rather than solved 

them. Research has revolutionized fields such as energy, medicine, and business, enabling decisions 

to be based on evidence rather than on fashion or fad. Now education is being revolutionized by 

data and research, too.

More children than ever before are 

 learning at higher levels.

The Need for Leadership

It was a long time coming. Public education in the 20th 

century was greatly influenced by the theories of progressive 

educators such as John Dewey. Dewey appeared to reject 

assessment-based accountability.

“The practice of progressive education differs from that of the 

traditional schools,” he wrote. Traditional schools “set great 

store by tests and measurements ... marks, grading, classes, and 

promotions are important,” he said.

This leads to complacency, Dewey argued. He dismissed 

traditional schools’ “attempt to determine objectives and select 

subject-matter of studies by wide collection and accurate 

measurement of data.” 

As traditional standards were lowered, it became easier for 

students to get a diploma—but harder for them to compete at 

the next level. Remedial course work in both high school and 

college exploded. SAT scores fell 90 points from 1963 to 1980.

The College Entrance Examination Board examined the causes 

for this decline and found homework levels cut in half, grade 

inflation, and social promotion.

Thirty-five states required one year of math instruction and 

36 states one year of science to earn a high school diploma, 

according to a 1980 survey. Further, students could choose 

electives for 50 percent or more of their high school graduation 

requirements in 13 states.

“Existing standards do not challenge students, and they have no 

consequences attached to them,” Albert Shanker, president of 

the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), said in 1994. 

“We give students no incentive to do well in school, and so 

they don’t.”

Change From the Ground Up

The accountability movement did not begin in Washington, 

D.C., but in states and school districts across the country.

In response to declining performance, states began to toughen 

academic standards and strengthen curriculum. A few went 

even further. Kentucky, North Carolina, and Texas were among 

the first to develop true accountability-based systems relying on 

standards and assessments.

Their rate of improvement on the Nation’s Report Card in 

the 1990s usually far exceeded that of states without strong 

accountability systems. 

Much of the nation did not share in the progress, however. 

Most citizens remained in the dark about the condition of 

their schools. Information was spotty, and data were often not 

disaggregated. It was extremely difficult to gauge the need for 

comprehensive change.

Leadership was needed at the national level. It would come in 

the form of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Assessments Work

The law recognized the need to measure student progress 

every year. Under the law, state assessments are required for all 

children annually in grades 3–8, and once more in high school, 

in both reading and math. The goal is to see improvement every 

year toward full, grade-level proficiency by 2014.

This has proven controversial with some in the education 

establishment, who, echoing John Dewey, find testing and 

accountability problematic. “The fact is that real learning often 

can’t be quantified, and a corporate-style preoccupation with 

‘data’ turns schooling into something shallow and lifeless,” 

wrote education author Alfie Kohn in Education Week.

“Standardized tests are now believed to be one 

of the most powerful levers that elected officials 

and other policymakers have for influencing what 

happens in local schools and classrooms.”

“Lessons Learned About Testing,” National Academies, 2006
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

26

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

27

Support for Testing

Many educators, however, see assessment as a valuable tool for 

improving learning.

“Right now, testing is the best way we have,” said Suellen Reed, 

Indiana superintendent for public instruction, noting that No 

Child Left Behind has enabled teachers to identify and help 

students in trouble. 

“Teachers, once largely on their own, often work in teams to 

improve and fine-tune lessons and brainstorm ways to help 

students,” reported the Washington Post. “Many schools have 

added periodic mini-tests that help provide an instructional 

road map. When a few kids stumble, they often get extra help. 

When an entire class misses questions, the teacher is likely to 

tackle the lesson again.”

“I was a tremendous skeptic at first, and I’ve been won over 

over the years because this sets a standard,” Miles Bond, a 

teacher at Lake Taylor (Va.) High School, told CNN in 2005. 

“You know that in every classroom certain things are supposed 

to be taught. And I think if those things are taught correctly, 

the students don’t have a big problem passing the tests.”

No Child Left Behind calls for consistent, valid, and reliable 

assessments across the full range of student groups. The U.S. 

Department of Education has awarded more than $3 billion to 

help states strengthen their assessments.

In addition, the Grants for Enhanced Assessment 

Instruments program funds collaborative efforts among states, 

higher education institutions, and research facilities to improve 

tests, especially those given to students with disabilities and 

with limited English proficiency.

Federal funds also have been provided to help states administer 

modified assessments for a small subset of students with 

disabilities (up to 2 percent of all students) identified as capable 

of achieving under high standards in a different time frame 

from that of their peers.

Additional federal funds are provided for alternate assessments 

for students with severe cognitive disabilities (up to 1 percent of 

the entire student population).

Rigorous Course Work

In keeping with their traditional leadership role in education, 

states and localities have the primary responsibility for 

developing standards and aligning their assessments to 

them under No Child Left Behind. They work with the U.S. 

Department of Education as partners. 

Twenty states and Washington, D.C., now mandate the 

completion of a “college- and career-ready curriculum” for 

graduation, up from 2 in 2005. 

A recent study by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 

found that 24 states have strong math standards and 22 have 

strong science standards, even measured against “new, more 

rigorous criteria.”

Still, educators and policymakers must remain vigilant. The 

AFT study found that only eight states have strong English 

standards. In addition, NAEP found a “strong negative 

correlation” between the percentages of students meeting 

state proficiency standards and the NAEP score equivalents, 

suggesting “differences in the stringency of their standards.” 

To promote higher state academic standards, President Bush 

called on states to “report the proficiency rates for state and 

NAEP assessments on the same public report card.”

In October 2008, the U.S. Department of Education 

announced new regulations to do just that.

In addition, the Department’s State Scholars Initiative (SSI)

is working to strengthen course work across the country. It 

invites business and education leaders to develop strategies 

to encourage middle and high school students to complete a 

rigorous course of study.

Studies show that even a small improvement can yield 

significant results. According to SSI, students who took four 

years of English scored an average of 46 points higher on the 

SAT verbal test than those who completed only three years.

Twenty-four states currently participate in SSI.

Helping Schools Improve

Assigning consequences for performance, both good and bad, 

is vital to accountability. “Simply publishing results appears 

insufficient for progress,” writes the Hoover Institution’s 

Herbert J. Walberg. “People and groups responsible for 

accountability should be able to offer incentives and sanctions 

for performance.”

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I schools that do 

not meet their adequate yearly progress goals receive technical 

assistance, teacher training, and support from instructional 

specialists at the state or district level. They may also qualify 

for assistance from the Department’s $500 million School 

Improvement Fund, designed to help schools identified for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under NCLB.

Low-achieving school districts that show the greatest need and 

the strongest commitment to help students meet the goals for 

improvement are given priority. 

Title I schools that miss their AYP goals for two consecutive 

years must allow students to transfer to another public school 

if they so choose. After three consecutive misses, they must 

provide supplemental educational services (SES), which 

typically consist of tutoring and after-school help. 

Beyond that point, underperforming schools must undergo 

corrective action and, finally, restructuring, which may consist 

of new school governance, conversion to a charter school, the 

replacement of principals and other staff, or takeover by 

the state.

Schools are using data to improve instruction and turn around 

their performance. By 2004, nearly every state 

had developed a support system for schools in need 

of improvement.

In 2006–07, 10,676 schools were identified for improvement 

out of approximately 98,000 schools nationwide—just 11 

percent of all public schools.

Some critics contend that being held accountable for the 

academic performance of one group of at-risk students risks 

“dragging down” the rest of the school.

The data suggest this is not the case. In 2005–06, 56 percent 

of schools identified for improvement missed AYP in the “all 

students” category. Just 14 percent of schools were identified 

due to the poor performance of a single subgroup.

Approving Quality

The Department has insisted that states meet the “bright 

line” goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, including annual 

assessments, disaggregated data, improved teacher quality, 

information provided to parents in a timely manner, and 

progress toward full grade-level proficiency.

The Department of Education has peer reviewed and approved 

accountability plans for all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. Thirty-two states had been recognized for having 

implemented high-quality standards and assessment systems as 

of June 2008. 

Nevertheless, there is much room for improvement. Forty states 

expected less than 75 percent of their students to be proficient 

in at least one core subject in 2008. Five states expected fewer 

than half to be on grade-level.

Some states have requested even more exceptions:

One state asked to calculate AYP every two years, 

instead of annually;

One state proposed excluding 95 more schools from 

being held accountable for the performance of lowincome children; and

One state wanted to “wipe the slate clean” and have all 

schools identified as “in need of improvement” start 

over again.

•

•

•
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

28

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

2 9

Growth Models

Flexibilities that adhere to accountability principles have a 

better chance at approval. 

Growth models, for instance, are used to give schools credit 

for improvement over time by tracking individual student 

achievement from year to year.

Many states have requested approval to use growth models. 

However, the tracking of longitudinal growth was not possible 

in most cases with the infrastructure as it existed in 2002. The 

data revolution spurred by NCLB since then has made the 

effective use of growth models possible.

In November 2005, the Department announced a pilot growth 

model program. Tennessee and North Carolina were approved 

to participate for the 2005–06 school year, with Alaska, 

Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, and Iowa joining them 

the following year. 

Several other states have since joined the program, which is 

now open to all states on the condition that they adhere to 

NCLB’s “bright line” goals and provide data on the program’s 

effectiveness so best practices can be shared.

In March 2008, the Department announced a program 

enabling states to offer innovative solutions to help the 

neediest students and schools meet their academic goals. This 

differentiated accountability pilot program allows states to 

distinguish between schools that need intensive intervention to 

get back on track and those that are much closer to 

meeting AYP.

States are then better able to focus the greatest resources on 

schools with the greatest needs.

To date, six states have been approved to participate in the 

pilot: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio. 

As data are collected and best practices are shared, more states 

should be able to join.

The Importance of Data

The blueprint for building a quality education system is sound 

data. Thanks to annual testing and disaggregation of results, 

we now have more complete, accurate, and timely information 

about schools and students than ever before. However, many 

state systems for collecting and reporting education data are 

still being built.

The Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grant Program

is helping states design and implement systems to track 

student progress over time and drive academic improvement. 

According to the Education Commission of the States, these 

systems “provide the most accurate information for both policy 

decisions and decisions at the district and school levels.” All 

states are eligible for the grants, which are awarded by the 

Department’s Institute of Education Sciences.

To monitor the effectiveness of the largest stream of federal 

funds for K–12 education, the Department is conducting a 

longitudinal study of Title I schools, as well as a National 

Assessment of Title I. The studies have found that Title I funds 

currently go to 93 percent of school districts and 56 percent 

of public schools, and that the number of students able to 

receive Title I funds has tripled in a decade, from 6.7 million in 

1994–95 to 20 million in 2004–05. 

