U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

56–380 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 111–1121 

ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: 

IMPROVING AMERICA’S SECONDARY SCHOOLS 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION, FOCUSING ON IMPROVING AMERICA’S SECONDARY 

SCHOOLS 

MAY 4, 2010 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

DANIEL SMITH, Staff Director 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010 

Page 

Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions, opening statement ............................................................................... 1 

Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............... 2 

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Hagan, Hon. Kay R., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............. 4 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ................. 5 

Johnson, Cassius O., Director of Education Policy, Jobs for the Future, Boston, MA ................................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Deshler, Donald D., Ph.D.,Director, University of Kansas Center for Research 

and Learning, Lawrence, KS ............................................................................... 12 

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

Capozzi, John, Principal, Elmont Memorial High School, Elmont, NY .............. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Harrison, Richard, Middle School Director, Denver School for Science and 

Technology, Denver, CO ...................................................................................... 25 

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

Webber-N’Dour, Karen, Principal, National Academy Foundation High School, 

Baltimore, MD ...................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Habit, Tony, Ed.D., President, North Carolina New Schools Project, Raleigh, 

NC ......................................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................ 48 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 50 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico .................. 54 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .............................. 55 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ................... 59 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ............................. 63 

Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ....................... 66 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Submissions by Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.: ....................................................

What’s Evidence Got To Do With It? An Observational Study of 

Research-Based Instructional Behavior In High School Classes ....... 75 

The Content Literacy Continuum: A School Reform Framework For 

Improving Adolescent Literacy For All Students ................................ 98 

(III) 

(1) 

ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING 

AMERICA’S SECONDARY SCHOOLS 

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m. in Room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Sanders, 

Casey, Hagan, Merkley, Franken, Bennet, Burr, Murkowski, and 

Roberts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. 

Today’s hearing, ‘‘Improving America’s Secondary Schools,’’ will 

explore the challenges facing America’s middle and high schools 

and how ESEA reauthorization can help States and districts address those challenges. 

Without question, among the most serious challenges is the high 

dropout rate in the United States. Each year, 1.2 million students 

drop out of school; that’s about 7,000 per day. This crisis disproportionately affects students who are low-income, minority, or have 

disabilities. While only 70 percent of America’s students graduate 

from high school on time, that number drops to just over 50 percent for Hispanic, Black, and Native American students. Students 

from low-income backgrounds are 10 times more likely to drop out 

of high school than their more affluent peers. 

Research shows that the middle grades are a critical time to influence whether students graduate from high school. The decision 

to drop out is rarely the result of a single life event; in fact, many 

students exhibit academic warning signs years before they leave 

high school. We need to look at ways to identify these students 

through the use of early-warning data systems. As early as sixth 

grade, such systems can use information on, for instance, absence 

rates or course failures to identify students who are struggling. 

This information can be used to target appropriate interventions to 

get them back on track. ESEA reauthorization offers an important 

opportunity to improve outcomes for millions of students by turning 

around the lowest performing secondary schools. 

About 2,000, or 12 percent, of American high schools produce 

over 50 percent of the Nation’s dropouts. Twelve percent of the 

2 

schools produce over 50 percent of the Nation’s dropouts. In this reauthorization, I also intend to address the full spectrum of students’ educational needs. We need to do more to ensure that every 

child gets a high-quality education early in life. We need that support to start at birth, if not sooner. In addition, we must do more 

for secondary school students. Currently, only about 10 percent of 

title I funds go to high schools, although they educate about onequarter, or 25 percent, of low-income students. 

So, today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the 

most effective interventions to help students stay on track to graduate and prepare for success in college and careers. I also look forward to the recommendations for what it takes to create worldclass secondary schools that will help all students succeed. 

I know Senator Enzi will be here later, but Senator Burr is here, 

and I would turn to him if he has his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURR

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, let me ask unanimous 

consent that the Ranking Member’s opening statement be made a 

part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record. 

Senator BURR. I thank the Chair. Let me also take this opportunity, if I could, to welcome our witnesses, especially Tony Habit, 

from North Carolina, who has really led a charge at trying to 

change the outcome of education in our State. 

Let me just echo something I think the Chairman alluded to, 

even though I didn’t hear the whole statement. This past year, only 

70 percent of our 9th through 12th graders crossed the goal line 

on time—meaning, a diploma, graduation. If this were a disease, 

we’d call it an epidemic, and we’d do whatever we needed to, to fix 

it. The truth is that, community by community, legislature by legislature, we all seem numb to the fact that 30 percent of the kids 

do not, on time, get the document they need to be invited for an 

interview. Federal law says that everybody can fill out an application. 

But, stop and think for a moment. Who is invited for an interview who does not have a high school diploma? For education? To 

allow this to happen for 30 percent of our high school students is 

unconscionable. At a time that we are challenged, right now, to address the career paths of our graduates of higher education, where, 

last year alone, over 60 percent did not find a career; they found 

a job, but not a career. This year, in less than a month, we will 

see another group that comes out with 9.7 percent unemployment. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to fix education, we have to fix the economy, we have got to fulfill the promise we made to these kids: ‘‘If 

you will stick with it, if you will work hard, education will be the 

key to an unlimited opportunity for you, and you will only be limited by how hard you are willing to work and what you are willing 

to put in.’’ 

It is my hope that we will listen intently to what our witnesses 

have to say today. This may be our last best chance to get this 

right. 

I thank the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

3 

I will leave the record open for Senator Enzi’s opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Thank you, Senator Harkin, for holding this hearing today on 

improving America’s Secondary Schools. The success of our Nation’s middle and high schools is vital in preparing our students for 

the 21st century economy. 

The Federal Government’s role should be to encourage and support States and school districts so that more students graduate 

from high school on time with the knowledge and skills they need 

to attend college and enter the workforce without the need for remediation. However, the present situation is discouraging. Every 

day in the United States, 7,000 students drop out of school. If the 

high school students who had dropped out of the class of 2009 had 

graduated instead, the Nation’s economy would have benefited 

from an additional $335 billion in income they would have earned 

over their lifetimes. It is an incredible statistic. Because we could 

not reach those 7,000 students, it will cost us and them $335 billion in income, which means we all lose. 

The future outlook is no better. It is estimated that without dramatic changes in our Nation’s lowest-performing middle and high 

schools 12 million students will drop out of school over the next 

decade. The result long term will be a loss to the Nation of $3 trillion, and as you can imagine, even more in terms of the quality of 

life for those dropouts. 

We simply cannot afford to lose those students. We must deal 

with the situation head on—we cannot allow students to ‘‘waste’’ 

their senior year, and graduate unprepared to enter post-secondary 

education and a workforce that is focused on skills and knowledge. 

As we begin our work on the reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act we need to strengthen programs that 

provide relevance, context and rigor for students in both middle 

and high school. While some of my colleagues may disagree, I believe it is time to bring attention to the ‘‘Secondary’’ part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Federal Government 

needs to provide some resources to school districts for these efforts 

and ensure that the reforms used are data-driven and have a track 

record of solid evidence based success. We learned at a hearing on 

school turnaround held a few weeks ago that there is no silver bullet. School districts need the flexibility to draw from the resources 

that are available the best possible solution for each of these struggling schools. 

In addition, it is important to emphasize the fact that a high 

school diploma does not guarantee that a student has learned the 

basics. Nearly half of all college students are required to take remedial courses after graduating from high school, before they can 

take college level coursework. 

The witnesses before us today demonstrate that this work is 

hard, but can be done. I am pleased that we have a representative 

of a career academy here, Karen Webber-N’Dour. These schools 

work for many students across the country because they help students discover their true potential. For example, I have heard from 

students in career academies that they entered thinking they 

4 

would graduate from high school prepared to enter the construction 

trades. Instead, by being in a career academy, they discovered they 

had the talent and ability to become architects. Career academies 

provide the same rigorous content as traditional high schools, but 

do so in a way that is relevant to students and provides a context 

for their learning. 

Without a plan for reforming our secondary schools, the outcome 

for many of our students will not change, which is not acceptable. 

If we are to remain competitive in a global economy, we cannot afford to lose people because they do not have the education and 

skills they need to be successful. Strong partnerships and alignment among K–12 schools, institutions of higher education, business and government will help us meet this need. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today to 

share their compelling stories. I hope we can all learn from you 

how the Federal Government can be a partner in middle and high 

school reform efforts. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just take a moment to introduce each of 

the witnesses. 

First, we have Cassius Johnson, program director for education 

policy at Jobs for the Future, in Boston, MA, where he handles 

Federal secondary and post-secondary policy development and advocacy. Next is Don Deshler, the Williamson Family distinguished 

professor of special education and the director of the Center for Research and Learning at the University of Kansas. An expert in adolescent literacy, Dr. Deshler received a presidential appointment to 

serve as a member of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory 

Board. 

[VOICE.]

The CHAIRMAN. I said that. University of Kansas. I said that. 

[Laughter.] 

After Dr. Deshler, we will hear from John Capozzi, principal of 

Elmont Memorial High School, in Elmont, NY. Under his leadership, Elmont High School has beaten the odds, graduating over 94 

percent of its students, 97 percent of which go on to college. 

I know Senator Bennet is not here yet. He wanted to introduce 

our next witness, but I will just say it’s Rich Harrison, who is the 

founding middle school director of the Denver School for Science 

and Technology, in Denver, CO. Then, we will hear from Karen 

Webber-N’Dour, principal of the National Academy Foundation 

High School, in Baltimore, MD, a public high school that provides 

rigorous college preparatory and career pathway instruction. 

Senator Burr also mentioned Tony Habit. I wonder if the Senator 

from North Carolina would like to add anything to the introduction 

for Mr. Habit. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAGAN

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would. 

I want to echo Senator Burr’s welcome of Dr. Tony Habit to our 

committee today, as we welcome all of the witnesses here that are 

going to testify. I want to tell the group just a little bit about Dr. 

Habit. 

He is President of the North Carolina New Schools Project and 

he has more than 20 years in public school innovation reform. The 

5 

New Schools Project, is an independent, not-for-profit organization 

established to accelerate the pace of innovation in the State of 

North Carolina. As president, he has been working diligently to ensure that every student has access to a high-quality education that 

is going to prepare them for college and a career. 

The New Schools project is in partnership with our North Carolina Department of Education, and launched an unprecedented effort to create more than 100 new and redesigned high schools 

across the State since 2008. So far, they have created about 106 

new secondary schools. 

In reference to what Senator Burr was saying concerning the 

dropout rate, over half of the early-college high schools, had a zero 

dropout rate. I know, at the Medical School at Duke, they are going 

to create a high school focused on health and life sciences. 

North Carolina State University is going to focus on agricultural 

research—in a rural region of the State looking at biotechnology, 

engineering and sustainable energy. I know that, in the county 

where I am from, one of our community colleges, GTCC, has an excellent early-college program. As a matter of fact, one of my interns, many years ago, was a dropout, and then successfully completed the early-college program and went on to matriculate into 

UNC-Chapel Hill. 

It is a great program, we have done great things, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Bennet, I had briefly introduced Rich Harrison, but, I 

would yield to you if you would want to expand on it. I just basically did not say much, because I do not know him. 

Senator BENNET. Well, I do know him, so I appreciate it, Mr. 

Chairman. Sorry I was a minute late. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET

Senator BENNET. It is an honor to introduce Rich Harrison to the 

committee. 

Rich founded the Denver School of Science and Technology. 

DSST is an open-enrollment school in the Denver public schools, 

reflecting the diversity of our community. Forty-five percent of the 

students come from economically disadvantaged families, and 62 

percent of the students are Latino or African-American. Almost 

half of this year’s senior class will be the first in their family to 

go to college. Every senior in DSST’s first three graduating classes 

has earned acceptance to a 4-year college. Then, when students 

from DSST get to college, they are ready to excel. Only 7 percent 

of students need remediation. 

DSST was chosen as one of three finalists, out of over 1,000 

schools, for the Race to the Top Commencement Challenge. I might 

say we learned, today, they had not been selected, which means 

that there must be some extraordinary place somewhere else in the 

country, because I cannot believe there is a place that would have 

been a better choice than DSST. 

We can learn from the success of programs like DSST, and Rich 

demonstrates the kind of leadership it takes to make reform work. 

Prior to founding DSST, Rich served as the principal of Kipp-Cole 

College Prep, joining the school after its reconstitution from Cole 

6 

Middle School. Before becoming administrator, Rich was an 

English teacher at Peak-to-Peak Charter School, which is consistently rated one of the Nation’s top 100 high schools. 

I know I speak for my colleagues when I say we are looking forward to your testimony. 

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have spent many hours at DSST 

over the years, to learn from the teachers and the students that are 

there about what they are doing to achieve these results, and it 

turns out not to be rocket science. 

I look forward to hearing Rich’s testimony. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

Now, I think all of you were notified by our staff that you would 

be given 4 minutes. Your statements will all be made a part of the 

record in their entirety. Because of some time constraints today, if 

you can just kind of sum up, in about 4 minutes or so, your main 

points, and then we can get into an open discussion, here. I would 

appreciate it very much. 

We will start with Mr. Johnson. 

Welcome Mr. Johnson, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CASSIUS O. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF 

EDUCATION POLICY, JOBS FOR THE FUTURE, BOSTON, MA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Senator Harkin, thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee today. 

I commend the outstanding work that you are doing on behalf of 

the American people and on this critical piece of domestic policy, 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

The mission of Jobs for the Future is to double the numbers of 

youth and adults who obtain the credentials and the skills needed 

to become competitive in today’s labor market. Jobs for the Future 

identifies, develops, and promotes new approaches that are helping 

communities and States in the Nation compete more effectively in 

a global economy. 

As director of education policy, I have worked closely with staff 

in over 200 communities in 48 States to develop innovative educational workforce solutions. 

The continued failure of secondary schools in this country, in the 

United States, to dramatically improve the educational attainment 

of low-income young people, young people of color, and those in 

rural America, is the most significant factor in our country’s drop 

from 10th to 9th—from 1st to 10th in the world in completion of 

race of post-secondary education. Reversing this course will require 

strong and coordinated action and a strengthened State and Federal partnership to raise graduation rates. From JFF’s experience 

working across the Nation, we have learned that dramatically better outcomes are possible, especially for low-income students and 

students of color, but only when there is a continued and significant investment in groundbreaking and innovative high school designs. 

I want to talk about two pieces of JFF’s work. First of all, the 

national network of early-college high schools. Launched in 2002, 

these schools have expanded to 200 in number, in 24 States, serving 42,000 students. In fact, the largest of the work is going on in 

7 

the great State of North Carolina. In the 8 years since the earlycollege design was first developed, it has proven to be an exceptional approach for increasing the likelihood that high-needs students are on track for high school graduation and prepared for college. Students have the opportunity to earn up to 2 years of college 

credit in an associate’s degree, and, on the average, are obtaining 

23 credit hours and getting exposure to a college-going culture. 

Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of what we 

call ‘‘Back on Track’’ models that are getting promising results with 

young people who are most at risk of not graduating from high 

school on time, if at all, and most likely not to complete a post-secondary credential. Six years ago, New York City began groundbreaking work to open Back on Track schools as part of a systemic 

reform initiative to replace low-performing high schools. You see 

some of the same work going on in Philadelphia, in what they call 

accelerated high schools. 

To get to my recommendations, though, I want to leave you with 

three ‘‘to do’s’’ in this ESEA reauthorization. First, adopt rigorous 

and fair graduation-rate accountability. That means, Congress 

should set the requirements that the State give significant weight 

to improvements and graduation rates. There’s broad consensus 

that graduation rates should be given as much weight as academic 

performance in holding schools, districts, and States accountable. 

Second, the second ‘‘to do’’ is to turn around low-performing high 

schools. Too often, policies directed at improving low-performing 

schools have little impact on the 2,000 low-graduation high schools. 

We know that the off-track population tends to be concentrated in 

these schools. We recommend that Congress require districts and 

their schools to work with these schools to analyze and use data 

to identify the students who are off track to graduation, and put 

them in a place where back-on-design models can get them ready 

for college and to be successful in today’s economy. 

Third, the third ‘‘to do’’ is support systemic initiatives, or, rather, 

establish incentives and advance innovation and invention. When 

a most-promising recent Federal policy develops an expansion of 

Federal support—it’s expansion of Federal support for innovation 

at all levels of—to address the Nation’s most perplexing education 

performance challenges. Just last week, foundation community 

came on board to supplement the Federal Government’s investment 

through i3 to 500-—to a tune of $560 million to the $650-million 

initial investment by the Federal Government. That’s a powerful 

statement that speaks to the role that the Federal Government can 

play in scaling and actually calls—allowing for the invention of 

more effective models for off-track students, all toward the goal of 

getting more kids ready for college and success in today’s economy. 

I look forward to the question-and-answer discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASSIUS O. JOHNSON

SUMMARY

The continued failure of secondary school systems in the United States to dramatically improve the educational attainment of low-income young people, young 

people of color and those in rural America is perhaps the single most significant factor in our country’s drop from first to tenth in the world in the completion rate of 

post-secondary degrees by age 35. Reversing this course will require strong and coVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
8 

ordinated action and a strengthened Federal-State partnership to raise the high 

graduation rate and the college preparedness level of high school graduates, especially among those from low-income families. 

SIGNS OF PROGRESS

From Jobs for the Future’s experience working to improve college-ready high 

school graduation with school, district, and State partners we have learned that dramatically better outcomes—especially for low-income students and students of 

color—are possible, but only when there is continued and significant investment in 

groundbreaking and innovative high school designs. 

Around the country, innovative or redesigned high schools are beginning to amass 

evidence of their effectiveness in graduating more students with a college-ready diploma. One key example is the national network of early college high schools 

launched in 2002 with generous resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that has expanded to more than 200 schools in 24 States, serving 42,000 students. 

Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of what we call Back on 

Track designs that are getting promising results with the young people who are the 

most at risk of not graduating from high school on time, if at all, and most likely 

not to complete a post-secondary credential. New York City, Philadelphia and a 

dozen more cities across the country are taking on an effort to open such schools 

as part of systemic reform initiatives to include invest in smaller schools or programs for their overaged and under-credit students, to help them get back on track 

to graduation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

A key task before the committee is to build from such exemplars of what is possible to the creation of a policy environment that accelerates the transition away 

from high schools that fail large numbers of students toward options that reduce 

dropout rates and increase college-readiness and success. To this end we would like 

to emphasize four major recommendations: 

• Rigorous and Fair Graduation Rate Accountability. Congress should set 

the requirement that States give significant weight to improvements in graduation 

rate. At the same time, the law needs to avoid penalizing the designs of innovative 

high schools such as early college (where students may spend 5 years and get significant college credit) or back on track models that serve students who have already spent many years not progressing in school and yet are getting exceptional 

outcomes for these youth. • Turning Around Low-Performing Secondary Schools. We know that the 

off-track population tends to be concentrated in these schools. We recommend that 

Congress require Districts with these schools to work with the schools on analyzing 

and using data to identify the students who are off track to graduation and put in 

place appropriate back on track designs for them. 

• Support district systemic activities. Congress can create incentives for systemic approaches to implementing strategies and models aimed at the large number 

of off-track students and dropouts by requiring districts and schools to use early 

warning indicators to intervene and provide support and put in place back-on-track 

alternative education options, as well as work with community-based organizations 

on community dropout recovery strategies. 

• Incentives, Innovation and Invention. The ARRA-funded Race to the Top 

and Investing in Innovation (i3) funds commit the Federal Government to foster innovation in practice and policy. Along with scaling innovative strategies, we recommend that Congress support the research and development of new school models 

that show promise in serving the most vulnerable and underserved of our youth. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Senator Enzi, and the honorable members of 

the U.S. Senate HELP Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you 

today. I commend the committee for its hard work during the 111th Congress on 

behalf of the American people and now as you move forward on the reauthorization 

of a critical piece of American domestic policy, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

I speak to you from two perspectives. 

First, I speak from a body of work: As Director of Education Policy, I work closely 

with the program staff at Jobs for the Future in Boston and our partnerships in 

over 200 communities in 41 States to cultivate and promote innovative education 

and workforce strategies. Jobs for the Future identifies, develops, and promotes new 

9 

approaches that are helping communities, States, and the Nation compete more effectively in a global economy. Our work improves the pathways from high school to 

college to family-sustaining careers. The JFF mission is to double the number of 

youth and adults who attain the credentials and skills needed to be competitive in 

today’s labor market. 

Second, I speak from personal experience: In 1996, 14 years ago, I was a senior 

and student body president at Hamilton High School in rural northwest Alabama. 

My alma mater is one of the 2,000 low-graduation rate high schools across the Nation that together produce more than half of U.S. dropouts. Having returned to Alabama on several occasions in the past few months, I know from conversations from 

friends, families and community leaders that low academic preparedness and the 

large number of dropouts are creating formidable challenges as the region tries to 

attract new jobs and economic activity to an area plagued by unemployment and 

a rural drug problem. From my small hometown to the great urban centers of this 

country, continuation of current trends in high school performance and graduation 

will lead to an unacceptable bifurcation of opportunity—a widening gulf between individuals with the skills and credentials to access higher paying careers and the 

poor and low-skilled who have little prospect of advancement. Unaltered, these 

trends pose a severe threat not only to our Nation’s future economic growth, but 

to our social fabric. 

In spite of the high stakes involved here, I sit before you today encouraged by the 

questions being asked in this hearing. My hope is that today’s discussions send a 

clear message that it is truly time to put the secondary into the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. This reauthorization of ESEA is the time to tackle the K– 

12 institution most resistant to reform—the low-performing high school. 

THE IMPERATIVE

The continued failure of secondary school systems in the United States to dramatically improve the educational attainment of low-income young people, young 

people of color and those in rural America is perhaps the single most significant factor in our country’s drop from first to tenth in the world in the completion rate of 

post-secondary degrees by age 35. Among the lowest-income students, just 21 percent graduate from high school prepared for college; an alarmingly low 11 percent 

earn a post-secondary credential, compared to a 51 percent credential completion 

rate for students from higher income brackets (NCES 1988 and 2000). 

Reversing this course will require strong and coordinated action and a strengthened Federal-State partnership to raise the high graduation rate and the college 

preparedness level of high school graduates, especially among those from low-income 

families. 

The committee is to be commended in recognizing that focusing just on raising 

achievement in high school is not enough, that we must also raise graduation rates 

dramatically. With the high school graduation rate basically flat for several decades, 

our Nation cannot make the gains we need in productivity without dramatic reductions in the dropout rate and significant and steady increases in district and State 

graduation rates. 

SIGNS OF PROGRESS

From Jobs for the Future’s experience working to improve college-ready high 

school graduation with school, district, and State partners we have learned that dramatically better outcomes—especially for low-income students and students of 

color—are possible, but only when there is continued and significant investment in 

groundbreaking and innovative high school designs. Some of the best of these efforts 

are represented on this panel. 

Around the country, innovative or redesigned high schools are beginning to amass 

evidence of their effectiveness in graduating more students with a college-ready diploma. One key example is the national network of early college high schools 

launched in 2002 with generous resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that has expanded to more than 200 schools in 24 States, serving 42,000 students. In fact, the largest number of these high schools—70—are in North Carolina 

where Tony Habit and his New Schools Project have partnered with the State and 

with JFF to implement these schools. In the 8 years since the early college design 

was first developed, it has proved to be an exceptional approach for increasing the 

likelihood that high-need students are on-track for high school graduation and prepared for college. 

With a student population primarily composed of students of color, low-income 

youth, and first-generation college-goers, early colleges have overcome historically 

low education attainment levels and propelled students on a pathway to postVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
10 

secondary success. By graduation, early college students have 23 college credits on 

average, and enroll in higher education institutions at significantly higher rates 

than peers in comparison schools. 

Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research that includes experimental and 

quasi-experimental studies has shown that early college students progress through 

key college preparatory courses at a significantly higher rate than control students 

and outperform peers in comparison schools. It is particularly striking that these 

schools appear to be closing the performance gap for students of color. 

Even as we sit here today Early College High Schools across the country are 

marking the success of these high schools by holding events to raise visibility in 

their communities as a part of the national Early College High School Week. 

Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of what we call Back on 

Track designs that are getting promising results with the young people who are the 

most at risk of not graduating from high school on time, if at all, and most likely 

not to complete a post-secondary credential. We use the term ‘‘back on track’’ to differentiate such schools from traditional alternative schools, which too often have 

been holding tanks for troublesome students. In contrast, Back on Track schools 

combine accelerated academics with the supports and culture of effort these young 

people need to succeed in high school and college. 

Six years ago, New York City began groundbreaking work to open such schools 

as part of a systemic reform initiative to replace failing high schools with new small 

schools for entering ninth graders. At the same time, they invested in even smaller 

schools or programs for their overaged and under-credited students, to help them 

get back on track to graduation. 

The highest performing of these back on track schools are now graduating students at 2 to 3 times the rates of other high schools and students are earning almost 

twice as many credits in their first year as they earned upon enrolling in the 

schools. In Philadelphia, a similar effort to start what they call Accelerated Schools 

has graduated 853 over-age and under-credited students over the last 3 years, raising the district’s graduation rate by 2 percentage points each year. 

This work continues to spread. We have worked in over a dozen cities, from Mobile, AL to Portland, OR that are undertaking similar efforts. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The progress of the innovative frontrunner cities and States in seeding and supporting better alternatives for struggling students is impressive. But while identifying exemplars is important, creating a policy environment that promotes and expands successful secondary school options while shrinking the number of low-performing high schools is another. 

What suggestions does Jobs for the Future have for accelerating the transition 

away from high schools that fail large number of students toward options that can 

reduce dropout rates and increase college-readiness and success? Our recommendations fall into four categories. 

1. Accountability measures that incorporate graduation rates rigorously but fairly; 

2. Turnaround policies that are appropriate for middle and high schools and that 

create openings for more quality options for off-track youth; 

3. Support district systemic activities such as reporting of and visibility of offtrack students and the implementation of appropriate schools, programs or strategies that put these students back on track to graduation; and 

4. Incentives for innovation to create, test, and grow more effective high schools 

to help more low-income young people graduate—and graduate ready for college success. 

Rigorous and Fair Graduation Rate Accountability. As with few other topics 

in education reform today, there is strong consensus about including graduation 

rates in high school accountability systems. Advocates and policymakers agree that 

graduation rates should be given equal weight with academic performance when 

holding schools, districts and States accountable for student achievement. Education 

reform is no longer just about getting students the right curriculum, teachers and 

supports. We must get more students across the line with a diploma in hand and 

ready for the next step to post-secondary education and training. JFF makes the following recommendations to Congress for building on current regulations and finishing the job on graduation rate accountability: 

• Define the graduation rate as a 4-year cohort graduation rate adjusted for 

transfers in and transfers out. 

• Require States to set aggressive annual measurable objectives for increasing the 

number of students who graduate. 

11 

• Authorize the Secretary to approve State proposals to use an extended year 

graduation rate for select schools such as early college high schools and back-ontrack schools. 

• Allow back-on-track schools to show interim progress towards annual measurable objectives through predictive indicators of student achievement, such as the 

number and percentage of students earning credit in core courses. 

• Ensure that any requirement by the Secretary that a percentage of students 

graduate under a 4-year cohort graduation rate allows for an exemption mechanism, 

such as a waiver, for select schools that by design will require more than 4 years 

for students to complete (i.e. early college high schools and back-on-track schools). 

Turning Around Low-Performing Secondary Schools. NCLB provisions to 

improve low-performing schools have had little impact on the 2,000 low graduation 

rate high schools that account for over half of the Nation’s dropouts. Many of these 

schools with graduation rates below 65 percent have not been identified as low performing, in part because graduation rate regulations have yet to go into effect. The 

‘‘differentiated accountability pilot program’’ and the recent ARRA School Improvement Grant requirements for identifying persistently low-performing schools have 

established a framework for distinguishing among troubled schools and driving the 

most intensive set of reform strategies to those that are the lowest performing. 

These developments are essential to the goal of creating incentives that advance the 

development and scaling of quality pathways, especially for those students who are 

off-track to graduation. JFF has found that, in many of these high schools, up to 

80 percent of students are behind in skills or credits. 

Congress should adopt school turnaround provisions that provide incentives and 

resources for States, districts and high schools to implement strategies and models 

that meet the challenges of large numbers of off-track students. Congress should: 

• Permit differentiated accountability. Allow States to distinguish between 

schools and districts in need of intensive interventions and those that may be closer 

to meeting annual measurable objectives. 

• Prioritize low-graduation rate high schools. Require States and districts to 

prioritize for immediate action secondary schools with graduation rates below 65 

percent for immediate action. 

• Require specific school turnaround activities. Require schools identified 

for turnaround to analyze data to determine the number and percentage of students 

that are significantly off-track and identify strategies and models to put them back 

on track to graduation. 

• Require district-wide activities. District level leadership is essential for systemic approaches to implementing strategies and models aimed at the large number 

of off-track students and dropouts in the schools and communities within a district. 

Congress can create incentives by: 

• Requiring districts and schools to use early warning indicators to intervene 

and provide support for off-track students at risk of dropping out. 

• Requiring district analysis and use of data on the district-wide off-track population in order to design interventions and put in place back-on-track alternative education options (e.g., transfer schools). 

• Requiring district-wide dropout recovery strategies in partnership with community-based organizations, such as re-engagement centers and back on-track 

alternative education options including GED-to-college programs. 

Support district systemic activities. While over a million students drop out of 

school each year, the population of students who are in school but off-track to an 

on-time graduation is not a marginal group. An estimated 1.3 million students are 

off-track to graduation by the end of 9th grade. In the lowest graduation rate high 

schools, up to 80 percent of entering students can be behind in skills or credits. 

Most high schools are not equipped—in terms of structure, human resources, curriculum, or schedule—to deal with this challenge. Too often, the only option for offtrack students is simply to repeat the same curriculum, taught in the same formats 

and by the same teachers who failed to engage them the first time. 

Students who are significantly off-track to graduation need a very different model 

of schooling; they need well-staffed schools with experienced teachers and advocates, 

targeted instructional strategies, and accelerated learning options. Based on analyses of student data, these plans should include a range of strategies, from quick 

recovery systems for older students who are close to graduation to small learning 

communities that support multiple back-on-track strategies in a single setting to address the needs of students much further from graduation. 

Congress can create incentives for systemic approaches to implementing strategies 

and models aimed at the large number of off-track students and dropouts by: 

12 

• Requiring districts and schools to use early warning indicators to intervene and provide support for off-track students at risk of dropping out. 

• Requiring district analysis and use of data on the district-wide offtrack population in order to design interventions and put in place back-on-track 

alternative education options (e.g., transfer schools). 

• Requiring district-wide dropout recovery strategies in partnership with 

community-based organizations, such as re-engagement centers and back-on-track 

alternative education options including GED-to-college programs. 

Incentives, Innovation and Invention. One of the most promising recent Federal policy developments is the expansion of Federal support for innovation at all 

levels to address the Nation’s most perplexing education reform challenges. The 

ARRA-funded Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) funds commit the 

Federal Government to foster innovation in practice and policy. In response, States 

and districts are already changing policies and advancing ambitious plans to scale 

effective programs and practices. The i3 competitive grants have opened important 

space for innovators to experiment with and invent new strategies for improving 

education outcomes for the most at-risk. JFF makes the following recommendations 

to Congress: 

• Invest in scaling what works. Nationally, there are numerous strategies and 

school models, such as early college high schools, that have demonstrated effectiveness in increasing college and career-readiness for low-income students who are 

ready for college and a career. Congress should continue Race to the Top, i3 and 

other funding streams that focus resources to ensure more widespread adoption of 

and implementation of innovation strategies and approaches at secondary schools. 

• Invest in invention. The Nation will not move the needle dramatically on 

graduation rates without combining the redesign of failing high schools with a sustained effort at the invention of new models designed to help young people get back 

on track to high school graduation and post-secondary attainment. In the big cities 

that are ground zero of the dropout crisis, educators, youth developers, and social 

entrepreneurs have begun to invent new solutions that are leading to ‘‘beat the 

odds’’ results. Along with scaling innovative strategies, Congress should support the 

research and development of new school models that show promise in serving offtrack students, English learners, and students in rural areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, for the 

statement. 

Mr. Deshler. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND LEARNING, LAWRENCE, KS 

Mr. DESHLER. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, for this opportunity. 

If I might go right to the bottom line, speaking of adolescent literacy, with one statistic, the magnitude of the problem is this, 70 

percent of all middle school and high school students read below 

proficiency on the NAEP. In the limited time that I have, with that 

as a backdrop, I’m going to talk about two incorrect assumptions, 

or myths, that adversely affect how struggling adolescent learners 

are often treated and taught in public schools, and how education 

public policy has been crafted. 

The first incorrect assumption is this, that it is too late to do 

anything about students once they get to middle school or high 

school without sufficient literacy skills. In some of our schools, this 

attitude has led to placing these students in low-track classes, assigning them the least experienced teachers, and crossing our fingers, and hoping that they do not become a disruptive force in our 

schools, but hang on long enough to graduate, so they do not count 

against our dropout statistics. 

From a public policy standpoint, a similar there-is-not-much-wecan-do posture has been adopted. Evidence of this is the paltry inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
13 

vestment that the Federal Government has historically made in 

students in grades 7 through 12, compared to investments made in 

children from birth through grade six and in the post-secondary 

programs, such as Pell Grants. 

The bottom line, our investment in adolescents is only 20 percent 

of the total education expenditure. Since so little is invested in students in grades 7 through 12, these students, who fall in the middle of the continuum from birth through post-secondary, are appropriately referred to as the ‘‘missing middle.’’ 

The second point that I want to make is, these students can 

learn. There’s compelling evidence that shows that, when we use 

powerful evidence-based practices, dramatic changes occur in their 

performance. I cite two examples in my written testimony; there 

are thousands around the country mirroring this kind of achievement. It is not too late to change what is happening. To buy into 

the myth that the gap can’t be closed is analogous to a doctor pulling the plug on a patient who is in the hospital because of a bad 

virus. The patient might be very ill and not functioning well, but 

he is not dead. There is still hope, and we need to act accordingly. 

The second incorrect assumption is the following: ‘‘It is wiser to 

invest in younger children,’’ or ‘‘Let’s get them while they are 

young and prevent problems from occurring later’’ mentality. Don’t 

get me wrong, I am a strong proponent of making investments in 

our younger children; there is compelling evidence to justify why it 

is a sound public policy to do so. However, there are a couple of 

fallacies in the position that ‘‘it is sufficient to put all of our eggs 

in the early childhood basket.’’ 

First, unlike getting inoculated for chickenpox, early literacy education does not ensure that problems will not emerge as children 

grow older. In other words, the inoculation does not last. As children move into middle and high school, the demands of the curriculum change dramatically; enhanced new and more sophisticated literacy skills are needed. 

Second, even though we may have effective procedures for younger children, in this country we have not been effective in scaling 

those practices; hence, there are many young children who don’t 

get validated practices. Many of these students move through the 

sieve, end up in middle and high school without the necessary 

skills. 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize these three recommendations: 

No. 1, there are three pieces of legislation before the Congress 

currently: the LEARN Act, the Success in Middle School Act, and 

the Graduation Promises Act. All of these are well conceptualized 

and go straight to the problems that I have described in adolescent 

literacy. 

And second, the importance of investment in research in adolescent literacy. Research is the engine that drives innovation, that 

drives improvement on the front lines. Historically, very little investment has been made in research for older populations. It is another reason that we have fewer answers than we need for older 

students. 

I look forward to responding to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Deshler follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD D. DESHLER, PH.D 

SUMMARY

THE PROBLEM

When describing the ‘‘literacy health’’ of many adolescents in our country, the 

term ‘‘crisis’’ is not hyperbole; it is a very accurate characterization of the realities 

with which we must come to grips when we consider the fact that our schools must 

produce graduates capable of successfully competing, and leading, in the global 

arena. If this crisis is not addressed in the next reauthorization of ESEA, the futures of millions of today’s struggling adolescent learners will be foreclosed and our 

Nation’s economy and our Nation as a whole will be weakened as will the fabric 

of the families and communities that will become the homes to these undereducated 

and underprepared individuals. Some indicators of the severity of the problem are: 

(a) 70 percent of middle and high school students read below proficiency, (b) 30 percent of adolescents do not graduate from high school, (c) 40 percent of high school 

graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek, and (d) Federal investments in 

middle and high schools has historically been but a small fraction of investments 

made in younger children and those in post-secondary education—this has been referred to as the ‘‘missing middle.’’ This lack of funding has contributed to the dismal 

literacy attainment. 

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN FINDING SOLUTIONS

• Because the curriculum demands change dramatically when students move into 

middle and high school, the basic literacy skills that they learned in early elementary grades are necessary but far from sufficient. To succeed in rigorous courses, 

students need to acquire a whole new set of literacy competencies—in short, literacy 

instruction must continue through the secondary grades. • There is a direct and unmistakable correlation between the literacy performance of students within a school and how highly a school is ranked. This means that 

if our country wants to turn around its low-performing schools, it must make literacy improvement a central part of its overall school improvement strategy. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Increase funding for middle and high schools. 

2. Support current legislative initiatives related to adolescent achievement. 

3. Support the development and adoption of State-led common standards that 

embed literacy standards throughout the content areas. 

4. Encourage States to develop a comprehensive literacy policy. 

5. Invest in professional development in literacy instruction for current and prospective teachers and administrators and encourage States to revise certification 

and licensure standards. 

6. Invest in ongoing research and evaluation. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to speak about a large and rapidly growing group of students in our Nation’s schools who are frequently misunderstood, inappropriately 

taught, or neglected altogether. 

My purpose is to speak about the millions of adolescents whose literacy skills are 

so low that they cannot make sense of their classroom texts, frequently fail to graduate from high school, and are unsuccessful in transitioning into careers or postsecondary education. Specifically, I will address issues related to adolescent literacy, 

including (a) the nature and scope of the problem; (b) why literacy instruction is essential in middle and high schools; (c) how improving adolescent literacy performance is foundational to turning around low-performing secondary schools, (d) evidence that well-conceptualized and soundly implemented educational programs in 

and outside of schools can turn the performance of these students around—it is not 

too late to act; and (e) policy recommendations that would serve as the cornerstones 

of a sound strategy for dramatically changing the academic achievement for struggling adolescent readers and writers. 

The term ‘‘crisis’’ is typically defined as a threat or perceived threat to an organization’s high priority goals. The term is often used to describe social challenges that 

our Nation faces. Frequent and inappropriate use of the term can cheapen its meaning. However, when describing the ‘‘literacy health’’ of many adolescents in our 

country, the term ‘‘crisis’’ is not hyperbole; it is a very accurate characterization of 

the realities with which we must come to grips when we consider the fact that our 

15 

schools must produce graduates capable of successfully competing, and leading, in 

the global arena. If this crisis is not addressed in the next reauthorization of ESEA, 

the futures of millions of today’s struggling adolescent learners will be foreclosed 

and our Nation’s economy and our Nation as a whole will be weakened as will the 

fabric of the families and communities that will become the homes to these undereducated and underprepared individuals. 

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

As little as 10 years ago, educators and policymakers had very little knowledge 

about what constituted the adolescent literacy problem. Limited information was 

available in the professional literature, and even less research had been completed 

on the characteristics of struggling adolescent readers and writers. 

That landscape has changed somewhat in the last decade. Increased attention 

from private foundations (e.g., the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Gates 

Foundation, the Stupski Foundation) and even some Federal agencies has begun to 

shed light on the magnitude of the problem. 

Among the things we have learned are the following: 

• Three out of ten high school students do not graduate on time, and nearly 50 

percent of students of color do not graduate on time (Gewertz, 2009). • Six million out of twenty-two million of America’s middle and high school students are struggling readers. • According to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), 70 percent of middle and high school students read ‘‘below proficiency’’—in other words, 

fewer than a third of adolescents have the literacy skills they need to succeed in 

school or beyond. • Only one out of four 12th-grade students is a proficient writer (Salahu-Din, 

Persky, & Miller, 2008). • Forty percent of high school graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek 

(National Governors Association, 2005). • Lack of basic skills by young adults costs universities and businesses as much as $16 billion annually (Greene, 2000). • One out of every five college freshmen must take a remedial reading course 

(SREB, 2009). • Nearly one third of high school graduates are not ready for college-level English 

composition courses (ACT, 2005). • Over half of adults scoring at the lowest literacy levels are dropouts (National 

Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). 

Collectively, these findings resoundingly underscore the fact that insufficient literacy attainment negatively impacts students’ opportunities for success in the classroom, leading to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school, as well as markedly 

reduced earnings as adults. There is no longer the same call for low-skill, high-wage 

jobs that there was in the past. In fact, the 25 fastest growing professions have fargreater-than-average literacy demands, while the fastest-declining professions have 

lower-than-average literacy demands. About 45 percent of all job growth between 

2004 and 2014 will require high-level literacy skills. 

WHY QUALITY LITERACY INSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIAL IN MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL

In recent years, America’s educational system has been successful in raising the 

reading and writing scores of younger children. For example, considerable evidence 

indicates that the Federal investment in Reading First (and its predecessor, Reading 

Excellence) yielded positive reading achievement outcomes. Specifically, the NAEP 

reading scores for fourth graders have been improving since 2002, and the racial 

achievement gaps have, in many instances, been narrowed. These achievement 

gains are the largest in reading for fourth-grade students in 33 years and demonstrate that targeted Federal investments that require schools to use evidencebased methods can produce significant growth in student performance. 

Despite the success experienced with early literacy initiatives, the NAEP data tell 

an entirely different story for middle and high school students. The literacy performance for 13- and 17-year-olds has remained flat for the last 37 years. Hence, some 

of the encouraging early gains appear to dissipate as students move into the secondary grades. 

The most significant instructional and policy question is whether these losses in 

achievement can be prevented. Fortunately, compelling evidence is accumulating 

showing that gains made in early elementary school can provide a solid foundation 

upon which to build additional success when students reach secondary schools. Two 

examples of successful programs will be showcased in the following section. Before 

looking at these cases, however, it’s important to understand why early investments 

16 

in literacy education alone are not sufficient to guarantee strong literacy performance when students reach adolescence. 

The literacy skills that students acquire in early elementary grades lay an essential foundation for later academic success, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves. The main reason is the fact that the demands of the curriculum change dramatically as students move into middle school and progress through high school, including the volume, abstractness, and complexity of text materials they must navigate. As demands change, so must a student’s skill repertoire. Compared to the curriculum demands encountered in the elementary grades, starting in middle school, 

students are expected to respond to assignments that (a) are much longer and more 

complex at the word, sentence, and structural levels; (b) present greater conceptual 

challenges that affect reading fluency; (c) contain detailed graphics that often do not 

stand on their own; and (d) require an ability to synthesize information. On top of 

those factors, each content area (e.g., history, science, math, literature) often requires students to understand and use different types of strategies and approaches. 

Because of the rapidly changing and dramatically different curriculum demands 

in the later grades, adolescents must acquire additional literacy skills if they are 

to survive, let alone thrive, in secondary school. While some students can independently make the necessary adaptations to respond to this changed landscape, many 

adolescents cannot—especially those who struggled in learning to read and write in 

the first place. These students need explicit, scaffolded, coordinated instruction to 

help them acquire a set of strategies for dealing with the new literacy demands they 

encounter in middle and high school. 

It is important to note that in many low-performing secondary schools, a large 

percentage of the struggling reader group (as many as 80 percent) have not acquired 

the necessary foundational word-level skills, including phonics, decoding, word identification, and fluency. Therefore, these students must receive intensive, explicit instructions to help ensure they master these essential foundational skills, as well as 

instruction in vocabulary and comprehension strategies. In other words, before these 

students can be taught the more sophisticated literacy skills described above, they 

must acquire the basic word recognition, decoding, and fluency skills that they 

should have learned during their elementary grades. The amount of time that must 

be devoted to intensive literacy instruction in middle and senior high school for 

these students is daunting. However, in the absence of doing so, the life trajectory 

for these students is dismal in light of the compelling correlations between literacy 

competence and employment, health, remaining clear of problems with legal authorities, and family stability. 

TRANSFORMING LOW-PERFORMING SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY IMPROVING

LITERACY ATTAINMENT

If a large number of adolescents in a secondary school are performing poorly in 

reading and writing, in all likelihood, the school is a low-performing school. In other 

words, there is a direct and unmistakable correlation between the literacy performance of students within a school and how highly a school is ranked. This means that 

if our country wants to turn around its low-performing schools, it must make literacy improvement a central part of its overall school improvement strategy. 

Foundational to improving any valued educational metric (e.g., high performance 

on State assessments, reduced dropout rates, successful transitioning to and success 

in careers and post-secondary education) is ensuring that students are highly proficient in the literacy skills that enable them to deal with rigorous course requirements in school and challenging career and post-secondary experiences. If students 

cannot read and write with relative ease, they will fail, and their schools will be 

among the lowest performing. Schools will only improve as quickly as literacy proficiency improves. 

Transforming America’s lowest performing middle and secondary high schools into 

productive learning environments in which students and teachers thrive requires an 

aggressive, comprehensive, approach that targets instructional, personnel, and infrastructure factors. Some of these factors are highlighted below: 

School leaders make instruction a top priority. School and departmental 

leaders are relentless in their pursuit of meeting important learning goals for all 

students. Creating conditions that are favorable for instruction and learning is a top 

priority and toward that end, leaders facilitate the development and use of protocols 

for observing, describing, and analyzing practice (Elmore, 2005). 

School culture is centered on student learning. Student learning is of paramount importance for all educators and each assumes a deep sense of responsibility 

and ownership for student growth. A school environment that is encouraging, inviting, and personalized is the norm. Staff demonstrate a sense of collective efficacy. 

17 

That is, they believe that as a whole, they can organize and execute actions necessary to have a positive effect on students. In addition, there is a strong bond of 

trust between colleagues, parents, and students (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk, 2006). 

Instructional practices are evidence-based. Recommendations recently released by the Institute of Education Sciences (Kamil et al., 2008) and the Center 

for Instruction (Torgesen et al., 2007) about evidence-based instructional practices 

are the standard against which current practice is evaluated and improvement goals 

are set. Instructional practices seen in high frequency across classes include explicit 

vocabulary instruction; direct, explicit comprehension strategy instruction; guided 

discussion to determine the meaning of text; and instruction in essential content 

knowledge and concepts with scaffolded supports. 

Multi-tiered instructional supports are in place. Because some students require more intensive and explicit instruction of content and skills, schools provide 

scaffolded instructional supports to enable these students to build the skills that 

they will need to independently thrive in content classes (Ehren, Deshler, & Graner, 

in press). That is, instructional arrangements of increased intensity are made available to students, differentiated to address individual student needs. This instructional model is referred to as a multi-tier system of supports (MTSS), and where 

it is implemented with fidelity, failure rates are reduced. 

Literacy instruction is integrated in all classes. Content teachers from core 

classes (math, science, language arts, social studies) know that for students to understand and master critical course content, they must be taught how to navigate 

discipline-specific content materials (Lee & Spratley, 2010). Therefore, teachers provide a ‘‘reading apprenticeship’’ in which they give students multiple models of how 

to use high-leverage learning strategies to process discipline-specific text materials 

and focus classroom talk on how to make sense of discipline-specific text materials 

(e.g., Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). In addition, the strategies that struggling readers learn in supplemental reading classes are reinforced in content classes so students are able to transfer what they have learned to other classes throughout their 

day. 

Instructional decisions are driven by student, classroom, and school data. 

The power of data in informing instruction at the student and classroom level is 

widely recognized as essential for student success (Learning Point Associates, 2006). 

Data systems are implemented and continually refined to be more responsive to 

teachers and administrators as they work to improve instructional impacts. In addition to data on how students are responding to instruction, highly effective schools 

collect actionable data to help them gauge how fully and efficiently they are using 

available resources (e.g., are all slots in the supplemental reading classes being fully 

utilized), what factors operate within a school that ‘‘impede’’ progress toward specified goals, and how closely literacy services within a school are aligned with the 

reading and writing profiles of students. For example, data collected during schoolwide professional development can provide valuable feedback relative to the speed 

of implementation of a new instructional practice, the fidelity of implementation, 

and the sustainability rate over time. These and other measures help sharpen the 

focus of work on improving literacy outcomes and, therefore, are used by the school’s 

Literacy Leadership Team to drive school-wide literacy improvement. 

Continual learning for all staff is a high priority. Data-driven, ongoing, jobembedded professional development along with instructional coaching supports is 

made available to all teachers and administrators (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009). 

When applicable, the content of professional development sessions are evidencebased. In addition, accountability systems are in place to ensure that application 

and follow-up coaching is provided to improve the probability of implementation. As 

part of these initiatives, school leaders receive professional development on literacy 

interventions, and the knowledge that they gain will form the basis of expectations 

they will set and supports they will provide to their teachers. 

Student transitions from middle school to high school are carefully 

planned. Success in high school is greatly influenced by how successfully students 

transition into and succeed during their ninth-grade year (Roderick, 2006). Hence, 

emphasis is placed on ensuring that students are prepared socially and academically 

to transition from middle school into high school. Supports (e.g., counseling, mentoring) are in place to catch and prevent potential failure. Such actions are aimed 

at the ninth-grade year because of the high correlation between setbacks during the 

ninth grade and students eventually dropping out of school. 

Positive behavioral supports are in place to ensure high productivity. 

High-quality instruction and learning occur in school environments that are orderly 

and where teachers and student feel safe to interact and to freely participate in the 

learning process. Productive learning environments are built, fostered, and maintained by implementing school-wide disciplinary practices. School-wide positive beVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
18 

havioral supports provide schools with an operational framework for achieving these 

outcomes (www.pbis.org). 

IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR STRUGGLING ADOLESCENTS: 

TWO SUCCESS STORIES

All too frequently, educators and policymakers incorrectly conclude that nothing 

can be done to change the trajectory that struggling adolescent learners are on. In 

essence, they write off tens of thousands of students as educational casualties. Such 

a position is not only morally wrong; it flies in the face of a mounting body of evidence that underscores the fact that well-designed instructional programs for struggling adolescent learners in middle and high school can bring about dramatic 

changes in literacy attainment. 

The following two examples illustrate this claim. They have been chosen to show 

some of the exciting results that can happen in individual classrooms, and across 

entire schools, in terms of improving the literacy performance of struggling adolescent learners. 

Example 1: Midwest Middle School—Dubuque, IA 

The Problem: A group of sixth-grade students with learning disabilities who 

were reading 2 to 3 years behind grade level were showing no signs of progress from 

the beginning of the school year in August to November. 

Toward a Solution: Because instructional time was limited, a decision was made 

to change the type of reading instruction these students were receiving. An evidence-based program (Fusion Reading) designed by researchers at the University of 

Kansas Center for Research on Learning was adopted. This program taught students a targeted number of high-leverage learning strategies to improve their ability 

to decode difficult words, read fluently, master discipline-specific vocabulary, and 

comprehend complex reading assignments. The teacher received appropriate professional development and follow-up coaching. Students received 60 minutes of instruction daily. The program was taught with high fidelity. 

The Results: Six months after instruction began, all students showed growth on 

their Measures of Academic Progress scores and 83 percent of them met their target 

growth goal. The gains that they made were statistically significant (.004) with 

large effect size gains (1.71). Overall, these students are approaching the mean score 

range for the norm group. This means that the achievement gap for reading is closing in a dramatic fashion. With the new skills these students are acquiring, they 

will be able to enroll in rigorous classes because they can independently navigate 

and cope with the demands of their reading assignments. 

Example 2: J.E.B. Stuart High School—Falls Church, VA 

The Problem: In the early 2000s, J.E.B. Stuart High School was labeled a ‘‘failing school’’ because of its poor academic record. The passing rates on the State assessment were as follows: Reading: 64 percent, Algebra I: 32 percent, Chemistry: 44 

percent, and History: 27 percent. Stuart High has an enrollment of 1,500 students. 

The student body has a 30 percent mobility rate, 70 percent of its students were 

born outside of the United States, 25 percent are English Language Learners, 13 

percent have disabilities, 86 percent are from minority backgrounds, and 54 percent 

qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. 

Toward a Solution: After looking at the poor record of student achievement, all 

of the educators at Stuart High School knew that drastic changes had to occur to 

give their students a chance to graduate and be college- or career-ready. High expectations were set, and a host of measures were put in place to change the culture 

and prevailing practices within the school, including a heavy emphasis on explicit 

vocabulary and comprehension instruction, ongoing discussions related to text, intensive strategic tutoring, multi-tiered interventions, extended learning time, heavy 

use of technology, and shared leadership. A core belief of the entire staff was that 

reading proficiency of every student was essential if they were to benefit fully from 

their high school education and become career- and/or college-ready. Hence, all 

teachers and administrators at Stuart High proudly say that they spell hope ‘‘R-EA-D.’’ 

The Results: Over a 5-year period, dramatic improvement was seen on virtually 

every indicator, each directly tied to the significant improvement in the core literacy 

skills of the student body. Specifically, on the State assessments, the pass rates became as follows: Reading: 94 percent; Algebra I: 98 percent; Chemistry: 88 percent; 

and History: 96 percent. The International Baccalaureate (IB) enrollment increased 

from 18 to 48 percent, and the school exceeded the international average pass rate. 

Student performance never dropped below 80 percent. In other words, a school with 

19 

high poverty, high diversity, 70 percent second language, and a 30 percent mobility 

rate outperformed elite private schools on the IB examinations. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Reauthorization of ESEA represents an opportunity to make a long overdue 

course correction in the proportion of Federal investments that have historically 

gone to adolescents in middle and high school settings. As shown in Figure 1, Federal education policy has long overlooked grades 7–12. As illustrated, early investments and post-secondary investments each total about $25 billion annually. However, investments made to bolster the educational achievement of adolescents in 

middle and secondary schools are each under $4 billion annually. The Alliance for 

Excellent Education refers to this as ‘‘the missing middle’’ (Miller, 2009). 

Investments in America’s youngest children should continue to be a high priority 

as ESEA is reauthorized. But these investments should not be made at the expense 

of the needs of older children. An econometric model developed by Nobel Laureate 

James Heckman (an economist from the University of Chicago) demonstrates that 

with no investments at all, high-risk children will attain a graduation rate of 41 

percent. With early investments alone, the graduation rate rises to 66 percent. However, when investments are made from early childhood through adolescence, the 

predicted graduation rate rises to 91 percent! 

Large numbers of our country’s adolescents are on a trajectory that is leading 

them to dropping out of school and/or entering the work force grossly ill-prepared 

to obtain and keep employment that will support them and their families. Traveling 

on this trajectory will greatly enhance their probability of ending up in jail, divorcing, and not being a contributing member of their community. While the adolescents 

on this trajectory differ in many ways, most of them have one thing in common: they 

lack the necessary literacy skills to successfully navigate the complex world in which 

they find themselves. One of the primary roles of public policy is to put in place programs and structures that will address problems that disadvantage individual citizens and as well as our Nation as a whole. Public policy intervention is needed to 

reverse the poor literacy performance evidenced by many adolescents. The lives of 

these students and the economic vitality of our country will be the beneficiaries. 

The following recommendations are designed to dramatically alter the path that 

too many of our struggling adolescent learners are on. 

• Recommendation #1: Increase funding for middle and high schools. The 

neglect of financial support for students in grades 7–12, compared to the earlier 

grades, that currently and historically has existed, must be reversed immediately. 

Without such investments, serious progress in turning around low-performing secondary schools, dramatically reducing the current dropout rate, and making more 

students career- and college-ready will not occur. 


56380-1.eps
20 

• Recommendation #2: Support current legislative initiatives related to 

adolescent achievement. Three bills currently before the Congress would favorably impact adolescent academic performance. The support of each would create a 

context conducive to significantly moving the needle on the adolescent literacy problem. First, the conceptual framework embodied within the ‘‘Literacy Education for 

All, Results for the Nation Act’’ or LEARN Act is sound and deserves strong support. The pre-K through 12 comprehensive nature of this proposed act affords 

schools the opportunity to put in place a literacy plan that is coordinated and integrated across all grade levels. As such, it recognizes that literacy instruction is, indeed, necessary at all age levels, not just the earlier ones. 

Second, the Graduation Promise Act would support State-led systems for high 

school accountability and improvement. States and school districts would identify 

low-performing high schools, and a rigorous diagnostic analysis would be used to 

identify and tailor research-based reforms to turn them around. 

Third, the Success in the Middle Act is designed to prevent students from becoming dropout statistics through the use of early warning systems that identify at-risk 

students and offer them support so they continue in school and graduate. 

Therefore, it is imperative that all three bills be passed. 

• Recommendation #3: Support the development and adoption of Stateled common standards that embed literacy standards throughout the content areas. Our ability to prepare students to succeed in the marketplace is directly 

dependent on their ability to meet a set of uniformly high standards. Currently, 

there is so much variation across State standards that it is impossible to align them 

to college and career readiness benchmarks. State-led common standards in the core 

academic areas will result in setting one high bar to ensure that students have sufficient literacy skills to be ready for college and careers. To reach this goal, it is 

essential that standards within each of the academic disciplines include specific literacy competencies that students must meet. • Recommendation #4: Encourage States to develop a comprehensive literacy policy. To accelerate the rate at which schools embrace and seriously implement measures to improve adolescent literacy outcomes, each State’s education 

agency must develop a detailed plan to work with districts to help them implement 

State policies relative to adolescent literacy and then monitor districts’ progress. 

Among other things, States should identify the reading skills students need in order 

to improve reading achievement and to meet State standards in key academic subjects through high school. • Recommendation #5: Invest in professional development in literacy instruction for current and prospective teachers and administrators and encourage States to revise certification and licensure standards. Of all of the 

factors that contribute to positive student outcomes, the competence of the teachers 

who teach students is most important. That is, student behavior will change only 

to the degree that teachers possess the essential instructional competencies to enable their learning. Discipline-specific teachers must be prepared to integrate literacy instruction into their content instruction. Similarly, reading and writing specialists must demonstrate competencies in adolescent language and knowledge of explicit, intensive instructional pedagogies and supplemental teaching methods. Finally, school administrators must be prepared to lead school-wide literacy improvement efforts and create the kinds of instructional conditions that promote literacy 

attainment. 

• Recommendation #6: Invest in ongoing research and evaluation. In 

order to close the large achievement gap that exists for struggling adolescent learners and given the shortage of time available to teach them, teachers need evidencebased instructional practices that are more powerful and efficient than the ones currently available. Collectively, the existing research base on adolescent literacy is relatively scant, significantly hindering the headway that needs to be made with struggling adolescent learners. 

A sampling of the types of research questions that must be answered include (a) 

What are the best strategies and/or combination of strategies to use with adolescents demonstrating various learning profiles?; (b) How should instruction be designed to meet the unique needs of adolescents with disabilities and English Language Learners?; (c) How can teacher preparation and professional development programs be reconfigured so secondary-level teachers can efficiently acquire the necessary competencies to infuse literacy instruction into their classes?; and (d) What 

are the unique issues confronting low-performing rural secondary schools versus 

low-performing urban schools and what turnaround strategies work best in each setting? 

While some investments have been made through IES and NICHD to support research on adolescent learners, these investments have been infinitesimally small 

21 

compared to the investments these agencies make in younger children. Thus, few 

of the proposals submitted to these agencies in adolescent literacy end up being 

funded. Strategies for engaging larger numbers of researchers to conduct research 

in adolescent literacy need to be identified and implemented. 

CONCLUSION

The dismal literacy attainment of so many of our country’s adolescents underscores how critical it is that the newly reauthorized ESEA include measures to address this problem. Education policy that focuses on improving the quality of instruction that takes place in our Nation’s classroom can have the most immediate, 

significant and long-lasting impact on student outcomes. The needle will move on 

adolescent literacy performance when policies are enacted that call for the use of 

instructional practices that are grounded in sound research. Keeping this focus in 

mind will provide a basis for all policy recommendations that follow: 

REFERENCES

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). 

Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. 

Ehren, B.J., Deshler, D.D., & Graner, P.S. (in press). Using the content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RTI in secondary schools. Theory into 

Practice. 

Elmore, R.F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 

Gerwertz, C., (2009), Dropout costs priced for 50 major U.S. cities: The economic 

benefits of reducing high school dropout rates in America’s fifty largest cities. 

Washington, DC: Education Week. 

Greene, J.P., (2000). The cost of remedial education: How much Michigan pays when 

students fail to learn basic skills. Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 

Greenleaf, C.L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent 

readers: From struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(1), 4–13. 

Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: 

A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. In W.K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 135–156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. 

Kamil, M.L., Borman, G.D., Dole, J., Kral, C.C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). 

Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A 

practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc. 

Learning Point Associates, (2006). Effective use of electronic data systems: A readiness guide for school and district leaders. Chicago, IL: Leaning Point Associates. 

Lee, C.D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

Miller, M. (2009). Seize the moment: The need for a comprehensive Federal investment in adolescent literacy. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: The Alliance for Excellent Education. 

National Center for Educational Statistics, (2007). The Nation’s report card: Reading 

2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

National Governors Association, (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to 

adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. 

Roderick, M. (2006). Aligning dropout prevention approaches with efforts to raise 

achievement and improve high school performance: Evidence from the Chicago 

Public Schools. In D. Clark (Ed.). The challenge of high school reform, 21(2), 12– 

19. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. 

Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s report card: Writing 

2007. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. 

SREB, (2009). A critical mission: Making adolescent reading an immediate priority 

in SREB. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board. 

Torgesen, J.K., Houston, D.D., Rissman, L.M., Decker, S.M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, 

S., Wexler, J. Francis, D.J., Rivera, M.O., & Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy 

instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. 

Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Deshler. 

22 

Now we turn to Mr. Capozzi. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN CAPOZZI, PRINCIPAL, ELMONT 

MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, ELMONT, NY 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and distinguished 

members of the committee. 

My name is John Capozzi, and I am the principal of Elmont Memorial High School. I would like to thank you for providing me 

with the opportunity to speak to you about the strategies we use 

at Elmont Memorial High School to improve teacher effectiveness 

and provide our students with the rigorous education that prepares 

them for their post-secondary goals. 

Elmont Memorial High School is the largest of five schools in the 

Sewanhaka Central High School District, with nearly 2,000 students in grades 7 through 12. The demographics of our school are 

77 percent African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian, 

and 1 percent White. Our academic achievement and annual graduation rate of over 94 percent has dispelled the myth that children 

of color cannot be provided with an enriching, challenging, and 

first-rate education. 

I am often asked how Elmont Memorial High School does this. 

The driving force behind Elmont Memorial’s success is our belief 

that all children can learn. 

Research clearly shows that the No. 1 factor in student achievement is teacher effectiveness. We understand that our student success is directly correlated to our highly effective and dedicated 

teachers. My primary role as the principal is to serve as the instructional leader of the school and to provide support and supervision to the faculty. 

The role of the principal has changed dramatically throughout 

the years. Today, principals are often required to be managers 

rather than instructional leaders. For student achievement to improve, the principal’s primary focus must remain on improving 

teacher effectiveness. 

Recently, there has been much discussion on developing teacherleaders in schools. At Elmont Memorial, we utilize teacher-leaders 

to turnkey successful instructional strategies at faculty workshops. 

Excellent teachers benefit from this plan; however, this alone will 

not help improve the instruction in the mediocre and poor teacher’s 

classrooms. 

Principals and school administrators must take the lead in helping teachers develop their pedagogical skills. In order for a principal to be an effective instructional leader, they must first be a 

master teacher. A master teacher analyzes data and differentiates 

instruction. A mediocre teacher simply examines data and re-teaches the material. A poor teacher does not examine the data and continues on to the next topic. A master teacher develops lesson plans 

that are responsive to the different learners in their classrooms. A 

mediocre teacher simply looks at content as the foundation of lesson planning. A poor teacher does not have the skill set to plan effectively. 

Principals must be well-versed in pedagogy and be willing to 

work hands-on with their teachers to develop schools where excellent instruction is the standard. At Elmont Memorial, three areas 

23 

that have greatly contributed to our success are our rigorous observation process, our comprehensive professional development plan, 

and our strong collaborative approach. 

The primary goal of our observation process is to improve instruction and student achievement. This process is a cooperative 

undertaking between the instructional supervisor and the teacher. 

As the principal and the instructional leader of Elmont Memorial, 

my role in the observation process is, first and foremost, to be a 

teacher of teachers. 

At the start of every school year, we develop and implement a 

comprehensive professional development plan based on the needs of 

our teachers. Additionally, to enhance the social and academic 

growth of our students, we utilize interdisciplinary teams. Our 

teaming program provides our teachers with a daily opportunity to 

collaborate on instructional practices and to develop intervention 

plans to meet the needs of the students. 

Our success in identifying at-risk students and providing them 

with the necessary instructional support has greatly contributed to 

Elmont Memorial High School’s high graduation rate. We have developed and implemented an action plan. This allows us to be 

proactive in identifying at-risk students. 

In 2009, New York State had 56 percent of African-Americans 

and 55 percent of Hispanic students graduate from high school. At 

Elmont Memorial High School, 94 percent of African-American and 

95 percent of Hispanic students graduated. Ninety-seven percent 

went on to college. This demonstrates the power of teacher effectiveness to positively impact student achievement. 

As a Nation, we must commit ourselves to provide all students 

with the highest quality education. It is my sincere hope that the 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

will not only raise standards for public education, but also provide 

principals with the resources they need to develop and hone the 

skills of our most valuable educational resource: teachers. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Capozzi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN CAPOZZI

SUMMARY

With nearly 2,000 students, a student body comprised of 77 percent African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 8 percent Asian and 1 percent white, Elmont Memorial 

High School has proven that all children can achieve academic success regardless 

of race, creed, ethnicity or socio-economic status. We understand that our students’ 

success is directly correlated to highly effective and dedicated teachers. Research 

clearly shows that the No. 1 factor in student achievement is teacher effectiveness. 

My primary role as the principal is to serve as the instructional leader of the school 

and to provide support and supervision to the faculty. 

At Elmont Memorial, we continually analyze teacher effectiveness. Three areas 

that have greatly contributed to improving classroom instruction are a rigorous observation process, a comprehensive professional development plan, and a strong collaborative environment. The goal of our process is to improve classroom instruction 

and student achievement. At the start of every school year we develop and implement a comprehensive professional development, plan based on the needs of our 

teachers. The thrust of our professional development plan is assisting teachers to 

develop differentiated instructional methodologies that allow them to meet the various needs of their students. Additionally, to enhance the social and academic 

growth of our students, we utilize interdisciplinary teams. Our teaming program 

provides our teachers with the opportunity to collaborate on a daily basis. 

24 

Our success in identifying and supporting at-risk students has greatly contributed 

to Elmont Memorial High School’s high graduation rate. We have developed and implemented an A.C.T.I.O.N. Plan (Analysis, Collaboration, Teaching techniques, 

Instructional support, Opportunities for success, Needs of the students) that allows 

us to be proactive in identifying at-risk students. Once identified, individualized academic recovery plans are developed, implemented and monitored. As a result, students are afforded an opportunity to experience academic achievement. 

Our success at Elmont Memorial is built on the foundation of teacher effectiveness 

and individualized assistance for all of our students. This, coupled with administrative leadership that embraces these factors enables us to provide our students with 

the best education possible. 

Thank you Chairman Harkin, Senator Enzi, and distinguished members of the 

committee. I am John Capozzi, Principal of Elmont Memorial High School. I would 

like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak to you about the 

strategies we use at Elmont Memorial High School to improve teacher effectiveness 

and provide our students with a rigorous education that prepares them for their 

post-secondary goals. 

Elmont Memorial School is the largest of five schools in the Sewanhaka Central 

High School District with nearly 2,000 students in grades 7 through 12. The demographics of our school are 77 percent African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian and 1 percent white. Our academic achievement and annual graduation 

rate of over 94 percent has dispelled the myth that children of color cannot be provided with an enriching, challenging and first rate education. I am often asked how 

Elmont Memorial does this. The driving force behind Elmont Memorial’s success is 

our belief that all children can learn. Research clearly shows that the No. 1 factor 

in student achievement is teacher effectiveness. We understand that our students’ 

success is directly correlated to our highly effective and dedicated teachers. My primary role as the principal is to serve as the instructional leader of the school and 

to provide support and supervision to the faculty. 

The role of a principal has changed dramatically throughout the years. Today, 

principals are often required to be managers rather than instructional leaders. For 

student achievement to improve the principal’s primary focus must remain on improving teacher effectiveness. Recently, there has been much discussion on developing teacher leaders in schools. At Elmont Memorial, we utilize teacher leaders to 

turnkey successful instructional strategies at faculty workshops. Excellent teachers 

benefit from this plan. However, this alone will not help improve the instruction in 

the mediocre and poor teacher’s classroom. Principals and school administrators 

must take the lead in helping teachers develop their pedagogical skills. In order for 

a principal to be an effective instructional leader, they must first be a master teacher. A master teacher analyzes data and differentiates instruction. A mediocre teacher simply examines data and re-teaches the material. A poor teacher does not examine the data and continues on to the next topic. A master teacher develops lesson 

plans that are responsive to the different learners in their classroom. A mediocre 

teacher simply looks at content as the foundation of lesson planning. A poor teacher 

does not have the skill set to plan effectively. Principals must be well-versed in pedagogy and be willing to work hands-on with their teachers to develop schools where 

excellent instruction is the standard. 

At Elmont Memorial, three areas that have greatly contributed to our success are 

our rigorous observation process, our comprehensive professional development plan 

and our strong collaborative approach. The primary goal of our observation process 

is to improve classroom instruction and student achievement. This process is a cooperative undertaking between the instructional supervisor and the teacher. As the 

principal and instructional leader of Elmont Memorial, my role in the observation 

process is first and foremost, to be a teacher of teachers. At the start of every school 

year, we develop and implement a comprehensive professional development plan 

based on the needs of our teachers. Additionally, to enhance the social and academic 

growth of our students, we utilize interdisciplinary teams. Our teaming program 

provides our teachers with the daily opportunity to collaborate on instructional practices and to develop intervention plans to meet student needs. 