One problem hindering data collection and analysis has been 

a lack of consistent formats and common definitions. The 

Department’s EDFacts program provides one unified process to 

consolidate and coordinate data on the performance of federal 

formula programs as well as on the K–12 education system.

Sometimes the sheer volume of data can be daunting 

for parents or teachers, who want answers to their 

questions quickly.

In January 2008, the Department launched its national 

dashboard, Mapping Educational Progress, a one-stop 

Web site showing how states are doing on key indicators, 

such as high school graduation rates, achievement trends, the 

percentage of highly qualified teachers, and the number of 

schools meeting their AYP goals.

States are beginning to engage in similar efforts. The new 

California School Finder Web site, for instance, compares 

schools side-by-side on various measures. “There has been 

a tradition here of withholding information so that people 

have a difficult time comparing [schools],” said Gov. Arnold 

Schwarzenegger. “But the fact of the matter is there are many 

choices and we want the parents to have the choices.” 

Data “can basically take us out of the dark 

ages of just kinda teaching and hoping, 

which is what a lot of folks have done for a 

very long time.”

Kati Haycock, director, Education Trust, 2006

Research-based Learning

Reliable data can do more than help parents learn about the 

quality of their schools. It can help teachers improve the quality 

of their instruction.

The Department supports scientifically based research to 

identify best practices and to improve achievement.

The Institute of Education Sciences leads the way by 

conducting scientific research activities, analyzing statistics, and 

disseminating data to improve teaching and learning. Its four 

centers, including the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES), provide rigorous evidence on which to ground 

education policy and practice.

In 2002, the Department established the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) to evaluate the effectiveness of 

instructional programs and materials. To date, the WWC has 

reviewed nearly 500 education interventions, identifying 80 

of them as showing evidence of effectiveness. The WWC also 

publishes user-friendly practice guides and provides a registry of 

researchers for educators and school districts to use. 

The Department’s Doing What Works Web site (dww.ed.gov) 

connects researchers with practitioners in the field, providing 

real-world examples of applying research-based practices to 

improve classroom instruction.

Reading First

One of the most pressing needs for research has been in the 

teaching of reading. Over the years, well-intentioned but 

misguided instructional fads left some teachers without critical 

tools necessary to pass on this vital skill.

NCLB funds instructional methods that are proven by scientific 

research to be effective. The vehicle for this effort has been the 

Reading First initiative.

Reading First builds on decades of research compiled by the 

National Reading Panel at the request of Congress. Analyzing 

over 100,000 studies, the panel found five components to be 

essential to a successful reading program: phonemic awareness; 

phonics; fluency; vocabulary; and comprehension.

Reading First funds professional development and instructional 

programs using research-based methods so children can learn 

to read by the third grade. Reading First students receive on 

average about 110 extra minutes of reading instruction per 

week, including screening and diagnostic tests, compared to 

other students.

“The core idea of Reading First is a sound one, and I hope Congress will understand 

it. It has taught thousands of teachers and hundreds of principals about researchbased instruction. They’ve learned how data can drive teaching and learning.”

Edward Moscovitch, chairman, Bay State Reading Institute, 2008
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

3 0

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

3 1

More than 100,000 teachers and 1.8 million children in grades 

K–3, many from low-income families, have been aided.

State education agencies have received over $6 billion in 

Reading First grants to date.

States and local communities are granted the flexibility to 

determine reading programs so long as they are grounded in 

scientifically based research.

The companion Early Reading First program provides reading 

materials and sound instruction to pre-school children. Many 

are from low-income families that may not have an abundance 

of reading materials at home, a critical factor in establishing 

early literacy.

Students who fall behind in reading often find themselves 

unable to catch up to their peers in the fast-paced later 

grades, when advanced texts are used. The president’s Striving 

Readers program focuses on this problem, providing intensive 

intervention to students in grades 6–12 struggling to reach 

grade-level in reading or language arts and at risk of dropping 

out of school. Grants, which are awarded to Title I-eligible 

schools, may fund a wide array of research-based literacy 

programs and instructional strategies.

Reading Results

In many states, Reading First students have shown impressive 

results. The Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final 

Report, released by the Department in October 2008, found 

that third- and fourth-graders in Reading First schools 

“improved their reading performance over time more quickly” 

than did other Title I students.

Another study of state-by-state Reading First data found 

gains in proficiency in nearly every grade and subgroup 

from 2004-06:

In grade one, 88 percent of state education agencies 

(SEAs) reported increases in the percentage of students 

proficient in reading comprehension (62 percent by five 

or more percentage points); 

In grade two, 75 percent of SEAs reported improvement 

(36 percent by five or more points); and

In grade three, 77 percent of SEAs reported 

improvement (43 percent by five or more points).

In addition, the Center on Education Policy found that 97 

percent of all participating school districts that saw increases in 

achievement cited Reading First’s instructional program as an 

important factor in their improvements.

•

•

•

“Well-designed tests can provide an objective measure of how well 

students are doing, and consequences attached to these tests provide 

children with a strong incentive to study hard and do well.”

American Federation of Teachers, www.aft.org

The Reading First Advisory Committee notes that it will 

take time to evaluate the data on the program. Nevertheless, 

Reading First principles are starting to be adopted by districts 

beyond their original schools.

Collaboration between Reading First and special education 

programs is “becoming ingrained in the culture of the schools,” 

according to interviews conducted by the National Association 

of State Directors of Special Education.

“Reading First is a successful and effective program in the 

classroom. It is extremely important to teachers and to 

disadvantaged students,” said Antonia Cortese, executive vice 

president of the American Federation of Teachers, in 2006. 

And Alabama State Superintendent of Education Joe Morton 

called Reading First “the most effective federal program 

in history.”

In November 2008, the IES Reading First Final Impact Study

was released. While this evaluation found no statistically 

significant difference in reading comprehension, Reading First 

had a significant impact on students’ decoding, phonics, and 

fluency skills - three of the five basic components of reading. 

Scores of students in Reading First schools were higher by the 

equivalent of three months of a nine-month school year.

The Department has promoted reading in other ways. Its 

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries grants are 

helping schools increase the number of books and holdings, 

improve technological capabilities, expand library hours, and 

provide professional development.

National Math Panel

Another urgent need is to improve math instruction.

Math-related occupations are growing at three times the rate 

of other jobs.

And yet, the average 17-year-old lacks the basic math 

skills needed to work on the production line of a modern 

automobile plant.

What explains this discrepancy? When it comes to the teaching 

of math, the numbers do not add up. In 2007, school districts 

across the country were asked which highly qualified subjectspecialist teachers they had the hardest time recruiting. The 

top two answers were science teachers, at 65 percent, and math 

teachers, at 60 percent.

It is unfair to blame a lack of qualified teachers alone. Attitudes 

affect achievement. A survey by the Raytheon Company in 

2005 found that 84 percent of middle school students would 

rather clean their rooms, take out the garbage, or go to the 

dentist than do their math homework. 

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel was created in 

2006 by executive order to review the best available scientific 

research on the teaching and learning of math. After hearing 

over 100 testimonials and examining more than 16,000 

research papers and policy reports, the Math Panel concluded 

that “Algebra is a demonstrable gateway to later achievement,” 

a clear dividing line between success and stagnation in high 

school and college.

“NCTM challenges the notion that mathematics is 

for only the select few. On the contrary, everyone 

needs to understand mathematics.”

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, 2000
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

32

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

33

SPOTLIGHT

Standards-Based Accountability: Gaining Momentum 

A 2007 survey by the Educational Testing Service found that 48 percent of K-12 parents held 

favorable views about the No Child Left Behind Act (40 percent were unfavorable).

• When the law was described to parents, support jumped to 59 percent. Among all 

adults, 56 percent supported the law when it was described.

• Fifty-seven percent of adults believed states should not be allowed to opt out of 

standards and testing if they are receiving federal funds.

• Sixty-two percent of adults believed that annual assessments assist in identifying 

schools and students that need help.

• Sixty-one percent of adults believed that state standards are an important step toward 

“educational excellence” and “competing in the global economy.”

A 2008 survey by Education Next and Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and 

Governance (PEPG) found that 50 percent of Americans favored reauthorizing NCLB as is or 

with only minimal changes. Support was stronger among African-American (52 percent) and 

Hispanic (57 percent) respondents.

• Support for reauthorization rose to 57 percent overall (and 63 percent among AfricanAmericans) when the law was described but not named.

• When asked to grade the public schools in their local communities, 44 percent of 

white respondents gave them an “A” or a “B,” compared to only 24 percent of 

African-American respondents.

• Thirty-two percent of African-Americans gave a grade of “D” or lower to their local 

schools, compared to 22 percent of whites. 

Its final report, containing 45 findings and recommendations, 

was unanimously approved and presented in March 2008. 

The report determined that children are “ready to learn” at a 

younger age than is commonly thought and that effort, not just 

inherent ability, contributes to success in mathematics. 

It recommended teaching a critical body of mathematics 

that includes proficiency with whole numbers, elements of 

geometry, and especially fractions in their various forms, 

starting in the earliest grades. This will prepare students to take 

algebra as early as eighth grade. 

The Mathematics and Science Partnerships program works 

to improve teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills. It 

funds professional development and unites math and science 

teachers with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. It has 

awarded more than $800 million in grants to states since 2002.

In 2007, the president signed the America COMPETES Act into 

law, creating the Math Now program, which would prepare 

teachers and students in grades K–7 to master the rigorous 

math course work they will face in middle and high school. 

Congress has yet to approve the president’s proposal to fund 

Math Now.

The Doing What Works Web site contains a section called 

“Critical Foundations for Algebra.” It gives practical examples 

of how to apply the Math Panel’s findings to the classroom, 

including sample exercises and lesson plans.

Finally, DWW has put the new “Encouraging Girls in Math 

and Science” practice guide online under the “Math and 

Science” section. Published by IES, it promotes strategies and 

ideas to help convince girls (and boys) to take these subjects in 

school and consider careers in math and science.

“I know from my experience in Houston that when two schools in the 

same neighborhood produced very different results—one excellent and 

the other poor—one school was doing something right, and the other 

one had no more excuses.”

Rod Paige, former U.S. Secretary of Education, 2002

Holding Ourselves Accountable

In asking states and schools to become more accountable, the 

Department of Education must set a good example.

Chaired by Secretary Spellings, the Academic 

Competitiveness Council had as its mission evaluating the 

effectiveness of, and eliminating duplication in, federal math 

and science programs. The council identified more than 100 

programs and practices totaling $3.12 billion spread across 

13 agencies, and called for integrating and coordinating 

them. It also made recommendations on adopting common 

standards, objectives, and evaluation methodologies.

The Department has taken management reform 

seriously throughout the agency, from top to bottom. 

The Department received a clean audit opinion from an 

independent auditor for Fiscal Year 2002, an important 

indicator of sound management. It was only the second clean 

audit in 22 years. Since then, the Department has received 

six straight years of clean audit opinions. 

The Department also became the first Cabinet department 

to achieve the highest level (green) for financial performance 

on the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA 

promotes a government that is citizen-centered, innovative, 

competitive, and results-oriented.
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

3434

Recognizing and Rewarding Teachers 

A Nation Accountable

Twenty-five years ago, Americans learned what lowered expectations and standards 

had done to their schools. That is when the A Nation At Risk report was released.

It landed like a bombshell. It found that one in eight 17-year-olds was functionally 

illiterate, that SAT scores were dropping, and that college students were forced to 

take expensive remedial courses. The nation had “lost sight” of “high expectations 

and disciplined effort” in the classroom, and stood by as other nations began 

“matching and surpassing” us.

A Nation At Risk prescribed a number of solutions. Twenty-five years later, progress 

has been made toward implementing them—but work remains to be done.

NATION AT RISK SOLUTION PROGRESS

More rigorous and measurable 

academic standards

Higher expectations for K–12 schools and colleges

Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act

50 states have reading and math content standards

50 states test students annually in reading and math 

(grades 3–8 plus once in high school)

Science tests were in place by end of 2007–08 school year 

“New Basics” high school curriculum: 4 years 

English, 3 years math, 3 years science, 3 years 

social studies (plus foreign language)

Percentage of high school graduates who took the 

“New Basics” curriculum: in 1982, 14.3 percent; in 2005, 

64.7 percent

Nearly half the states joined the State Scholars Initiative 

to strengthen high school curriculum 

Longer school day and school year, with time 

devoted to learning the basics

Length of school day nearly the same in 2004 as in 1983

Time spent on academics has risen slightly

Many industrialized nations still have longer school days 

and years 

Teachers should demonstrate subject matter 

competence and aptitude

Superior teachers should be rewarded financially

No Child Left Behind calls for a highly qualified teacher in 

every classroom

New Teacher Incentive Fund helps states and districts 

implement merit pay and incentive pay 

“All, regardless of race or class, or economic status, are entitled to a fair 

chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind 

and spirit to the utmost.”

A Nation At Risk, 1983
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

36 37

Studies show that teachers in high-poverty schools are far 

less likely than other teachers to have significant classroom 

experience or a degree in the subject taught. The least prepared 

teachers are left to do the hardest work in the most challenging 

environments. And they are rarely rewarded for getting results 

in the classroom.

The answer, say reformers, is to reward teachers for achieving 

results—to place more emphasis on a teacher’s track record and 

less on his or her seniority—and to provide alternative routes to 

certification to fill the teaching pipeline with new talent.

Such policies will help good teachers get the credit they deserve 

for the great work they do.

Qualified and Effective Teachers

A highly qualified teacher on paper is one thing. A highly 

effective teacher in a classroom is another. 

Effective teaching begins with knowledge of the subject matter, 

required under No Child Left Behind. In 2003, a Department 

report, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge, revealed 

that many new teachers lacked solid content knowledge of the 

subjects they will teach. 

The 2004 report Teaching at Risk, by the Teaching Commission, 

found that states needed to raise the bar on teacher subjectmatter knowledge.

“If teaching remains a second-rate profession,” commission 

Chairman Lou Gerstner said, “America’s economy will be 

driven by second-rate skills.”

NCLB and other reforms are making a difference. Today, all 50 

states have indicators of teacher knowledge and skills, up from 

46 in 2002.

As of 2004, 44 of 54 states and territories required successful 

completion of assessments for teacher certification or licensure.

Alternative Certification

The Department’s Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

enable states and school districts to conduct a wide range 

of activities related to teacher quality, from professional 

development and mentoring to alternative certification and 

performance pay. 

In 1983, just eight states were implementing alternative 

certification routes; today, all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia have them.

Between 2000–01 and 2003–04, the number of people 

completing alternative routes to certification increased by 

169 percent. 

Increasingly, states are reporting that they have aligned their 

policies with NCLB to ensure that teacher preparation is 

standards-based and that certification and licensure processes 

require teachers to have subject-area competence. Today, 44 

states have policies aligning or coordinating teacher certification 

requirements with state content standards for students, an 

increase from 41 states in 2002.

A recent survey indicated that the nation’s parents believe that “getting and keeping good teachers” 

is a very serious issue in schools today. 

The No Child Left Behind Act requires a highly qualified teacher—one with at least a bachelor’s 

degree, state certification or licensure, and demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter—in 

classrooms where core academic subjects are taught. The U.S. Department of Education provides 

nearly $3 billion annually to help states meet those requirements.

The share of classes taught by a highly qualified teacher rose from 87 percent in 2003–04 to 94 

percent in 2006–07.

But if 94 percent of the teachers are qualified, why do only half the students in some schools 

graduate on time?

The fact is, the best teachers often do not wind up where they are needed most: in classrooms 

with the most disadvantaged students. One-third of new teachers leave the field after three years, 

according to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). Highly 

qualified teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools are more likely to have three or fewer 

years of experience than teachers in low-poverty and low-minority schools. Many low-performing, 

high-poverty schools “struggle to close the student achievement gap because they never close the 

teaching quality gap – they are constantly rebuilding their staff,” writes the NCTAF.

“NCLB has helped by setting very clear, very high 

achievement targets for all students. I think that’s an 

incredibly positive step in American public education.”

Washington, D.C., public school teacher Jason Kamras, 

2005 National Teacher of the Year, 2006

One of the most important factors in 

improving student achievement is a

knowledgeable, effective, and caring teacher.

“The magic ingredient in any 

child’s education is the quality 

of our teachers and, at least in 

the United States, the kids with 

greatest needs don’t remotely 

get their fair share of the 

highest quality teachers.” 

Joel Klein, New York City Schools Chancellor, 2008
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

38

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

3 9

Filling the Need

Groups such as Teach for America, funded in part by the U.S. 

Department of Education, and the New Teacher Project are 

recruiting eager and accomplished young college graduates and 

professionals to fill the teaching vacuum in our inner cities.

Urban leaders such as New Orleans Schools Superintendent 

Paul Vallas, New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, 

and D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee—a 

founder of the New Teacher Project—are welcoming such 

recruitment efforts in order to fill the need and increase 

student achievement.

A study of Teach for America teachers found that students 

taught by nontraditionally credentialed teachers made 

greater gains in math achievement and kept pace in 

reading achievement.

“The few studies of alternative certification that have been 

done find that students of such teachers perform at least as 

well as students of conventionally licensed teachers,” wrote 

former Assistant Secretary of Education Chester Finn, Jr., 

and Marcie Kastoroom. 

Hiring the Best Teachers

Exacerbating the shortage of good teachers in many cases are 

inflexible teacher tenure policies and collective bargaining 

agreements. They often make hiring the best teachers and 

replacing ineffective ones a costly and time-consuming process.

In New York City, just eight teachers out of 55,000 were fired 

for incompetence in the 2006–07 school year. Each firing cost 

the taxpayers $225,000.

And in Detroit, dozens of ineffective teachers were paid 

hundreds of thousands of dollars to leave the classroom 

between 2003 and 2007. “School officials defend the buyouts 

as cheaper than trying to fire a tenured teacher,” reported the 

Detroit Free Press.

Surveys between 1999 and 2001 by the nonpartisan Public 

Agenda found that nearly all superintendents and principals, 

and a clear majority of public school teachers, favored making 

it easier to remove bad teachers with tenure.

Support for Teachers

The Department is working to help districts meet the need for 

qualified and effective teachers in hard-to-fill positions.

In 2006, President Bush proposed the creation of the 

Adjunct Teacher Corps to encourage thousands of qualified 

professionals in math, science, and other fields to join the 

teaching profession as adjunct high school teachers. In August 

2008, Congress approved the Adjunct Teacher Corps as part of 

the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Congress must 

now take the next step and fund the program.

The Department’s Troops-To-Teachers (TTT) program 

provides funds to recruit and prepare former members of the 

U.S. military to teach in high-poverty schools. More than 

11,400 teachers currently serve in the program, with nearly 

7,000 more seeking employment by a school.

The Transition to Teaching program supports the recruitment 

and retention of qualified professionals in mid-career who wish 

to teach in high-need schools but need an alternative path to 

certification. Recent college graduates who were not education 

majors, as well as paraprofessionals who are still working on 

their college degrees, also participate in the grant program.

The TEACH Grant program helps college students pay for 

their education if they agree to teach for at least four years after 

graduation. The program requires students to teach in a highneed field like math or science in a low-income school.

Loan forgiveness for teachers has been expanded from $5,000 

to $17,500. Highly qualified math, science, and special 

education teachers who choose to work in high-poverty 

communities may qualify for the relief.

The Teach for America program also placed 6,200 recent 

college graduates in 2008 as teachers in urban and rural highneed schools, where they are working to raise test scores and 

close the achievement gap.

A Shift to Students

To determine teacher effectiveness, one must look at student 

academic outcomes—such as improved achievement levels 

and graduation rates—not just educator inputs—such as the 

number of degrees earned by the teacher.

Reviewing 1,200 education schools and departments, Arthur 

Levine, president emeritus of Teachers College at Columbia 

University, found that the quality of most preparation programs 

for school leaders ranged from “inadequate to appalling.” 

Nearly nine of 10 program alumni said graduates with degrees 

in education were inadequately prepared for the realities of 

the classroom.

Making the problem worse, the study concluded, was the trend 

of rewarding teachers for taking irrelevant and non-rigorous 

courses. “Universities must conduct clear-eyed evaluations of 

teacher-education programs instead of treating them as cash 

cows,” Levine said.

This focus on teacher quality is critical. Data from the 

Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) and the 

Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project showed 

that teacher quality had a greater impact on Tennessee students’ 

performance than income levels, class sizes, or the school 

attended. Being taught by a highly effective teacher had a 

more positive effect on low-income and minority students 

than their peers. 

“What economists have found is that only one thing tells us 

how much a teacher will boost his students’ test scores next 

year,” wrote economist Ray Fisman. “The amount he raised test 

scores in previous years.”