Our success in identifying at-risk students and providing them with the necessary 

instructional support has greatly contributed to Elmont Memorial High School’s 

high graduation rate. We have developed and implemented an A.C.T.I.O.N. Plan 

(Analysis, Collaboration, Teaching techniques, Instructional support, Opportunities 

for success, Needs of the students) that allows us to be proactive in identifying atrisk students. Once identified, individualized academic recovery plans are developed, 

implemented and monitored. Additionally, our pupil personnel counselors play a sigVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
25 

nificant role in providing academic support to our students. By conducting an annual review of every student, counselors assist students in formulating goals for 

each school year and plan for their post-secondary education. As a result, students 

are afforded an opportunity to experience academic success. 

In 2009, New York State had 56 percent African-Americans and 55 percent Hispanic students graduate from high school. At Elmont Memorial High School, 94 percent of African-American and 95 percent of Hispanic students graduate. This demonstrates the power of teacher effectiveness to positively impact student achievement. As a nation we must commit ourselves to providing all students with the 

highest quality education. It is my sincere hope that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will not only raise the standards for public 

education but also provide principals with the resources they need to develop and 

hone the skills of our most valuable educational resource—teachers. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s pretty amazing. That’s over 9 out of 10 

going to college. 

Mr. Harrison. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARRISON, MIDDLE SCHOOL DIRECTOR, DENVER SCHOOL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

DENVER, CO 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to share with you Denver School of Science and Technology’s vision and program in the context of reauthorization. 

In Denver, our team of educators at DSST looks to double the 

number of students going to 4-year colleges and universities without remediation from Denver public schools. It is my hope that 

DSST’s charter school model can be replicated to improve our expanding network of schools in Denver, as well as shape the direction of national secondary school reform. 

DSST Public Schools looks to drastically change the outcomes for 

young people in the city of Denver and model the reform necessary 

to increase student achievement and prepare all students for 4-year 

colleges and universities. DSST Public Schools currently operate 

open-enrollment, STEM-focused charter schools. Currently in our 

middle school and high school program, 48 percent of the students 

are from low-income households, and we are 68-percent minority. 

We attract a diverse student population that mirrors the general 

population of Denver. 

For 3 years in a row, DSST’s graduating classes have earned 

100-percent acceptances into 4-year colleges and universities; and, 

thus far, our college remediation rate is 7 percent. Over the last 

3 years, DSST has been the highest performing high school, as 

measured by the Colorado State growth model. Locally, according 

to the district’s School Performance Framework, DSST’s Middle 

and High School Program was the highest performing school in 

Denver Public Schools in both growth and absolute performance. 

Most importantly, DSST has demonstrated that all students, regardless of race or income, can earn a rigorous high school diploma 

and attend 4-year colleges and universities. 

Our status as a charter school, as well as our focus to meet the 

academic and social needs of a diverse population, has allowed for 

innovation in the areas of school culture, student support, and instructional approach. Preparing every student to succeed in academics and in character in a 4-year college is at the center of 

DSST’s program. This starts in the middle school. Our sixth-graders spend a full day at Colorado College, a top-rated liberal arts 

26 

college. Our seventh-graders spend a full day working with students and professors at the University of Colorado School of Engineering. These are yearly school rituals that form the mind set of 

100 percent college readiness at the student level. 

DSST has created a STEM program that engages students and 

prepares them to succeed in college. Every student in the middle 

school spends 2 hours each day in our literacy block, devoting extra 

time for reading, writing, and nonfiction studies in non-tracked 

classes. The expectation of our middle school math curriculum is 

designed to take all students to calculus by their senior year. We 

also provide additional instruction for reading recovery and math 

interventions for the many students who come to our school grade 

levels behind. This is necessary if we are to prepare our students 

for STEM fields and make it accessible. 

Of our first two graduating classes, we believe 47 percent have 

chosen STEM fields in college, considerably higher than the national average of 14 percent. DSST’s status as a charter school has 

allowed for a democratic open-enrollment process so that any student, regardless of academic ability, neighborhood, or background 

can apply for admission through our lottery process. Most traditional urban public schools suffer from a de facto segregation based 

on income and neighborhood housing patterns. 

Under the leadership of Senator Bennet, the former superintendent of DPS, Denver has recently emerged as one of the more 

promising cities for education reform efforts. Denver Public Schools 

has aggressively supported the expansion of charter schools. 

We would like to present three recommendations for this committee: 

No. 1, create more high-performing secondary schools in every 

neighborhood, regardless of their classification as district or charter 

schools, that meet the needs of our Nation’s diversity. 

No. 2, acknowledge the innovative work of high-performing charter schools that serve underrepresented and diverse groups of students, and involve them in the secondary school reform effort. 

No. 3, encourage charter schools and district schools, working together, to share in innovation around increasing student achievement and college readiness, and promoting choice and demand of 

high-performance schools. 

On behalf of Denver School of Science and Technology and Denver Public Schools, and in recognition of National Charter School 

Week, I thank you for the opportunity to share, and welcome further dialogue around the needs of our students. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARRISON

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Chairman Harkin, Senator Enzi, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for the opportunity to share with you Denver School of Science and Technology’s (DSST) vision and program in the context 

of Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization and the goal of ensuring that every student in every classroom achieves at the highest levels. In Denver, 

CO, our team of educators at DSST has taken on the task of redefining a world 

class secondary school program that looks to double the number of students going 

to 4-year colleges and universities without remediation from the city of Denver. It 

is my hope that DSST’s program can be replicated to improve our expanding network of schools in Denver as well as shape the direction of Secondary School reform. 

27 

ISSUES FACING SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM: NATIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXTS

With the election of President Obama and the work around the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act reauthorization, a dynamic national landscape for school 

reform has developed. Charter schools are becoming recognized as high quality organizations which successfully educate our Nation’s young people. Within this broader 

context, the United States has been struggling to improve student achievement over 

the last decade. Student achievement trends and 4-year college-going rates continue 

to be a significant national problem that will undermine future economic and civic 

growth of the country. A national crisis persists around successfully educating our 

population and graduating students from 4-year colleges—particularly low-income 

and minority students. 

Denver Public Schools currently faces many of the same challenges of other large 

urban districts. Many schools are segregated by race and income. The district is 

challenged by a high rate of poverty and a large percentage of students who are not 

native English speakers. The data around college readiness calls for a sense of urgency around secondary school reform: 

• Out of 6,310 9th graders in Denver Public Schools in 2004, 612, or 9.7 percent 

are likely to earn a 4-year college degree within 10 years; 

• Of 4,164 low income 9th graders in Denver Public Schools, 186, or 4.5 percent 

are likely to earn a 4-year college degree within 10 years. 

These numbers in Denver are directly tied to the level of college readiness in middle school, where one in three students is meeting State standards in reading, writing, math, and science by the end of 8th grade. 

There are very few highly successful one-track college preparatory school models 

in the country today that significantly increase student achievement in the context 

of truly diverse populations. In response to this crisis, DSST Public Schools looks 

to drastically change the outcomes for young people in the city of Denver and model 

the reform necessary to increase student achievement and prepare students for 4- 

year colleges and universities. 

DSST PUBLIC SCHOOLS: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

DSST Public Schools currently operate open-enrollment STEM-focused charter 

schools. We are part of the Denver Public Schools system. 

What sets us apart from urban charter schools, traditional district schools, and 

magnet schools is the rich student diversity of our program. Currently in our middle 

and high school, 48 percent of the students are from low-income households, and 

we are 68 percent minority—we are excited to attract a diverse student population 

that mirrors the general population of Denver. We draw from over 100 different elementary and middle school programs in our open-enrollment process. Our students 

learn to thrive in a diverse environment, which is a valuable asset that equips them 

to enter college, the workplace, and the real world. 

Through a network of schools, DSST Public Schools is dedicated to providing a 

diverse student body with an outstanding secondary liberal arts education with a 

science and technology focus. By creating powerful learning communities centered 

on core values and a shared commitment to academic excellence, we will increase 

the number of underrepresented students (girls, minorities and economically disadvantaged) who attain college science and liberal arts degrees. Our graduates will 

be responsible, engaged citizens who are prepared to be leaders of the future. 

Denver School of Science and Technology welcomed its first class of 9th graders 

in 2004 and has since become one of the most successful high schools in the State 

of Colorado. DSST added a middle school program to its model in 2008. For 3 years 

in a row, DSST’s graduating classes have earned 100 percent acceptances into 4- 

year colleges, and our college remediation rate thus far is 7 percent. DSST has been 

the highest performing Colorado public high school over the last 3 years as measured by value-added student achievement growth on the Colorado State Growth 

Model. Locally, DSST’s Middle and High School program was the highest performing Denver Public School according to district’s School Performance Framework. 

DSST’s middle and high school program has consistently been the highest performing secondary school in the district in both growth and absolute performance. 

Most importantly, DSST has demonstrated that all students, regardless of income, 

background, or ethnicity, can earn a truly rigorous high school diploma and attend 

a 4-year college. As a result, DSST has become a national model for school reform, 

hosting thousands of educators from all over the country. 

Unlike most districts, the reform effort in Denver is defined by the collaboration 

between district and charter schools. DSST’s secondary schools will help Denver 

28 

Public Schools to become a truly integrated school system—a national model for 

such efforts. 

INTRODUCTION: DSST’S SECONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAM

DSST’s secondary program mirrors the recommendations and focus points in the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. DSST is a unique charter school and offers a distinctive value proposition based on serving diverse students, a 100 percent 

4-year college acceptance track record, data-driven instruction that yields high 

value-added student growth, and our STEM focus. 

• 100 percent 4-year college readiness and acceptance focus: Every aspect 

of our secondary school program is designed to prepare students to succeed academically and socially in the context of 4-year colleges. Preparing every student to gain 

acceptance to and succeed in a 4-year college is at the center of DSST’s academic 

program, and work towards this goal starts the minute a student walks in the door 

for summer school in the 6th grade year. In June 2009, Education Secretary Arne 

Duncan spoke at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Conference. 

The Denver School of Science and Technology serves grades 6 to 12. They take the 

6th graders on college visits. Those children spend years choosing a college—instead 

of months—and 100 percent of their graduates go on to 4-year colleges and universities. 

From Summer School in the 6th grade through Senior Project, students strive to 

master the standards, knowledge, and skills that will prepare them for a 4-year college or university without remediation. 

• Real-Time Data-Driven Systems That Yields Value-added Student 

Growth: Identifying the value-added growth is the most important metric of student learning. DSST is committed to using data and up-to-date research to inform, 

reflect upon, and adapt instruction to meet student needs. DSST relentlessly focuses 

on the academic growth of our students. The result of this focus is outstanding student growth year-to-year as measured by State and nationally norm referenced 

tests. Most schools that use data-driven instruction places the data in the hands of 

select teachers and school leaders a few times a year. At DSST, every teacher uses 

technology to transform teaching and learning, harnessing powerful assessment and 

data tools to measure student progress towards standards on a daily basis and to 

adapt instruction accordingly. Teachers develop strategies to spiral and re-teach 

standards on which students, both individually and collectively, have not achieved 

mastery. Students use trackers to manage their own data and progress toward 

standards on a daily basis as well. Thus, they own the data, are fully transparent 

as to what they need to study and review, and own their progress toward grade 

level mastery. Even 6th graders at DSST keep track of their data on mastery 

checks, tests and quizzes, and benchmark exams in their notebooks. 

• STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics): Young 

adults who are well-educated in STEM are critical to the functioning of our democracy in our increasingly technological society and represent the next generation of 

economic growth in the innovation economy. DSST fully realizes that a college preparatory STEM education has to start with a middle school program. We work to 

develop a strong literacy foundation and laser-like focus on math conceptual understanding and demonstration of skills, and investing the necessary time in reading 

recovery and math interventions for the many students who come to our program 

grade levels behind. The expectation of our math curriculum is designed to take all 

students to calculus by their senior year. In the middle school program, every student takes an hour and a half of an integrated science sequence each day; in the 

high school, all students take the equivalent of 51⁄2 years of science as part of their 

graduation requirement. Our one-to-one laptop program also drives our teaching 

and learning. DSST has a requirement that every student pass every core academic 

course that they take and our graduation requirements exceed Colorado’s higher 

education entrance requirements. DSST has created a rigorous core curriculum and 

STEM program that engages students in the field and prepares them to succeed in 

STEM college majors. We anticipate that 47 percent of our students will go into 

STEM fields in college, considerably higher than the national average of 14 percent. 

A DEMOCRATIC OPEN-ENROLLMENT PROCESS—CREATING CHOICE AND DEMAND

IN OUR PROGRAM

DSST’s status as a charter school has allowed for a democratic open-enrollment 

process so that any student, regardless of academic ability or background, can apply 

for admissions through our lottery process. This is a unique and important element 

of DSST as we enroll a truly diverse student population in terms of both income 

29 

and race. Most traditional urban public schools suffer from a de facto segregation 

based on income and neighborhood and housing patterns. 

However, DSST is in a relatively unique and fortunate position of operating in 

a city that is becoming more diverse. As a result, DSST has the opportunity to serve 

ethnically and economically diverse student populations. One reason for the unprecedented level of cooperation and support from Denver Public Schools is the District’s 

interest in developing more diverse, high-performing schools, and meeting the demand for these schools—as a note, DSST Public Schools had over 1,500 applications 

for 400 available seats in our 6th and 9th grade entry points in our schools. Within 

Denver’s secondary school reform movement, there is widespread public belief that 

DSST’s model reflects the world in which students will live and work. This model 

has greater long-term potential to transform public secondary school reform as students, regardless of race, income, or geography, have access to high performing and 

high-growth schools. As we expand to a network of schools in Denver, DSST— 

through parental and student choice—has the opportunity to reintegrate Denver 

schools. 

DSST’S CORE PRACTICES: INNOVATION, AUTONOMY, AND DIVERSITY

Our student outcomes can be attributed to innovative strategies that have guided 

the organization over the first 6 years. DSST’s guiding principles mirror the direction our Nation looks to take through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

DSST believes that all students can learn, and that it is the responsibility of educators to ensure that students achieve. Our operating principles permeate every aspect of our work. We are mission- and values-focused, and our success lies in the 

development of highly effective people. We are outcomes-focused, relying on purposeful use of real-time data. Our organization is committed to innovation and excellence. Most importantly, our status as a charter school as well as our focus to meet 

the academic and social needs of a diverse population has allowed for innovation 

in the areas of school culture, instructional approach, and supporting our student 

population. Learning is at the core of our organization. We constantly seek to find 

out why things work, how we can we do them better, and we never stop learning. 

Our school culture is grounded in our school’s six core values: Respect, Responsibility, Integrity, Courage, Curiosity, and Doing your Best. Our school culture is defined by our approach with young adults through these values. We hold high expectations for all students, and insure that our educators will do whatever it takes to 

enable students to meet these high standards. In DSST’s high-accountability culture, doing your best is a core value, and doing well in school is ‘‘cool.’’ Students 

are individually known and cared for, and they are held accountable and challenged 

to do their best. This high-accountability culture includes: 

• Recognizing that every group of people implicitly operates based on a set of values, whether defined or not, DSST defines the values of our community with 100 

percent clarity and purpose, leaving little to be defined unintentionally. Our core 

values form the heart of the DSST community. We gather as a school community 

to share in reflection, praise, and acknowledgement of our collective direction. 

• DSST was founded on the premise that the common good of our community has 

far more value than the pervasive ‘‘individualistic’’ culture teenagers live in today. 

An intentional shared community not only challenges students to think of others, 

but it also contributes to their sense of belonging to something much larger than 

themselves. DSST’s rituals and routines, including our community morning meetings, promote a sense of belonging and common purpose that guide all students, faculty and staff. 

• A required after-school study hall for students who have not completed their 

homework. 

DSST believes that every student learns differently and that our classroom instruction must accommodate diverse abilities and learning styles. Rather than adhering to a single teaching philosophy or instructional model, DSST has tapped 

deeply into cutting-edge brain research to ensure that teachers are using the most 

effective strategies possible to attain maximum student growth and achievement. 

With brain research as a foundation, DSST also draws on the best practices from 

the field, visiting high-performing schools across the country, and then piloting practices in our own classrooms to define a set of DSST Core Instructional Practices. 

This balanced pedagogical approach, both incredibly progressive and surprisingly 

traditional, maximizes growth and achievement for all students. DSST Core Instructional Practices include: 

• Planning Lessons in 10-minute time segments and using hooks and real-world 

connections to maximize student engagement. 

30 

• Using Differentiation to reach diverse learning styles and abilities in nontracked, heterogeneous classrooms. • Spiraling and fluency activities that provide the repetition necessary to move 

new learning into long-term memory and to maintain previously learned concepts 

and skills. • Multi-sensory classroom approaches to improve access and retention. 

DSST realizes the challenges of supporting the needs of a diverse student population, particularly the at-risk. The more deeply a student is known and cared for, 

the more effectively a student can be challenged to learn and grow. At DSST all 

students are known deeply enough that teachers and staff in the building can personally care for them and hold them accountable so that they can realize their full 

learning and developmental potential. Clear expectations are communicated, and 

strong systems of accountability are in place to help students meet our high expectations. DSST provides an academic advisor for every student, who monitors student 

performance and maintains regular communication with parents and guardians; the 

advisor also works to build meaningful connections necessary to reflect on student 

progress academically, as well as with the development of character and expressions 

of core values. Our student support is defined by the combination of our focus on 

building relationships and our intervention systems. We provide: 

• Mandatory after-school tutoring, where our teachers work with students who 

fail a quiz or test; • Math and English summer school for students who have not mastered gradelevel skills. • Math and English support classes that students must take, in addition to their 

regular courses, until they master basic fluency skills. • Weekly recognition of students for academic effort and success. 

PARTNERSHIP WITH DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A MODEL FOR URBAN

EDUCATION REFORM

DSST has the opportunity to dramatically impact K–12 education in Denver. 

DSST’s ultimate goal is that Denver becomes the national leader of urban public 

education, as indicated by: (1) dramatically increasing the percentage of collegeready students from all backgrounds; (2) rigorous STEM education and programs 

that make Denver the national urban leader of science education; and (3) racially 

and socioeconomically diverse college preparatory schools that reflect today’s workplace and society. 

To achieve these outcomes, Denver Public School (DPS) Board approved charters 

for four additional DSST 6–12 schools. By 2020, DSST Public Schools’ five schools 

will be fully enrolled with over 4,000 students, will graduate approximately 500 students per year and will double the number of college-ready students from DPS matriculating to 4-year college each year (from 500 today to 1,000). DSST Public 

Schools will serve 10 percent of DPS’s 6th through 12th grade population, but graduate the same number of college-ready graduates. And 100 percent of DSST Public 

Schools’ graduates will be prepared to succeed in STEM fields of study. 

Securing financially viable facilities and funding meaningful professional development are great challenges for charter schools. DSST Public Schools has developed 

a strong pro-active strategy to deal with this issue, but must successfully execute 

the strategy. DSST has a written commitment from the Superintendent of DPS that 

DPS will provide leased facilities to DSST Public Schools for all four of the growth 

campuses and has already assigned DSST to a new DPS building for its second campus. DSST hosts many DPS teachers and school leaders on learning walks, and over 

the last 2 years hosted the Denver Teaching Fellows Program through The New 

Teacher Project. Taking our partnership to the next level, DSST will be submitting 

an i3 grant with Denver Public Schools. In this grant, DSST will be sharing the 

DNA of our innovative instructional model with the district to impact student 

achievement in several schools across the city. 

Under the leadership of Senator Bennet, the former Superintendent of Denver 

Public Schools, Denver has recently emerged as one of the more promising cities for 

education reform efforts. Denver Public Schools has aggressively supported the expansion of charter and innovation schools, begun to create a pay-for-performance 

compensation system, has opened up facilities to charter schools, and created school 

performance metrics to measure a variety of value-added student achievement data. 

Within this promising context, however, district student achievement continues to 

suffer. By any measure, Denver is failing to educate an entire generation of young 

people, which will have long-term consequences for our city and State. Today, 49 

percent of DPS students graduate high school, and of those that do, less than 45 

percent are academically prepared for college. There is an acute shortage of high 

31 

performing secondary schools in Denver. As the Obama administration seeks to 

scale effective practices at a pace never seen before, DSST, together with DPS, is 

positioned to build a national model partnership that will expand impact and support positive change throughout a large urban district. 

CONCLUSION

There is much debate in our Nation about how to improve our public schools. This 

is a critical conversation for many constituents as the stakes could not be higher. 

We suggest a simple guiding principle to guide the conversation: center the conversation around what kids need. Every student in every neighborhood deserves a 

high-performing school, so we simply must debate the quality of our schools first. 

Our Nation’s policy must strongly favor having more high-performing schools in 

every neighborhood—regardless of their classification—district or charter school. 

There is nothing more important to our Nation’s future than improving our public 

education system. The health of our democracy, the social and civic fabric of our 

communities, and the Nation’s economic future depend upon it. Providing all students from all backgrounds and incomes with an outstanding K–12 education and 

the academic preparation to go to college without remediation should be the singular focus of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

As charter school leaders, we recognize that charter schools are one of many strategies to accomplish this goal. We do not believe that charter schools are the only 

path to take. Traditional district schools and alternative schools all have an important role to play in dramatically improving our Nation’s public secondary education. 

Instead of using different governance or management structures of public schools to 

divide and distract our efforts to educate all students, we should be encouraged that 

there are multiple strategies that our districts can use to insure a great education 

for all students, and focus on the results that each teacher, school and district 

achieve for their students. This is one of many reasons why charter schools are a 

critical component of our education reform strategy. 

As the Nation seeks to improve student outcomes in STEM and increase the pipeline of well-prepared students entering STEM fields, DSST Public Schools has much 

to offer these efforts through advocacy and the sharing of a proven model. We would 

like to present the three recommendations based on DSST Public School’s work with 

the Denver Public Schools for the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act: 

• Create more high-performing secondary schools in every neighborhood—regardless of their classification as district or charter schools—that meet the needs of our 

Nation’s diversity; 

• Acknowledge the innovative work of high growth and high performance charter 

schools that seek to serve under-represented and diverse groups of students on the 

track to a 4-year college or university, and involve them in the secondary school reform effort; 

• Encourage charter schools and district schools working together to share in innovation around data-driven instruction, increasing student achievement and college 

readiness, and promote choice and demand of high performance schools. 

On behalf of Denver School of Science and Technology and Denver Public Schools, 

I thank you for the opportunity to share, and welcome further dialogue around the 

needs of our students. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison. 

Now Ms. Webber-N’Dour. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN WEBBER-N’DOUR, PRINCIPAL, NATIONAL ACADEMY FOUNDATION HIGH SCHOOL, BALTIMORE, 

MD 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. ‘‘Indoor.’’ Opposite of ‘‘outdoor.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Good afternoon. My name is Karen 

Webber-N’Dour. I am the principal of the National Academy Foundation High School, in Baltimore, MD. I am also a career academy 

graduate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today 

32 

on behalf of my school, the National Academy Foundation (NAF), 

and the career academy movement. 

I am here today to tell you about the success of my school and 

thousands of other schools like it and why you should make sure 

that we continue and, in fact, expand our mission. 

The students at my school, NAF High School, have experienced 

unprecedented success. We are currently ranked as the sixth-best 

high school in Baltimore City, and admission is open to all students. For the past 4 years, 100 percent of our seniors have graduated, and 100 percent of our students have been admitted to college. For the past 3 years, our attendance rate has averaged over 

90 percent. Our high academic standards have also led to impressive gains on our State achievement tests and we have closed the 

‘‘achievement gap’’ among our increasingly diverse student body. 

Last year, our 12th graders scored almost 20 percentage points 

higher than the city average on both the English and algebra assessments. I believe the time is right to look at what career academies can do for more of our schools and more of our students. Career academies are one of the most established, prevalent, and 

well-researched models for reforming high schools. 

Career academies can be charter schools, parochial schools, or 

traditional public high schools, but they must have three essential 

components. A career academy is structured as a small learning 

community. A career academy uses college preparatory curriculum, 

focused on a specific career, such as finance. A career academy 

gives students access to a wide range of work-based learning experiences, such as internships and job shadowing. 

The National Academy Foundation model also adds one additional component. The NAF requires each academy to have an advisory board, which formalizes the relationships between local businesses, higher education, community groups, and the school. 

It has been my experience that many students with varying levels of academic performance can dramatically benefit from this type 

of personal attention and curriculum that is career-focused. To this 

point, the NAF Academy model supports open recruitment. Any 

young person who wants to enroll can do so. So we, therefore, attract both high- and low-performing students, but both groups become successful under this model. 

My high school is a wall-to-wall academy school. It serves 400 

students in five career-themed academies. The academies focus on 

finance, hospitality and tourism, information technology, engineering, and law. We also use living classrooms. In other words, we try 

to apply what is learned in the classroom to a real-world situation. 

Our latest project is to create an entirely student-run cafeteria. 

Our finance students won a MECU branch in our school. It is an 

actual bank. The MECU branch is a real living branch. You can 

make deposits, withdrawals, and you can open accounts in our 

MECU branch. Our students are trained tellers, so they are actually able to run the bank on their own, with supervision. 

Once our young people have experiences like these, there is a noticeable shift in the way they carry themselves, and this is really 

important. When our students have this change in personal behavior, it carries over to the expectations they have of their fellow stuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
33 

dents’ behavior. I can tell you that this kind of positive peer pressure changes a school’s culture indelibly. 

I mentioned, earlier, that NAF Academies have advisory boards 

that formalize relationships between the schools and their local 

communities. Our board has brought us amazing opportunities. 

Thanks to connections made through our board, Hilton Hotels created a $3-million fund for scholarships for Baltimore City high 

school students. Our National Academy Foundation students receive first priority. These board members’ involvement changed 

lives in a way that will have a ripple effect for generations to come. 

Here we are today, the reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. It is a great opportunity to increase the 

number of career academies nationwide. Career academies are a 

widely-used school reform strategy, but they are estimated to reach 

only 5 percent of public high school students. Increased funding is 

critical to increasing both the quantity and quality of career academies. 

This is also an opportunity to promote the teaching methods, 

that are proven to help students be so successful, and the teacher 

training that is required to make these changes. 

We will also have to develop new ways of testing our students 

that can measure what they know and what they can do. 

It has been said that the NAF Academy model is the best-kept 

secret in education. I believe this cannot, and should not, continue 

to be the case. There is an opportunity now to expand it in ways 

that can help students, schools, businesses, communities, and yes, 

the government, too, work better. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Webber-N’Dour follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN WEBBER-N’DOUR

SUMMARY

Established 40 years ago, career academies are one of the most prevalent and 

well-researched high school reform approaches, serving approximately 1 million public high school students. 

Most significant among the research is a 12-year random-assignment study conducted by MDRC which found that the career academy model can produce substantial, long term improvements in young people’s ability to earn money and make a 

successful transition to adulthood, particularly for young men. It also showed that 

for the subset of students most at risk of dropping out, career academy participants 

showed increased school retention through the 12th grade, improved attendance, 

and earned more credits. The MDRC evaluation meets the Office of Budget Management’s PART test, the highest standard for evaluating program effectiveness. 

The career academy model contains three essential components: that the academy 

is structured as a small learning community; that the academy uses collegepreparatory curriculum that applies a career-context to learning; and that students 

access a range of work-based learning experiences such as internships and job shadowing. The National Academy Foundation model also requires an advisory board to 

formalize the relationships between local businesses, higher education, and community groups and the school. To promote full implementation of the model, in 2004 

a coalition of career academy organizations developed the ‘‘Career Academy National Standards of Practice,’’ which identify 10 elements of successful implementation of the career academy model. 

The National Academy Foundation High School is a small, public high school 

serving 300 students in five career-themed academies. The Academies focus on Finance, Hospitality & Tourism, Information Technology, Engineering, and Law. National Academy Foundation academies are also successfully implemented as a 

school-within-a-school in a larger comprehensive high school or as small schools that 

may only be one academy theme. 

34 

Through living classrooms, interactions with experienced professionals, and paid 

internships, students at the National Academy Foundation High School are prepared for college and career success. Currently ranked as the sixth best high school 

in Baltimore, the only one of which that is open to all students. For each of the past 

4 years, our school has achieved a 100 percent graduation rate and 100 percent of 

our students have been admitted to college. For the past 3 years, our attendance 

rate has averaged over 90 percent. Our high academic standards have also led to 

impressive gains in State achievement tests and we have closed the ‘‘achievement 

gap’’ among our increasingly diverse student body. Last year our twelfth graders 

scored almost 20 percentage points higher than the city average on both the English 

and Algebra 2 assessments. 

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides 

many opportunities to increase the prevalence of career academies and apply key 

lessons learned to improving high schools for all American young people. Increased 

funding is critical to increasing their scale and can also ensure quality among all 

schools that seek to use the model. We also need standards that allow academic and 

career-themed courses to be integrated, expanding the relevance of coursework and 

deepening students’ ability to apply core concepts. Alongside promoting these instructional methods must be assessments that measure students’ skills in addition 

to the knowledge they have gained. These assessments must also be aligned with 

credentialing opportunities in which students can earn industry certifications or college credits. 

Good afternoon Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members of the 

committee. I am Karen Webber-N’dour, principal of National Academy Foundation 

High School, a public high school in Baltimore City, MD. I am proud to be here 

today on behalf of my school, the National Academy Foundation, and the career 

academy movement. 

I am heartened by the increasing dialogue around the pressing need for American 

high schools to achieve college and career readiness for every student. I deeply understand this need, both as a high school principal and from my previous work life. 

I am not a career educator; I am a lawyer by training. After 10 years focusing on 

civil rights, it was clear to me that a quality education could be the key to the betterment of the disenfranchised populations with whom I was working. I decided to 

switch tracks to create opportunities for people who otherwise may not have them, 

and I have found the career academy model an ideal vehicle to do that. 

I also have a very personal connection to this movement; I am a career academy 

graduate. I embarked on my professional path at the Academy of Law, Politics, and 

Community Affairs at Tilden High School in Brooklyn, NY. 

Career academies are one of the most established, prevalent, and well-researched 

high school reform approaches. This model is time-tested—the career academy 

movement began 40 years ago in Philadelphia and the National Academy Foundation has been refining its model for nearly 30 years. Today, there are estimated to 

be between 2,500 and 4,000 career academies across the country, serving approximately 1 million public high school students. Five hundred of these academies are 

part of the National Academy Foundation’s network and they will reach 53,000 students this school year. 

Career academies’ impacts have been demonstrated by rigorous research, including a longitudinal, random assignment evaluation by MDRC. The MDRC study 

meets high standards set out in the Office of Budget Management’s PART test for 

evaluating program effectiveness. 

Career academies are one of the best examples of how educational interventions 

can apply research findings to improve practice. The wide range in the estimated 

number of career academies is due to the fact that many schools or programs with 

a career theme label themselves as career academies without fully applying the 

model. To address this and promote full implementation, in 2004 a coalition of career academy organizations developed the ‘‘Career Academy National Standards of 

Practice.’’ Based on both the experience of the organizations involved and on the 

MDRC findings, the national standards identify 10 elements of successful implementation of the career academy model. 

THE CAREER ACADEMY MODEL

Among local, State and national career academy organizations, it is widely agreed 

that the career academy model contains three essential components: that the academy is structured as a small learning community; that the academy uses collegepreparatory curriculum that applies a career-context to learning; and that through 

35 

business, college, and community partners, students access a range of work-based 

learning experiences such as internships and job shadowing. The National Academy 

Foundation model adds one additional component, requiring that each Academy has 

an advisory board to formalize the relationships between local businesses, higher 

education, community groups and the school. 

Academy Structure 

Career academies are organized as small learning communities so that students 

get the benefit of a supportive and personalized learning environment. The National 

Academy Foundation academy structure also emphasizes recruitment that is open 

to any young person who expresses interest in the career theme and attracts both 

high- and low-performing students. It also requires a scheduling and school structure that allows teachers to collaborate across subject areas. 

This can take hold in a variety of forms. The high school I lead is what we call 

‘‘wall-to-wall academies.’’ It is a small high school serving 400 students in five career-themed academies. Four out of the five are affiliated with the National Academy Foundation. The Academies focus on Finance, Hospitality & Tourism, Information Technology, Engineering, and Law. National Academy Foundation academies 

are also successfully implemented as a school-within-a-school in a larger comprehensive high school or as small schools that may have only one academy theme. 

Curriculum 

Career academies are at the forefront of the college and career movement because 

they combine academic learning with a contemporary approach to Career and Technical Education. This results in young people who are prepared to enter college and 

succeed there, and who have the critical skills necessary to excel in the 21st Century workplace. 

The National Academy Foundation has developed curriculum for its themes that 

is driven by proven, research-based methods that emphasizes literacy and projectbased learning. In this highly-effective teaching approach, students are called upon 

to use teamwork, creativity, decisionmaking, communication and other core skills to 

perform tasks and achieve outcomes, mimicking the world of work. Professional development, technical assistance, and ongoing evaluation are offered by the National 

Academy Foundation to help teachers and academies succeed. 

At the National Academy Foundation High School we strive to create a living 

classroom for each Academy, and we take the opportunity to create relevance to the 

extreme. We have a branch of the MECU credit union in our school that is operated 

by our Finance students. Our Hospitality & Tourism students cater and run all of 

our special events and are hired to do so for many local government and business 

events. Our latest project is to create an entirely student-run cafeteria. Our Hospitality students can create better tasting food than available at any other cafeteria, 

our Finance students can handle the money and business side, and our IT and Engineering students can create systems and processes to track the inventory. These 

aren’t projects for projects’ sake. They are real life applications for students’ knowledge and skills that also allow them to create benefits for their own school. 

Work-based Learning and Internships 

Career academies integrate a range of work-based learning experiences that include mentoring from business professionals, career fairs, job shadowing, classroom 

speakers and culminate in an internship. 

High school internships, particularly those that are paid, are an essential component of workforce preparation and an important motivator and context setter for 

young people. Internships introduce youth to the habits and value of work, while 

making connections between academic learning, the real-world application of knowledge, and the role of business in the community. Indeed, these partnerships between 

academies and the local business community are the cornerstone of the career academy model, connecting youth with hands-on experiences under the guidance of practiced professionals. 

At the National Academy Foundation High School, we are able to provide a widerange of opportunities for students to get a window into the world of work and apply 

the knowledge they have gained from their living classrooms. After students participate in job shadowing or internships, they are filled with the most incredible sense 

of pride and confidence. Once young people have had these experiences, there is a 

perceptible shift in the way they carry themselves. This even transfers over to the 

expectations that they have of their fellow students’ behavior, all of which changes 

a school’s culture indelibly. 

36 

1The article referred to may be found at http://casn.berkeley.edu/resource-files/Proven 

lStrategyl2-25-1010-03-12-04-27-01.pdf. 2The article referred to may be found at http://www.aypf.org/documents/092409Career 

AcademiesPolicyPaper.pdf. 3The article referred to may be found at http://www.mrdc.org/publications/482/full.pdf. 

Advisory Boards 

One of the most distinctive elements of National Academy Foundation academies 

is their relationship with their local communities. Teachers and academy directors 

rely on Advisory Boards, made up of local business, higher education, and community leaders. Employees of more than 2,500 companies serve as Advisory Board 

members for National Academy Foundation academies. They create access to expertise in the subject areas the academies are built upon, and connect students and 

their growing skills to a wide world of career paths. These highly-engaged Board 

members provide students with paid internships and opportunities for job shadowing and mentoring; act as role models; and help to enhance career-themed curriculum through their own knowledge of the industry. Their constant involvement 

provides a stable base of support that allows academies to endure and flourish even 

when leadership at the school- or district-level changes. 