SPOTLIGHT

Thanks to a Teacher Incentive 

Fund grant, teachers at Edward W. 

Brooke Charter School in Roslindale, 

Mass., are eligible for annual 

bonuses of as much as $5,000. 

Principals’ bonuses range from 

$5,400 for the middle school to 

$10,000 for the elementary school.

The teacher incentive structure 

is tied to achievement gains at 

the individual and classroom 

levels. Bonuses for principals 

are based solely on schoolwide 

achievement gains. 

“We all want the profession to 

be recognized for what it takes 

to be good—intellect, energy and 

stamina, and skills in leading,” 

said Jon Clark, executive director 

and middle school principal of 

Edward W. Brooke Charter School. 

“The performance bonus, as long 

as it is fair and transparent, is 

recognition for achievement in a 

very challenging profession.”
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

4 0

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

4 1

Rewarding Results

A majority of Americans favor a teacher compensation system 

that takes into account factors such as service in high-poverty 

schools, filling in-demand subjects such as math and science, 

and success in improving student achievement.

An increasing number of policymakers and school 

officials agree.

Today, at least 36 states plus the District of Columbia have 

some form of alternative compensation system in place.

Florida, Chicago, New York City, Denver, and Houston 

are among the states and cities now paying teachers for 

performance, including bonuses for higher student test scores.

The Department is working with state and school officials to 

determine the best ways to implement performance pay.

“We believe that teachers really do see the advantages of this,” 

said D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. “They really 

believe this is going to be in the best interests of students and 

teachers in the long run.”

Teacher Incentive Fund

Teachers who make great strides in improving student 

achievement or closing the achievement gap in challenging 

circumstances deserve to be rewarded.

President Bush’s Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is the nation’s 

first federally funded program specifically geared toward 

performance pay.

The program supports states and school districts that provide 

financial incentives for teachers and principals who show results 

in high-need schools. 

A total of 34 grantees in 19 states, including non-profit groups, 

have received funding under TIF, which also helps align teacher 

hiring with the academic achievement goals of No Child Left 

Behind. “We want to get the best teachers into the schools 

that need the most help. This is going to help achieve that,” 

said Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan. His district 

received a $27.5 million TIF grant from the U.S. Department 

of Education in 2006. 

Other Support for Teachers

The Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative, created by teachers for

teachers, enables educators from around the country to 

participate in summer workshops with the Department of 

Education. All 50 states and the District of Columbia grant 

professional development credit for participation in 

the program.

Hundreds of thousands of teachers have been trained through 

the Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative, learning effective strategies 

for raising student achievement. Many were aided by the 

Department’s companion e-Learning professional development 

Web site.

Dozens of digital, online workshops are available on a number 

of subjects. The Department’s Web site has a searchable 

database of over 1,500 free teaching resources and lesson plans.

Teacher-to-Teacher has recently collaborated with the 

technology consortium TechNet to create urban teacher 

workshops focused on teaching math, science, and technology.

Safer Schools

Every teacher deserves to work in a safe, orderly classroom free 

from crime, violence and drugs. And every student deserves 

to learn in one. A school should be an oasis of learning and 

character building, no matter where it is located or what 

community it serves. 

School violence has declined significantly in America. In 

1992, the nonfatal violent crime rate for students in school 

aged 12–18 was 48 per 1,000. In 2005, it was 24 per 1,000. 

In 2003–04, 7 percent of teachers reported threats of violence 

from students, compared to 12 percent in 1993–94.

Still, numerous troubling incidents across the nation—such as 

a West Baltimore school having to change its uniform colors 

because of gang fights between the “Crips” and “Bloods”—

shock the conscience.

“In education, many times the battle is all about what is 

best for the adults, not what is best for the kids.”

Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2006

The U.S. Department of Education is working to make schools 

safer through a variety of initiatives, including support for drug 

and violence prevention activities, emergency management 

strategies, and character education programs.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that states, in 

conjunction with a representative sample of local school 

districts, develop a definition of “persistently dangerous” 

schools. Students attending schools so designated must be 

offered the opportunity to transfer to a safer public or public 

charter school in their district. Students who are victims of 

violent crime at the school they attend are also eligible 

to transfer.

In practice, however, the definition of “persistently dangerous” 

has been weakened so badly that only a handful of states 

identify any schools that fit that category. This removes pressure 

to improve school safety, and puts millions of students and 

teachers at greater risk.

The Safe Schools-Healthy Students Initiative, a collaborative 

program jointly funded and administered by the U.S. 

departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human 

Services, provides grants to local education agencies to create 

safe and drug-free learning environments in conjunction 

with law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental 

health officials.

Character Education

The Partnerships in Character Education program awards 

grants for up to four years to state and local education agencies 

to design for the classroom character education programs 

that teach students civic virtue, citizenship, responsibility, 

and respect for themselves and others. Grantees must involve 

parents and community members in the effort.

The Department’s What Works Clearinghouse works 

to identify effective, research-based practices in character 

education. The Department also supports the Character 

Education and Civic Engagement Technical Assistance Center 

(CETAC), which helps school officials implement high-quality 

character education and civic engagement strategies.

Emergency Planning

The Department’s Readiness and Emergency Management 

for Schools Grant Program (REMS) helps local education 

agencies develop and improve plans to respond to emergencies 

or crises. Each grantee must assess school vulnerabilities and 

address the four phases of effective emergency management 

planning: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, 

and recovery.

To provide rapid assistance to school districts experiencing 

crisis situations, the Department implemented Project School 

Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV). Project 

SERV has assisted districts impacted by the Sept. 11 terrorist 

attacks. It has helped restore learning environments in the Gulf 

Coast region damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. 

And it has helped districts recover from school shootings such 

as those at Minnesota’s Red Lake High School in 2005, and at 

Colorado’s Platte Canyon High School in 2006.

In response to the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University 

in 2007, the Department developed the Emergency 

Management for Higher Education grant program to help 

colleges and universities improve emergency management 

plans and procedures. The Department also awarded nearly $1 

million to Virginia Tech to assist with recovery and support 

effective models for assessing and responding to at-risk 

student behavior.

These models will inform the efforts of other institutions of 

higher education.
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

42

Schools Leading the Way

While some people write off underperforming schools, others are working hard to turn them around. The following schools are 

among those that believe that every child can succeed and have put that belief into action.

“We Clap for 100”

Fairfield Court Elementary School in Richmond, Va., earned 

a 2008 Title I Distinguished School award, scoring above the 

60th percentile in both math and reading.

A culture of achievement in this high-poverty school is the 

reason why. “When someone gets a 100, we all clap out,” fifthgrade teacher Ellen Sailes told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. 

“We don’t clap for a 96.”

Still, the fact that 97 percent of the school’s students passed 

Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) writing test in 2007 

deserves applause.

Principal Irene L. Williams credited “a dedicated staff, frequent 

practice tests, and the careful examination of data,” according 

to the newspaper. In January 2008, Fairfield Court received the 

Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence.

Brave Change

At Sequoyah Middle School in Doraville, Ga., three-fourths of 

the students were born outside of the U.S., and students speak 

22 different languages at home.

A desire to do well unifies them. After five straight years of 

not meeting state standards, Sequoyah was restructured, as 

required by NCLB. A new principal, Trenton Arnold, and new 

teachers were hired. A College Board-developed curriculum was 

adopted. And in 2006, the Sequoyah Braves reached their goal. 

“Starting over from scratch hasn’t been easy,” said Secretary 

Margaret Spellings, who visited the school. But “with a strong 

leader ... it can yield impressive results.”

Passing the Test

Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. Those are some of the names 

of classrooms in Ralph J. Bunche Elementary School in the 

Compton (Calif.) Unified School District, where the children 

think about college—and their future in it—all the time.

Former Principal Mikara Solomon Davis took a school in the 

lowest 10 percent academically and changed its focus until it 

reached near-total proficiency.

How? Through testing. “Every Friday, we assess,” she told 

National Public Radio. “It’s not only an assessment of how 

you’re doing as a student, but it’s an assessment of how I’m 

doing as a teacher.”

The school—half Latino, half African-American, and nearly 

all qualified for free or reduced-price lunches—has attracted a 

corps of young, aggressive teachers.

Said Solomon Davis: “If you love your kids and you put that 

first, you will always do the right thing.”

“Failure Isn’t an Option”

No, it is not just a line from a movie. These are the words 

of former principal Jerry Hoyle of the award-winning East 

Elementary School in Kings Mountain, N.C. 

In 2007, the school received the highest proficiency scores—

97.8 percent in reading, and 94.6 percent in math—in the 

Cleveland County Schools.

What’s the secret? No frills, just “high expectations,” Hoyle 

said. “We involve the parents. And we make sure the students 

know they are here to learn and are expected to behave.”

Another factor is a strong working relationship with the 

teachers, which led to the school receiving North Carolina’s 

coveted Real D.E.A.L. (Dedicated Educators, Administrators 

and Learners) award.

42

Higher Education That Aims Higher
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

44 4 5

Our universities, meritocratic and independent, have embodied the American ideal and are a 

steppingstone to the American Dream.

But, to keep pace, higher education faces twin challenges. One is from a K–12 public school 

system that does not prepare all of its students for success in college or the global economy. 

Colleges and universities are forced to do the jobs of our high schools, investing billions of 

dollars in remedial education.

Too many high school graduates have not developed the skills they need to be ready for college or 

the workforce.

The other challenge comes from within. A system that is deservedly praised as the “best in the 

world” threatens to succumb to complacency. Tuition continues to skyrocket. A lack of transparency 

feeds a loss of accountability. It has become increasingly difficult to determine if students are getting 

what they (or their parents) paid for. 

Parents and students have a real stake in reform. So do all taxpayers, with federal spending making 

up nearly one-third of the total investment in higher education.

Change is needed. But it must not sacrifice higher education’s unique stature and independence. 

Americans must work together to leverage the nation’s resources and commitment to reform. And 

our schools must lead the way.

Meeting Challenges Through 

Higher Education

Historically, Americans have turned to higher education when 

faced with a major challenge:

At the height of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln 

signed the Morrill Act into law, leading to the creation of more 

than 70 institutions of higher education, including Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities. 

After World War II, nearly 10 million veterans attended college 

under the GI Bill, producing 450,000 new engineers, 238,000 

teachers, 91,000 scientists, and 67,000 doctors.

After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I in 1957, Congress 

passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958, which 

strengthened math and science curricula in high schools and 

provided loans to more than 1.5 million college students. 

Within a decade, the number of science and engineering 

doctorates awarded annually in the U.S. tripled.

Expecting More

Today, however, the country does not have the luxury of 

waiting for another crisis to spur action.

“We have no single awakening event, such as Sputnik,” wrote 

the authors of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, published 

in 2005 by the National Academies Committee on Science, 

Engineering, and Public Policy. “The United States is instead 

facing problems that are developing slowly but surely, each like 

a tile in a mosaic.”

More and more, higher education is seen as essential for 

advancement in the global economy. Ninety percent of 

the fastest-growing jobs require postsecondary education 

or training.

Studies show that a four-year college graduate stands to earn 

about $800,000 more than a high school graduate over his or 

her lifetime.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that by 2012, there will be 3 

million more jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree. But there may 

not be enough graduates to fill them.

Between 1962 and 1972, America was first in the world in 

college completion rates.

In 2005, it was 10th among 25- to 34-year-olds—despite a 

tripling of federal funding for higher education.

To keep up with global competition, an estimated 20 million 

more Americans must earn a college degree by 2025.

Ready From Day One?

One of the best ways to help colleges and universities meet this 

need is to give them freshman students ready to learn. High 

school graduates must receive a meaningful diploma. 

Unfortunately, many students have been ill-prepared for the 

rigors of higher education. Only 4 percent of low-income 

students—and three in 10 of all students—complete a collegepreparatory curriculum. Less than 9 percent of low-income 

students earn a bachelor’s degree by age 24.

It is not because college is not a desired destination. On the 

contrary: the competition to gain admission is fierce, and 

not just among the affluent. A record number of high school 

seniors in 2007 took the ACT college admissions test, 9 percent 

more than the year before.

In 1980, less than one-fifth of students from low-income 

families aspired to earn a four-year degree. In 2002, more than 

half did. 

Increasingly, colleges must teach what high schools could not 

or would not teach. More than a third of high school students 

who go on to college need to take remedial courses in order to 

acquire basic academic skills.

The need is especially critical in math and science, the two most 

in-demand subjects in the global economy.

Fifty-seven percent of high school graduates who took the ACT 

test in 2007 were not prepared to take an entry-level college 

algebra course.

“Student learning in mathematics appears to regress in high 

school,” reports ACT.

Americans look to higher education 

to help them build a better life

and a greater nation.
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

46

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

47

Rationing Rigor

One of the best predictors of success in college is completing 

advanced placement coursework. A high school student who 

passes AP exams is three times more likely to earn a college 

degree than his or her peers.

Since 2000, the percentage of students who have taken and 

passed AP courses has risen in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia, according to the College Board.

But in many schools, especially those in poor and urban 

neighborhoods, rigor is rationed. Some high schools offer no 

advanced placement courses, while students a few miles away 

can choose from dozens.

The U.S. Department of Education addressed this problem 

by awarding a record amount of grant funding last year, $32 

million, for the Advanced Placement Incentive Program. 

The program trains teachers to lead AP and International 

Baccalaureate math, science, and critical-need foreign language 

courses in high-need schools.

Two new Departmental grant programs are encouraging 

students, particularly from low-income families, to take collegetrack course work and to study the in-demand STEM fields 

(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics):

Academic Competitiveness (AC) Grants are awarded 

to Pell Grant-eligible college freshmen and sophomores 

who took challenging course work in high school. Up 

to $750 is awarded to first-year students who maintain 

good grades, and up to $1,300 to second-year students, 

in addition to their Pell Grants.

National SMART (Science and Mathematics Access 

to Retain Talent) Grants of up to $4,000 a year are 

awarded to Pell-eligible college juniors and seniors 

who are getting good grades in the STEM majors or in 

critical-need foreign language majors.

•

•

More than $400 million in AC and National SMART grants 

were awarded in 2007, benefiting 360,000 students in the 

program’s first year. To date, more than 500,000 students have 

received grants.

Regrettably, the Department had to send back to the U.S. 

Treasury more than $500 million in FY 2008 because not 

enough students had been offered or had taken the rigorous 

course work needed to qualify for an AC or SMART grant.

Solving the Dropout Crisis

Many children do not make it far enough through the K–12 

public school system to even consider their college options. 

Every year approximately 1 million American students drop out 

of high school.

Today, according to the Education Trust, the U.S. is the only 

industrialized nation whose young people are less likely than 

their parents to earn a high school diploma—a shocking 

finding to those who believe in the American Dream.

The costs to the individual are profound. Reports show the 

United States has the most severe income gap between high 

school graduates and dropouts in the world.

An adult who dropped out is 41 percent more likely to be 

unemployed, 51 percent less likely to vote, and 57 percent 

more likely to receive food stamps.

The problem is concentrated in a number of troubled schools, 

the so-called “dropout factories.” Fifteen percent of public high 

schools produce about half of the nation’s dropouts.

A 2008 report by America’s Promise Alliance found that just 52 

percent of high school students in the 50 largest cities earn a 

diploma within four years. In Detroit, the figure is 25 percent.

“Each year’s class of dropouts is costing state taxpayers about $42 million 

per year, each and every year, in increased governmental expenditures and 

reduced taxes. We really need to begin to get this under control.”

Christopher Summers, president, Maryland Public Policy Institute, 2008

Graduation Compact

To solve the problem, it must first be measured. But a crazyquilt approach to calculating graduation rates has hindered that 

effort. In some districts, a person who pledges to earn a GED at 

a later date is counted as a “graduate.”

In others, a student must register as a dropout before being 

counted as one.

Most states have not had systems in place to track students 

across districts, leaving officials unable to determine if students 

who left their schools had continued their education elsewhere.

The Department has encouraged states to disaggregate 

graduation rate data and demonstrate continuous improvement 

in meeting their graduation targets.

In 2004, the Department recommended that each state 

develop a system to provide a single, more accurate method of 

calculating four-year graduation rates.

In 2005, governors from all 50 states agreed to adopt a uniform 

graduation rate definition.

But by October 2008, only 16 states had fully developed the 

capacity to implement that definition.

In October 2008, the Department announced final Title I 

regulations requiring that by 2010, all states use the same 

accurate and honest formula to calculate graduation and 

dropout rates. Data from this “four-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate” will be disaggregated and made public so 

educators and parents can hold their schools accountable and 

compare them to others across the nation.

Priced Out

A lack of preparation is one barrier to higher education. 

Another is rising costs.

From 1995 to 2005, average tuition and fees rose 51 percent at 

public four-year colleges and universities, 36 percent at private 

four-year institutions, and 30 percent at community colleges 

(after adjustment for inflation).

Tuition has risen faster than inflation, family income, and 

health care costs.

The bottom line? Private school graduates leave college $20,000 

in median debt.

One in 10 graduates carries a $40,000 debt.

It is getting harder to make up the difference between grant aid 

and college costs. In 1975–76, the maximum federal Pell Grant 

covered 84 percent of the cost of attending a public four-year 

college; in 2000–01, it covered just 40 percent.

The rest of the world, meanwhile, is beating a path to our 

university doors. The number of foreign students in the 

U.S. increased seven percent last year to nearly 624,000, 

an all-time record. 

Young people from abroad are rushing to fill the critical 

STEM fields. In 2004, more than half of all Ph.D. engineering 

students in American universities were born outside the U.S.

In many cases, their innovation and expertise will return home 

with them. 

Other nations are finding out that they can “cut out the 

middleman” by improving their own systems of higher 

education. In China, for example, the number of college 

students has exploded from 6.3 million in 1998 to 14 million 

in 2005.

Commission on the Future 

of Higher Education

To retain the title of “best in the world,” Americans must turn 

to their colleges and universities and say, “We expect more.”

In 2005, Secretary Spellings formed the Commission on the 

Future of Higher Education, launching a national dialogue 

on how to strengthen colleges and universities. It was chaired 

by Charles Miller, former chairman of the University of Texas 

Board of Regents, and was comprised of leaders from academia, 

business, and government.

Its final report, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future 

of U.S. Higher Education, indicated that America’s system 

of higher education must become better prepared for the 

challenges of an increasingly diverse student population and 

a highly competitive global economy. It found that one of the 

biggest barriers to ensuring the value of a college education is 

“substandard high school preparation compounded by poor 

alignment between ... what colleges require and what high 

schools produce.”
4 9

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

48

SPOTLIGHT

The College Try

The higher education community has an important role to play in teaching at-risk children 

about the importance of staying in school and earning a meaningful high school diploma. 

Many institutions have taken up the challenge:

• The American Council on Education has launched Know How To Go, a major public service 

campaign to encourage low-income, first-generation students to prepare for college;

• The Lumina Foundation for Education created Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count, 

to help at-risk students overcome barriers to staying in school; and

• The National Association of System Heads developed the Access to Success initiative to work 

with K–12 schools to improve student preparation for college.

States, too, have joined the fight:

• Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels launched a college outreach campaign targeting low-income 

students called “Learn More Indiana”;

• Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed an executive order in 2007 extending secondary school 

for two years and aligning high school curricula with higher education and workforce needs;

• Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed “Promise Zones” in cities with high rates of 

poverty to provide extra funds for higher education;

• New York’s Higher Education Commission has recommended guaranteeing free college tuition 

for 7th- and 8th-graders in high-need school districts who meet academic requirements; and

• North Carolina is creating 70 new “early college” high schools where students can take collegelevel classes.

“Many students who do earn degrees have not actually 

mastered the reading, writing, and thinking skills we expect of 

college graduates,” the commission reported. “Employers report 

repeatedly that many new graduates they hire are not prepared 

to work.”

The commission was charged with examining how colleges 

and universities could become more accessible, affordable, and 

accountable. It found that:

Access, particularly for low-income and minority students, 

is “unduly limited” by “inadequate preparation, lack of 

information about college opportunities, and persistent 

financial barriers.”

Affordability is hindered by a lack of transparency and a 

financial aid system that is “confusing, complex, inefficient, and 

duplicative.” Red tape keeps some low-income college students 

from even applying for federal aid.

Accountability is made difficult by a “lack of clear, reliable 

information about the cost and quality of postsecondary 

institutions,” “limited and inadequate” data systems, and a 

“remarkable absence of accountability mechanisms.”

The commission concluded that “higher education must 

change from a system primarily based on reputation to one 

based on performance.”

Action Plan for Higher Education

Building on the commission’s work, in September 2006, 

the Department of Education launched its Action Plan for 

Higher Education.

It proposed a number of reforms, including aligning high 

school standards with college expectations; using the Internet 

to help families compare schools and navigate the financial aid 

system; and working with states to modernize their information 

systems and share data without compromising student privacy.

Two years later, progress has been made on each of the 

commission’s major goals.