At the National Academy Foundation High School, we have the most incredible 

collection of professionals who are an integral part of our school. They help us to 

make the subject matter real, and they hold us accountable. We only have 15–20 

board members, but each one of them comes with a network that grows our reach 

exponentially. We have over 750 business people at our annual awards benefit who 

are deeply connected to our school. 

Through this group come the most amazing opportunities. For example, when Hilton Hotels earned a contract to take over the hotel at the Baltimore Convention 

Center, connections made through our board made it so they created a $3 million 

fund for college scholarships for Baltimore high school students who pursue hotel 

management and hospitality careers, with National Academy Foundation students 

receiving first priority. 

CAREER ACADEMY EVIDENCE

Thanks to their longevity and the outcomes demonstrated at individual schools, 

career academies are one of the most well-researched high school interventions. Attached to my written testimony is a summary of the research, Career Academies: 

A Proven Strategy to Prepare High School Students for College and Careers,1 compiled and recently updated by David Stern, Charles Dayton, and Marilyn Raby, and 

a recent paper commissioned by the National Career Academy Coalition and written 

by Betsy Brand of the American Youth Policy Forum, High School Career Academies: A Forty-Year Proven Model for Improving College and Career Readiness.2

Most significant among this research is a 12-year longitudinal, random-assignment study conducted by MDRC and released in June 2008. The full report is also 

attached to my written testimony.3

Key findings of the MDRC study include: 

• Career academy graduates earned 11 percent more in total earnings over the 

8 years following high school than their non-academy peers. 

• Young men from career academies experienced increased earnings over 8 years 

totaling 17 percent more than their non-academy peers. 

• An increased percentage of career academy graduates live independently with 

their children and spouse or partner. Young men, specifically, reported positive effects on marriage and parenting. 

• While there were neither positive nor negative impacts on high school graduation rates or post-secondary attainment, for the subset of students most at risk of 

dropping out, career academy participants showed increased school retention 

through the 12th grade, improved attendance, and earned more credits. 

Especially noteworthy are the magnitude and persistence of this earning effect 

over 8 years; it is roughly the equivalent earning power of an associate’s degree. 

The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, an independent, nonpartisan organization, has identified career academies as meeting a ‘‘top tier’’ evidence standard of 

effectiveness, based on MDRC’s long-term evaluation. The career academies model 

joins only three other interventions that the Coalition has identified that meet the 

‘‘top tier’’ criteria. MDRC is now conducting follow-up analyses to examine how the 

programs produced these effects and which features were likely to have contributed 

most to the impacts. 

37 

NATIONAL ACADEMY FOUNDATION HIGH SCHOOL OUTCOMES

Students at the National Academy Foundation High School experience unprecedented success. We are currently ranked as the sixth best high school in Baltimore 

and admission is open to all students. For the past 4 years, we have achieved a 100 

percent graduation rate and 100 percent of our students have been admitted to college. For the past 3 years, our attendance rate has averaged over 90 percent. 

Our high academic standards have also led to impressive gains in our State 

achievement tests and we have closed the ‘‘achievement gap’’ among our increasingly diverse student body. Last year our twelfth graders scored almost twenty percentage points higher than the city average on both the English and Algebra 2 assessments. 

All of this has brought us to the attention of many of the city’s outstanding students. As attractive as the school is, our superintendent and our school leadership 

are determined to ensure that it remains an option for those who could benefit most. 

Next year, we become a 6–12 school, absorbing a failing middle school and its struggling student body. It will be a challenge, but I am confident that with the career 

academy model, 4-plus years from now, those students will be on their way to postsecondary and career success with the unmistakable professionalism that marks a 

National Academy Foundation High School graduate. 

OPPORTUNITIES IN THE REAUTHORIZATION OF ESEA

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides 

many opportunities to increase the prevalence of the career academy model and 

apply to key lessons learned over the 40-year refinement of the model to improve 

the high school experience for all American young people. 

Funding for Career Academies 

While career academies are a widely used high school reform strategy, they are 

estimated to reach only 5 percent of public high school students. Increased funding 

is critical to increasing their scale and can also help to ensure quality among all 

the schools that seek to use the model. Since the National Standards of Practice 

were created in 2004, both the National Career Academy Coalition and the National 

Academy Foundation have developed detailed academy assessments to increase effective implementation in order to reap the most benefits for students, schools and 

communities. 

Integrated Curriculum, Assessments and Credentials 

The skills and knowledge that prepare students to be successful college applicants 

and goers are many of the same ones that lead to success in the workplace. We need 

standards that allow academic and career-themed courses to be integrated to expand the relevance of coursework and at the same time deepen students understanding and ability to apply core concepts. Alongside promoting these instructional 

methods must be assessments that measure students’ skills in addition to the 

knowledge they have gained. These assessments must also be aligned with 

credentialing opportunities in which students can earn industry certifications or college credits. 

The National Academy Foundation is working to develop a certification and assessment system for its academy students. This system will center around a combination of course tests, a student portfolio demonstrating proficiency in industry 

authentic projects, and an evaluation of the internship, that will provide a portable 

credential that will assist students in their applications to college. This certification 

and assessment system will also enable the National Academy Foundation to gauge 

student learning and will form the basis for articulation agreements with prestigious universities to engender student access and portability to high quality postsecondary opportunities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And now our last witness is Mr. Habit. 

STATEMENT OF TONY HABIT, Ed.D., PRESIDENT, NORTH 

CAROLINA NEW SCHOOLS PROJECT, RALEIGH, NC 

Mr. HABIT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank 

you so much for the opportunity to be with you today, and to speak 

38 

briefly. It is an honor to be here as we talk about this very important issue for our Nation. 

I would, as a point of privilege, if you don’t mind, say a special 

word about the practitioners who are at this panel today. It is very, 

very impressive to hear them talk. These are people who are on the 

ground, day to day, working with young people and teachers, and 

they deserve a great deal of respect from all of us. 

So, thank you for that, it is an honor to be with you. 

I want to thank Senators Burr and Hagan for their very generous comments in opening today. They are remarkable leaders for 

our State, and we are very, very grateful for the things that they 

do here on behalf of North Carolina. 

In North Carolina, we are so fortunate, in that we have had a 

succession of leaders who are deeply committed to this idea that 

education must change, and must change rapidly, in response to an 

economy that is changing at a breathtaking pace. Our Governor, 

Beverly Perdue, has launched a new education agenda called Career and College—Ready, Set, Go! That agenda, for the first time 

in our State’s history, sets out the expectation that every child 

should graduate and—every child should graduate ready for the 

next step, which assumes continued education beyond high school. 

She has taken these steps and, with her budget, made recommendations to build on the innovation work in North Carolina 

during times that are very, very tight for our State, as they are for 

most States. 

Our general assembly shares this commitment; they have created 

a commission called the JOBS Commission. That commission, in effect, looks at, How do we join our businesses, schools, and jobs, to 

connect secondary school innovation to economic and workforce development in ways that will accelerate the change process that I 

am going to talk about briefly today? That commission is led by our 

State’s Lieutenant Governor, Walter Dalton. 

By so many measures, we have been very fortunate, as a State, 

to have great progress, in that there are indicators that suggest 

that the work is putting us where we really need to be. For example, last year, North Carolina ranked No. 1 in the percentage of 

students enrolled in advanced mathematics in high school, at 80 

percent. But, the economic restructuring has created a sense of urgency around the transformation of secondary education that has 

really made our work possible at the North Carolina New Schools 

Project. 

We recently commissioned a poll of young people who have graduated, to ask them about their perceptions of what they received 

and did not receive in secondary schools. What they came back to 

us with was very clear messages that they felt there were significant gaps in their preparation, both for high school and for life beyond high school. As we look at our State’s graduation rate, only 

72 percent of our students graduate in a 4-year period in North 

Carolina; and for African-American students, that number is 

around 63 percent. 

As has been said earlier, our organization was created to serve 

in the nexus between the public sector in government and private 

sector to help accelerate the change process in ways that will both 

39 

be sustainable for the long-term and that will, ultimately, systemically impact every community and every school in North Carolina. 

So, I want to briefly update you on our progress, point to a few 

data points, and then talk briefly about where we are headed, as 

an organization and as a State. 

To date, we have created 106 innovative new secondary schools 

around North Carolina that range from early-colleges. Early-colleges, as you have heard earlier from our partner, Cassius, with 

the Jobs for the Future, are typically based on the campus of a 2- 

or 4-year college or university, in which students, beginning in the 

9th grade, are accelerated toward a 12th or 13th year, and expected to graduate high school with up to 2 years of college credit, 

at no cost to them or to their families. Students who enroll in 

early-colleges are typically underserved, and these are the students 

who would not likely complete high school, and are typically the 

first in their families to succeed in college. 

We are also involved in the development of innovative schools on 

traditional campuses that are focused in ways that are inconsistent 

with conventional high schools; where teachers, working in teams 

around a group of students, have the ability, and the support, to 

meet the individual needs of each student. 

I believe that the evidence of these schools provides us with some 

data that gives us—I’m looking at the time, here, and realizing I’m 

going to have to significantly change my remarks. 

Let me just add a few points here, and I’ll conclude. 

With the early-colleges, we find that the students—by the end of 

the 9th grade, there essentially is no achievement gap—no achievement gap between the minority students and the majority students, compared to conventional schools, where the gap in achievement is 10 points or greater. We are seeing that students in our 

innovative, redesigned schools are graduating at much greater 

rates than students in conventional high schools that are compared 

to them, across the board. 

I am going to mention a couple of lessons along the way, and 

skip the concluding comments that I have here. 

First is that changing beliefs in schools is critically important, as 

you have heard from others who have spoken today. That is, the 

traditional set of low expectations for many students really is a 

cancer that undermines the attempt to set very high and ambitious 

goals for student performance. 

Second, setting a goal that every child should be expected and 

supported to attend college provides a way to unify the thinking of 

teachers, it gives them a platform with which to ask meaningful 

questions and to connect with one another, and ultimately focus on 

the resources and time of that school. 

Third, meaningful change in schools is often undermined by the 

fact that schools lack the capacity. They lack the training, the 

tools, and experience around change management. Many of our private-sector partners have, for years, been working around change 

management, and going out and purchasing expertise in change 

management. We need to expect schools to have the same supports 

and structures if they are to be successful at creating the new 

American high school. 

40 

1 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring Up 2008. Available at http://measuringup.highereducation.org/default.cfm. 2 College Board (2010), AP Report to the Nation 2010, Available at http://www.college 

board.com/html/aprtn/pdf/aplreportltolthelnation.pdf. 3Public Schools of North Carolina (2005). The North Carolina 2005 SAT Report. http:// 

www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/sat/2005/satlreportl2005lpart1 

.pdf. 

And last, the idea that we heard earlier, that rethinking leadership is critical. Principals in new schools must be leaders of teachers, and teachers of teachers, as we heard earlier, rather than 

managers of facilities who focus on data and stability of campuses. 

With that said, let me conclude my comments and hope that 

there are some comments or questions from you all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Habit follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TONY HABIT, ED.D. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the committee, thank you 

for the invitation to testify today. I am pleased to be with you to consider the urgency for change in our Nation’s secondary schools. My name is Tony Habit, and 

I am president of the North Carolina New Schools Project. 

In North Carolina we are fortunate to have leaders who appreciate both the urgency for change and the magnitude of the change that must occur. Our governor, 

Beverly Perdue, continues to champion innovation in our State’s secondary schools 

with an education agenda that sets a paramount goal of raising the State’s graduation rate and ensuring that graduates are well prepared for college, career and citizenship. Even as North Carolina faces another year of serious fiscal challenge, Governor Perdue’s proposed budget calls for continued investments to improve educational outcomes as an essential strategy to advance the State’s future workforce. 

The North Carolina General Assembly shares this commitment by enacting legislation in 2009 to establish the JOBS Commission—Joining Our Businesses and 

Schools—that is co-chaired by Lt. Governor Walter Dalton and Representative Rick 

Glazier. The Commission is tasked with recommending the next phase of secondary 

school innovation with a particular emphasis on economic development. 

North Carolina also has benefited from the unparalleled philanthropic leadership 

of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to transform the Nation’s high schools to 

meet the demands of this century. 

By many traditional measures, North Carolina is fortunate to have high schools 

that in relative terms have succeeded over the last century in moving from institutions that served very few to ones that strive to serve all students. At 80 percent, 

North Carolina is ranked first in the country in the percentage of high school students taking advanced math courses.1 North Carolina ranks in the top third of 

States for the percentage of high school seniors passing Advanced Placement 

exams.2 Sixty-three percent of our State’s 12th grade students took the SAT in 2009, 

and North Carolina had the second largest 10-year gain in SAT math scores among 

States with over 50 percent of the population taking the SAT.3

At the same time, North Carolina has felt acute pain from dramatic economic 

shifts of the past decade, and hastened by the downturn of our State and Nation 

during the last 2 years. In the first 5 years of the last decade, for example, North 

Carolina lost nearly one-quarter of its manufacturing jobs—184,200 jobs in all. The 

‘‘Big Four’’ of our State’s traditional manufacturing base—tobacco, textiles, apparel 

and furniture—are projected to continue shedding jobs. 

As low-skill, high-wage jobs have vanished, some communities are left bereft of 

opportunity. Idled middle-aged workers often are trapped in a string of low-skilled, 

low-wage jobs or are required to return to college for retooling without the preparation in high school required to succeed. 

There is strong evidence as well that our most recent high school graduates are 

under-prepared for the demands they are facing in the ‘‘real world.’’ In a poll commissioned by our organization a few years ago, half of North Carolina high school 

graduates in college reported gaps in their preparation for college academic work 

and half of recent graduates in the workforce report gaps in their preparation to 

get a good job. A quarter of the recent graduates in college reported having taken 

a remedial course. 

In addition, far too many high school students never reach graduation. North 

Carolina’s cohort graduation rate in 2009 was 72 percent of the students who entered 9th grade in 2005. For African-American students, the graduation rate was 

41 

only 63 percent. For Hispanics, it was only 59 percent. And for students from lowincome families, it was 62 percent. 

My organization, the North Carolina New Schools Project, is an independent, notfor-profit corporation that serves as the nexus of the leadership of Governor Perdue 

and our State Board of Education; the strong interest in change among the Gates 

Foundation and other philanthropies, public and private colleges and universities 

and the private sector; and the pressing economic need that North Carolina faces. 

While impressive in relative terms, the incremental gains of our high schools are 

insufficient both in terms of scope and in terms of pace to address a changing economy. North Carolina must graduate more students with more skills and knowledge 

than ever before. The New Schools Project was established to accelerate the pace 

of innovation in our State and to ensure that all students have access to highquality schools that will prepare them fully for college, work and life. 

Since I last appeared before this panel, in the spring of 2007, the number of innovative high schools that we support has more than doubled—to 106 schools across 

the State. The number of students has tripled from about 7,000 in 2006–2007 to 

more than 21,000 this year. Two-thirds of the schools are early colleges that are 

proving to be highly successful in keeping students in school, challenging them with 

high expectations and effective support and graduating them well-prepared for college and career. The other 36 schools are yielding invaluable lessons about the challenges inherent in redesigning existing, traditional high schools into ones that truly 

serve all students. 

I believe that the results being achieved by North Carolina’s innovative schools 

are persuasive evidence that secondary schools can be transformed into places of 

powerful teaching and learning where truly all students graduate ready for college 

and careers. 

For example, a recent independent study of early college in North Carolina found 

that these schools are succeeding in erasing the achievement gap. 

• By the end of 9th grade, little or no gap separated the performance of non-minority students from under-represented minorities in the core subjects of English I 

and Algebra I. Gaps of 10 points or more were measured for similar students attending traditional schools. 

• Overall, the study’s first-year analysis found that by the end of 9th grade, 83 

percent of early college students had successfully completed Algebra I, compared to 

67 percent of similar students attending other schools. 

On a number of other measures as well, North Carolina’s innovative high schools 

are improving outcomes for students. Consider these results from 2008–2009 for the 

101 innovative high schools that the North Carolina New Schools Project (NCNSP) 

was helping to support: 

• North Carolina’s innovative high schools are making academic 

progress. 

• Nearly 7 in 10 (67 percent) of 101 innovative high schools last year out-performed their comparison high school on the State’s ABCs accountability measurement, based on statewide exams in core subjects. 

• Passing rates for early college high schools on Algebra I end-of-course exams 

were nearly 10 points higher than the State average and more than 15 points 

higher on English I exams. 

• Early college students earned higher grades, on average, than college-age students last year in their community college courses. Of all the college courses 

taken by early college students, 75 percent received a grade of C or higher, 

compared to 70 percent of courses taken by other college students. 

• Students in North Carolina’s innovative high schools are graduating. 

• Nearly three quarters of the redesign high schools with senior classes in 

2008–2009 (17 of 23 schools) achieved graduation rates outpacing those of 

comparison schools in their districts with similar student demographics. 

• Seventeen of the schools also had graduation rates above 80 percent, with 

eight of the 17 with rates of at least 85 percent, compared to North Carolina’s 

overall graduation rate of 72 percent for the class of 2009. 

• North Carolina’s innovative high schools are challenging students. 

• Of 59 high schools in North Carolina where at least 25 percent of students 

took Algebra II in 2008–2009, 41 were innovative schools supported by 

NCNSP. 

• Students in North Carolina’s innovative high schools are less likely to 

drop out. 

42 

• The combined dropout rate in 2008–2009 for 97 NCNSP schools open this 

year and last was 2.96 percent, compared to 4.27 percent for all high schools 

in the State. • In 9th grade, the most critical year and where students are at greatest risk 

of quitting school, NCNSP schools had a combined dropout rate of 3.1 percent, 

compared to 5.7 percent for all North Carolina high schools. • 42 of 97 NCNSP schools lost no students as dropouts in 2008–2009. 

• Attendance is better in North Carolina’s innovative high schools. 

• The combined attendance rate for 101 NCNSP schools in 2008–2009 was 95 

percent, vs. 93.5 percent among comparison of high schools. • Nearly four of every five innovative high schools in 2008–2009 had better attendance than a comparable, traditional high school. 

LESSONS LEARNED ON THE ROAD TO MEANINGFUL CHANGE

Since 2003, the North Carolina New Schools Project has partnered with local 

school districts and, in some cases, with national partners such as the Asia Society, 

the New Technology Network, and the KnowledgeWorks Foundation to open innovative schools of various designs. We engage with a school and its school district for 

at least 6 years—a planning year followed by 5 years of implementation. This timeframe recognizes both the scope of the change we are pursuing and its complexity. 

This day-to-day, on-the-ground experience in working to foster innovation—along 

with what we have gleaned from the experience of others in the field—has offered 

us important insights into what it takes to transform secondary school to make it 

more effective for more students. Let me offer you four specific observations to consider. 

Changing Beliefs 

Simply put, low expectations are a cancer that can weaken a school enough to 

make significant changes in teaching impossible. It is clear how this occurs in a typical high school—some students are tracked into demanding courses which prepare 

them for a future beyond high school, while others are tracked into classes that offer 

little challenge and even less future. The usual justification is that ‘‘those’’ students 

were not ‘‘ready’’ for Algebra II or honors English. Some parents reinforce these beliefs by advocating that certain students be discouraged from enrolling in advanced 

courses. 

If I do not believe that all students can do the work, I do not feel obligated to 

assume responsibility for changing the way my school is organized or the way resources are allocated to ensure that all students succeed. In the schools we partner 

with, we work to instill the notion that preparation to tackle new demanding content is the responsibility of the teachers, not the students. 

In our partnership with schools, we insist that they be fully representative of the 

student population of their district; we do not allow access to innovation to be limited to the best and brightest. This is one of our stakes in the ground to enforce 

what we believe as an organization about who can do the work. Notably, three of 

every four of our partner schools subject to No Child Left Behind’s growth provision 

last year made Adequate Yearly Progress. Among the 60 early colleges open last 

year, only two fell short of that goal. 

Teachers and administrators frequently do not believe all students—particularly 

poor and minority students—can master the knowledge and skills that lead to true 

opportunity until they see it first hand. As part of our work, we have taken hundreds of educators from across North Carolina on study visits to schools in other 

parts of the country whose results are irrefutable. Educators study some of the 

country’s most successful high schools to learn how changed instruction and high 

levels of student support combine to improve student outcomes. This includes direct 

classroom observation that leads to deeper reflection about changing instruction. 

More than 20 schools such as University Park Campus High School in Worcester, 

MA, and Urban Academy at the Julia Richmond Complex in New York City are 

used for these site visits. In partnership with the University of North Carolina system we are now developing four of our own innovative schools into ‘‘learning labs’’ 

to make these kinds of transformative site visits even more accessible. 

While it seems counter-intuitive, there is strong evidence supporting the premise 

that with greater challenge, students try harder and perform better. This is particularly the case when schools and students focus on the most important content and 

skills and when the material relates to students’ own aspirations. The term ‘‘comprehensive high school’’ speaks to the difficulty of achieving this kind of focus in the 

traditional setting. We work to create high schools of no more than 400 students 

that provide focus either through an academic theme, an instructional approach, or 

43 

4See ACT, Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different?, 2006 and Achieve, 

Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts, 2004. 5 Examples of jobs cited in the report that do not require a bachelor’s degree but do provide 

a ‘‘self-sufficient’’ wage include electricians, construction workers, upholsterers and plumbers. 

From ACT, Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different?, 2006. 6 ACT, 2006, page 2. 

their location on a college campus in the case of our early college high schools. Additionally, a school’s focus represents one strategy to enable teachers in the core 

courses to work together to make connections between courses and the world of 

work. The intent of a focus is not preparation for a specific career, but rather preparation for a lifetime of learning and workplace changes. 

As adults, we should not shy away of expecting more from all students. In our 

survey of recent graduates, 77 percent said that high school graduation requirements were easy to meet, 80 percent said that they would have worked harder had 

the expectations been higher and 68 percent said that they would have worked 

harder in high school had they known then what they know now about real world 

demands. As adults, we must bear the burden of our knowledge of what preparation 

for college, work and life requires and must act on that knowledge. 

Setting College as the Goal 

Often, the limitations of beliefs about students’ capabilities emerge around the notion of making every graduate ‘‘college-ready.’’ Inevitably, someone raises the challenge that not every graduate will go to college. 

The overarching goal of North Carolina’s innovative high schools is to ensure that 

every student graduates college-ready. We are even more explicit in asking, first, 

that students meet the admission requirements of the University of North Carolina 

system and, second, that every student earn college credit before leaving high 

school. 

This college-ready imperative is intentionally provocative. It becomes a point on 

which a faculty must agree and collaborate. Another value to the small scale of our 

innovative high schools is that they allow teachers to be flexible in meeting the academic needs of students, to alter what is offered and for how long in ways that a 

2,000-student high school cannot. 

At the same time, this imperative is based on a growing body of research that 

shows that the skills high school graduates need in order to be ready for college and 

ready for the 21st century workplace are the same.4

The most recent such study, conducted by ACT, analyzed data and items from its 

college and work readiness tests, found that 90 percent of jobs that do not require 

a bachelor’s degree but that do provide a ‘‘self-sufficient’’ wage require the same 

level of mathematical and analytical reading and writing skills as those needed by 

students who are planning to enroll in a 4-year university.5 The report goes on to 

state that this finding suggests that ‘‘all high school students should be educated 

according to a common academic expectation that prepares them for both postsecondary education and the workforce. This means that all students should be 

ready and have the opportunity to take a rigorous core preparatory program in high 

school, one that is designed to promote readiness for both college and workforce 

training programs.’’ 6 However, another ACT study released this month showed that 

high school teachers’ view of college-ready content misses the mark in terms of 

focus. 

Voters in North Carolina, perhaps intuitively, understand this convergence. In a 

poll we commissioned, 70 percent agreed that the skills to succeed at work and in 

college were the same. Eighty-four percent said it was important for nearly all high 

school graduates to move on to a 2- or 4-year college, with 69 percent calling it very 

important. 

We have good reason to believe that students can meet this higher expectation. 

Last year, students in North Carolina’s early college high schools on average took 

at least three college courses. 

Managing for Significant Change 

Meaningful change in high schools is essential and elusive; it is worth remembering that A Nation at Risk was a report about changing secondary education. 

Schools and school districts are rewarded for maintaining the status quo and for 

adding new programs. For example, rather than consider the absence of personalization and effective student supports within a school, districts will add a dropout prevention program or a specialist for that problem. At its heart, however, changing 

schools to graduate all students to be college-ready means redirecting all of the resources of a school to provide greater student support and to address highly focused 

44 

targets for achievement. This is especially true in using the resources represented 

by the role and responsibilities of adults in the school. 

While the private sector has experienced decades of organizational restructuring 

in which workers are displaced in one function and then rehired in another to adapt 

to changing market conditions, the education sector possesses no such history. 

Changing the roles of adults in schools typically results in conflict and undermines 

the overarching school change process—if not derailing it altogether. Most schools 

and districts lack the expertise or organizational structure with which to manage 

change and innovation. 

Further, since communities and educators must embrace the need for change, the 

absence of resources and expertise for most schools and districts to effectively engage their communities means that well-intentioned efforts can be undermined by 

relatively few, well-organized citizens or disgruntled educators. 

Current funding and professional development programs reinforce a piecemeal approach to change and typically fail to support a coherent, sustained and focused 

model for schools. It stands to reason that if tools and plans for school change are 

not supported by high-quality and aligned training that the likelihood of success will 

be greatly diminished. 

The New Schools Project and its partners provide specific supports for new and 

redesigned high schools that deviate from this norm. They include: 

Teaching for Results: This annual series of intensive professional development 

sessions for teachers supports the use of protocols and other tools to sustain the 

focus on instruction, academic rigor and professional learning communities. The sessions stress differentiating instruction, teaching literacy across the curriculum, facilitating meaningful learning, and providing effective student support. 

Leadership Institute for High School Redesign: In cooperation with the University of North Carolina Center for School Leadership Development and the Principals’ Executive Program, the Leadership Institute for High School Redesign offers 

a peer support and professional development network for principals in new and redesigned high schools. The network promotes effective instructional leadership. 

Coaching: Each new school also benefits from coaching services in which experienced educational leaders and master teachers assist with facilitating the overall 

change process and with the development of instructional strategies such as differentiation of teaching to meet individual needs of students; lessons and units 

which engage students in learning; and the improvement of literacy and mathematics skills. 

Investing financial resources and expertise in building the capacity of schools and 

districts to manage change is essential. Schools and districts must be expected to 

define a single, comprehensive model for change regardless of what that model 

might be and sustain the work over time. 

Further, within the broader model for change, strategies for professional development of teachers and school administrators and district office personnel must be 

tightly aligned and integrated so that they connected at all levels to point in the 

same direction. In our work this year to help schools define rigor, the sessions involved both principals and teachers; in essence, they debated within their school the 

definition after visiting other schools in North Carolina thought to offer rigorous instruction. Expectations of teachers and principals must be aligned with those of district administrators for high school innovation to be sustained. 

Rethinking Leadership 

Finally, a new generation of student-focused schools calls for a new model for 

school leadership. The principal in a traditional high school is a building manager 

first and an educator second. Schools which place teaching and learning above all 

else are led by principals who understand both school design and who facilitate 

among teachers an unrelenting focus on high quality teaching and learning. 

One element of our partnerships aimed at ensuring the sustainability of innovation is our expectation that our partner schools are completely autonomous, with its 

own principal and school budget, an essential step to create more entrepreneurial 

faculties with both the responsibility and accountability for the success of all students. This increases the demand for capable leaders. 

New, proactive initiatives to identify, recruit, place and support principals to lead 

schools are required. Leadership preparation programs should emphasize both 

school designs that support achievement and the role of principals as facilitators of 

adult learning in schools intended to strengthen teaching. 

Since most district administrative staff begin as principals, creating a new generation of school leaders who believe and act as though all students can succeed will 

inevitably change districts over time. 

45 

STRATEGIES GOING FORWARD: ALIGNING INNOVATION WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Our pressing priority is scaling the success of innovation across districts and regions. One key strategy is to link innovation with economic and workforce development. 

In cooperation with government, the private sector, higher education and others, 

we are developing ways to connect new schools to promising growth sectors of the 

economy with high-wage, high skill jobs. This emphasis includes the development 

of networks of STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—focused 

secondary schools, the incorporation of one-to-one computing and rethinking the role 

of career and technical education in a way that helps all students become both 

college- and career-ready. 

We think that achieving cost-effective, scalable solutions in secondary school innovation demands greater collaboration among schools that share a similar focus. New 

Schools is creating groups of schools with shared themes keyed to North Carolina’s 

economy such as biotechnology, health and life sciences, aerospace and energy. Each 

of these schools will incorporate engineering and technology to achieve mastery of 

science, mathematics and the skills essential in the innovation economy. 

For example, Duke Medical Center will soon host a secondary school focused on 

health and life sciences and that also incorporates engineering. An agricultural research center in a poor, rural region of the State will soon host a new school focused 

on biotechnology and agribusiness. North Carolina State University will soon host 

an early college themed around engineering and sustainable energy. In each of these 

examples, the schools will be part of a network of similarly themed schools, and 

each will have strong ties to the private sector in the development of academic content. 

These clusters of STEM schools will also incorporate one-to-one computing. With 

the assistance of corporate partners like SAS and AT&T and private charities such 

as the Golden LEAF Foundation, New Schools is creating models in which each student has a laptop, netbook or some other digital device that in some instances have 

already replaced textbooks. These schools will leverage technology to transform 

teaching and learning; demonstrate instructional strategies and data analysis that 

use technology to engage students in interactive learning; and inform the anticipated statewide expansion of one-to-one computing in the near future. 

Finally, the historical division between courses of study focused on college preparedness and those intended to graduate students prepared for work have frustrated attempts to ensure true readiness for life behind high school. 


56380-2.eps
46 

The New Schools is working in cooperation with our State Superintendent of Public Instruction to advance a blended approach integrating core academic courses and 

career and technical courses. Unlike traditional secondary schools, these schools will 

blend course content into new structures for earning high school credit, making the 

transition from discrete blocks of knowledge toward an integrated and applied approach to learning. Students enrolled in a STEM-themed school, for example, might 

learn Algebra I and introductions to biotechnology and physical science in the same 

course. Other approaches might pair an online high school or college course with 

a different, but related high school course or seminar, making connections across 

disciplines. Students will have the opportunity to pursue individual paths through 

internships, mentoring, field experiences and individually designed projects. 

This integrated approach to learning will accomplish the dual goals of: (1) engaging students to master more demanding content by illustrating the application of 

academic content to real-world problems and needs; and (2) mimicking the world of 

adult learning in which solving complex problems requires applications of information ranging from literature to mathematics, science and technology. 

In conclusion, the North Carolina New Schools Project believes that a clear and 

unwavering focus on the bottom-line goal of graduating all students ready for college, career and life in the 21st century drives real change in the classroom. In that 

same spirit, we believe that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be 

aligned to support that same goal. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Habit. 

Thank you all for very succinct, but very pointed, remarks. As I 

said, your statements will be made part of the record in their entirety. 

I will now recognize Senators for 5-minute rounds of questions. 

As you know, we sent a notice out—and I shared this with Senator 

Enzi. We agreed on a new structure so that people will be recognized in the order of their appearance, regardless of party, on this 

committee. So, the order that my staff has, of appearance, is 

Franken, Hagan, Burr, Bingaman, Roberts, Murray, Murkowski, 

Bennet, Merkley, Reed, Casey, and Sanders. The only one that’s 

out of order there is Murkowski, because she is standing in for the 

Ranking Member. I will recognize her after my opening questions. 

Let me just pose a general question to all of you—graduation 

rates. You have all talked about improving graduation rates, getting kids ready for college. We heard, the other day—maybe last 

week, from other witnesses—about the problem with dropouts. You 

get kids that are behind, they are in high school, they have some 

problems, they drop out, they come back, they are behind—if you 

can get them back in. That is one part of my question, What do 

we do with dropouts? How do we get them back? But, the idea that 

somehow they have to graduate with their peers in 4 years, and 

if—are we going to set up, or should we set up, some kind of performance criteria for high schools, secondary schools, in terms of 

graduation rate in 4 years? Is that all that important? Or is it just 

important to get these kids through? Some kids may take 5 years, 

or 41⁄2 years. So, if we are saying, ‘‘Well, if there is some performance criteria on 4 years, do schools then start thinking about, 

‘What do we cut?’ ‘How do we slice and dice this?’ ‘How do we shove 

these kids through in 4 years?’ Because we will get evaluated on 

that.’’ Is there another set of performance evaluations that we 

ought to be thinking about, which is not strictly a 4-year—but in 

terms of how many kids graduate, and how ready they are either 

for career or college? So, if you could address yourself to that. 

Mr. Johnson, we will start with you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, thank you for that question. We know, in 

these low-performing schools, there are, given our research, upVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
47 

wards to 80 percent that are actually off track. So, they’re going 

to need some type of educational setting that has the curriculum, 

the supports needed to get them back on track to graduation. When 

it comes to graduation-rate accountability, I think our position at 

JFF has been that—aligned with many of the Governors, who have 

agreed to grad-rate accountability definition—and we see, in regulation now, a great deal of activities now by States to put in place 

4-year graduation-rate definitions and measures of progress. When 

you move beyond that and look at these programs that get these 

off-track students where they need to be, the accountability needs 

to be fair for them in allowing for the use of an extended rate, as 

the regulations provide. And that, ‘‘as long as they get them across 

the line,’’ is the problem. 

The criteria for the type of educational options that qualify for 

the use of extended rate needs to be extremely tight, because the 

last thing we want to do is to create an incentive for pushout 

among districts. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am concerned about. 

Anybody else want to address themselves to that? If someone 

drops out, how do you get them back? And should there be some 

kind of incentive, initiative. Mr. Capozzi, you talked about initiatives—— 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To get these kids back in. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Senator Harkin asked, ‘‘How do we get them back.’’ 

First, we should not let them drop out. That is first and foremost. 

What we do at Elmont Memorial High School—and it is becoming 

harder and harder, especially with our State aid being cut—we had 

summer school. I will give you a perfect example. We are on the 

westernmost portion of Nassau County, so we are right on the 

Queens city border. Students, every year, every month, come to our 

school below grade level. We had summer school and we had night 

school; therefore, we could catch kids up with quality education, as 

well, not just push them through. 

What we do, we use an acronym called ACTION. 

The CHAIRMAN. I read that in your statement. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Right. It’s something that’s real, and it’s something 

that works. A big part of it is our pupil-personnel counselors. The 

average class size in our school is about 325, 330, we don’t let a 

student fall through the crack. We establish a culture, in the 

school, that every student is a success story. It’s not easy, it’s hard 

work. But, as far as the graduation rates go, it’s the way we report 

it. I could have someone in my cohort for a couple of months, they’d 

move, he or she is still in my cohort. And it’s reported like that. 

I would not like to see 5-year graduation rates. I believe that students can complete a quality education in 4 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else want to address this? I might gently disagree with you on that. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. That’s OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because some students have tough home lives. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. They get off track. They may get into drugs, they 

may even be incarcerated for a while, in a juvenile home or something—and then they come back. 