Access

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has 

been called more perplexing than the IRS 1040 tax form. It 

is six pages long and requires more than 100 questions to be 

answered. The commission recommended that the application 

process be “substantially streamlined,” with a “much shorter 

and simpler application form.”

In 2008, the Department outlined an example of a proposal 

for Congress to redesign the FAFSA, reducing the number of 

questions to 27. The redesign would enable families to learn 

how much aid they can expect to receive at a much earlier date.

While FAFSA simplification is still necessary, progress towards 

improved access has already begun. Of the 16 million FAFSAs 

expected to be processed in 2008, more than 95 percent will be 

submitted through FAFSA on the Web.

This will save taxpayers millions of dollars and improve the 

speed and accuracy of the process. At its peak, FAFSA on the 

Web processes over 200,000 applications per day.

“In this consumer-driven environment, students increasingly care 

little about the distinctions that sometimes preoccupy the academic 

establishment, from whether a college has for-profit or nonprofit 

status to whether its classes are offered online or in brick-and-mortar 

buildings. Instead, they care—as we do—about results.”

A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, Commission on the Future of Higher Education, U.S. 

Department of Education, 2006
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 0

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 1

A companion Internet tool is the FAFSA4caster, which 

instantly calculates the federal financial aid that a student may 

be eligible to receive. Using the FAFSA4caster also saves time 

in completing the FAFSA. Over 80 percent of students and 

families that completed the FAFSA4caster in 2008 indicated 

they had a better understanding of federal student aid after 

visiting the site.

The Department launched two nationwide public service 

campaigns—“Only a Dream” and “My Story”—aimed at 

aspiring first-generation students. The commercial spots, which 

feature real students sharing their experiences, teach kids about 

the benefits of a college degree and what it takes to achieve one.

In 2008, the Department launched college.gov, an interactive 

Web site to show families new to the financial aid process how 

they can make the dream of higher education a reality.

College.gov has garnered rave reviews. “It is chock full of 

information and easy to navigate. As a counselor, this will help 

me communicate the message of why college is important to 

my students,” said one user.

“It’s very clear and easy to understand. It also has the answer to 

many important questions students would have,” said another.

Affordability

The maximum Pell Grant award was increased from about 

$3,700 in 2001 to $4,731 for the 2008–09 school year, and 

funding for Pell Grants has nearly doubled in that time.

About 1.5 million more students are receiving Pell Grants.

President Bush has called on Congress to further increase the 

grant to a maximum of $5,400 over the next five years. He also 

asked Congress to make the grants available year-round to lowincome students, which was accomplished in 2008.

Federal funding for the nation’s Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions has 

been increased by 30 percent since 2001, enabling schools to 

purchase books and equipment, renovate facilities, and improve 

teacher training and student outreach.

In 2008, the Department of Education and the Federal 

Trade Commission jointly published Student Loans: Avoiding 

Deceptive Offers, which advises consumers on ways to avoid 

scams and combat unscrupulous lenders when navigating the 

student loan process.

A free brochure in English and Spanish, Federal Aid First, 

explains the differences between various types of student loans, 

including those offered by banks and credit unions.

Accountability

Families are looking for more information about colleges and 

universities, starting with facts on admission, enrollment, 

and graduation rates. The Department redesigned its College 

Navigator Web site to make it easier for families to compare 

institutions of higher education. The redesigned site was named 

by Money magazine as “the best first screen” for researching 

colleges as well as “one of the simplest” to use.

Currently, about 40 states have higher education information 

systems in place that are privacy-protected.

The Department has proposed financial incentives to connect 

these islands of data and bring all states into the process. This 

would enable the Department to enhance its College Navigator 

and make it more responsive.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 

(FIPSE) enables schools to develop accurate methods of 

measuring student achievement outcomes. The Department 

has awarded $2.45 million in FIPSE grants to three major 

higher education associations representing 1,600 public and 

private schools.

In November 2006, the Department convened a Forum 

on Accreditation, in which representatives from accrediting 

agencies, colleges and universities, and public and private 

organizations debated how to make student learning outcomes 

a core factor in determining accreditation.

About 60 percent of all college students transfer at least 

once before graduating, losing an average of one semester of 

course work due to denial of credit transfer. The Department 

has initiated a transfer of credit study to improve the 

experiences of Pell Grant recipients who transfer between 

eligible institutions.

The Department also has proposed a multi-state 

demonstration program to unite higher education institutions 

behind the goal of reforming transfer of credit policies.

College Support for the “Three As”

Many in the higher education community have embraced the 

reforms suggested by the commission:

The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 

Colleges (NASULGC) and the American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities (AASCU) now provide information 

using a single, common reporting format.

The University of Nebraska partners with the Building 

Bright Futures initiative, which supports low-income and atrisk children with mentoring, academic support and 

college scholarships.

The University System of Maryland’s Effectiveness 

and Efficiency Initiative helps schools cut costs while 

accommodating increases in student enrollment and 

maintaining current programs.

California State University, led by Chancellor Charles B. Reed, 

has embarked on a $2 million, five-year program to double the 

number of math and science teachers it prepares for the K–12 

classroom. The university system also offers free retraining for 

math and English teachers.

“College gives you the 

opportunity to ... make a 

decision, an informed decision, 

an intelligent decision on what 

you want to do with the rest of 

your life and how you’re going 

to live that life.”

Jamal Taylor, student, Louisiana State 

University, 2007
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 2

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 3

Community Colleges

With more students taking a non-traditional path to a degree, 

as the commission has noted, community colleges have become 

more vital than ever before.

They fill a real need for flexible, economical, and responsive 

learning. It is worth noting that tuition for two-year 

community colleges actually declined, when adjusted for 

inflation, in the 2008-09 school year. 

Nearly half (46 percent) of all undergraduate students 

attend one of the nation’s 1,200 two- and four-year 

community colleges.

Most seek the skills to succeed in the high-growth jobs of 

the global marketplace or to fill the urgent needs of the local 

economy. Many community college students make education 

their profession: about fifty percent of teachers working in U.S. 

schools passed through a community college at some point.

Recognizing their importance, the Department has expanded 

support for community college students. These students benefit 

from increases in the maximum Pell Grant award and changes 

allowing Pell Grants to be awarded year-round. 

In addition, given that community college students often 

transfer to four-year institutions to complete their education, 

the Department’s transfer of credit study can inform changes 

that will assist these students.

Finally, more than $375 million in federal funds have been 

invested in Community-Based Job Training Grants to help 

community colleges train new workers.

Adult Education

Higher education is not reserved for young high school 

graduates coming up through the system. It also serves 

adults coming back to earn the skills to succeed in the 

modern workplace.

In September 2007, President Bush signed an executive 

order strengthening adult education and establishing an 

Interagency Adult Education Working Group, chaired by the 

secretary of education. The order charges the government with 

strengthening literacy skills and improving opportunities for 

postsecondary education and employment.

More than one in five adults does not have the basic literacy 

skills needed to perform simple and everyday quantitative 

tasks, according to NCES’s 2003 National Assessment of 

Adult Literacy. 

The Department’s Ready for College: Adult Education 

Transitions Program helps community college systems in four 

states collaborate with adult education programs to improve 

college readiness.

Since 2001, the Department has invested more than $10 

million in scientifically based research to identify effective 

interventions for teaching adults.

Finally, the Department has expanded Project IDEAL to 

support distance-learning programs in every state.

“Rather than urge more government funds or suggest some shifts in academic 

focus, the Spellings panel proposed a direct challenge to some deeply cherished 

and longstanding ways in which colleges operate, calling on higher education to 

shed some of its mystery and fundamentally prove the value it delivers.”

Paul Basken, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 2007

Protecting Student Loans

In 2008, the nationwide financial crisis and economic 

slowdown constrained capital markets, posing serious 

challenges to college students who rely on federal student 

loans. As a result of the credit crunch, the loan marketplace was 

threatened with instability and a lack of readily available funds.

Some lenders suspended participation in the Federal Family 

Education Loan Program (FFELP), which in 2007 was 

responsible for $50 billion in loans to 6.8 million borrowers.

This created uncertainty for families planning for college and 

put students at risk of losing access to federally guaranteed 

loans for the 2008–09 school year.

Building on legislation signed by the President (HR 5715, 

the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act), in May, 

Secretary Spellings and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 

announced a four-part plan to stabilize the federal student 

loan market.

The plan featured: 

Short-term relief for lenders to help open up funds 

for students;

A commitment to continue working with the lending 

community to re-engage capital markets; 

A strengthened lender of last resort program; and 

Increased direct loan capacity. 

As of October 2008, nearly $60 billion in federal student loans 

had been originated for the 2008–09 academic year.

•

•

•

•

Also in October, President Bush signed a one-year extension of 

the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act.

With the extension, the Department announced the 

following goals: 

Ensure availability of federal student loans for the 

2009–10 school year; 

Maintain the public/private partnership in the federal 

student loan program; 

Protect taxpayer interest by adding no net-cost to the 

federal government; and 

Provide the liquidity and support needed to stabilize the 

student loan marketplace.

Building on these goals, the Department announced the 

replication of student lending programs for academic year 

2009–10 and its intention to provide liquidity support to one 

or more conforming Asset-Backed Commercial Paper conduits.

* * *

“It is no exaggeration to declare that higher education in the 

United States has become one of our greatest success stories,” 

the Secretary’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education 

found. However, the challenges of the 21st century are great, 

and demand that our colleges and universities aim even higher 

to meet them. 

•

•

•

•
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

54

New Choices for a New Century

Responding to Crisis: The Virginia Tech Shootings

The entire nation mourned the losses of the shootings at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, and looked for 

ways to prevent such tragedies and protect students in the future.

Soon after the Virginia Tech tragedy, President Bush directed Secretary Margaret Spellings and other 

Cabinet secretaries to travel to communities across the nation to meet with educators, mental health 

experts, and law enforcement and state and local officials.

In June 2007, the Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy was released.

Its five key findings were:

1. Key personnel are not fully informed about when they can legally share private information 

about persons who may be a danger to themselves and others.

2. There is a lack of uniform, readily available information on persons restricted from

possessing firearms.

3. Parents, teachers, and students may need help recognizing the warning signs of someone in 

need of professional care.

4. Effective coordination of community service providers is needed. They must be sensitive to 

the interests of safety, privacy, and provision of care.

5. Existing emergency preparedness and violence prevention plans must be taken off the shelf 

and fully implemented, communicated, and practiced by schools and communities.

In July 2007, the Department of Education held an expert symposium on the Virginia Tech campus 

to discuss the issues surrounding the tragedy, including the availability of mental health services to 

students and the community.