48 

Mr. CAPOZZI. The school has taken on—I’m sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon? 

Mr. CAPOZZI. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no, I was just saying that sometimes, you 

know, to try to get these students to graduate in 4 years becomes 

overwhelming. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. It does. It’s not easy, but that’s what we’re paid to 

do. That’s what teachers are paid to do, to help students graduate. 

You know, what schools—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But, again, I challenge you, Mr. Capozzi—is it 

more important to get that kid to graduate and to actually absorb 

learning, or to say, ‘‘You’ve got to graduate in 4 years or you’re out 

of here?’’ 

Mr. CAPOZZI. I don’t think you say, ‘‘You’re out of here.’’ But I, 

and I disagree, respectfully, that we don’t just push kids through. 

summer school is not some ‘‘flunky dropout building’’ where you 

put the failures in. Stuff happens. Kids have a whole—I received 

a phone call today, ‘‘How is that child going to graduate with something so traumatic her life?’’ It’s something that we do—schools become more than an educational institution. They really are. And we 

look at that, and we know that, and we realize that, and we perform upon it. Kids with hard home lives—that’s a fact of life, but, 

you know what, we can’t give into it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Capozzi, my time has run out. If I get another round, I’ll come back to that question. 

Senator Murkowski. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You’ve mentioned, Mr. Capozzi, that the real ticket here is to 

keep kids from dropping out in the first place. I certainly appreciate it, although I think the Chairman has raised some real issues 

that we struggle with. 

I want to go back to some of the comments that you made, Mr. 

Deshler—and, Mr. Harrison, you spoke about within your school— 

and that’s focusing on this ‘‘missing middle,’’ you call it. It seems 

like we get so caught up in working with the kids once they hit 

high school, and say ‘‘OK, we’ve got to figure out ways to keep you 

in.’’ But, our reality is, kids start checking out a heck of a lot earlier than high school, and our focus, earlier on, whether it’s the literacy aspect or challenging them through STEM programs, getting 

them into a college—having a sixth-grader go to a college, I think, 

is a great way to get them thinking about what they need to be 

doing. 

Are we, from a funding perspective, then—as we think about how 

we allow for the programs that deal with literacy, how we challenge our kids in the different areas—are we missing the boat by 

not starting earlier, as we focus on these kids? I don’t mean to 

limit it to just Mr. Deshler and Mr. Harrison, but I worry about 

the kids that are in the middle school, where we just kind of figure, 

‘‘OK, you made it through elementary, you’re cruising now.’’ 

Mr. DESHLER. Right. Excellent question. For years we have, 

policywise and within the educational community, had this conversation about, ‘‘Where do we do the investment?’’ And, as I said 

49 

in my statement, no one can argue against looking at younger children and doing the very best that we can, and what we know, with 

younger students. 

The problem is, the curriculum changes as students move along. 

We may have a student well prepared in the early elementary 

years, doing fine, but as he moves past fourth grade, fifth grade, 

the demands of the curriculum change, but we no longer are teaching them literacy skills, and many of the students start to fall behind, get discouraged, start to disengage, and then it becomes a vicious cycle. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, do we continue those literacy skills 

throughout high school? 

Mr. DESHLER. Absolutely. But, they change. I think something 

that is exciting about the new core standards that are being discussed is the infusion of literacy instruction throughout middle 

school and high school, which is something that has not happened 

in the past. It’s not just students who are struggling in learning, 

but students who are doing well. The demands to take in large 

amounts of content and to draw inferences and problem solve, and 

so forth—students need deliberate instruction in how to do that 

from a literacy prospective. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me go to Mr. Harrison. 

I know you wanted to comment on this, but I also would like a 

little bit of discussion on—the terminology that you used, Mr. 

Habit, was ‘‘rethinking leadership.’’ I’m curious, as to some of the 

responses that you may have to the proposal that we need to remove the principals from the schools that are not succeeding. From 

a rural State, that’s a real issue for us. So, I’d like to hear a little 

bit of your input on that, too. 

Mr. Harrison, and then Mr. Habit, if you could address that. 

Mr. HARRISON. Sure. I think it’s really important to think about 

middle school as the time where kids either get on the bus or get 

off the bus. I think there are a couple things that a lot of urban 

charter schools have done around the focus of school culture and 

the teaching of values. I think we have to do a better job of teaching our most at-risk students the values that they need to have to 

be productive citizens here in our country. We also have to have 

a school culture that creates a mindset in kids that they want to 

stay and be a part of a school. I think that’s really important. 

I think when you talk about ‘‘rethinking leadership,’’ I always— 

I’m very concerned about our student achievement. But, more importantly, I’m concerned about the level of relationship-building 

that myself, teachers in our building, our staff—we need to connect 

better with our students and with our parents, and really making 

sure that they feel ownership of our school. I think there have been 

a lot of charter schools that have made a lot of progress in really 

making it feel like a team and a family. 

I’d like to just point out a couple of things that I think support 

that. There was a question around retention and attrition issues 

that a lot of urban middle school and high schools are facing. I 

think that this is where we think about the use of data. 

There are two data systems that DSST is known for. We track 

data around student achievement. I can look in a sixth-grade student’s notebook and know exactly what standards he or she needs 

50 

to work on. So, I can talk to a student and know, ‘‘Hey, you know 

what, how’s adding fractions with unlike denominators working for 

you?’’ That type of relationship-building is really important, but 

using data to make sure that there’s a sense of urgency for that 

child to master fractions and decimals, that’s really important in 

the sixth grade. 

No. 2, we have an extensive data system that tracks school culture data. This is a little bit unique to DSST. I know exactly how 

many times a student hasn’t done their homework, or how many 

times they’ve had a compliance violation, or the number of times 

they’ve been awarded for an ‘‘effort of the week’’ or a school performance award around a test when we have our interim assessments. I think that there are some systems that we should look at 

to share more often so that school leaders are empowered with the 

tools and around data to really creating culture and buy-in from all 

students. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. My time’s expired, Mr. Chairman, but 

hopefully there’ll be an opportunity for someone to address that 

issue—the principals. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Harrison, you talk a lot about charter schools, and your 

school obviously is doing an exceptional job. I read your whole testimony, and it’s—congratulations on your remarkably successful 

school. But, unfortunately, charter schools do have a mixed record; 

in fact, a recent study by researchers at Stanford found that fewer 

than one-fifth of charter schools offered a better education than 

regular public schools. Almost half offered an equivalent education, 

and more than a third were, quote, ‘‘significantly worse.’’ 

We have these schools come before us that are incredibly successful, like yours—we had one, Green DOT, from LA. 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Then, you know, I asked about it, and it 

turned out that it had gotten funding from Bill and Melinda Gates, 

which I think is great. Bill and Melinda Gates are doing great 

stuff, and you can look at that school as a laboratory. That’s an investment in laboratories. Did you get outside funding like that? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, we did. Let me talk to you about DSST’s 

model. We do use fundraising to support infrastructure-building, 

but our program is strictly on per-pupil. I think we need to—we 

can’t rely on the kindness of others all the time. That’s going to 

change from year to year. I don’t think that—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I guess what I’m trying to say is—we 

see a lot of successful stuff, a lot of successful stuff in these hearings. And our job on this committee is to scale that up. 

For example, Mr. Deshler, you talked about this Dubuque, IA, 

program, in which they were reading from a program called Fusion 

Reading, and had remarkable results. And I was reading the thing. 

I said, ‘‘OK, let’s just do that.’’ You know? Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every time? We have all these things that are 

working, and we hear them all the time, and I’m trying to figure 

out how, as a Senator, where the disconnect is. 

51 

I like the Investing in Innovation Fund. I think that’s a terrific 

tool to—basically, it’s what the administration has done through 

the stimulus package, invested in finding things that work, and 

scaling them up. 

Now, one of the things that you, Mr. Habit and Mr. Capozzi, 

talked about were principals, the importance of principals. Both of 

you spoke to the fact that principals used to be building managers, 

and now need to be leaders and teachers of teachers. I’d like you 

to speak to that, because Senator Hatch and I put a bill together, 

where we believe the exact same thing. 

What does that entail? And are you substituting for education 

schools that aren’t teaching the teachers? I know it’s an ongoing 

process, and it has to be, but can you speak to that a little bit? 

Either of you. 

Mr. HABIT. With regard to—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Both. 

Mr. HABIT [continuing]. Principalship? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 

Mr. HABIT. Yes. Well, the approach that we take is that the principal needs direct support in making that transition from being a 

building manager, focused on safety and so forth, to focusing on 

teaching and learning. So, we assign coaches, who are master principals, to sit with that principal, to essentially do the same sort of 

demonstration and mirroring you expect with teachers in a classroom, to get classroom-level change. So, if the growth doesn’t happen with that sort of support, then the principal needs to be 

outsourced and the recruitment needs to happen for a new principal. 

The problem is, the ranks are thin. We need solid models for the 

identification and recruitment and support of topnotch—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Especially in rural schools—— 

Mr. HABIT. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. As Senator Murkowski points 

out. 

Mr. HABIT. But, I would suggest, even in wealthier communities, 

the ranks are very, very thin. Because the job is quite challenging. 

That’s why I made my opening comment about the folks on this 

panel. It is a very, very demanding job. Scaling success, whether 

it’s a charter or an innovation in a conventional school, is going to 

come down to the ability of that person to lead that change. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. When you talk about things that work, and you 

look at what needs to change, I really look at it as pretty simple. 

Student achievement is directly related to effective teachers. Effective teachers are directly related to effective principals. 

Being a teacher of teachers, I came from, within my—I’m a product of my observation process that I came through. I’m lucky 

enough to have three assistant principals, chairpeople of each department, to really handle the day-to-day operations. My focus is 

primarily on instruction. If you lose that teacher effectiveness, the 

culture of high standards for teachers—and students, for that matter—will go down. We really need to—we talk about—and I spoke 

briefly about teacher-leaders. They’re not trained to train teachers. 

It’s good, once in a while, but principals will bring about change. 

52 

Teachers won’t. The principal is the one that will bring about 

change within the building. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

My time is expired. I’d love for the whole committee to spend a 

weekend at the Greenbrier and just keep bringing these people, so 

that we just spend, like, an amazing—am I out of order? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I think—— 

Senator FRANKEN. You just want to go endlessly with these—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I think with the Greenbrier, you are. I don’t 

know about the rest of it. 

[Laughter.] 

Over here. You knew where that was coming from. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. You again. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Sounds like an interesting week, I’ll tell you 

that. No, that’d be good. 

Let’s see, Senator Hagan was next. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. I have a slightly different takeaway than my good 

friend from Minnesota. I don’t think there is a silver bullet. I think 

what I’ve heard is success stories, and the tool was very different, 

from individual to individual. The common thread was, you bought 

in to the belief that this was the answer to education. More importantly, you forced the staffs to buy in to that belief. Amazingly, this 

is not about, in my estimation, replication; it’s about a commitment, by educators and principals and policymakers, that anything 

less than some number is unacceptable. And I will tell you, that 

number is not 70 percent or 72 percent of graduation on time. 

Mr. Johnson, you talked about technology a little bit, you talked 

about the change in students that we’ve seen go on. Does it trouble 

you that, with today’s high school students who communicate totally different than I did, when I was their age, when they pick up 

a cell phone, they have no intentions of making a call, they’re going 

to send a text or take a picture, yet—I do it the old-fashioned way, 

I want to talk to somebody—does it bother you that we still use 

textbooks? 

Mr. JOHNSON. At the risk of walking into a conversation about 

the textbook industry—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. I’ll say that the generation is different, and they communicate—— 

Senator BURR. But, why not breach it? What is so magical about 

a textbook? Why, in a generation that thinks of knowledge as an 

instantaneous thing, that looks at news as accessing when they 

want to, not waiting until the morning—why are we so tied to a 

textbook? 

Mr. DESHLER. I think that’s a question that many people are asking. And we do want to capitalize on the technologies that are 

available to us. However, to solve problems and to grapple with 

issues and come to a deep understanding of knowledge and information, we must have students going beyond sound bites. 

Senator BURR. Well, I’m not talking about sound bites, Mr. 

Deshler, I’m talking about downloading the textbook—— 

53 

Mr. DESHLER. Well, OK. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. To an electronic tool, where we totally eliminate the book bags, we end the security concerns we 

have in high schools. We’ve proven that when we put a laptop in 

a child’s hand, we give them access like they’ve never seen before. 

The amazing thing is, there’s a different buy-in on their part. I 

think this is not just about the buy-in that you take in how you 

do, or the staff takes; this is about the buy-in from the kids who 

make up that classroom. 

Let me just ask Mr. Johnson one more thing. You stated that 

your No. 1 goal was to have rigorous accountability toward the 

graduation rate. Can you describe for me what the tools are for rigorous accountability? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Rigorous accountability for graduation rates. 

Senator BURR. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that, first of all, the elements of that include the right, consistent definition across States; States setting 

annual measurable objectives in regard to improving graduation 

rate; and the third element of which includes having some flexibility for the use of an extended rate for select schools, such as 

Back on Track schools, tightly defined, and early-college high 

school, that, by definition, cannot do a 4-year graduation rate, because they’re a 5-year design. 

Senator BURR. Sure. 

Mr. JOHNSON. On your technology question, I think that it’s an 

important role for the Federal Government to play, in regard to inventing platforms that may tip the scale on this regard—I think 

it’s part of the solution set—and then scaling them up appropriately. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Capozzi, I heard your testimony. I understood 

everything you said. I didn’t hear about pre-high-school deficiencies 

in education, I didn’t hear about the lack of parental involvement. 

So, who, in your school, IDs those at-risk students? 

Mr. CAPOZZI. At Elmont Memorial High School, it’s not a K 

through 12 district. We have an elementary school district, the 

Elmont Union-Free school district, then we have the Sewanhaka 

Central high school district. Our pupil-personnel department does 

an excellent job. They articulate with the elementary schools, early. 

Senator BURR. So, it’s necessarily tied to: This person didn’t have 

the same skills coming in, in ninth grade; this child doesn’t have 

a parent that’s involved. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. No. 

Senator BURR. This is an assessment of the individual student. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. We have a saying ‘‘We get what we get, and we 

have to do it.’’ You’re looking at every child. When I talked a little 

bit about differentiating to meet the needs of all learners, we don’t 

just walk the walk or talk the talk, we do it. It’s about meeting 

every student’s needs, whether it’s in the classroom or outside the 

classroom. 

Senator BURR. My time’s expired, but I’m going to ask two questions that can have short answers. 

What’s the student-teacher ratio in your high school? And how 

long did the turnaround take? 

54 

Mr. CAPOZZI. OK, average class size, I’ll say, is about 23—we’re 

7 through 12, so in about 7th and 8th grade, a little bit higher; 

about 27, 28, in the high school, 9 through 12. 

Turnaround, I will tell you that—I took over, 5 years ago. I’ve 

worked at Elmont for 18 years. There was a time, where—the first 

year and the second year, I wanted to walk away. It was not easy. 

And my wife wanted to walk away from me. 

[Laughter.] 

VOICE: Mine wants to do that, too. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. But, it took awhile. It took 3, 4 years to get that 

culture re-established, I’ll say. 

Senator BURR. I thank you. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

Senator Bingaman. 

SENATOR BINGAMAN

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Let me pickup on your comment, Mr. Deshler. You urge the committee and the Senate to go ahead and pass several bills, including 

the Graduation Promise Act, which I appreciate very much. That’s 

a bill we’ve worked on for several years. One of the strengths of 

that bill is that it has a very specific target. The target is the 2,000 

so-called ‘‘dropout factories’’ that were identified by the study that 

Johns Hopkins did. And I’m concerned, frankly, that if we don’t 

have a real, specific target, we will wind up doing this reauthorization, and not get the funds sufficiently concentrated where those 

so-called ‘‘dropout factories’’ are. 

In my State, the figures I’ve got are that there are 41 such dropout-factory high schools—that is, schools that have 60 percent, or 

fewer, of their students graduating. 

When we get into the tiering business that the administration 

has used for the Recovery Act funds, about 11 of the 41 would actually get some funding, under that criteria. 

So, anyway, I would be interested in your view on that, Mr. 

Deshler. Is it important that we try to concentrate on that group 

of schools, or is there a different way that makes more sense? 

Mr. DESHLER. If we concentrate, I would say—we need to keep 

at least two factors in mind. 

No. 1, there’s a direct and unmistakable linkage between literacy 

proficiency and the success of turning schools around. We often try 

to dodge that bullet, in one way or another, and there’s no dodging 

it. Well, there’s a lot of things we need to learn about how to better 

deal with the literacy issue—there’s a lot of things we know and 

enough to act on. That’s point No. 1. 

Point No. 2, while the schools you refer to clearly qualify for, and 

can benefit from, additional resources, one of the concerns that I 

have—as our center has worked in a lot of underperforming 

schools—is that money alone won’t solve it. That is, oftentimes, 

when schools are low-performing in the classroom, they are also, 

infrastructure-wise, low-performing, and they lack the capacity, 

often, to wisely use the funds that come to them. So, I think very 

serious consideration should be given, as funding is allocated in 

55 

any way. What is the qualifications and the capacity to use those 

funds wisely and as they are intended? 

I would offer those two things for serious consideration. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Habit, you talked a lot about change 

management. Could you comment on anything Mr. Deshler said, 

and elaborate as to, How do you help a school to institutionalize 

change management? 

Mr. HABIT. Well, I think he answered very thoughtfully around 

the issue of literacy and the foundational aspect of literacy. If I 

could address my comments to that, we see that it’s critical that 

reading and writing and thinking take place in every classroom, 

every day, at the secondary level. So, the need to make literacy an 

essential part of that culture becomes paramount as we set a 

standard for every child graduating college-ready. 

Teachers, quite frankly, at the secondary level—the historical 

pattern is that the English teacher is left down the hall, dealing 

with literacy issues, and we found that very few teachers are actually prepared for their role in helping students to read, write, and 

think. We know we’ve achieved success when we walk into a math 

class and a student will say, ‘‘I read and write as much in this 

classroom as I do in my English classroom.’’ 

Senator BINGAMAN. All right. I’ll stop with that, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roberts. 

SENATOR ROBERTS

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say, to the good doctor from the University of Kansas, 

that I apologize for not being here to introduce you properly. I 

think, in part, that was because the Chairman is from Iowa, and 

he’s still pretty proud of that northern Iowa guy that put up the 

three—I’m sorry to even bring it up—as you know, I went to Kansas State, and we grieved with you about that. 

[Laughter.] 

He was supposed to dribble the ball, you know, and he put up 

a three, and made it. So, I think the Chairman was just—anyway, 

I’m sorry I couldn’t introduce you in the proper way. So, we’ll both 

try next year. 

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your comprehensive statement. It is comprehensive. I hope every member reads it. 

Your six recommendations, your endorsement of the Murray, Reed, 

and Benjamin legislation, especially the paragraph on the Fusion 

program that worked so well in Iowa, in Dubuque. Thank you for 

your—I truly appreciate your warning to the committee that it’s 

not too late for the middle school child, that we really concentrate 

on birth to 6, but 7 to 12, we just don’t do as much as we could 

possibly do. I am guilty of that prejudice, that if they’re going to 

keep up, it demands change, and certainly a whole bunch of skills. 

I read a lot to kids under the Reading is Fundamental program. 

A Coffeyville teacher started that, some years ago, way back, and 

then it came back again. Two hundred and sixty-one different 

schools participate in that. We had about 300,000 in Federal funding. And I concentrate on the second- and third-graders, mainly because the fourth-graders get a little smarter than I am, and a little 

snippy, so I stick with the second- and third-graders. And that is 

56 

entirely what you’re talking about, that you ought to go to the middle-school folks, if you possibly can. 

In Kansas, we think we have several programs. We’re not really 

on top of it, to the degree that other Senators have referred that 

we need to be, especially my good friend over here, Senator 

Franken. 

Senator Murkowski touched on the problem of rural education. 

I’m going to mention the name of the school where I talked to the 

second- and third-graders, and then the principal asked if I had 

time for a special program for middle-income kids, and I said, 

‘‘Sure.’’ I wasn’t going to say ‘‘no.’’ I went in, and the whole thing 

was different. The whole attitude was different. We had some kids 

there—well, a great majority of kids, who, (a) didn’t want to be 

there, (b) were bored to death, (c) there was actual fear about going 

on to the next grade, for fear they couldn’t compete, and the peer 

pressure involved. 

I started to read a book that was ridiculous, then I said, ‘‘Why 

don’t you read to me?’’ That also proved to be not worth much. So, 

I said, ‘‘Why don’t we just have a discussion about what language 

you speak at home, and what do you want to be? If you could be 

anybody that you wanted to be’’—and obviously you got the sports 

hero, then you got the movie star, and you got this, that, or the 

other thing. And I said, ‘‘I’ll tell you what. If you’re a movie star, 

you’ve got to read the script. If you’re the star quarterback, you’ve 

got to know the play, you have to know the offense.’’ Then I got 

to thinking about it, and I wondered—I asked the teacher, and 

they said, ‘‘Well, we’re doing the best with these kids, but, you 

know, there are just some of them that are not grasping what we 

need to have them do to really compete.’’ Then, on page 9, you really refer to it, where people are ending up in jail, divorcing, not 

being a contributing member of the community. That’s largely the 

base of a problem that we have in this country today that we’re 

using other methods to try to solve, and we’re not solving it the 

right way, or we could do it a lot better. 

Where do we find the teachers to do this? I mean, we don’t have 

teachers to teach, period, out in the rural areas of Kansas. You 

know that. I just don’t know—it would seem to me you’re going to 

have to educate the teachers before you educate the middle-school 

kids to really get the total-school involvement, so these kids do not 

have the sense of fear and simply want to drop out and get a job 

at the local packing plant, girlfriend drops out, boom, they have a 

youngster, and the whole cycle starts over again. 

Mr. DESHLER. One of the challenges we’ve got in all of education 

is getting into our teacher-preparation programs the best of what 

we know how to teach students. I think there’s much more of what 

we know than actually what we do. If we can bring all of our teacher-preparation programs up to the highest standard—and there’s 

many who are doing some great work, but in many instances, we 

do not arm teachers with the competencies that they need to, first 

and foremost, engage students, to make schooling and learning exciting. 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Mr. DESHLER. Where they want to be there, they feel valued 

and—— 

57 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Mr. DESHLER [continuing]. Counted. Second, to have the proficiency, as a teacher, to teach students the critical skills that they 

need, to read, to think, to express themselves, to write. When you 

have students doing those things, they get excited about performing and doing, and engaged in the learning process. Teachers 

get excited. The kind of culture in schools that we’ve heard about 

this afternoon starts to emerge, and then students really start to 

achieve in extraordinary ways. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, I thank you for commitment. 

I thank all of the witnesses. I know it takes a lot of time to come 

up here and give testimony. 

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, which I think is 

exceedingly important. 

Many thanks. And I will be paying you a visit. 

Mr. DESHLER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do appreciate 

this hearing. 

In your opening testimony, Dr. Habit, you mentioned a ‘‘cancer 

in education,’’ and you said that, ‘‘Simply put, low expectations are 

a cancer that can weaken a school enough to make significant 

changes in teaching impossible.’’ 

When we’re looking at the early learning and the dual-enrollment, the middle-colleges, can you give me a further explanation 

on how these programs can impact and make significant changes 

in this cancer? 

Mr. HABIT. I think a theme of this afternoon’s conversation has 

really been about that, and the crisis of low expectations. And if 

you are a teacher who has never seen or been in a classroom where 

all students are fully engaged, and all students are working at high 

levels academically, why would you believe it could be done? Why 

would you believe that could happen? So, we spend a great deal of 

time working with our faculties around this notion of expectations, 

and exposing them to classrooms that get those results, and then, 

over time, equipping them with the tools and skills and beliefs so 

that they can deliver on that promise. 

If I could add, I think in the conversation, earlier, about the colleges and schools of education, there are many exciting programs 

happening there, but this we see as sort of ground zero. There 

needs to be a great deal more work done, exposing pre-service 

teachers and principals to classrooms that succeed with all, and not 

some. 

Senator HAGAN. In your opening comments, you talked about the 

difference in the achievement gaps—how do the new innovative 

high schools make achievements in that area? 

Mr. HABIT. I think that, with the early-college high schools in 

particular, it’s often described as the ‘‘power of place.’’ Removing 

young people from a conventional high school, where their peers 

and/or their teachers may be pulling them down and pulling them 

away from the academic mission. By moving them on to the campus of a college or university, you are really, then, constituting a 

culture about high expectations. They begin to see themselves as 

high-school completers, and then begin to see themselves as colVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
58 

lege-completers. But, it’s as much about putting that team of teachers within that environment so they can incubate a culture that is 

highly results-driven. Not to be too critical of conventional high 

schools, but unfortunately conventional high schools often are driven by things like the number of seats in the cafeteria and the 

schedule that that allows that school to have. Early-college is driven by a very, very crisp academic mission. 

Senator HAGAN. Do you see any problems with parents accepting 

a change like this? 

Mr. HABIT. It’s very difficult. We work in more than half of our 

State’s school districts in partnership, and in some of them, parents 

do not believe that all students need Algebra 2, for example, do not 

believe that all students can master Algebra 2. So, the role of growing the beliefs of parents, as well as classroom teachers, can’t be 

overlooked. 

Senator HAGAN. Senator Roberts talked about this, Mr. Deshler, 

and I was very surprised to hear your comments about the fact 

that only 20 percent of funding is going to grades 7 through 12. I 

was very surprised to hear that. What sort of recommendations 

would you make to change that? 

Mr. DESHLER. Well, I think the first recommendation would be 

that we need to understand that students at that age, if they’re 

having difficulty, can indeed learn, as I mentioned before. It is not 

too late. We should not treat them as ‘‘throwaway kids.’’ Many of 

our policies up to this point, I think, in reality, have done that. 

Senator HAGAN. Is that low expectations of the teachers? 

Mr. DESHLER. Yes, it’s low expectations, oftentimes, for teachers. 

Second, we often fail to give teachers the kinds of skills and competencies that they need to really get some traction with students 

so they can get them onto that path of being successful. 

Then, third, we need to make some tough policy calls, in terms 

of—there are needs for students, for half of their school year—the 

school career, 6 through 12 that we really need to start tending to, 

because the demands that they are facing literacy-wise, emotionally, and the social pressures, are so significant and so different 

than when we went to school. We need to arm schools and arm 

teachers with the kinds of skills and supports that they can really 

make some headway to give students the kinds of skills and competencies they need. 

Senator HAGAN. With 70 early-college high schools in North 

Carolina, I’m proud to be a cosponsor of the Fast Track to College 

Act, which is legislation introduced by Senator Kohl. This legislation authorizes a competitive grant program to provide schools 

serving low-income students with funding to establish and support 

these early-college high schools. 

Mr. Johnson, I know that your organization worked closely with 

Senator Kohl in developing this legislation, and I know that you 

recognize that, without innovation and intervention, we will not be 

able to meet the workforce needs of our country. 

As I commented, finding ways to replicate the effectiveness of 

early-college programs on a national level should be a top priority 

in the reauthorization effort we’re undergoing right now. What sort 

of supports and resources do States need in order to implement 

early-college programs? Does every State need a not-for-profit orgaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
59 

nization like the one that North Carolina has in the New Schools 

Project to partner with these States? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Another State that has another, kind of, State 

intermediary is the State of Texas, leading the way in scaling 

early-college high schools. The State of Texas is also looking at 

Back on Track models, particularly models for those who are old 

and far, that may even need a GED-type option that’s connected to 

a post-secondary opportunity—— 

Senator HAGAN. ‘‘Old and far’’ means what? 

Mr. JOHNSON. ‘‘Old and far,’’ 16, but many credit hours from obtaining a high school diploma. There’s a way of thinking about the 

population—about off-track students, and one of the subgroups are 

the ‘‘old and far,’’ and you have to look at the different models. 

So, back to your question around the State role—that in this 

budget-type situation, it’s a very difficult time to think about a 

State-run intermediary serving this role. So, we have to look at the 

Federal Government’s role in supporting the State and building out 

such partnerships, because whether or not the State has the capacity, internally, to actually do the scaling work itself is questionable 

in most cases, and we’ve shown in North Carolina and Texas that 

the power of a New Schools Project or the Texas High School 

Project of providing political cover, of ensuring integrity of running 

the design, having professional development—Tony talked about 

the structural coaching component of it. Those are key technical assistant elements that need to be put in place. Conceivably, they 

could be shown to be effective in a department of education, for instance, but our experience has been that some type of relationship 

with an outside intermediary actually results in a better scale of 

these models. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I was co-chairman of the Budget Committee in the North Carolina State Senate, when the early-colleges 

legislation came forward, and we did line items for coaching, for 

mentoring, and the fact that these young people can go to high 

school and, when they graduate go to a community college campus 

or a university, and have 2 years of college credits, is extraordinary. The fact that parents are not paying money out-of-pocket 

for this, it’s a big impetus on a lot of students, and especially those 

that have already dropped out or are thinking about dropping out. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sanders. 

SENATOR SANDERS

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here, and thank you for the work that 

you’re doing. 

What I want to do is just throw out a couple thoughts, and anyone who feels like it, please comment on it. You guys are on the 

front lines of the educational struggle facing our country. We 

heard, a couple of months ago, testimony from a fellow who studies 

worldwide standards and raised a lot of concerns about how our 

kids are not really competing against young people from around 

the world. I want you to think about that and tell me what your 

understanding is about that. 

60 

Second of all, in terms of our national priorities, we have the 

highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth, 

far higher than most of the European countries; and we end up 

with more people in jail than any other country. What do you think 

about that? 

I think it was Mr. Capozzi who used the term ‘‘culture of high 

standards.’’ Do you think, as a nation—and we know that, when 

the NCAA Final Four—you can’t turn on TV without everybody 

talking about which, team’s going to win—do you think, as a nation, we really take intellectual development seriously? Is it something that, as a nation, we really believe in, or are we kidding ourselves? Are you having to, kind of, fight against the trend? Are 

these kids saying, ‘‘Hey, I want to be a great basketball player,’’ ‘‘I 

want be a great football’’—‘‘I want to be rich.’’ ‘‘I love these guys 

on Wall Street who made a billion dollars last year, sleazy though 

they may be. I can make quick money. Why do you want me to be 

a scientist? Why do you want me to be an engineer? Why do you 

want me to be an English professor? Who do you guys—are you 

kidding? I want to make money quick.’’ 

I also want you to think about, and talk to us about, the 

childcare situation, something which I worry about a whole lot. I 

know, in Vermont, it is very hard to come up with quality, affordable childcare. Many of the kids who are coming into school are already—especially from low-income families—already pretty far behind, in a gap, perhaps, that they’ll never overcome because their 

parents, mom and dad, are both working, or mom is working, and 

the kind of childcare and early childhood education they’re getting 

is inadequate. 

So, those are some of my thoughts, and I’d appreciate anybody 

responding to them. 

Mr. Capozzi. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. As far as kids growing up and swimming against 

the tide, are we banging our heads against the wall? Growing up, 

I don’t think, really, is any different than me wanting to be Mickey 

Mantle. I did want to be a pro baseball player, just like, today, kids 

want to be LeBron James. We had kids from Elmont Memorial 

High School who are also Intel’s semifinalists. One went on to Harvard University last year. I think—our challenges are different, but 

I just think we need to focus on, How do we face the challenges? 

The challenges for kids are different. We’re the adults, and I 

think we have to help them find out how to deal with the challenges. I don’t think college—college is an expectation. If you 

walked into Elmont Memorial, every one of my students feel as 

though they’re going to go to college. Yes, they do want to be a professional basketball player, but I think reality—— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, my point was—I understand that. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. OK. 

Senator SANDERS. I agree with that. But, my point is, as a nation, Do we appreciate, and are we inculcating our young kids with, 

the understanding that intellectual development is a good idea, in 

addition to being a great basketball player? 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. I don’t think we are. In addition to that, 

I think there’s a culture of students feeling that it’s not cool to be 

61 

intellectual. So, to create a culture of high intellectual capacity 

within a school is fighting against the tide, because you’re fighting 

a subculture, and then you’re fighting the majority culture, which 

is seen on television. 

Senator SANDERS. How do we turn—I agree with you. Then some 

people say that’s more in the minority community. I’m not sure 

that that’s the case. I think it’s—— 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. I’m not, either. 

Senator SANDERS [continuing]. It’s pretty prevalent. How do we 

turn that around to say that, ‘‘If some kid wants to study hard and 

become an engineer, you know what, that’s pretty cool?’’ 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. I think one of the ways we do it is by the 

early-college movement that we’re speaking of now. Instead of pulling from the bottom and trying to bring it up to the top, try pulling 

from the top, because everyone really can do better. 

The other thing I wanted to say, about childcare—— 

Senator SANDERS. Yes. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR [continuing]. It’s not just the children, the 

young infants that are at stake, but in high school, for example, I 

see so many students whose work suffers because they are the 

childcare givers. They’re the ones who run home to pick up brothers, sisters, and the like. I don’t think that any of us fully appreciate the far reaches of poverty on children. 

Senator SANDERS. Are many of the kids—you’ve raised a very interesting question. I was amazed that, in high schools in Vermont, 

you ask the kids, ‘‘How many of you kids are working after school 

in McDonalds?’’ A huge numbers of kids are working. Do you run 

into that, as well? 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Absolutely. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Absolutely. Especially since we’re a career 

academy, so we highlight work ethics. Fortunately, many of them 

have other opportunities, because we provide other opportunities 

for careers. But, kids are working because they have to. 

The other thing I just wanted to mention briefly is that kids eat 

lunch at school because sometimes that’s the only meal that they’re 

getting that’s a decent meal. If you’re lucky, it’s a decent meal. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Other thoughts? 

Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I want to go back to—really, the national 

ethos around teachers. There has to be some language that really 

ensures that, every school building, teachers are wearing that character and modeling the values that we need to shift in our country. 

It’s a battle, when homework is up against TV. But, again, every 

teacher has to wear those expectations and communicate to students that success is really important, that we value learning, we 

value higher education, we value making mistakes in learning. I 

think that if every teacher in every classroom, every school leader, 

can communicate that, over and over again, and really wear those 

values, and really understand that school has to be more exciting 

if we’re going to compete with TV or the—— 

Senator SANDERS. I agree with that, but in your heart of hearts, 

as a culture and as a nation, do we really say, ‘‘You know, teachers 

are doing some of the most important work imaginable?’’ 

62 

Yes, Mr. Deshler. 

Mr. DESHLER. I think you’re asking a highly significant question. 

We don’t properly showcase the importance of intellectual growth 

and achievement and hard work. You made reference to the difficulties within families—mom and dad working, and so forth. But, 

we need to give thought to, How can we reestablish and strengthen 

families to provide the kind of support, and have those conversations with their children, and to provide the emotional fabric to 

give them encouragement? 

When we look back at the early years of our country, there was 

an awful lot of poverty that characterized our way of life then, but 

there’s something about the family being together as a strong unit. 

I think we need to try to learn some lessons from what happened 

there. That won’t solve it all, but I think often we ignore the powerful role that a strong family can play in inculcating those kind 

of values. 

Senator SANDERS. Chairman, thank you very much. My time is 

long expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Harrison, I wanted to ask you a question, based on something you had said, because you observed that you have a lottery 

for kids that come to DSST that now come into the sixth grade and 

the middle school. I think one of the things that really ails us, as 

policymakers, at every level of this equation, is that, too often, we 

don’t look at this from the child’s point of view, from their prospective. I wonder if you could describe for the committee what it looks 

like to come to DSST as a young person who’s behind in reading 

and math and other subjects, and what it looks like for a young 

person that comes in at grade level. Does it look the same? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I think that’s a great question. I always tell 

people that the hardest part of my job is saying, ‘‘no’’ to the number of families that are on the wait list in the city of Denver who 

want to attend Denver School of Science and Technology. It really 

comes from both groups of students—students who want the opportunity to be in a school where they’re going to be caught up and 

be on the track to college, and for those students who are on grade 

level, who want to be part of a successful program. 

At the end of the day, the students still wear the same uniform. 

The students still receive praise. We value growth. We value 

growth more than achievement, so we want to praise those students who are making gains. That may be a student in the sixth 

grade, on a second- or third-grade reading level—who’s made significant increases in 1 year. They may have to be retained and do 

the sixth grade again, but they’re proud of being part of our school. 

I think there’s a way that we manage the culture around really 

keeping those kids together. And I think that the students who are 

on grade level understand that and support that, as well. 

Senator BENNET. I asked the question poorly, that was a great 

answer, but it wasn’t the answer to my question, which is, If I’m 

a child that comes in, and I’m reading at a second- and third-grade 

level when I get to the sixth grade at DSST, what does my day look 

like? What does my year look like at DSST? How are you going to 

get me from where I am to where I need to be? 

63 

Mr. HARRISON. I think that’s the flexibility that I have, as a 

charter school principal, around making sure that there’s a lot of 

time and investment around catching those students up. A student 

who’s been behind a grade level in reading—all students take a 2- 

hour English block, the literacy block, but those students who are 

behind take an additional hour. We have some students who take 

3 hours of English instruction every day. But, that’s what it’s going 

to take for them, to get them on grade level. 

The same thing with math. We have students who take 21⁄2

hours of math a day. And, you know what, if we need all students 

at pre-calculus or calculus by the time they’re seniors, that’s what 

it’s going to take for all sixth-graders who are behind, really getting those intervention supports. That’s coupled with—you know, 

there’s a programmatic aspect, and then there’s the aspect of building relationships, to really getting the kid to understand that they 

need to roll up their sleeves and get a lot of positive work done. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. 

Mr. Habit, I had a question for you. You mentioned that the 

early-college programs in North Carolina are generally situated on 

college campuses, and that the kids that go are able to get the college credit without cost to them, I think you said, or to their families. Can you explain to me how that funding works in North Carolina, the higher-ed pool versus the K–12 pool? How did you sort 

that out? That’s been a challenge in my State. 

Mr. HABIT. I think that’s a challenge for every State. It leads to 

lots of debate about the funding streams, and so forth. In our State, 

we’ve had a working team of our education cabinet, over the last 

few years, to continue to sort through, decision by decision, how to 

get the best out of the resources that are available. So, a student 

moving on to a community college campus, for example, the community college would be reimbursed for the FTE for the course that 

student is enrolled in when they’re in a college course, versus when 

they’re on that campus, enrolled in a high school course being 

taught by one of their high school teachers. 

Senator BENNET. So, in other words, you’ve applied common 

sense to this question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HABIT. Yes. But, actually, the point that often gets overlooked is the cost of textbooks, because—if you’re involved in postsecondary education, you know that’s a big issue. Our State has 

been very committed, thus far, to paying for the textbooks for those 

students enrolled in those college courses. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Merkley. 

SENATOR MERKLEY

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

I want to thank you all for your work on the front line of education. 

I was out, this weekend, visiting with a superintendent in rural 

Oregon, and she made a couple of points I found fairly interesting. 

I wanted to share those and get your reactions to them. 

The first issue is that more diverse schools are much more likely 

to be labeled as failing, in the sense of not meeting annual yearly 

64 

progress. The superintendent showed me a comparison between 

one of her schools and another school. She had, I think, seven 

breakouts, if you will. This other school had a single population 

and no breakouts. Her students, in the same area as the other 

school, were doing better than the other school, but she had six 

other areas where she could end up being marked as failing to 

meet annual yearly progress. So, she had a far more difficult challenge of meeting AYP in all the subgroups, and yet, much more 

likely to be labeled as failing, even though she was doing better 

than this school that wasn’t labeled as failing. And she said, ‘‘You 

know, it’s a problem, because it basically creates a greater challenge for diverse schools, and it’s not a fair measure,’’ because most 

of her subgroups were doing far better than this other school, that 

wasn’t labeled as failing. 

Second, the superintendent also said poor schools are much more 

likely to be publicized as failing schools. The reason why is because 

when you fail to meet AYP for a couple of years, and either the 

choice provision is triggered or the supplemental education services 

is triggered, then you have a big public interaction about these features that really brings it up again and again. Whereas a more affluent school, that isn’t a title I school, could be doing a worse job, 

but, they send out one card in the mail, and people kind of forget 

about it. The poor schools are more likely to become framed as a 

public failure, even if they’re doing better than a more affluent 

school and cause a loss of morale or a flight from that school and 

other bad effects. 

The third thing the Superintendent pointed out is that, when you 

turn to triggering the supplemental education services, 20 percent 

of the title I funds go to tutoring. She showed me this card, that 

I have right here, as an example of the types of mailings that her 

students get. It’s designed to look like a little laptop computer, and 

it says, ‘‘Hey, sign up for this and you’ll get a free computer.’’ She 

said other private tutoring firms were giving away free iPods to get 

the students to mail in the cards. It costs her $60 an hour for these 

private tutors, who are not even required to be college graduates 

or basically be capable in any certified way. Meanwhile, her teachers cost $20 an hour to do the tutoring. So, it costs three times as 

much. Plus, by doing small groups, they can get a lot more mileage 

out of that single teacher at $20 an hour. The result is that it is 

10 times more expensive to do this private tutoring, that kids are 

being talked into doing, by being given free gifts when they mail 

in this coupon. Well, this is a problem, for a school with limited resources, because they’re getting far less effect on the education of 

the children. 

The Superintendent pointed out these three things, and I just 

wanted to see if you all had any comments on them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ll take the supplemental educational services 

one; same as the last one, I’ll take the last one. In the context of 

this hearing around secondary schools, first of all, supplementary 

educational services have not been shown to be very effective, 

across the board. But, as tailored, and as specific to secondary 

schools, it’s not well designed for some of the unique challenges of 

high schools. So, in the reauthorization, I think it’s important to 

look at, whether it be a high school improvement system or such, 

65 

that we actually tailor the solutions and the interventions that actually work in high school. Credit recovery, intention to structural 

services, supports and such, and supplemental educational services 

is not a good proxy for that. So, this would be my firm statement 

on that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. As far as making AYP and subgroups, my school, 

close to 2,000 students, we had 60 students in special education in 

grades 7 and 8. We didn’t make our AYP in that subgroup in 2 

years, prior to when I was the principal, when I took over. If we 

did not make our AYP in one of those subgroups again, in math 

and English, there would have been school choice. So, 60 students 

were really—we were being held hostage from 60 students in two 

subgroups. We were publicized that we were going to be put on the 

list if it wasn’t corrected. 

New York State had a—I believe it was a 31-point—there was a 

safe harbor after that, and then a 31-point addition to your safe 

harbor. And, with that, we did make it. I believe that’s no longer 

there anymore. 

To hold an entire school hostage, from 60 students in two 

grades—it’s such a small percentage—so, it really does affect the 

school, and it affects the community, as well. 

Senator MERKLEY. Are you saying that—I missed the point you 

made about a safe harbor that is no longer there. Could you explain? 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Yes. There is a safe harbor. If you don’t make your 

AYP, you’re given a safe harbor. It’s a number to—that’s your number that you have to make. 

In addition, if you’re short of your safe harbor and you have a 

participation rate of—I believe it’s above 90 percent–95 percent— 

you are given an extra 31 points, I believe; and that takes you to 

your safe harbor. Hopefully. It was a safety net that was taken 

away. So, I know this year is the first year that it will not be given 

to subgroups to make their safe harbor, or AYP. 

Senator MERKLEY. Any other comments? Any comments about 

the practice of using laptops. 

Yes. 

Mr. HABIT. I thought there was a great deal of validity to the observation you just shared about the cost and how efficiently to go 

about that. There really is no way to get around the fact that a 

highly effective and focused teacher working with the student over 

the long haul is the best solution. I’m reminded, a few days ago, 

of talking to a teacher in one of our schools—who knows a student 

so well, knows that student’s family so well, that she recognized 

that what her student needed was Saturday work and after-school 

work around Algebra 1, and she knows the diagnostics around that 

student, and doesn’t have to relearn his needs and styles, and that 

is, in my perspective, in our perspective, the most efficient way to 

go about accelerating a young person. 

Mr. DESHLER. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. DESHLER. I have no problem with them making laptops, 

iPods, available, and teaching kids how to use them in the correct 

way, as Senator Burr mentioned early. What does concern me is 

66 

your other observation, that the tutors that these students are 

working with don’t have the kind of proper training to make them 

effective tutors. That’s the big concern. 

Senator MERKLEY. I am over my time, and I thank you all very 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Reed. 

SENATOR REED

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding, again, a very impressive hearing. Thank you, to all 

the witnesses, for excellent testimony, but, also, when you leave 

here and you go back to the schools and back to the universities 

you continue to work hard, and I appreciate that very much. 

The focus is secondary schools. I want to thank Dr. Deshler for 

mentioning Success in the Middle. Because before secondary school, 

there’s the middle school. One of the issues that comes up perennially with respect to secondary schools, is the dropout rate. You 

know, that’s kind of, the shorthand for how you’re doing. But, a lot 

of what you have done—and I know Mr. Johnson, particularly—has 

been with respect to those indications in the middle schools, of potential dropouts, in terms of looking at the early warning signals. 

Sometimes I get the sense that we’re focusing a lot on the last few 

years—efforts that are probably not as efficient as, focusing on the 

first few years—in the middle schools. I wonder, Mr. Johnson and 

Dr. Deshler, if you wanted to comment, and anyone else on this 

sort of issue of early warnings, middle schools, and preventing 

dropouts. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the research is pretty significant and instructive, that we can tell, as early as sixth grade, with high predictability, who’s going to drop out. I think that whatever solution 

the committee comes up with, they need to take in consideration 

the success and what it does about intensive interventions as early 

as sixth grade to get those young people back on track. It’s an important part of the solution, it’s important—a part—about sustaining the supports that we see in making gains in our early 

years, that we’re not seeing sustained through middle and high 

schools. So, I think that’s right, yes. 

Senator REED. Dr. Deshler. 

Mr. DESHLER. The power of highly effective educational experience on the academic side and the social side during the middle 

school is so pivotal. When students—as well as—deliberately planning that transition into the high school, and that we don’t just 

take that for granted and leave it up for luck, that it will happen 

correctly. There’s some very exciting and encouraging work that is 

being done on, ‘‘How do you put in place effective transitions from 

middle school to high school?’’ But, a part of that is really having 

students geared up with the proper skill sets so that when they go 

to high school, then they can benefit from a challenging curriculum 

when they get there. 

Senator REED. Mr. Capozzi and Mr. Harrison and Ms. WebberN’Dour, you are on the front lines. I don’t know, maybe—I feel, 

some way, that high school principals shoulder the responsibility 

for dropouts. But, by the time the youngster gets there, as Mr. 

67 

Johnson suggests, the indicators were already there, and the effective interventions are delayed by years. So, I’m just wondering 

what reaction you have, Mr. Capozzi, Mr. Harrison, and Ms. 

Webber-N’Dour. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. What we put in place—what we look at, No. 1, is 

where students are. In ninth grade, I have spoken about our interdisciplinary teaming program, that we will be implementing this 

year. We have safety nets in place. We get kids who aren’t reading 

at grade level. We have programs, like READ 180, to catch students up. I would love to see it in the lower grades, because we’re 

getting them in seventh and eighth grade, and, really, we’re afforded the opportunity to put programs in, such as READ 180. We 

have language enrichment. We are a title I school. Our free and reduced lunch, I believe, is 33 percent. So, with that title I money, 

we do utilize that, to level the playing field, with the literacy programs. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Mr. Harrison, please. 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Capozzi’s 

intervention systems—you know, they’re the same in the middle 

school, as well. I think that really thinking about making it systematic, in terms of what intervention looks like—from kindergarten through 12th grade—because, at the end of the day, it’s the 

same system that we’re going to use and really holding school leaders, like ourselves, accountable for making sure that the growth 

happens from the students who come in at those levels. That’s 

something that I would feel comfortable, as a school leader, to be 

held accountable to. Because, at the end of the day, if those students aren’t moving, we’re not doing our jobs. 

Senator REED. Ms. Webber-N’Dour. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Something that Dr. Alonso, of Baltimore 

City Public Schools, recently started to do, and started with our 

school, is to annex failing middle schools with successful high 

schools. So, next year, I will take over a failing middle school. The 

thought in mind is to use the successful model we have and make 

a seamless transfer of information, both in terms of curriculum and 

culture, so that both schools are mirroring one another. 

The other issue that is of interest to me is to try to accelerate 

the students, that are already doing exceptionally well, into the 

high school forum in the similar way that we’re doing with earlycollege. 

So, this is a model. It hasn’t been testing out fully, but I’m sure 

it’s going to succeed. High school teachers will make the decisions 

as to what the curriculum looks like in middle school, because we 

know best what the high school student needs. 

Senator REED. Mr. Habit, do you have a comment, or—— 

Mr. HABIT. I just think it’s a critical issue. We’re exploring the 

ramp-up strategy to incorporate middle grades so that they’re prepared for the rigors of ninth grade. If that goal of that high school 

is truly college readiness, it’s got to ramp up in the middle grades. 

Senator REED. Right. Just an observation, because my time is expired, but one of the things that I think we have to deal with is 

that too many principals are not educational leaders, because after 

monitoring buses, collecting the candy money—well, we don’t do 

68 

that anymore—but all the extracurricular activities and I just wonder, am I off, or is that something that you sense, too? 

Mr. Capozzi. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Absolutely. Running a school is a tremendous undertaking. It really is. I often say to myself—every day—there’s one 

incident that you say, ‘‘They didn’t teach me this in principal 

school.’’ It is just overwhelming at times, and if it wasn’t for my 

assistants—I have quality assistant principals, quality chairpeople, 

and it definitely helps. It is overwhelming. I don’t want to be a 

manager, I want to be an instructional leader. 

Senator REED. No, and that’s the model, but we organize schools 

so that principals are managers, budgeters, etc. That’s what they 

get hired on, and that’s what they get fired on, in many cases. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Absolutely. 

Senator REED. Like everything I learned in kindergarten, everything I learned in the Army. I had 1st Sergeants who did all that 

stuff when I was a company commander, thank God, because I 

wasn’t that good of a company commander, but they were—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator REED [continuing]. They did all that, and I was expected 

to be a tactician you know, doing all that stuff. 

But, as I see the principals in my home State—you know, they 

just don’t have the time to be the educational leaders they want 

to be. 

Also, to be honest, some are drawn to the job because they don’t 

have to do educational leadership; and those are people we don’t 

want as principals. 

But, thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

I really do appreciate all of the testimony we’ve heard today. It’s 

been excellent. 

One comment came up earlier in the hearing, regarding the 

length of the school day and year, when our students are looking 

at competing in a global economy today. I’d love to hear your comments on the impact of a longer school day. 

Please. 

Mr. HARRISON. Sure. When you’re behind in math or reading, 

you have to put in the extra time. We have students come in for 

summer school to get caught up, we have students staying until 5 

o’clock, getting tutoring. We have tutoring provided by our teachers. They invest an hour, after school, by department, to catch students up. And it does take time. That’s a factor that should definitely be in the legislation, in terms of really making sure that 

there’s certain protocols in place, particularly time, to catch students up. 

Senator HAGAN. One of the things that I’ve read is that, by the 

time a student graduates in the United States, they are practically 

a year behind their European counterparts, who have had a much 

longer school year. 

Yes. 

Mr. DESHLER. Yes, I would add to what Mr. Harrison said, that, 

yes, if students are behind, we do need more time on task, more 

69 

time in instruction. However, we’ve completed some studies, within 

our research center, that tells us very clearly that we’re not currently using, optimally, the time that we do have. 

Senator HAGAN. So, what do we need to do? 

Mr. DESHLER. Well, just adding extra time is not going to necessarily solve it. We need to, with that time, be adding it—or the 

time we’re using now—is to check, ‘‘How are we using it? How 

much time are students not engaged, or are teachers not engaged, 

in active instruction?’’ so that we’re fully utilizing the available 

time that we have. 

Senator HAGAN. Do you have any examples or recommendations? 

Mr. DESHLER. Sure. Well, in a study that we just completed, 

about 24, 25 percent of time during a classroom period, the teacher 

was not involved in active instruction. They were doing administrative things, e-mail, and so forth. So, I think some of the things, as 

Mr. Capozzi has said—you know, our primary mission is instruction—— 

Senator HAGAN. Right. 

Mr. DESHLER [continuing]. And it’s not all of the administrative 

things that are needed to keep the school moving. But, it is that 

culture that says, ‘‘Our job is instruction,’’ and there are certain 

things that we do during instruction that are paid greater dividends than other things, such as teacher modeling, elaborated feedback, scaffolded learning, and so forth. Then you really see student 

gain. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. Yes, I just wanted to say that my school 

is a turnaround school. We were in the 30 and 40 percentile range 

when I came in as principal. We’re now in the 80s and 90s. We 

didn’t do that by adding any time to the day; in fact, I took away 

programs that were ineffective—Saturday programs that were not 

working, after-school programs that were not working. The emphasis had to be put on a 90-minute block, and what are you actually 

doing with that 90-minute block? How qualified is the person in 

that classroom? So, I don’t think that more is always more. 

Senator HAGAN. Dr. Habit. 

Mr. HABIT. Yes, I’d just agree with what’s been said. More of the 

same is exactly what’s not needed. Some earlier questions from the 

panel had a lot to do with the need to engage young people by redefining what it means to be an effective teacher, which has a lot to 

do with inquiry and classroom collaboration and real-world connections. 

Senator HAGAN. I have one last question. The goal of the earlycollege high schools is to keep the at-risk students in school by 

eliminating the divide between the high school and college, and to 

provide them with the opportunity to excel in a different educational setting. Are there specific criteria that are used to identify 

students who could benefit from attending an early-college high 

school? If so, how can we ensure that we’re targeting the students 

who will actually benefit the most from these programs? 

Mr. HABIT. Well, I’ll respond—— 

Senator HAGAN. OK. 

Mr. HABIT [continuing]. Quickly, because that’s obviously an area 

we’re spending a great deal of time on, along with Cassius and 

Jobs for the Future. 

70 

I think that there is a great deal of conversation about this. 

There are discussions every day; but, generally, they come down to 

this: identifying young people, who, with extra support and extra 

time, can achieve at much higher levels, who have, maybe, not met 

with success in conventional schools, and who were typically the 

first in their family to attend and/or graduate from college. 

If I could add—earlier, you made, Senator, some conversation or, 

comments about the design of this work. We’ve had a history of 

very ad hoc approach to reforms and innovations. When we look at 

early-college in North Carolina, and our other redesigned schools, 

we look at some very tight core design principals, where it’s really 

not a pick-and-choose, it’s a matter of a whole implementation of 

the model, a true fidelity to the set of design principles that are 

associated with highly successful early-colleges. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Well, I thank all of the panel. This was a very instructive session. 

We’ve spent a lot of time, as you know, on elementary and secondary education, but I think we haven’t focused enough, in the 

past—I’m hopeful we’ll do that this year in the reauthorization— 

on the middle-school area. It seems to me that everyone’s saying 

that you can identify these kids, you can find out, when they’re in 

sixth or seventh or eighth grade—you can begin programs, that 

will challenge them and get them on a graduation-rate basis so 

that they’ll be graduating, and that they will be ready for college— 

not just graduating, but they’ll be ready for college or a career. It 

seems to me, you all talked about individual—I was just taking 

notes here—it seemed like everyone talked about the importance of 

individualized kind of focusing, not putting everybody in one big 

group. Well, I suppose that’s kind of tough, to do that, with limited 

resources. But, you all seem to be doing it. There are these schools, 

like Mr. Capozzi’s school and others, if you—not ‘‘if,’’—since what 

you’ve done has been so remarkable, how can we take that model 

and move it around the country? I mean, how do we incentivize? 

You all spoke about initiatives, incentives to get schools to do 

things. So, if there are models, like yours, that are out there, have 

done great things, well, what’s the problem? Even in your home 

State of New York, what’s the problem with taking your model and 

sort of replicating it? Obviously it’s working. Well, why—if you 

can’t do it on a city or county basis, or State basis, how can we do 

that on a national basis? I’m intrigued by this, why we can’t take 

these examples. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Senator Harkin, so am I. When you look on Long 

Island, alone, and you look at minority schools, it really is horrific. 

The graduation rate is 60, 70 percent. My students get 94-percent 

Regents diplomas. We’re at 50 percent advanced Regents diplomas. 

I wish that I had an answer for you, where, ‘‘Why aren’t more people coming to see us?’’ I don’t really know if I want all these people 

to come and see us, but it is being done, and everybody should 

know that. And the foundation is effective instruction in the classroom. 

71 

Mike Schmoker, in his book, ‘‘Results Now,’’ talks about the No. 

1 factor being the effective teacher, and I think that what we need 

to do is get the word out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you really do an outreach to parents, bringing 

them in? And how is that done? Teachers only have so many hours 

a day, you know. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. Well, that’s really two issues. No. 1, I would love 

to have more parent involvement. I believe that the parents of 

Elmont Memorial High School—and it’s been this way my past 18 

years, where they really leave them on the doorstep, trust us and 

say, ‘‘You know what, we trust that you’re going to provide our students with a great education.’’ Well, that’s good; however, I want 

more parent involvement. That’s not good enough. 

The other part is keeping the parents engaged. You know, we 

run title I programs, with parents. We’re a title I school, so we run 

title I programs. It’s not an easy task. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harrison, you wanted to say something 

about this? 

Mr. HARRISON. I think Denver, in Colorado, is a really unique 

place. Denver Public Schools is encouraging the top-performing 

charter schools to replicate, and supporting them in those efforts. 

Really, that question of scale and replication, that’s really hard 

work. But, again, when the district is supporting charter schools to 

replicate to meet the needs of a diverse group of students, I think 

that’s really central. I think the reason why that’s happening is 

that—when Senator Bennet was the superintendent of Denver 

Public Schools, he encouraged principals to go see what’s working. 

So, I’ve hosted a number of district principals, who’ve come to see 

how we do school culture, how we do math instruction. Yesterday, 

I even spent some time in southeast DC, looking at highly-performing charter schools that are doing great things here. Again, 

that learning has to happen, but also there has to be a partnership 

that really allows for highly successful schools to replicate and 

scale, and really providing them with the funding to do so and 

make a larger impact on student achievement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would say two things. From the Federal perspective, nationally, I think there are two roles. 

First of all is to strengthen the supply of these quality options— 

and they’re here, they’re out there, they’re here at this table, 

they’re here beyond this table—and strengthen the role—the supply, rather—and recognize there’s an important role to play for the 

Federal Government in inventing new models and strategies for 

some of the intractable issues that we still haven’t had a lot of success with. 

It’s like my father used to say, ‘‘Know what you know, and know 

what you don’t know.’’ What we don’t know, we need to get to the 

business of inventing solutions for that. 

The second piece for the Federal, nationally, I think, is to use the 

formal grant-making process as a lever to get States and districts 

to look for strategies and look for these type of solutions, and to 

install them in their communities throughout the country. I think 

we see, through the Race to the Top competition, through the 

School Improvement Grant competition they are already funding 

72 

that States are reacting to this. We can have a conversation, another day, about whether this is the right set of strategies as such. 

But, the fact of the matter is, we are seeing tremendous activities 

in the department of education, in districts, collaborating in ways 

we’ve never seen before. I think that it’s an important and an instructive set of activities as we move forward with this reauthorization. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, hopefully within the next month or so, 

we’re going to have States agree to a common core of standards. 

We haven’t had that for a long time—well, we’ve never had that. 

So, maybe you’re right, maybe we’re getting to a thing where more 

and more States are saying, you know, there’s a place for innovation and change, there’s a lot of different models, but there ought 

to be some core standards that everybody adheres to. Hopefully 

we’ll have that soon. 

Yes, Ms. N’Dour. 

Ms. WEBBER-N’DOUR. I just wanted to say that—you asked what 

it is that we need to replicate—it’s really the people, that we have 

to replicate. The model, the type, the form, none of that matters 

if you don’t have the right person at the helm. Then we really are 

talking about trying to get people to understand what it is that Mr. 

Capozzi does, or what it is that Mr. Harrison does, or who he is. 

What qualities does he bring with him? What expectations does he 

have for his students? How does he select teachers? It can’t rest 

with the teachers, because there are 40 or 50 of them. It has to rest 

with the principal and their ability to select, their ability to understand culture, their children, and so on and so forth. It really boils 

down to the principal. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Capozzi. 

Mr. CAPOZZI. I applaud the national standards. I was thinking a 

lot about it, and if we don’t have teachers who can teach to the national standards effectively, if they’re not teaching to our standards 

now, that will be a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, does that get back to just making sure we 

get the best and brightest into education? I was looking at, what 

was it Finland? Finland, where they go to their secondary schools 

and they find the brightest kids, kids that are really doing well, not 

just academically, but show leadership examples, things like that. 

They groom them to be teachers. They provide them with support, 

they send them to college, they pay their way, they make them 

stars. They become, sort of, the creme de la creme. And they become the teachers. 

We don’t do that in this country. I said, the other day—this’ll be 

the last thing. When I was a Congressman, a House Member, a 

Senator—you know who I’d come across as the brightest, most 

goal-oriented, leader, leadership-quality-type students in our 

schools? Who do you think they are? They’re the kids who apply 

to go to the military academies. I tell you, I see these kids—they’re 

smart—you should see it. I mean, it’s hard—they’re all 4.0 students. But, not only that—it’s not just that they do well on tests, 

they have to be involved in the YMCA, they have to be on the 

sports team, maybe even acting, maybe the school plays, they’re involved in extracurricular activities, maybe with their church. They 

put all that together. These kids, I’m telling you, they’re really 

73 

good. They’re smart, they’re leaders, and they’re going to the Air 

Force Academy, Naval Academy, West Point, Merchant Marine 

Academy. They know they’re going to get a good education. They’re 

going to be challenged. They’re going to be identified as a special 

kind of a person. But, I went and looked back. Of all the kids I’ve 

gotten appointed through to the academies in all my years here, 

somewhere around 7 or 8 out of 10 don’t stay in the military. 

They’re there for their 4 years or 5 years, or whatever their obligation is, and then they’re out. And they go on to become business 

leaders and community leaders and everything else. 

Seems to me we ought to have that kind of a system for educators, to try to get into our schools, to have the best and the 

brightest—like have our academies have them apply, and pay their 

way through school, send them to the best schools, give them the 

best support. You know, there’s no debt when you come out of the 

Air Force Academy, and you’ve got a great education—or Naval— 

Air, Navy, Army—they’re all great education systems. I’m just wondering if we shouldn’t be thinking about that, to find these kids in 

high school, groom them through. I don’t know, it’s just an idea I 

have. 

Yes. 

Mr. HABIT. I’m just very excited about your observation. We have 

had a series of study visits from North Carolina to different countries, and one of those was to Singapore, to look at how they approach the building of top teachers and top leaders in their schools. 

It is a remarkable example of being singularly focused on quality. 

And, as you suggested, they go in and recruit the top 20 to 30 percent into their schools of education, and pay their tuition while 

they’re there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where is this? 

Mr. HABIT. Singapore. 

The CHAIRMAN. Singapore. 

Mr. HABIT. When you talk to the young people in the Singaporean colleges who are enrolled in their schools of education and colleges of education, they are very, very capable of talking about how 

to meet the individual needs of students. 

The last observation I’ll make of that is that, in Singapore, the 

approach to identify top candidates for principalship isn’t the 

choice of the teacher who goes into a master’s program; it’s really 

the choice of the search for top teacher-leaders, in schools, who are 

observed in classrooms, and then they are invited to apply into a 

program to prepare them to be leaders. 

What, in effect, happens is, you have the top candidates moving 

into teaching and the top in natural leaders among those faculties 

moving into the principalship. It is a beautiful model that should 

be studied here. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just asked them to get me stuff on Singapore. 

Find out about that. 

Mr. HABIT. We have a study we can send you—if it would be 

helpful to you—by one of our organizations in North Carolina, the 

Public School Forum of North Carolina. It’s online. The report can 

be downloaded. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to find out more. 

74 

Well, our time has expired. Thank you all very much, this was 

really, really great. 

Now, I will leave the record open for 10 days for other questions 

that may come in, but I also ask all of you to continue to follow 

our debates and deliberations on the ESEA, as we go forward, continue to give us your thoughts and suggestions. 

We have set up a separate e-mail site for this. It’s just ESEA 

comments@help.senate.gov. We’re trying to just keep that separate, 

just for comments and stuff on Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. 

My only closing comment here would be that someone kept mentioning AYPs. Believe me, if there’s one thing I know we’re going 

to change, it’s how AYPs are judged, rather than, ‘‘How close are 

you getting to some unattainable goal?’’ ‘‘How far have you come 

from a base measurement?’’ And that’s true for making sure—we’re 

going to differentiate groups, too. One of the things I focus on are 

kids with disabilities and rather than seeing how far they drag 

them down, I want to know how far you’re bringing them up. You 

know? When you’ve got 60 to 70 percent of people with disabilities 

unemployed, and they want to work, and they have abilities, something’s wrong. That is one area to focus on, to find out how we 

bring them up, rather than just how far are they dragging you 

down. 

Thank you all. You’re a wonderful panel. Thank you. I appreciate 

it very much. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.] 

75 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

WHAT’S EVIDENCE GOT TO DO WITH IT? AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF 

RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL BEHAVIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES 

BY JAKE CORNETT

COPYRIGHT 2010

Submitted to the graduate degree program in Special Education and the Graduate 

Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 

the degree of Master’s of Science in Education. 

CHAIRPERSON, DONALD D. DESHLER, PH.D. 

THOMAS M. SKRTIC, PH.D. 

B. KEITH LENZ, PH.D. 

The Thesis Committee for Jake Cornett certifies that this is the approved version 

of the following thesis: What’s Evidence Got To Do With It? An Observational Study 

Of Research-Based Instructional Behavior In High School Classes 

Committee: Chairperson, Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.; Thomas M. Skrtic, Ph.D.; B. 

Keith Lenz, Ph.D. 

Date approved: April 27, 2010 

ABSTRACT

This study examined typical instruction and management in general education 

classes that are co-taught by a special educator (co-taught CWC), general education 

classes that are taught by a special educator (adapted), and resource room instruction by a special educator. Over 3 days, 12 teachers in a middle class urban high 

school were observed using momentary time sampling relative to four foci: student 

engagement, transition time, learning arrangement, and instructional activity. On 

average, across the three settings students were on-task 83.9 percent of all intervals, in transition 4.4 percent of intervals, and teachers were disengaged from instruction during 23.2 percent. Whole group instruction, the least differentiated and 

effective mode of instruction, consumed the largest portion of observation intervals. 

If effective differentiated instructional practice is the sine qua non of providing students with disabilities access to general education curriculum, the data provide little 

evidence to suggest that appropriate instructional practice is frequently used. 

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires 

that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment 

(LRE). Moreover, amendments made to IDEA during the 1997 reauthorization require that every individualized educational plan (IEP) include how the student will 

progress in the general education curriculum. However, disagreement about how to 

interpret access to ‘‘the general education curriculum’’ (IDEA, 1997) has dogged the 

disability community; especially for students whose need for support is not as great, 

including students with learning disabilities. Greater clarity for integrating students 

with disabilities into the general education curriculum came with passage of IDEA 

amendments during the 2004 reauthorization (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, IDEA, 2004). As Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, and 

Bovaird (2007) noted, ‘‘IDEA requires that the IEPs of all students receiving special 

education services . . . identify specific accommodations and curriculum modifications 

to ensure student involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum’’ (p. 101). 

According to the Digest of Education Statistics, approximately 13.4 percent of students enrolled in public schools in the U.S. receive special education services (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Among students to be given access to the general education 

curriculum under the IDEA, the largest categorical group is students with a specific 

learning disability (LD) (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). LD is defined as, 

Having a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved 

in understanding or in using spoken or written language, which may manifest 

itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do 

mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual disVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
76 

abilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental 

aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which 

are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004). 

The meaning of ‘‘access to the general education curriculum’’ is not well understood, however. Central issue in the debate over the meaning of access are physical 

placement and who delivers content (Daniel & King, 1998). Concerns about physical 

placement are focused on the type of classroom where students with disabilities are 

educated (e.g., regular, resource room, segregated, etc.). Concerns about who teaches 

the content are focused on questions of instructional training and certification (e.g., general education teacher, special educator, paraprofessional). Although this debate 

has continued among scholars, special education administrators appear increasingly 

to favor more integrated settings for students with mild disabilities (Waldron & 

McLeskey, 1998; Snyder & Dillow, 2010). For example, we have seen marked decreases over the past twenty years in the amount of time students with disabilities 

spend outside of general classrooms (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Whereas in 1989, 31.7 

percent of students with disabilities spent 80 percent or more of the school day in 

general education classrooms, by 2007 the number of students doing so had grown 

to 56.8 percent (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Because students with disabilities spend 

larger portion of the school day inside general education these classroom are more 

academically diverse today than at anytime in the preceding 20 years. 

Unfortunately, receiving less attention in the debate on access to the general education curriculum is concern for instructional practice. That is, how curricular content is delivered and what instructional supports are provided to ensure students 

are benefiting from instruction. This latter concern for instructional practice should 

be a primary concern. This is not to question the importance of physical inclusion, 

but inclusive education is merely a half-victory for disability advocates if the only 

benefit is the reduction of social stigma. Students with disabilities should realize 

both academic and social benefits as a result of inclusion. This is the real meaning 

of gaining access to the general education curriculum. Accomplishing this requires 

greater focus on academic achievement and classroom instruction, especially at the 

high school level where student achievement appears to be stagnant. 

The academic achievement of 17-year olds taking the 2008 National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading did not differ from 2004 or 1971 

(Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009). Likewise, 2008 NAEP mathematics scores for 17- 

year olds did not differ from 2004 and only marginal increases were observed since 

1978 (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009). Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993) provide 

insight on the lack of progress in American education by distinguishing between distal and proximal variables. Distal variables, like state, district, and school level policy and demographics, are at least one step removed from the daily learning experiences of students. However, distal variables are the target of most educational innovation and attention in the U.S. As Wang et al. explain, ‘‘implementing a policy of 

maximized learning time, for example, does not guarantee that students in a given 

classroom will receive instruction from a teacher who plans lessons with special attention to eliminating poor management practices and inefficient use of time’’ (p. 