In September 2007, the Department awarded the school a grant of nearly $1 million to assist recovery 

efforts and develop models for identifying and responding to at-risk behaviors.

In January 2007, the Department published Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for 

Schools and Communities. The revised guide directs schools through the four major aspects of 

crisis planning.

The Department also distributed guides to parents, educators, and college officials explaining the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in order to help schools balance students’ privacy 

rights with safety concerns.
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 6 5 7

Today we live in a technology-driven global marketplace where ideas and innovation matter more 

than muscle and machines.

The information revolution has given us new tools with which to respond quickly to every 

opportunity and challenge. In this “flat” world of increasingly global competition, it is imperative 

that people everywhere know how and when to use them.

Is America’s public education system taking full advantage of these new tools? Sadly, the answer 

is “no.”

When the Internet enables children to learn at the click of a mouse from anywhere on earth, it does 

not make sense that “school is the least technologically interesting place that kids spend their day,” 

according to John Chubb, managing director of the Edison Learning Institute.

When businesses survive by streamlining processes and improving customer service, it does not 

make sense that centrally planned rules and regulations strangle innovation in the classroom.

The industrial-age world in which America’s 

 education system was created exists no more. 

When adult Americans have more freedom to change their jobs 

and choose their destinies than ever before, it does not make 

sense that we fight to deny parents a choice of school.

The U.S. Department of Education has worked to give students 

and families more options and more chances to succeed. This 

includes promoting the expansion of charter schools, providing 

extra instructional help to at-risk kids, and advocating for 

opportunity scholarships in school districts where children are 

consistently denied a quality education. The Department also 

is working to promote technology as a learning tool so the 

modern classroom may become as plugged-in as its students.

The Rise of Charter Schools

Many educators are escaping their constraints by forming 

charter schools, which are freed from many central regulations 

and bureaucratic fiats.

Charter schools have built-in accountability: authorizers can 

close schools if they are not up to the task. Charters also fill a 

critical need to educate children stuck in poorly performing 

schools that refuse to do what is needed to meet academic 

standards. Because they take their cues from parents, charter 

schools are often more innovative, creative, and responsive to 

the community.

In 1991, Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school 

law. Today, 40 states and the District of Columbia have laws 

allowing charter schools. An estimated 4,300-plus charter 

schools educate more than 1.2 million students across the 

country. More than 350 new charters opened for the 

2008–09 school year.

The number of charter schools has more than doubled 

since 2000.

Charter schools are meeting the need to educate at-risk 

students. According to the Center for Education Reform, more 

than half of charter school students qualify for free or reducedprice lunches. In some urban areas, charter schools serve over 

one-quarter of the district’s students.

In New Orleans, more than half the schoolchildren attend 

charter schools, which came to the rescue following 

Hurricane Katrina.

A study by Caroline Hoxby of the National Bureau of 

Economic Research found that charters are more likely 

than traditional public schools in the same area to raise the 

achievement levels in reading and math. Low-income and 

Hispanic students were especially likely to be helped, the 

study showed.

Individual success stories bear this out:

Amistad Academy in New Haven, Conn., performs 

better than the state average in reading and 

mathematics, with more than eight of 10 students 

passing the tests despite an 84 percent low-income 

middle school population.

At Carl C. Icahn Charter School in the Bronx, 100 

percent of the third- and fourth-graders—90 percent 

of whom are from low-income families—scored 

“proficient” or higher on the state math exam, compared 

to 61 percent of third-graders and 52 percent of fourthgraders in the district.

Many charter schools are dispensing with the old six-hours-aday, 180-days-a-year model that was developed to conform to 

farmers’ schedules in the 1800s. Today, institutions such as the 

KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) Academy are lengthening 

the school day, week, and year to reach students who need extra 

time and attention to master material.

Unfortunately, 26 states impose a cap on the number of charter 

schools or their students, resulting in long waiting lists to apply 

to and attend them.

And unlike traditional public schools, in nearly three-fourths 

of states, charter schools do not receive independent funding 

for facilities.

•

•
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

58

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

5 9

Supporting Charters

President Bush strongly supports the expansion of charter 

schools. More than $1.8 billion in start-up money for 

individual schools has been invested since 2001 through the 

Department’s Charter Schools Program. Since 2001, nearly 

1,900 schools have received funding, and about 30 states are 

home to current grantees.

States that have increased the number of high-quality 

charter schools, that periodically review and evaluate their 

performance, and that grant charters a high degree of 

autonomy have been given preference in the awarding of grants.

The Department’s Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program has leveraged $739 million in financing 

for more than 200 charter schools, enabling them to acquire, 

construct, or renovate academic facilities.

To help charter schools thrive, the National Resource Center 

on Charter School Finance and Governance was formed in 

2006. A public-private partnership, it provides information, 

tools, and technical assistance to improve charter school 

management and governance.

In May 2008, the Office of Innovation and Improvement 

hosted the National Charter School Policy Forum. The event 

brought together 100 of the nation’s foremost leaders in the 

field to discuss how to develop strong charter systems, build 

strategic partnerships, and expand parental options.

Finally, the Department has awarded national leadership grants 

to grantees that are working to enhance and expand states’ 

capacity to support high-quality charter schools, especially 

in urban and rural areas that may be home to many schools 

identified for improvement.

Choice and No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act arms parents with information 

through student testing data and state and school district report 

cards so they have a greater ability to influence change.

“Information is essential. But reform also requires options,” 

then-Governor George W. Bush said in 1999. “Competition is 

required to jolt a bureaucracy out of its lethargy.”

Under NCLB, schools that have not made adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) for two or more years must give parents the 

option of transferring their student to another public school 

or public charter school that has made AYP within the district. 

The district must provide or pay for the student’s transportation 

to the new school.

Data show that students choosing this option typically 

transferred from a school with below-average achievement levels 

to one with above-average achievement levels, and from less 

diverse schools to more diverse schools.

Nationwide, about 120,000 students took advantage of this 

option during the 2006–07 school year. The participation rate 

has more than doubled since the first year choice was offered. 

However, that figure represented only about 2 percent of 

eligible students.

Although districts are required to inform parents about the 

choice option, many do not notify them at an early enough 

stage to make the transfer possible. In 2004–05, less than onethird (29 percent) of districts required to offer school choice 

notified parents of eligible students before the beginning of the 

school year.

The Department is working with districts to improve 

notification so no eligible student is unwillingly left behind. 

In October 2008, final Title I regulations were announced, 

requiring that schools notify parents in a clear and timely 

way—a minimum of two weeks before the start of the school 

year—about their children’s public school choice options.

SPOTLIGHT

Milestones in School Choice

In 1971, the nation’s first public school choice program was 

sponsored in Alum Rock, Calif. It offered low-income parents the 

option of having their children attend another public school in the 

district through vouchers.

In 1974, East Harlem, N.Y., (District 4) created autonomous, 

innovative schools that students could choose to attend. After ranking 

last in the city in 1973, East Harlem saw its reading scores rise from 

15.9 percent to 62.6 percent in 14 years.

In 1986, the National Governors Association’s report, Time for 

Results, endorsed school choice programs for states. 

In 1988, Minnesota became the first state to permit statewide interdistrict open enrollment in public schools for all students.

In 1990, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson signed the 

nation’s first urban school voucher bill into law, allowing students 

in Milwaukee Public Schools to attend any public or private school 

within the city.

In 1996, the state of Ohio launched the Cleveland Scholarship and 

Tutoring Program. It gave students in the troubled Cleveland Public 

Schools the option of attending another public school, a private 

school, or a new “Community School”—or to receive tutorial help in 

their current school.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

that the Cleveland voucher program permitted families “to exercise 

genuine choice among options public and private, secular and 

religious.” Therefore, it “does not offend the Establishment Clause,” 

and is constitutional.

In 2004, the nation’s first federally funded voucher program, the 

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, was signed into law by 

President Bush.

“When you walk into this institution, you know 

you’re in a place of learning. It’s very challenging, 

the days are long, and the work is hard. But my 

daughter is excited about it.”

Yvonne Lee, parent, KIPP Gaston College Preparatory, Gaston, N.C., www.kipp.org
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

6 0

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

6 1

The Department is committed to other innovative forms 

of choice.

The Voluntary Public School Choice program offers grants 

to states and districts to develop innovative school choice 

programs, including magnet and charter schools and Internetbased education programs.

Supplemental Educational Services

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) is the term for 

tutoring, after-school help, and other programs designed to 

help children get back on track academically. Title I schools 

that have not made AYP for three or more years must provide 

eligible students with this option at no cost to their parents.

In the 2006–07 school year, 533,000 children received SES 

services. However, this represented just 14 percent of the 3.7 

million students who were eligible.

Districts that notified parents earlier of the opportunity to 

receive SES had higher participation rates.

In an evaluation of Title I school choice and supplemental 

educational services conducted as part of the National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind, researchers found 

positive effects on achievement for those students participating 

in SES for the first time. The effects were cumulative when 

students participated in SES multiple times.

The study also found that SES-enrolled students started at 

lower academic achievement levels on average than other 

students, suggesting that the services are reaching the children 

who need them the most. In the nine large urban districts 

surveyed, African-American, Hispanic, limited English 

proficient students, and students with disabilities received SES 

at a higher rate than others.

To improve student participation, the Department initiated a 

series of SES pilots in selected states and districts.

In 2005–06, the Department began a pilot program in 

Virginia, allowing four school districts to offer SES to students 

at year one of improvement status—one year earlier than 

called for by NCLB. The program’s success led to its expansion 

to Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Indiana. For the 2008–09 

school year, the pilot was expanded further to Alabama, Alaska, 

Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

The pilots feature multiple or continuous enrollment periods, 

timely parental notification of eligibility, and improved access 

to SES providers through the Internet. Participating states have 

agreed to increase the number of eligible students participating 

in SES.

And they are working. In Newport News, Va., for example, 

62 percent of students eligible for SES signed up in 2006, 

compared to 23 percent the previous year.

Another pilot enables districts “in need of improvement” 

to serve as SES providers, which is currently prohibited by 

Title I regulations. 

In exchange, the districts agree to implement best practices 

aimed at increasing student participation in SES. Five districts 

are participating in this pilot in 2008-09: Anchorage School 

District, Boston Public Schools, Chicago Public Schools, 

Hillsborough Public Schools (Florida), and CharlotteMecklenburg Schools (North Carolina).

The Department’s final Title I regulations require that states 

make more information available to the public about available 

tutoring providers, their approval status, and whether they have 

been effective in improving academic performance.