276). Proximal variables like curriculum, instruction, and assessment that directly 

impact teaching and learning have a more immediate and direct influence on student achievement (Wang et al., 1993). These proximal variables are the epicenter 

of the instructional core of education. The stagnation of high school NAEP scores, 

some suggest, is due, at least in part, to a lack of focus on the instructional core 

of education (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009). 

According to City et al. (2009), ‘‘in its simplest terms, the instructional core is 

composed of the teacher and the student in the presence of content’’ (p. 22). Outside 

the instructional core are the student’s home life; school governance, financing, and 

administration; and peer effects. Using hierarchical linear modeling to estimate 

variance in student achievement in New Zealand, Hattie (2003) found that teachers 

account for approximately 30 percent of the total variance in achievement while the 

students account for approximately 50 percent and their home life, school, and peers 

account for 15 to 30 percent. What teachers know and how they instruct are powerful predictors of student achievement. Beyond what students arrive prepared to do, 

teacher effects are the largest single contributor to student achievement. 

The importance of the instructional core is central to student learning because 

teaching is the moderation of learning between a knowledgeable source (e.g., teachers, books, etc.) and a novice learner (i.e., student). In essence, learning itself is encapsulated within the instructional core. As such, there are three ways to manipulate the teaching and learning enterprise: (a) change the content to be learned, (b) 

change the student, or (c) change teaching. In the U.S., control over content is decentralized such that state and local education agencies determine what will be 

77 

taught in public schools. Likewise, it appears untenable to change the student. Although much can be done to improve the school readiness of academically disadvantaged and at-risk students, social and cultural politics are a formidable barrier to 

doing much more in this regard. Therefore, educational improvement must be driven by the third component of the instructional core, the teacher. How teachers manipulate content to make it more accessible and thereby mediate content for the student, largely determines academic success (Hattie, 1999; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). 

Teachers impact student academic success by the control they exercise over a series of closely coordinated instructional activities and management strategies. Combining these in such a way that meaningful access to the general curriculum is 

achieved for all students, regardless of current skill, requires careful consideration 

of four separate yet interrelated categories of instruction and management foci: student engagement, transition time, learning arrangement of students, and instructional activity. In order to meet the needs of all learners, high school teachers must 

effectively use the instructional period, keep students engaged, create opportunities 

for individualized learning, and match instructional activities to the skill level of 

students. Given the importance of these four foci to the teaching and learning enterprise, and their centrality to this study, they warrant closer examination. 

Student Engagement 

Research on classroom management indicates a variety of instructional activities 

and classroom management techniques can reduce the likelihood of student problem 

behavior and enhance student achievement (Doyle, 1986). McNamara and Jolly 

(1990a; 1990b) investigated ways to increase on-task behavior while reducing offtask and disruptive behaviors of 12 and 13-year old students, they concluded that, 

‘‘when disruptive behavior is dealt with by the promotion of on-task behaviors then 

all types of off-task behavior, from innocuous to grossly disruptive, are reduced’’ 

(1990b, p. 248). When off-task and disruptive behavior are reduced, the opportunity 

for student learning increases. Doyle (1986) made clear the link between the learning arrangement of the students and engagement when summarizing the research 

of several leading scholars (Gump, 1967; Kounin, 1970; Rosinshine, 1980). In general, Doyle concluded that student engagement was highest in teacher led small 

groups and lowest in unsupervised seatwork. 

Transitioning Between Activities 

While students transition between places, activities, phases of a lesson, or lessons 

there is great opportunity for wasted time and off-task behavior; moreover, there is 

little opportunity for student learning. Transition periods are lost instructional time 

that teachers should endeavor to reduce. Research in elementary classrooms has 

found that approximately 31 transitions occur daily accounting for about 15 percent 

of classroom time (Burns, 1984; Gump, 1967). In high school classrooms, much less 

is known about the frequency or duration of transitions. However, it is commonly 

assumed that because the seating structure or ‘‘room arrangements in secondary 

classes typically remain the same across activities, major transitions take less time’’ 

(Doyle, 1986, p. 406). Also, whereas the instructional period in elementary schools 

is typically 6-hours, in high schools each period is 45 to 90 minutes; when the instructional period is shorter there should be fewer discrete tasks and less need for 

multiple transitions during a single instructional period. Therefore, transitions in 

high school classrooms should take less time (Doyle, 1986) and be fewer in number. 

Learning Arrangement 

Although whole or large group instruction is most prevalent in high schools, it is 

not regarded as an appropriate learning arrangement for extended periods of time 

in academically diverse classrooms (Hughes & Archer, in press). During whole group 

instruction, the teacher gears the lesson to the average ability of the students in 

the classroom, assuming to thereby meet the educational need of the greatest number of students (Ornstein, 1995). This type of instruction is thought to be an economical and convenient format of teaching large quantities of new information, especially to large class sizes. However, students within high school classrooms have 

diverse academic needs, and whole group instruction only meets the needs of the 

few students whose ability is at the middle of the group average. 

Small group learning allows students to excise different skills not used in whole 

or large group instruction. Cohen (1994) found that students who worked well together in small groups were better able to manage competition and conflict among 

team members, listen to and combine different points of view, construct meaning, 

78 

1The term ‘‘ability grouping’’ implies that current assessment and group assignment is intrinsic, immutable, and a permanent reflection on the individual’s potential to learn. The term ‘‘skill 

grouping,’’ however, suggests that current ability bear no reflection on the individual’s intelligence or ability to learn. Therefore, skill grouping should be considered the preferable term 

such that grouping is not implied to be a reflection on an individual’s potential for academic 

success or ability to learn. Further, skill grouping should not be a semester-long assignment for 

the student. Instead, for a struggling student, skill grouping should be used to remediate the 

skill rapidly then shift the student out of the lowest skill group. Although skill grouping is the 

preferable term the researcher’s term will be used here. 

and provide support to one another. The most common means of creating small 

groups is within-class ability grouping, also referred to as skill grouping.1

Chorzempa and Graham (2006) surveyed a random sample of primary teachers 

from across the U.S. and found that 63% of the respondents used ability grouping 

in their classroom. Research suggests that two or three homogeneous ability groups 

within one classroom is better than a larger number of very small groups because 

it permits frequent and extended monitoring and feedback by the teacher, reduces 

transition times, and limits time spent on individual seatwork (Hiebert, 1983; Webb 

& Farivar, 1994). Moreover, students in each skill group should be carefully and frequently monitored such that regrouping is common. When heterogeneous classes are 

split into small homogeneous learning groups then students academically benefit, 

especially struggling students, in the content areas of reading and mathematics 

(Gamoran, 1992; Oakes, 1987; Slavin, 1989). 

Instructional Activity 

Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) synthesized the work of several leading scholars 

(Gagne ́, 1970; Good & Grouws, 1979; Hunter & Russell, 1981) on effective teaching 

practice to create a list of six ‘‘fundamental instructional ‘functions’ ’’ (p. 379). These 

functions are, 

1. review, check previous day’s work (and reteach, if necessary) 

2. present new content/skill 

3. guided student practice (and check for understanding) 

4. feedback and correctives (and reteach, if necessary) 

5. independent student practice 

6. weekly and monthly reviews (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986, p. 379). 

Across these six functions are six instructional practices. These practices are presenting new information, describing new skills, monitoring, providing feedback, reteaching, and scaffolding supports toward student mastery. Within each of these six 

practices are several instructional activities that are used by teachers; instructional 

activity is one of the foci of this study. Assessing student knowledge is an instructional activity associated with Rosenshine and Stevens’ (1986) first and sixth functions. Assessing student knowledge and checking for understanding is an important 

instructional activity to monitor mastery of new skills, identify struggling students, 

and pinpoint what learning process was not mastered during initial teaching. Broadly, there are two types of assessments: formative and summative. Formative assessments are not for credit but rather are intended to inform future instruction by rapidly identifying current level of mastery and specific skills that a student did not 

grasp. Formative assessments are also referred to as progress monitoring assessment. Summative assessments include tests and quizzes intended to measure 

knowledge and assign credit based on that measurement. Both formative and 

summative, can be used to inform future instruction, provide feedback to students, 

and identify skills that need to be re-taught. Assessments of learning are key to effective instructional practice. 

Reviews should be guided by results from formal assessments. Often, reviewing 

past content is used as an activity to re-teach and monitor student knowledge 

(Hughes & Archer, in press). Reviewing can focus on fact or concept recall, ability 

to manipulate or generalize previous learning to novel situations, or processes for 

learning that include broad skills (e.g., summarizing) or strategies (e.g., comparing 

concepts or writing paragraphs). Research indicates that reviewing and summarizing the key information from a lesson is associated with increased student 

achievement (Armento, 1976; Wright & Nuthall, 1970). Moreover, review activities 

can be used to re-teach content that was not mastered during initial teaching and 

learning. Reviewing past content is an opportunity to provide feedback to students 

and assess current knowledge. 

Four instructional activities used when initially presenting new information or 

skills are lecturing, describing, giving directions, and modeling. These instructional 

activities are associated with Rosenshine and Stevens’ (1986) second function. These 

four activities are all led by the teacher and are typically characterized by the teachVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
79 

er talking to the class. Lecturing is thought to be an efficient way to present large 

blocks of information to students. When teachers lecture, students are typically instructed to take copious notes as the main method of learning the content. However, 

although commonly used, this is a passive learning process that may lead to disengagement and confusion on behalf of the student. Rarely is extended periods of 

lecture preferable to other instructional activities. 

Monitoring students is an instructional practice associated with Rosenshine and 

Stevens’ (1986) third function. Teachers monitor students using a variety of instructional activities including multiple types of questioning, physically observing student work, and listening to students’ academic talk while working in small groups. 

Effective teachers use these monitoring activities to assess student understanding 

of new content, provide correction or feedback, reteach, and adjust future instruction 

(Hughes & Archer, in press; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). Research has shown that 

when teachers circulate the classroom to physically observe student performance 

student engagement increases (Fisher et al., 1978), academic achievement may be 

bolstered (Evertson, Anderson, & Brophy, 1978), the pace of the lesson is maintained (Doyle, 1984; Evertson & Emmer, 1982), and a clear message is sent to the 

student that the teacher is available to help. 

Giving feedback is an instructional practice associated with Rosenshine and Stevens’ (1986) fourth function. In his meta-analysis of more than 180,000 studies, encompassing 450,000 effect sizes, on the effects of instruction on student achievement, Hattie (1999) found that ‘‘the most powerful single moderator that enhances 

achievement is feedback’’ (p. 9). According to Hattie, feedback is providing information about how and why a student understands, and next steps the student should 

take to continue toward mastery. There are multiple instructional activities associated with feedback. Hattie and Timperley (2007) examined other types of feedback 

and found them to be powerful moderators of student achievement also, but not all 

types were equally powerful. Notably, reinforcing student success, giving corrective 

feedback, and remediating feedback were shown to positively impact student 

achievement with average effect sizes of 1.13, 0.94, and 0.65, respectively (Hattie, 

1999). 

Missing from the list of six instructional functions and practices synthesized by 

Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) is modeling and graphic organizers. Although they 

do include modeling ‘‘the skill or process (when appropriate)’’ as one element of presenting new skills or processes (p. 381), they fail to emphasize the importance of 

modeling at various stages of learning and to differentiate between explicit and implicit modeling as separate instructional activities. As an instructional activity, explicit modeling has two components—physical demonstration of the steps or procedure and verbalizing the meta-cognitive thought process used to guide actions. Implicit modeling is teacher demonstration of the steps or procedures without verbalizing the meta-cognitive process. Research indicates that students with disabilities 

may not use self-talk to guide performance on academic tasks (Warner, Schumaker, 

Alley, & Deshler, 1989). Therefore, educators need to teach both the procedural 

steps of completing a task and the meta-cognitive process that guides self-talk and 

leads to successful completion. In other words, they need to both present and make 

explicit the thought process used by skilled learners. Such explicit modeling is key 

to the academic success of students, especially those who struggle with information 

processing, and those with LD (Gildroy, 2001). Given the diverse levels of academic 

skill found in most high school classrooms, explicit modeling is almost always appropriate as an instructional activity when presenting new skills or processes. 

Graphic organizers are a visual representation of ideas or concepts intended to 

show relationships and demonstrate the organization of concepts (e.g., hierarchical 

lists, flowcharts, outlines, concept maps). Graphic organizers are used for many purposes, including as reading enhancement (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Dunston, 1992; 

Griffin & Tulbert, 1995; Robinson, 1998; Vekiri, 2002), a mathematical problemsolving tool (Ives & Hoy, 2003), note taking strategy (Katayama & Crooks, 2003; 

Katayama & Robinson, 2000), and an accommodation for students with disabilities 

(Boudah, Lenz, Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2000; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; 

Horton, Lovitt, & Bergerud, 1990; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004). Evidence 

suggests that graphic organizers aid in comprehension by providing students a 

method to organize new information and understand the interconnections between 

newly learned and recently learned knowledge (Alvermann, 1981; Robinson & 

Kiewra, 1995). Stone’s (1983) meta-analysis of the effects of graphic organizers presented in advance of the lesson found that long-term learning was on average .66 

standard deviations better. Furthermore, when an organizer is provided at the beginning of the lesson it can help students with disabilities retain more of the information presented (Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987). 

80 

Purpose of Study 

There is little known about differences in classroom instruction and management 

among general education classes that are co-taught by a special educator (co-taught 

CWC), general education classes that are taught by a special educator (adapted), 

and resource room instruction by a special educator (resource room). Given the literature on effective instructional practices and activities, the purpose of this study 

was to systematically catalogue how teachers instruct students in these settings by 

observing how they manage and use the instructional period relative to four foci: 

student engagement, learning arrangement, transition time, and instructional activity. The goal of this study was to understand typical and routine instruction and 

management in high school classrooms that promote access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. 

CHAPTER II—METHODOLOGY

Setting and Participants 

Teachers in one public high school serving grades nine through twelve participated in this study. Within the school district this high school has a reputation for 

high academic achievement. The high school is located in a large urban city in the 

Midwestern United States with an approximate population of 350,000. The student 

population served by this high school is best characterized as middle class with 31.9 

percent of the students eligible for free or reduced meals (NCES, 2009). Among the 

students who attend the high school, 3.0 percent are American Indian or Alaskan 

Native, 3.8 percent are Asian or Pacific Islander, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 14.7 

percent are African-American, and 68.2 percent are Caucasian (NCES, 2009). All 

teachers observed had at least 5 years of teaching experience and were certified in 

the area observed. 

Three types of instructional settings were observed: adapted classrooms, co-taught 

class-within-a-classroom (CWC), and resource rooms. Adapted classes use the same 

curriculum as regular education classes; however, the instructor is a certified special 

educator and all students enrolled in the class are qualified for special education 

services. McCall and Skrtic (in press) have referred to these classes as ‘‘special regular classrooms.’’ The number of students in these adapted classrooms is slightly 

fewer than in general education classrooms; this is intended to allow the special educator opportunity for more individualized instruction and greater student participation. Students in these adapted classrooms receive credit that applies toward 

earning a regular diploma. 

CWC classrooms are co-taught by a general education teacher and a certified special educator (Hudson, 1990; Schulte, Osborne, & McKinney, 1990). In these classes, 

the general educator was primarily responsible for teaching the content with the 

special educator acting in a support capacity. The special educator would circulate 

the room providing assistance to individual students and would occasionally engage 

in whole group teaching to augment the general educator’s instruction. Resource 

classrooms are taught by a certified special education teacher; all students enrolled 

in the class are qualified for special education services (Wiederholdt, 1974). Resource classrooms do not follow the general education curriculum but rather are intended to support individual student needs or small homogeneous groups of students. The number of students in these resource classrooms is very few, ranging 

from two to six at any given time. Special educators in these classrooms are expected to augment prior general education instruction received in content areas by 

tutoring students, pre-, and/or re-teaching information, and working on other skills 

as needed (e.g., organizational strategies for assignments, note taking, learning 

strategies). 

Measurement Instrument 

There is little known about differences in classroom instruction and management 

among co-taught CWC, adapted, and resource room settings. Given the literature on 

effective instructional practices and activities, the purpose of this study was to systematically catalogue how teachers instruct students in these settings by observing 

how they manage and use the instructional period relative to the four foci. The goal 

of this study was to understand typical and routine instruction and management 

in high school classrooms that promote access to the general curriculum for students 

with disabilities. 

There were four foci of the observation instrument. The first concern was to determine the level of student engagement. Student engagement is the amount of time 

students are on-task and involved in the assigned instructional activity. The second 

focus was to determine what portion of each class period was spent in major transitions. Major transitions are those transitions that occur while the class moves beVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
81 

tween places, activities, phases of a lesson, or lessons. The third focus was to determine the learning arrangement of the classroom. Several types of learning arrangements are possible, ranging from whole group instruction to independent work being 

completed by one student. The fourth focus was to determine the proportion of engaged time spent in each of 30 types of instructional activity appropriate for high 

school identified on the observational instrument. See Appendix B for the observation instrument. 

To develop the teacher observation instrument, a comprehensive literature search 

was conducted to identify empirical and prescriptive literature regarding instructional practice appropriate for secondary classrooms. Beginning with ERIC, 

PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstract International online databases, the following 

keyword search terms were used: instructional practice, instructional method, teaching method, classroom instruction, and inclusion teaching. From this corpus of literature, seminal articles were identified and used for ancestral searches. Further, 

the three most recent editions of the Handbook of Research on Teaching was care- fully examined (Gage, 1965; Richardson, 2001; Wittrock, 1986). 

Culled from this literature base were 142 instructional and management activities. For each activity, a brief definition was written based upon the literature and 

printed onto 3-inch by 5-inch index cards. These index cards were then sorted into 

categories such that similar instructional and management activities were grouped 

together. After initial sorting was complete, some categories were combined due to 

their extreme similarity. Then, a description and operational definition was written 

for each instructional and management activity. These categories were presented to 

an expert panel with extensive background in conducting intervention research and 

teaching in inclusive settings. The panel had nine members, five of the nine hold 

doctorates in education or developmental psychology while the remaining four each 

have 15 or more years experience teaching students with disabilities in inclusive 

high schools. The panel was asked to (a) identify any missing instructional activities, (b) provide references for those activities, (c) critique the description and operational definition of the activities, and (d) offer advice on the organization, categorization, or elimination of the categories of activities. 

Based upon the literature and this expert advice, the following categories and subcategories of activities were identified. Presented below is a brief description for 

each category; the operational definitions used as decision criteria by both observers 

when using the observation instrument can be found in Appendix A. 

Student On-Task. Student on-task was a dichotomous category; either the student 

was on- or off-task during the observation interval. On-task was recorded when the 

students were engaged in an instructional activity. Off-task was recorded when the 

students were not engaged, misbehaving, or out of the room. 

Learning Arrangement. Learning arrangement consisted of six subcategories. The 

subcategories were whole group instruction, large group instruction, small group instruction, individual teacher led instruction, student peer pairs, and individual-independent work. 

Transition Time. Transition time was a dichotomous category; either occurring or 

not during the observation interval. Transition time was recorded when the students were shifting between classroom activities. 

Instructional Activity. Instructional activity consisted of 30 subcategories of activities and a not-engaged observational option. The subcategories of instructional activity were lecture, describe, two types of modeling, two types of giving directions, six 

types of monitoring, three types of reviews, two types of feedback, three types of 

graphic organizers, six reading activities, three types of formal assessment, and 

video. An additional not engaged time category was used to capture off-task teacher 

behavior during respective instructional activities. 

Procedures 

Two independent observers conducted the observations over a three-day time period; one served as the primary data collector and the second as the inter-observer 

agreement data collector. Both observers were trained on data collection procedures 

of momentary time sampling (MTS). First, both observers read and discussed the 

operational definition for each category of time-on-task, learning arrangement, transition time, and instructional activity. Second, both observers practiced data collection using the observation form in two classrooms in an urban public high school. 

Third, observers practiced recording the data using publicly available video recordings of students not involved in this study. Once the two observers were in 90 percent agreement in each of the four foci, data collection was scheduled. 

Data collection was conducted in real-time using MTS beginning when the teacher 

began instruction and ending when the teacher stopped instruction. Partial interval 

recording (PIR) and MTS are two commonly used time sampling methods in eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
82 

cational observation research. Both methods divide large blocks of time (e.g., a class 

period) into a number of small segments (e.g., 30 seconds). The small segment becomes the time sampling interval whereby behavior occurrence or nonoccurrence is 

coded based upon the pre-determined decision criteria described previously. Data is 

collected during each interval in each of the four foci. 

PIR and MTS differ by virtue of when the behavior is observed and coded and 

what decision rule is used to guide this. When PIR is used, the observer records 

the behavior if it occurs at least once during the interval period. In other words, 

the observer behaves like a video recorder, capturing behavior during the entire 

sampling interval (e.g., 30 seconds). If the behavior is observed at all, the behavior 

is recorded. However, when MTS is used, the observer records the behavior that occurs the moment the sampling interval begins. In other words, the observer behaves 

like a still camera, capturing behavior at the beginning of the sampling interval. 

The first behavior observed is the only behavior recorded. Neither PIR nor MTS are 

concerned with frequency or duration of individual behavior within each interval; 

only one behavior is recorded each sampling interval. 

In this study, MTS was used to estimate percentage of time (a) on-task, (b) spent 

in each learning arrangement, (c) lost in transitions between instructional activities, 

and (d) used for each instructional activity. Each of these four foci were recorded 

every 30-second observation interval. The research comparing PIR and MTS has determined that PIR overestimates time percentage of behavior whereas MTS gives 

a reasonably accurate estimate of behavior when brief intervals (30 seconds or less) 

are used (Gardenier, MacDonald, & Green, 2004; Murphy & Goodall, 10980; Powell, 

Martindale, Kulp, Martindale, & Bauman, 1977; Tyler, 1979). 

The two observers arrived prior to the start of class and occupied seats in the rear 

of the classroom where they would not interfere with instruction but could see every 

student. Each observer sat with a data collection sheet and a clipboard in their lap, 

and a pen in hand. A digital 30-second repeating countdown clock was positioned 

near the two observers. When the teacher began class (e.g., asking students to sit 

or beginning to instruct) the clock was started. Once the clock reached zero, the two 

observers looked at the teacher and designated student, then recorded whether the 

student met the criteria for on-task behavior, what the learning arrangement of the 

class was, if the transition criteria was met, and what instructional activity was 

used by the teacher. The repeating countdown clock automatically reset to 30 after 

each interval and began counting down again. After recording the behavior, the observers watched the clock until it reached zero again, this process was repeated in 

each classroom until the instructor ended the class period. 

When rating student time on-task, both observers began with the student in the 

front-left seat of the class, then worked their way across the first row of students, 

and then began the second row continuing until every student had been observed 

and rated on the observation sheet. Only one student was scored during each time 

interval. Once all students had been scored, the observers began again at the beginning front-left seat and would repeat this until the class ended. Both observers took 

care to ensure they were observing and rating the same student during each time 

interval. See Appendix B for the observation instrument sheet. 

Inter-Observer Reliability 

To determine inter-observer agreement, the two data collectors independently observed and scored 98.7 percent of the time sample intervals. Inter-observer percent 

reliability agreement was calculated using the following formula: Percent Reliability 

= (Number of Agreements / Number of Agreements + Disagreements) X 100. Interobserver agreement across all intervals was 95.6 percent reliability. When both observers did not agree, the data was removed from analysis such that all results presented below represent 100 percent agreement between the two observers. 

CHAPTER III—RESULTS

Results will be presented beginning with student on-task behavior and major 

transitions then continue with results from the learning arrangement and instructional activity. In each of the three sections that follow, data from all classrooms 

in all settings is summarized first; then results from each of the three types of settings are presented. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was calculated to compare 

the observation data collected in the three instructional settings for percentage of 

time intervals that students were on-task. A second one-way between subjects 

ANOVA was calculated to compare the observation data collected in the three instructional settings for percentage of time intervals that major transitions occurred. 

However, no statistical test of mean difference was used for learning arrangement 

83 

or instructional activity due to inadequate power. Instead, these comparisons are 

presented descriptively. 

On-Task Behavior and Major Transitions 

Observations across all classrooms and settings indicated that on average students were on-task 83.9 percent of all intervals. A one-way between-subjects 

ANOVA indicated there was no significant difference in percent of time on-task between the three instructional settings, F(2, 87) = 2.79, p > .05. See Table 1 for the 

mean percentage and standard deviation of on-task intervals in each type of setting 

(i.e., adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room). 

In all settings, observations suggest that very little time was lost in major transitions during the class period. Transition time accounted for 4.4 percent of all intervals, which is markedly less time than Burns’ (1984) and Gump’s (1967) 15 percent 

of classroom time. Further, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA indicated that there 

was no significant difference in major transition time between the three instructional settings, F(2, 87) = 1.41, p > .05. See Table 1 for the mean percentage and 

standard deviations of major transition intervals in each type of setting (i.e., adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room). 

Table 1 

Mean percentage of intervals of student time on-task and major transitions for adapted, 

co-taught CWC, and resource room settings 

Observation Code 

Adapted 

(N = 4 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Co-Taught CWC 

(N = 5 Classes) 

Mean (SD) 

Resource Room 

(N = 3 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

On-Task ................................................................................................ 82.2(16.2) 81.6 (12.6) 89.9(11.9) 

Transition ............................................................................................. 6.0(18.6) 5.4 (9.4) 0.5(1.5) 

Learning Arrangement 

Table 2 shows the mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in all classrooms and settings arranged the students in the six formats. Students in these 

classes spent the largest portion of observation intervals in whole group instruction 

(47.2) and the second largest in independent work (33.3). During observations, 

teachers did not instruct students to work with one peer in any classroom. Teachers 

spent less than 10 percent of time intervals in each of the remaining instructional 

arrangement with 1.1 percent of intervals in small group learning. 

Table 2 

Mean percentage of intervals, standard deviation, and rank of each learning arrangement across all classrooms 

Learning Arrangement Mean 

Percentage SD Rank 

Whole Group ....................................................................................................................... 47.2 44.7 1 

Independent ....................................................................................................................... 33.3 41.1 2 

Large Group ....................................................................................................................... 9.6 28.1 3 

Teacher Led 1-1 ................................................................................................................. 8.9 24.6 4 

Small Group ....................................................................................................................... 1.1 10.5 5 

Peer Pairs ........................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 6 

Table 3 shows the mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in each classroom setting arranged learning. In each of the three settings, whole group instruction consumed the largest portion of observation intervals. The percentage of intervals teachers used whole group instruction in adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource 

rooms is 37.5, 51.0, and 55.5, respectively. Small group instruction occurred only in 

adapted classrooms, and infrequently in that setting. Teacher led one-on-one instruction occurred during 28.8 percent of the intervals in the resource room setting 

whereas 4.7 percent in the co-taught CWC classrooms and not at all in adapted 

classrooms. 

84 

Table 3 

Mean percentage of intervals in each learning arrangement for adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room settings 

Learning Arrangement 

Adapted 

(N = 4 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Co-Taught CWC 

(N = 5 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Resource Room 

(N = 3 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Whole Group ............................................................................................... 37.5(45.5) 51.0 (42.9) 55.5 (45.6) 

Independent ............................................................................................... 36.3(45.7) 41.4 (42.3) 15.7 (25.0) 

Large Group ............................................................................................... 23.2(41.2) 2.9 (13.2) 0.0 (0.0) 

Teacher Led 1-1 ......................................................................................... 0.0(0.0) 4.7 (18.3) 28.8 (38.2) 

Small Group ............................................................................................... 3.0(17.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Peer Pairs ................................................................................................... 0.0(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Instructional Activity 

The mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in all settings engaged in instruction was 76.8 whereas the mean percentage not engaged in instruction is 23.2. 

Figure 1 shows the mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in all settings 

engaged in each of the 30 instructional activities or did not engage in any instructional activity. The bars in Figure 1 are arranged from largest percentage of intervals to smallest percentage of intervals. 

Table 4 shows that in general teachers were not engaged in instruction for more 

intervals than any of the 30 instructional activities. Instructional activities in which 

teachers spent more than ten percent of time were lecturing, giving academic direction, and giving procedural directions. Teachers engaged in elaborated feedback, 

physical observation of students, asking questions for student verbal response, and 

simple feedback five to ten percent of time intervals. Few, if any, intervals were 

spent using instructional activities that research indicates are appropriate for diverse academic learners (e.g., using advance organizers, explicit modeling, monitoring progress with formative assessment). 


56380-3.eps
85 

Table 4 

Mean percentage of intervals, standard deviation, and rank of each instructional activity across all classrooms 

Instructional Activity Mean 

Percentage SD Rank 

Lecture ................................................................................................................... 12.8 21.4 2 

Describe ................................................................................................................. 1.8 4.0 10 

Implicit Model ........................................................................................................ 0.9 4.9 13 

Explicit Model ......................................................................................................... 0.7 3.1 15 

Academic Directions .............................................................................................. 10.8 11.9 3 

Procedural Direction ............................................................................................... 10.2 12.1 4 

Physical Observation .............................................................................................. 7.9 15.8 6 

Questioning for Self Answer .................................................................................. 0.2 1.1 20 

Questioning for Verbal Response .......................................................................... 7.8 12.9 7 

Questioning for Written Response ......................................................................... 0.8 5.9 14 

Questioning for Action Response ........................................................................... 0.1 0.6 23 

Listen ..................................................................................................................... 1.7 4.7 11 

Review Fact, Concept, Procedure .......................................................................... 0.7 2.1 17 

Review by Generalization ....................................................................................... 0.1 0.8 22 

Review Skill or Strategy ......................................................................................... 0.1 0.8 21 

Simple Feedback .................................................................................................... 6.4 10.5 8 

Elaborated Feedback .............................................................................................. 8.3 14.5 5 

Advance Organizer ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 24 

Post Organizer ........................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 24 

Other Graphic Device ............................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 24 

Read to Students ................................................................................................... 2.3 9.6 9 

Shared Reading ..................................................................................................... 1.6 7.8 12 

Simple Silent Reading ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 24 

Augmented Silent Reading .................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 24 

Reading Strategy ................................................................................................... 0.3 2.9 19 

Computer Mediated Instruction ............................................................................. 0.0 0.0 24 

Test ........................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 24 

Quiz ........................................................................................................................ 0.4 4.1 18 

Formative Progress Monitoring .............................................................................. 0.0 0.0 24 

Watch Video ........................................................................................................... 0.7 5.2 16 

Not Engaged in Instruction ................................................................................... 23.2 26.8 1 

Table 5 display similar data to those reported above except they are organized according to the type of instructional setting. As a group, teachers in the adapted setting are on average involved in instructional activities 71.6 percent of time intervals 

and not engaged in instruction 28.4 percent of time intervals. While engaged, these 

teachers used four types of instructional activities most frequently (i.e., procedural 

direction, physical observation, questioning for verbal response, and simple feedback). These four instructional practices accounted for 41.6 percent of all time intervals in adapted classrooms. Modeling of any kind was not observed in any adapted 

classroom nor was use of graphic devices of any kind, silent reading of any kind, 

computer-mediated reading instruction, formative assessments, or tests. 

As a group, teachers in the co-taught CWC setting are on average involved in instructional activities 76.6 percent of time intervals and not engaged in instruction 

23.4 percent of time intervals. Figure 2 shows that only five instructional activities 

account for nearly three quarters of the time intervals that teachers in this setting 

were engaged in instructional activities. The five activities are elaborated feedback, 

procedural directions, academic directions, physical observation, and lecture. Several 

instructional activities were never observed (see Table 5). 

Table 5 

Mean percentage of intervals of each instructional activity for adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room settings 

Instructional Activity 

Adapted 

(N = 4 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Co-Taught CWC 

(N = 5 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Resource Room 

(N = 3 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Lecture ....................................................................................................... 2.5(6.4) 7.2 11.1) 30.5(29.9) 

Describe ..................................................................................................... 0.7(1.9) 0.9(2.5) 4.8(6.4) 

Implicit Model ............................................................................................ 0.0(0.0) 2.8(9.5) 0.7(2.5) 

Explicit Model ............................................................................................. 0.0(0.0) 0.2(1.1) 2.8(5.8) 

Academic Direction .................................................................................... 7.3(9.0) 11.3(13.3) 12.3(11.8) 

86 

Table 5—Continued 

Mean percentage of intervals of each instructional activity for adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room settings 

Instructional Activity 

Adapted 

(N = 4 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Co-Taught CWC 

(N = 5 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Resource Room 

(N = 3 Classes) 

Mean(SD) 

Procedural Direction ................................................................................... 10.4(11.1) 13.3(16.1) 4.8(7.0) 

Physical Observation .................................................................................. 10.4(21.9) 7.3(8.0) 3.2(10.8) 

Question for Self-Answer ........................................................................... 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 0.6(2.1) 

Question for Verbal Answer ....................................................................... 10.4(16.7) 3.4(6.1) 10.8(13.2)

Question for Written Answe ....................................................................... 2.3(9.7) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 

Question for Action Response .................................................................... 0.0(0.0) 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0) 

Listen ......................................................................................................... 0.8(2.2) 1.9(5.0) 2.1(3.8) 

Review Fact, Concept, Procedure .............................................................. 1.0(2.4) 0.0(0.0) 1.0(2.8) 

Review by Generalization ........................................................................... 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 

Review Skill or Strategy ............................................................................. 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)

Simple Feedback ........................................................................................ 10.4(15.1) 4.1(5.9) 4.1(5.9) 

Elaborated Feedback .................................................................................. 5.0(9.3) 16.4(23.4) 6.4(9.1) 

Read to Students ....................................................................................... 6.3(15.1) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 

Shared Reading ......................................................................................... 2.7(7.9) 2.7(12.5) 0.0(0.0) 

Reading Strategy ....................................................................................... 0.8(4.8) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 

Quiz ............................................................................................................ 0.0(0.0) 1.8(8.3) 0.0(0.0) 

Watch Video ............................................................................................... 0.0(0.0) 2.9(10.5) 0.0(0.0) 

Not Engaged in Instruction ....................................................................... 28.4(34.6) 23.4(24.5) 15.8(16.9) 

Note: Among the types of learning arrangements, no class used student peer pairs. Likewise, among the list of instructional activities no teacher used graphic devices of any kind, silent reading of any kind, computer mediated reading instruction, formative assessments, or tests. 

Therefore, means and standard deviations are not reported for these variables. 

Figure 2. Percentage of time intervals while engaged in instruction across all cotaught CWC classrooms 

As a group, teachers in the resource classroom setting were on average involved 

in instructional activities 84.2 percent of time intervals and not engaged in instruction 15.8 percent of time intervals. This is the largest percent of time intervals engaged in instruction among the three settings. However, in resource classrooms 

much of the instructional time was used to lecture. Only a few time intervals were 

spent reviewing in resource classrooms. Further, reading instruction of any kind 

was not observed in any resource classroom nor was use of graphic devices of any 

kind or assessments of any type. 

Great variability among the classes was indicated by the large standard deviations, particularly in percentage of time intervals that teachers were not engaged 

in instruction and the percent of time intervals that whole group and independent 

learning arrangements were used. These results have limited generalization to 

adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room settings in other schools. 