In 2004, the Department’s Office of Innovation and 

Improvement (OII) began publishing the Innovations in 

Education series of guidebooks to help parents make the best 

choices for their children.

D.C. Opportunity Scholarships

The demands of the global economy call for innovative 

solutions. Many nations that regularly outperform the U.S. 

in international tests, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and 

Sweden, utilize school choice, vouchers, or their equivalent.

Children deserve a lifeline out of chronically underperforming 

schools. Washington, D.C.’s public schools rank near the 

bottom of the nation’s schools in nearly every academic 

category—despite spending about $13,400 per child, the thirdhighest per-pupil expenditure in the nation. Their graduation 

rate hovers around 60 percent.

The groundbreaking D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, 

signed into law in 2004, allows low-income families in 

Washington, D.C., to choose a private or religious school 

that better meets their children’s needs. It is the nation’s first 

federally funded K–12 voucher program.

The program offers parents scholarships of up to $7,500 

towards tuition, fees, and transportation expenses at the D.C. 

private school of their choice. The average income level of 

participating families is just $1,500 above the federal poverty 

level for a family of four.

By the program’s second year (2005–06), approximately 

2,000 scholarships were being used. More than 7,000 students 

have applied. 

For many students, this represents their first opportunity to 

receive a quality education. An independent study by the 

Institute of Education Sciences reported academic gains in 

reading by three student subgroups, totaling nearly 90 percent 

of all students in the program. They gained the equivalent of 

two to four extra months of learning.

The IES study found that parents of scholarship children were 

confident that they would be better educated and safer in their 

new schools. And a study by Georgetown University found 

increased parental involvement and student enthusiasm for 

learning among scholarship recipients.

Surveys show that nearly 70 percent of District residents 

support the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Yet some 

in Congress have proposed discontinuing it. If scholarship 

recipients were forced to return to D.C. public schools, 86 

percent of them would end up in underperforming schools 

(schools that did not meet their AYP goals in 2006–07).

This is clearly not a choice the students and parents would 

make. “I now no longer have to worry about fights breaking 

out in my classroom, or being threatened on a constant 

basis,” said Carlos Battle, a scholarship recipient. “I know this 

scholarship means just as much, or even more, for other kids all 

over D.C.”

Choice is not just a single-city need. As of 2006, more 

than 1,700 schools across the country had failed to meet 

state standards for five or six years in a row. Opportunity 

Scholarships should be given the opportunity to succeed in 

districts throughout the country.

That is why President Bush proposed a $300 million Pell 

Grants for Kids scholarship program to enable disadvantaged 

students to transfer to another school of their choice if their 

school did not meet its AYP goals for five or more years, or has 

a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. Modeled after the 

highly successful Pell Grants program, the program has yet to 

be enacted by Congress.

“The time has come for Congress to stop playing political games 

and, instead, undertake a fair assessment of a program that gives 

D.C. families a say in their children’s education.”

Editorial, Washington Post, August 10, 2008
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

62

G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

63

Innovative Education

It is no longer sufficient to simply fix 20th-century schools; 

America must create schools for the 21st century. But what 

does that entail?

Over the past eight years, the Department has listened to the 

views of hundreds of thousands of students and convened 

roundtable discussions with education, technology, and 

business experts to determine ways that technology can 

improve education.

Based on the feedback received from the roundtables, five key 

areas were identified where collaboration between federal, state, 

and local governments can help us build on the success of 

NCLB and accelerate reform:

Online learning and virtual schools;

Transforming data into knowledge and action;

Broadband connectivity;

Research efficacy and impact; and

School leadership and professional preparation.

Investments in these strategic areas would be geared toward 

creating fundamental change in the education system, not 

merely new and disconnected islands of innovation.

•

•

•

•

•

Other Support for Technology

Under No Child Left Behind, states and school districts have 

unprecedented flexibility to transfer a significant portion of 

their federal funds toward technology.

In 2005, the Department released its National Education 

Technology Plan, providing a set of actions and 

recommendations for the nation’s school systems as they use 

technology to transform learning.

The Department has provided funding to the Partnership 

for 21st Century Skills, uniting business, community, and 

education leaders to help students obtain critical-thinking, 

problem-solving, and communications skills. The Department 

also provided seed funding for the State Educational 

Technology Directors Association (SETDA) to help 

its members improve student academic achievement 

through technology.

Finally, the Department is working with states to ensure that a 

common technology standard is used so they can communicate 

and transmit data in real time.

There is a need for a common data standard across the K-12 

data spectrum. The good news is that such a standard already 

exists in the form of the Schools Interoperability Framework, 

which is an open, impartial data standard now in operation in 

43 states. Embracing a common measure, such as the Schools 

Interoperability Framework, could increase efficiency and 

reduce the costs of data reporting and sharing.

“Training the workforce of tomorrow 

with the high schools of today is like 

trying to teach kids about today’s 

computers on a 50-year-old mainframe.”

Bill Gates, co-chair, Gates Foundation, 2005

New Orleans: From Devastation to Innovation

When Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast in August 2005, New Orleans suffered 

enormously. Floodwaters submerged 80 percent of the city and devastated two-thirds of its 

128 public schools. Over 150,000 students in the city were displaced.

The immediate goal of the U.S. Department of Education was to quickly enroll children 

in public and private schools to restore comfort and stability to their lives. With Congress’ 

strong support, the Department mobilized $880 million in Emergency Impact Aid for 

Displaced Students.

It also sent $750 million to help repair, restock and reopen damaged schools.

Another $5 million was added to assist homeless children. And $30 million was delivered to 

Louisiana and Alabama to recruit, retain, and compensate teachers who agreed to work for 

three years in the disaster areas.

With the collapse of the traditional public school system, many education leaders looked to 

the charter model, in which greater freedom is granted in exchange for 

stricter accountability.

Nearly $21 million was sent to Louisiana to help the state plan, design, and open 

charter schools.

“The main difference is that most of the charters have the freedom to change, to get better, 

to hire the people they need to make the school better,” said Jonathan Bertsch, director of 

operations for KIPP charter schools in New Orleans.

“Shame on us if we don’t take advantage of this,” said Leslie Jacobs of the Louisiana Board 

of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The city now has the highest percentage of charter schools of any major city in the U.S.—

nearly 60 percent—and serves as an education “laboratory” for other cities.

These schools are empowering students and families with more options and revitalizing 

the education landscape. The results are promising: In 2007, 17 of the 20 top-performing 

schools in New Orleans were charters.

Higher education suffered from the storms as well. About $200 million of aid was allocated 

to help reopen colleges and universities.

Unused federal campus-based student aid was redirected to affected schools, and special loan 

provisions were made for borrowers in federal student loan programs impacted by Katrina.

Working with the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Education also helped 

secure $60 million in foreign aid for the Gulf Coast region.

In partnership with the U.S. General Services Administration, more than 13,000 classroom 

items were obtained and delivered, including computers, printers, desks, and chairs. The 

online clearinghouse Hurricane Help for Schools resulted in 900 matching donations.
G r e a t 

E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i ngO u r s e l v e s a n d O u r Sch o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

64

What’s Next? 

A Future of Reform and Results
G r e a t E x p e c t a t i o n s : H o l d i n g O u r s e l v e s a n d O u r S c h o o l s A c c o u n t a b l e f o r R e s u l t s

66 67

There is no single or simple answer. But a commitment to certain guiding principles will help 

raise the odds that more children walk across the stage on graduation day holding a meaningful 

diploma valued by employers and college admissions officials.

The Principles:

A—Accountability. A culture of accountability has begun to take root in the classroom. Educators now use 

annual assessments to tailor their instruction. Parents are more informed. When we shined a spotlight on the 

performance of at-risk students, our schools responded.

The next president will face calls to dismantle or radically redefine accountability. He should resist them. 

Whether it goes by No Child Left Behind or another name, reform is still needed. The American people want 

their children educated to high standards and their schools held accountable for steady academic gains. 

Grade-level achievement for all by 2014 is not a pipe dream but a goal that must guide our progress.

B—Bipartisanship. The No Child Left Behind Act was approved overwhelmingly because it united 

Republicans and Democrats behind a cause greater than themselves. It is time for that same spirit of unity to 

motivate everyone involved in the public education system.

This means changing some old habits. Parents must choose to get involved. Teachers must see principals 

as allies, not adversaries. Taxpayers and the business community must view reform as good for the bottom 

line—because it is. Many people see education reform as a threat to vested interests. But a well-educated 

student is in everybody’s interest.

C—Children. The needs of children must come before the convenience and comfort of adults. The world is 

changing, and our schools must change with it. Longer school days and years, more time spent on task, and a 

greater emphasis on teacher performance over seniority are not always popular. But they are essential.

We must also not fall into the trap of blaming poor academic performance on poverty or family 

circumstances. It is our responsibility to provide a quality education so children can overcome 

their hardships. 

We must not forget another “C”—choice. Too much time has been spent challenging the decision to choose 

a public charter, private, or parochial school. Not enough time has been spent understanding why it was 

made. Students who suffer in silence in chronically underperforming schools must be offered a lifeline. 

Saving a child is more important than protecting a building or a job.

D—Data. It is not easy to get excited about data. But it is the blueprint for building a better school system. 

A parent who watches a delivery company track a package cannot understand how their school can lose 

track of its students. Without quality data and sound science to guide us, we risk making decisions based 

not on facts but assumptions. We have seen the tragic byproducts of this approach, from an overreliance on 

instructional fads to an inability to identify which students needed help before they fell through the cracks.

E—Expectations. The lesson of the last eight years is that if we expect more from our students, we will get 

it. President Bush believes that “every child can learn and must be taught.” And that faith is being rewarded. 

National leadership has set the tone as our schools set the bar higher. When expectations rise, standards and 

test scores soon follow.

There is no letter “F”—because failure is not an option. We cannot fail as long as we have the will to 

sustain and strengthen reform. All Americans have a role to play. They should not be afraid to ask the hard 

questions. Just as “leading economic indicators” monitor the health of the economy, the following five 

questions are “leading education indicators” that can help us mark the progress of reform:

Do our kids know how to read and do math? Are we closing the achievement gap? Are more students 

graduating from high school on time? Are they prepared for college or work? And are college students 

earning the degrees they need to compete in a global marketplace?

All Americans are invited to closely follow our progress. They should hold public officials at all levels of 

government accountable for keeping their promise to provide a quality education to every single child—the 

only result that matters. 

It is said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Let us remember the past by 

correcting our mistakes and charting a bold course for the future—our children’s future.

W e know what it takes to provide a quality 

education. We see it every day from good schools

and great teachers and principals.

A

B

C

D

E

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.