CHAPTER IV—DISCUSSION

There is little known about differences in classroom instruction and management 

among co-taught CWC, adapted, and resource room settings. Given the literature on 

effective instructional practices and activities, the purpose of this study was to systematically catalogue how teachers instruct students in these settings by observing 

how they manage and use the instructional period relative to four foci. The goal of 

this study was to understand typical and routine instruction and management in 


56380-4b.eps
87 

high school classrooms that promote access to the general curriculum for students 

with disabilities. 

These three settings are common in large high schools that attempt to provide 

meaningful access for students with disabilities to the general education curriculum. 

Observations in four focused areas were used to create a profile of instruction in 

each of these settings. The four foci were student engagement, major transition 

time, learning arrangement of the students, and instructional activity. Learning arrangement was split into six subtypes spanning from whole group instruction to 

independent learning. Likewise, instructional activity was split into 30 separate instructional practices plus not engaged time. 

Conclusions and Implications 

Four major findings emerged from this study. First, disengaged from instructional 

activity was the most frequently observed behavior. Second, instructional activities 

that occurred frequently (e.g., giving academic or procedural direction and lecturing) 

are not associated with student academic outcomes in the empirical or prescriptive 

literature. Third, practices that have been shown to increase learning (e.g., feedback, graphic organizers, modeling) were observed sporadically. Fourth, students 

spent the class period engaged primarily in whole group or independent learning arrangements. 

When examining the proportion of time teachers were engaged and not engaged 

in instruction the results show that a large amount of instructional time is not utilized. In the adapted and co-taught CWC settings, this was the largest percentage 

of time, and second largest in resource classrooms. However, in the resource setting 

teachers were engaged in instruction during more intervals than were teachers in 

the adapted or co-taught CWC settings, 12.6 and 7.6 percent respectively. On average, teachers were not engaged during 23.2 percent of observation intervals; in a 

90-minute class period this represents 20.9 minutes per school day per class period, 

or nearly 1.75 hours per school week per class. Typically, teachers were checking, 

writing, or reading emails at a computer in the classroom or preparing to teach the 

lesson for the next class period. Although these are necessary tasks that teachers 

must complete, it is inappropriate to be completing those tasks during instructional 

time. This is cause for great concern because if approximately one-quarter of all instructional time is used by teachers to check their email, there is a reduction in the 

potential for learning. 

Across the three settings, lecturing, giving academic direction, and giving procedural direction were the second, third, and fourth most frequently observed instructional practices, respectively. In other words, when teachers are engaged in instruction, they were found to be spending a large portion of the class period talking; that 

is, of the time teachers are engaged in instruction, the teacher is talking 44 percent 

of the time. These instructional activities, although common in most high schools, 

are not regarded as appropriate practice when teaching new content or skill 

(Hughes & Archer, in press), and rarely are these instructional activities preferable, 

especially for students with disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Hughes & Archer, in press; Swanson & Deshler, 2003). 

More effective teaching practices such as explicit modeling, frequently reviewing, 

using graphic organizers, giving formative assessment, and small group instruction 

occurred infrequently across the three settings. These instructional practices have 

been shown to impact student academic achievement (Armento, 1976; Gildroy, 2001; 

Hattie, 2003; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987; Stone, 

1983) and should be used more frequently during instruction. Across the three settings, students were arranged as a whole group for nearly half of the observation 

periods. Teachers in the resource room setting used the whole group learning arrangement 18 percent more thanteachers in the adapted setting and 4.5 percent 

more that teachers in the co-taught setting. However, research has shown that regardless of the size of class, whole group learning is less effective than one-to-one 

tutoring or small group learning (Ornstein, 1995; Slavin, 1989). On average students were instructed to work independently during 36.3 percent of time intervals 

in adapted classrooms, 41.1 percent in co-taught CWC classrooms, and 15.7 percent 

in resource rooms. Moreover, across the three settings, students were instructed to 

work independently on a task during one third of the observation periods. Although 

independent work is important for progressing toward and displaying mastery 

learning, it appears to be used as an activity to occupy students so that the teacher 

can engage in non-instructional behavior (e.g., checking email, grading papers). 

Rarely is it appropriate for students to spend 30 minutes during a 90-minute class 

period working independently on a task, especially given that on average teachers 

in this study were disengaged from the learning process for 21 minutes during a 

90-minute class. These disappointing results may be related to the increasing conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
88 

tent demand of curriculum and the prevalence of pacing guides that require large 

quantities of information be covered in relatively short time. Teachers may feel the 

only conceivable way to teach the prodigious required content is by using less effective but more efficient instructional activities (e.g., lecture, video, describing). In effect, curricular demands and standards based accountability may result in a race 

to the bottom with regard to instructional activities. In essence, sacrificing differentiated instruction and scaffolds of support for curriculum content. 

When taken together, the four major findings from this study raise serious questions about meaningful access to the general education curriculum for students with 

disabilities. The results indicate that physical inclusion in the general education 

classroom does not guarantee access to the general curriculum as required by IDEA. 

Moreover, it is questionable whether co-taught CWC classrooms are the least restrictive environment given the learning arrangements students are placed into and 

the instructional activities that teachers use. And, the same conclusion can be 

drawn regarding adapted and resource room instruction. In summary, the quality 

of education, as assessed by the instructional and management activities observed 

in this study, is of questionable quality in each of the three instructional settings. 

These four findings raise questions about the quality of education not only for students with disabilities but for all students. 

Limitations 

This study has several limitations. Data collection occurred over three days and 

only in one high school. Therefore, limited generalization can be justified. However, 

given the middle class nature of the school where data were collected and the 

school’s reputation within the community for high academic achievement, it is 

doubtful that dramatically better instruction would have been observed elsewhere. 

Another limitation of this study is that the observational methodology of MTS 

does not capture all behavior. When behaviors are extremely brief or occur infrequently MTS can underestimate percentage of intervals in those behaviors (Repp, 

Roberts, Slack, Repp, & Berkler, 1976); however, Murphy and Goodall (1980) and 

Gardenier, MacDonald, and Green (2004) establish that MTS is preferable to other 

time sampling methodology because it results in lower measurement error when intervals are brief. Nevertheless, results of this study related to student time on-task 

and major transitions should be viewed with some skepticism. After all, in wellmanaged high school classrooms, spotting off-task behavior can be difficult due to 

infrequency and the skill with which adolescents disguise off-task behavior. Finally, 

skilled instructors quickly transition between instructional activities and learning 

arrangements. However, with MTS these transition periods are only recorded if they 

occur at the beginning of the time interval; therefore, more transitions may have 

occurred than is reflected by percentage of time intervals, thereby underestimating 

transition time. Given these limitations, these findings are preliminary, but they do 

point to several trends in the educational experience of students with disabilities in 

large urban high schools. 

Future Research 

The following issues should be considered in future research efforts. First, research should continue in the area of typical instructional practice and activity in 

both general education and special education high school classrooms. Much attention has been paid to instructional practice in general education elementary classrooms, but little is known about the typical instructional experience of high school 

students. Continuing research in this area requires that measurement systems, like 

the observational system in this study, be developed, tested, and validated. Measurement systems could be used for three separate activities: first, as a research instrument to compare different instructional settings, content areas, and educational 

systems; second, as a teacher evaluation tool for administrators; and third, as a data 

collection tool for coaches. As a research tool, the observation instrument used in 

this study may be appropriate. However, as an administrative teacher evaluation 

tool or coach’s data collection tool the number of learning arrangements and instructional activities may need to be reduced in order to improve reliability among unor less-trained observers. 

Second, for students with disabilities, access to the general education curriculum 

requires at least two elements: physical inclusion with their peers and pedagogy 

that opens the curriculum to diverse learning needs. Given the results of this study, 

a new pedagogy may need to be learned by general and special educators who support students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. Regardless of 

what new practices must be learned, this will likely require changes to pre-service 

training at the academy and ongoing professional learning for currently practicing 

teachers. Research in this area is suggested. 

89 

Third, one variable not explored in this study was whether or not general and 

special educators co-plan for instruction prior to co-teaching a lesson, something 

that researchers (Walther-Thomas, 1997; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996) 

have described as necessary for co-teaching. Moreover, co-planning was included in 

nearly all studies of co-teaching where improved student performance was found 

(Bear & Proctor, 1990; Harris et al., 1987; Klinger, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & 

Elbaum, 1998; Marston, 1996; Patriarca & Lamb, 1994; Self, Benning, Marston, & 

Magnusson, 1991). It may be that co-planning for instruction has greater impact on 

instructional practice than the presence of a special educator inside the general education classroom. Results from this study suggest there is a gap between the research and prescriptive literature and the instructional practices used by teachers 

in schools. Additional research is necessary to confirm this finding, ideally using a 

nationally representative sample of schools. 

Fourth, research to understand why teachers are not engaged in instruction for 

such a large portion of the instructional class period is suggested. Qualitative research methods are uniquely suited to identify the barriers that prevent teachers 

from utilizing this time. Once these barriers have been identified, interventions can 

be developed and implemented that reduce the portion of class time that teachers 

are not engaged in instruction, therefore increasing the potential for learning in 

high schools. These interventions may be focused on the individual teacher, organizational configuration, or communication systems. Once these interventions have 

been implemented, research should continue to measure the effects. 

Finally, learning arrangements and instructional practices used in the adapted 

and resource classroom settings closely mirrored teaching in co-taught general education classrooms. This raises questions about whether instructional differences 

exist between general education and special education for students with LD. Granted, adapted class sizes were smaller than co-taught classes, however the profile of 

instructional activities looked largely the same. Therefore, more research on the typical educational experience of students with disabilities in various settings is warranted. 

REFERENCES

Alvermann, D.E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44–48. 

Armento, B. (1977). Teacher behaviors related to student achievement on a social 

science concept test. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 46–52. 

Bear, G.G., & Proctor, W.A. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated program on the 

achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Exceptionality, 

1, 227–238. 

Boudah, D.J., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2000). 

Don’t water down? Content learning through the unit organizer routine. Teaching 

Exceptional Children, 32, 48–56. 

Burns, R.B. (1984). How time is used in elementary schools: The activity structure 

of classrooms. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), Time and school learning: Theory, research 

and practice. London: Croom Helm. 

Chorzempa, B.F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers’ use of within-class 

ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 52–541. 

City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in 

education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard Education Press. 

Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small 

groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35. 

Daniel, L.G., & King, D.A. (1998). Impact of inclusion education on academic 

achievement, students behavior and self esteem, and parental attitudes. Journal 

of Educational Research, 91, 67–80. 

Deshler, D.D., Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning 

disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing. 

DiCecco, V.M., & Gleason, M.M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306– 

320. 

Doyle, W. (1984). How order is achieved in classrooms: An interim report. Journal 

of Curriculum Studies, 16, 259–277. 

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), 

Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 392–431). New York: MacMillan 

Publishing Company. 

Dunston, P.J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research & 

Instruction, 31, 57–65. 

90 

Evertson, C., Anderson, L., & Brophy, J. (1978). Texas Junior High School Study: 

Final report of process-outcome relationships (Report No. 4061). Austin, TX: University of Texas, R&D Center for Teacher Education. 

Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the 

school year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 485– 

498. 

Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.M., Marliave, R., Cahon, L.S., Dishaw, M.M., Moore, J.E., & 

Berliner, D.C. (1978). Teaching behavior, academic learning time, and student 

achievement: Final Report of Phase III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. 

San Fransico: Far West Educational Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. 

Gage, N.L. (1965). Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago: Rand McNally. 

Gagne ́, R. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 

Gamoran, A. (1992). Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50, 11–13. 

Gardenier, N.C., MacDonald, R., & Green, G. (2004). Comparison of direct observational methods for measuring stereotypic behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 99–118. 

Good, T.L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri mathematics effectiveness project. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355–362. 

Gildroy, P.G. (2001). The development and evaluation of an instructional modeling 

routine for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstract International, 

63 (10), 3516 (UMI No. 3067084). 

Griffin, C.C., & Tulbert, B.L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students’ 

comprehension and recall of expository text: A review of the research and implications for practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11, 73–89. 

Gump, P.V. (1967). The classroom behavior setting: Its nature and relation to student 

behavior (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 015 515). 

Harris, K.C., Harvey, P., Garcia, L., Innes, D., Lynn, P., Munoz, D., Sexton, K., 

Stoica, R. (1987). Meeting the needs of special high school students in regular 

education classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 143–152. 

Hattie, J.A. (1999, June). Influences on student learning (Inaugural professorial address, University of Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved April 11, 2010, http:// 

www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/staff/j.hattie/hattie-papersdownload/influences. 

Hattie, J.A. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved April 11, 2010, http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/ 

education/shared/hattie/docs/teachers-make-a-difference-ACER-(2003).pdf. 

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational 

Research, 77, 81–112. 

Hiebert, E. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231–255. 

Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22. 

Hudson, F. (1990). Research reports for Kansas City, Kansas public schools division 

of special education on CTM—collaborative teaching model at Stony Point Sough 

Elementary School, 1989–90. Kansas City: University of Kansas Medical Center, 

Department of Special Education. 

Hughes, C.A., & Archer, A. (in press). Teaching students with learning difficulties: 

Making instruction effective and explicit. New York: Guilford Publications. 

Hunter, M., & Russell, D. (1981). Planning for effective instruction: Lesson design. 

In Increasing your teaching effectiveness. Palo Alto, CA: The Learning Institute. 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. 

(1997). 

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 

§1400 et seq. (2004). 

Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary 

mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 36–51. 

Katayama, A.D., & Crooks, S.M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 293–312. 

Katayama, A.D., & Robinson, D.R. (2000). Getting students ‘‘partially’’ involved in 

note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 

119–133. 

91 

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. 

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118. 

Klinger, J.K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J.S., & Elbaum, B. (1998). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. 

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 153–161. 

Kounin, J.S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: 

Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 

Lenz, B.K., Alley, G.R., & Schumaker, J.B. (1987). Activating the inactive learner: 

Advance organizers in the secondary content classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 53–67. 

Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined 

service models for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 

30, 121–132. 

McNamara, E., & Jolly, M. (1990a). The reduction of disruptive behavior using feedback of on-task behavior: An across setting study of a class of 12- and 13-yearolds. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 18, 103–119. 

McNamara, E., & Jolly, M. (1990b). Are disruptive behaviours reduced when levels 

of on-task behaviours increase? An across settings study of a class of 12- and 13- 

year-old pupils—II. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 18, 239–249. 

Murphy, G., & Goodall, E. (1980). Measurement error in direct observations: A comparison of common recording methods. Behavior Research and Therapy, 18, 147– 

150. 

NCES. (2009). CCD public school data 2007–2008. National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 9, 2010, http://nces.ed.gov/. 

Oakes, J. (1987). Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual perspective. Educational Psychologist, 22, 129–153. 

Ornstein, A.C. (1995). Synthesis of Research: Teaching whole-group classrooms. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 104–116. 

Patriarca, L.A., & Lamb, M.A. (1994). Collaboration, curriculum development and 

reflection as frameworks for exploring the integration of general and special education. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 18, 95–100. 

Powell, J., Martindale, B., Kulp, S., Martindale, A., & Bauman, R. (1977). Taking 

a closer look: Time sampling and measurement error. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 10, 325–332. 

Rampey, B.D., Dion, G.S., & Donahue, P.L. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic 

progress (NCES 2009–479). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

Repp, A.C., Roberts, D.M., Slack, D.J., Repp, C.F., & Berkler, M.S. (1976). A comparison of frequency, intervals, and time-sampling methods of data collection. 

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 501–508. 

Richardson, V. (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, 

D.C.: American Educational Research Association. 

Robinson, D.H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105. 

Robinson, D.H., & Kiewra, K.A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467. 

Rosenshine, B.V. (1980). How time is spent in elementary classrooms. In C. Denham 

& A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Education. 

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), 

Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376–391). New York: MacMillan 

Publishing Company. 

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on 

future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. 

Self, H., Benning, A., Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1991). Cooperative teaching 

project: A model for students at risk. Exceptional Children, 58, 26–33. 

McCall, Z., & Skrtic, T.M. (in press). Intersectionality as a policy frame for 

disproportionality and other wicked problems. Multiple Voices. 

Schulte, A.C., Osborne, S.S., & McKinney, J.D. (1990). Academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children, 57, 162-171. 

Slavin, R.E. (1989). Class size and student achievement: Small effects of small classes. Educational Psychologist, 23, 99–110. 

92 

Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S.A. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 

2010–013). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

Soukup, J.H., Wehmeyer, M.L., Bashinski, S.M., & Bovaird, J.A. (2007). Classroom 

variable and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120. 

Stone, C.L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. The Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 194–199. 

Swanson, H.L., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Concerting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 

36, 124–135. 

Tyler, S. (1979). Time sampling: A matter of convention. Animal Behavior, 27, 801– 

810. 

Waldron, N.L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program 

on students with mild and severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395–405. 

Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational 

Psychology Review, 14, 261–312. 

Walther-Thomas, C.S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems 

that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 

395–407. 

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255– 

265. 

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for 

school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294. 

Warner, M.M., Schumaker, J.B., Alley, G.R., & Deshler, D.D. (1989). The role of executive control: An epidemiological study of school-identified learning disabled and 

low achieving adolescents on a serial recall task. Learning Disabilities Research, 

4, 107–118. 

Webb, N.M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small 

groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 

31, 369–396. 

Wiederholdt, J.L. (1974). Planning resource rooms for the mildly handicapped. Focus 

on Exceptional Children, 8, 1–10. 

Wittrock, M.C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. 

Wright, C., & Nuthall, G. (1970). Relationships between teacher behaviors and pupil 

achievement in three experimental elementary science lessons. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 477–491. 

APPENDIX A 

SCORING PROTOCOLS AND DECISION CRITERIA—CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET

Student on Task: At each time interval, please score this box. You should begin 

with the student in the front-left seat of the class, then work your way across the first 

row of students, and then begin the second row continuing until every student has 

been observed and scored on the observation sheet. If all students have been observed, 

begin again at the beginning front-left seat. If the student is on-task, mark ‘‘1’’ in 

the box. If the student is off-task, mark ‘‘O’’ in the box. Take care to ensure that both 

raters are observing and scoring the same student during each time interval. 

Student on Task will be checked whenever the student is not actively engaged in 

the appropriate instructional activity. The student is off task if they are violating 

rules, engaging in social talk with peers, doing nothing, throwing something away, 

in the restroom, playing a non-instructional computer game, getting organized for 

a task (e.g., putting papers away into backpack), using their cell phone, etc. For example, if the teacher is lecturing and the student is looking through her backpack 

for a pencil, the student is not engaged and therefore off task. 

Learning Arrangement: At each time interval, please score one of the following 

learning arrangements. Mark ‘‘1’’ in the box that best describes the learning arrangement of the students. If there is more than one type of learning arrangement in the 

classroom, only score the learning arrangement that the teacher is instructing or 

monitoring. For example, if a large group of students is working independently while 

the teacher provides additional instruction for a small group of students you should 

score the learning arrangement as ‘‘Small Group.’’ The focus is on the teacher’s behavior or activity. 

93 

Whole Group will be checked whenever all the students in a classroom are being 

instructed together. For example, the teacher might be lecturing, the class might 

be involved in a class-wide discussion, or the class might be watching a movie. 

Large Group will be checked when most students in the classroom are provided 

the same instructional activity directed at most students simultaneously. Large 

groups range in size from greater than 1/3 of the students to one less than the entire class. 

Small Group will be checked whenever the students have been assigned to work 

in small groups. Small groups range in size from 3 students to 1/3 of the class. For 

example, students might be doing a cooperative learning activity or engaged in 

small group reading instruction. 

Individual Student-Teacher Led will be checked whenever the students are working one-on-one with a teacher in a clinical manner. For example, the teacher may 

be doing ‘‘experimental teaching,’’ direct phonics instruction, or monitoring reading 

errors. 

Student Peer Pairs will be checked whenever the students are working in pairs 

and have been formally instructed to work in pairs. If the class contains an odd 

number of students, one group may contain 3 students and still be scored ‘‘Student 

Peer Pairs.’’ For example, students might be doing a ‘‘Turn-to-Your-Neighbor’’ activity or a class-wide peer tutoring activity. 

Individual-Independent Work will be checked whenever the students are working 

independently. Students may be working quietly at their desks on a worksheet or 

whispering to a peer, but they have been asked to work on their own. 

Transition Time: At each time interval, score this box. If the class is transitioning 

between activities, mark ‘‘1’’ in the box. If the class is NOT transitioning between activities, mark ‘‘O’’ in the box. Note, if some students appear to be transitioning and 

others students are not transitioning score ‘‘1.’’ 

Transition Time will be checked when the students are transitioning between 

classroom activities but not yet engaged in any learning activity. For example, if the 

bell rings to begin class and students are not seated yet. Or, if the teacher completes 

the lecture then asks students to begin working on their homework, the time between ending the lecture and when student beginning to work is transition time. 

Finally, if students quit working before the end of class, this is also transition time. 

Instructional Activity: At each time interval, score one of the following instructional activities. Mark ‘‘1’’ in the box that best describes instructional activity. If more 

than one instructional activity is observed during the observation time period, only 

score the first instructional activity observed. 

Lecture will be checked when the teacher talks to students without any, or minimal, student participation. The teacher may use the chalkboard, maps, or an electronic media (e.g., PowerPoint) while lecturing. 

Describe Skill or Strategy will be checked for each interval the teacher is observed 

giving task explanations or explaining how to do something orally that requires several steps. For example, ‘‘In order to write this paper, you will need to do the following four things. . . . ’’ ‘‘To complete this experiment, you will need to follow the 

five following procedures. . . .,’’ ‘‘This math algorithm has three parts. . . .,’’ ‘‘This 

strategy has five steps . . . .’’. The steps or parts must be described. 

Modeling 

Implicit Modeling will be checked for each interval the target teacher spends modeling how to do something for instructional purposes. This refers to showing how 

to do an academic task that is to be copied or imitated by the student. For example, 

the teacher demonstrates how to solve a math problem. Please note, if the teacher 

physically demonstrates while also thinking out loud to verbalize the teacher’s 

thinking, then you should check ‘‘Explicit Modeling.’’ 

Explicit Modeling will be checked for each interval the target teacher spends modeling how to do something for instructional purposes. This refers to showing how 

to do an academic task that is to be copied or imitated by the student WHILE verbally modeling the thought process the teacher is using to complete the task. For 

example, the teacher demonstrates how to do a lab experiment while asking questions and answering the questions so that students understand the thought process 

of a scientist. Please note, if the teacher only physically demonstrates while stating 

each step, then you should check ‘‘Implicit Modeling.’’ Also, if the teacher does not 

physically demonstrate the procedure, a designation would be placed in the ‘‘Describes a Skill or Strategy’’ column. 

Give Directions 

Give Academic Directions will be checked for each interval the teacher spends 

orally giving simple instructional directions. This includes verbally directing, superVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
94 

vising, or managing classroom academic tasks and describing a grading rubric. For 

example, the teacher saying, ‘‘Turn to chapter 9 in your book,’’ or ‘‘Please do the 

first 10 math problems on the worksheet.’’ 

Give Classroom Procedure Directions will be checked for each interval the teacher 

spends orally giving simple procedural directions. This includes (a) verbally directing students’ behavior, (b) managing classroom procedures (e.g., bathroom and hall 

passes), (c) giving non-instructional directions to students (e.g., ‘‘Please shut the 

window, Susan.’’), (d) telling students how many points an assignment is worth, or 

(e) expressing disapproval, dislike, dismay, dissatisfaction, or disgust with a student’s class work, appearance, or behavior. For example, the teacher saying, ‘‘Jonathan, please take your seat,’’ or ‘‘Allison, that is not what our bathroom pass procedure is; you need to . . . ’’ 

Monitoring and Questioning 

Physical Observation will be checked for each interval the target teacher spends 

doing physical observation of students in order to monitor students. Examples of 

physical observation for the purpose of monitoring are: The teacher walking around 

students’ desk or visually observing students to determine if they have completed 

work or are successfully doing work. When the teacher is monitoring a cooperative 

group activity or a pair activity, please note what the activity is in the description 

area. Please note, this activity should not be confused with giving feedback. 

Questioning for Self-Answer will be checked when the teacher invites student to 

ask self-questions by way of engaging the learner but allows the learner not to selfdisclose on a potentially sensitive subject (e.g., no response is required from the student). For example, the teacher asked a question to the class as a whole and said, 

‘‘I don’t want a verbal answer or show of hands, but think to your self: ‘How many 

of you ever thought you’d wished you could be more confident when talking to your 

peers at school?’ ’’ 

Questioning for Verbal Response will be checked when the teacher poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks one or more students to 

respond orally. Students are instructed to respond with a verbal answer but answers can be provided to a partner, generated by a team, individually, or as a choral 

response. 

Questioning for Written Response will be checked when the teacher poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks one or more students to 

respond in writing. Students are instructed to respond with a written answer using 

response cards, response slates, by writing on the chalkboard, or writing on a sheet 

of paper. 

Questioning for Action Response will be checked when the teacher poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks one or more students to 

respond with an action or movement. Students are instructed to respond with a 

physical movement by touching/pointing, acting out something, using gestures such 

as thumbs up, or giving facial expressions (smiley face/sad face). 

Listening will be checked when the teacher is attentively listening to a student’s 

verbalizations for 10-seconds or longer. The teacher must emit at least one attentive 

behavior during the interval. Attentive behaviors include eye contact, ‘‘uh-uh’’ verbalizations, head nodding, and/or linguistic listening cues. (e.g., ‘‘I understand,’’ 

etc.). 

Review 

Facts/Concepts/Procedure will be checked when the teacher makes a statement 

or asks a question(s) that requires the student to show that the student remembers 

or understands the factual content or concept or knows the steps/procedures for 

completing a task (e.g., solving a particular type of math problem or the steps for 

constructing a good outline). For example, the teacher may ask the class to state 

the formula for calculating the area of a triangle. 

Manipulate/Generalize will be checked when the teacher makes a statement or 

asks a question(s) that requires the student to show that the student can generalize 

or apply a previously learned skill, or manipulate new information using a recently 

learned skill to new content or to a novel or practical life situation. For example, 

if the class recently learned about osmosis and selective diffusion by experimenting 

with chicken eggs, the teacher may ask about how osmosis would occur in human 

cells. 

Skill or Strategy will be checked when the teacher makes a statement or asks a 

question(s) that requires the student to show that the student understands the underlying skills or strategies of effective academic performance. For example, if students in astronomy are learning about the life cycle of stars, reviewing how to examVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:22 May 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\56380.TXT DENISE
95 

ine the textbook organization would be helpful to structuring student thinking and 

finding appropriate information in the text. 

Feedback 

Simple Feedback will be checked for each interval during which the teacher verbally tells a student or group of students whether their answer or performance is 

correct or incorrect. This includes summarizing information that students have said. 

For example, when student gives the correct answer and the teacher simply acknowledges it but does not give more elaborate feedback. Please note, if the teacher 

provides elaborated feedback or asks follow-up questions as a means of giving elaborated feedback, this should be scored as ‘‘Elaborated Feedback on Learning.’’ 

Elaborated Feedback will be checked for each interval during which the teacher 

orally provides private or specific feedback to a student with regard to something 

the student has done. Teacher gives information on student performance when constructing meaning, or related to the processes underlying strategies or skills of completing, relating, or extending a skill or strategy. The feedback might include describing an error category or pattern of error, explaining how to avoid the error, 

modeling a new way or performing, having the student practice a new way of performing, having the student paraphrase how to perform in the future, and having 

the student set one or more goals for the next performance. For example, if the student gives the correct answer to a math question but doesn’t seem to understand 

how they reached the correct answer, the teacher provides elaborated feedback on 

the process used to reach the answer while checking for student understanding at 

different points in this re-teaching process. 

Graphic Devices and Organizers 

Advance Organizer will be checked for each interval the teacher orally presents 

information about the upcoming lesson in a relatively simple way. The oral presentation should provide an overview, cite the purpose or goal(s) of the lesson or activity, state the topic or present a specific order that the lesson or activity will follow. 

For example, the teacher might state, ‘‘Today we are going to be studying about the 

causes of the Civil War.’’ This is different from the ′′Other Graphic Devices′′ category 

in that it does not involve a content map for the lesson, lesson questions, and other 

parts of the Content Enhancement Routines. 

Post Organizer will be checked for each interval the teacher orally presents information about that day’s lesson in a relatively simple way. This statement should 

be at the end of the lesson or instructional activity and should summarize the main 

points of the lesson or activity. For example, the teacher might state, ‘‘We just 

learned about the various causes of the Civil War. These causes were . . ..’’ 

Other Graphic Devices (e.g., study guide, CE) will be checked for each interval the 

teacher is presenting information about the lesson with the aid of a graphic device. 

Teacher uses a graphic device to enhance learning by transforming, repackaging, or 

manipulating the content. Some examples of graphic devices include Venn diagrams, 

content maps, or study guides. 

Reading Instruction 

Teacher Reads to Students will be checked when the teacher is verbally reading 

a passage that students are expected to ‘‘follow along’’ with. 

Shared Reading will be checked when one student in the class is reading out loud 

while other students are expected to follow along in the text. After a period of time, 

another student begins reading aloud and the first student stops, this continues at 

the direction ofthe teacher. 

Simple Silent Reading will be checked when the teacher instructs all students to 

read silently to themselves. 

Augmented Silent Reading will be checked when the teacher instructs all students 

to do the following two tasks: (1) To find the answer to a question in the reading 

and (2) instructs students who finish early to re-read the passage. 

Reading Strategy will be checked when the teacher directs students to use a comprehension learning strategy while reading. For example, the teacher may ask a 

student to predict what will happen next, summarize plot developments for each 

chapter, or infer the meaning of some words and give a rationale. 

Computer Mediated Instruction will be checked when the primary mode of instruction involves the use of a computer or computerized mechanism to either present 

reading instruction to the student, test a student, or provide assistance to a student 

during a learning task. This includes computerized reading instructional programs 

such as Read 180. Please note, if the teacher is working in small groups with some 

students engaged in instruction while other groups are using a computerized instructional program, do not check this item; instead, mark the appropriate instructional practice the teacher is using. 

96 

Formal Assessment of Learning 

Test will be checked when the teacher instructs students to complete a long assessment during the class period. The test is a long exam given to students for the 

purpose of assigning a grade/value to the student’s performance. 

Quiz will be checked when the teacher instructs students to complete a short assessment during the class period. The quiz is a short exam given to students for 

the purpose of assigning a grade/value to the student’s performance. 

Formative Progress Monitoring will be checked when the teacher instructs students to complete a very short formative assessment. The results of the task are 

not assigned a grade/value but instead are used to inform the teacher about individual student’s degree of mastery of a new body of knowledge or skill. 

Video will be checked when a film, video, or clip is shown in class as the primary 

means of instruction. 

Un-Engaged Time 

Not Engaged in Instruction Time will be checked for each interval during which 

the teacher spends (a) grading papers, (b) passing out papers, (c) taking attendance/ 

writing student pass, (d) having a discussion with another adult in the classroom, 

(e) completing paperwork or computerized forms, (f) talking on phone for any purpose, (g) engaging in personal activities (e.g., reading a newspaper, filing nails, etc.), 

(h) reading professional reading materials, or (i) accessing, writing, or sending 

emails. 

97 

APPENDIX B 


56380-5.eps
98 

KU CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING—THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

THE CONTENT LITERACY CONTINUUM: A SCHOOL REFORM FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING

ADOLESCENT LITERACY FOR ALL STUDENTS

B. KEITH LENZ, BARBARA J. EHREN, AND DONALD D. DESHLER

Making the commitment to improve literacy in secondary schools must be at the 

very heart of school reform efforts. Too often, literacy improvement efforts are parenthetical to other goals in secondary education. Teachers and educators systematically discriminate against those who do not have the literacy skills to meet course 

demands and against teachers and staff involved in advocating for or providing literacy services. This unfortunate situation lessens the importance of secondary 

schools in preparing our children to succeed in college and to compete in society. 

It also has consistently and systematically left millions of students behind. 

Recent evidence indicates that policymakers and advocates of secondary school reform are taking seriously the problems of adolescent literacy and are turning their 

attention to supporting research-based efforts to improve it. These groups place increasing emphasis on students successfully completing more rigorous secondary core 

content courses, on students meeting standards as measured on state assessments, 

on schools addressing the needs of an increasing number of English language learners in classrooms, and on moving all students toward a standard of college readiness 

that will allow them to be successful after high school. 

For the past 15 years, a significant research thread at the University of Kansas 

Center for Research on Learning (KU–CRL) has been to design and test effective 

school-wide literacy instruction in secondary schools. A series of studies focused on 

how to increase the success of high school students in rigorous academic courses revealed several factors that challenge secondary educators who are seriously concerned about improving the performance of all students to make literacy a central 

part of school improvement and reform agendas: 

1. Requirements for teachers to ensure that all students meet standards have 

put pressure on teachers to teach more content faster. This has led to an instructional focus on breadth of coverage rather than depth of understanding. Consequently, students are required to be more independent and self-sufficient learners, 

leaving students who have limited literacy skills and strategies unable to acquire 

the content and, as a result, meet standards. 

2. Because many students do not have the literacy skills and strategies necessary to meet these standards, core curriculum teachers must face the challenge 

of compensating for the lack of these skills and strategies to ensure mastery of critical content, regardless of literacy levels. 

3. Attention to the connected development of increasingly complex vocabulary 

and background knowledge is needed if comprehension is to improve and students 

are to benefit from instruction in grade-appropriate comprehension strategies. 

4. Students must have authentic and successful experiences using newly acquired literacy skills and strategies in core curriculum courses to solve problems 

and meet high school course demands if they are to become motivated to develop 

literacy skills. 

5. Direct instruction, teacher modeling, and practice in literacy strategies must 

become authentically embedded in the teaching practices of all secondary teachers 

so that students will have sufficient opportunities to practice and generalize these 

skills and strategies. 

6. Secondary core curriculum teachers can promote literacy by planning and focusing on critical content and critical comprehension strategies so that instruction 

is targeted and mastery is achieved for all learners. 

7. Even when instruction, modeling, and practice is provided across secondary 

courses, many poor readers will need additional intensive instruction and practice 

in these strategies if they are to master and use them effectively. 

8. Students who do not comprehend well but who have developed fluent word 

recognition skills through the fourth-grade level need opportunities for direct, systematic, and intensive instruction in learning strategies that are appropriate for 

handling both expository and narrative text. 

9. Opportunities for direct, systematic, intensive instruction in sound-symbol correspondence, word automaticity and fluency are needed to address the word recognition skills for those adolescents who are reading below the fourth-grade level. 

Collectively, these factors challenge secondary schools to make a dramatic shift 

in the way they organize and deliver instruction, if both content and literacy goals 

are to be realized. Only by adopting a schoolwide approach to literacy in which 

99 

every teacher is committed, involved, and championing coordinated literacy improvement efforts can we make our secondary schools count for all students. 

MEETING THE CHALLENGE

There have been efforts to reform secondary schools to improve learning in ways 

that lead to outcomes that meet the standard of college readiness and post-secondary success. Most efforts to reform secondary schools have focused on creating 

infrastructure supports by adding block and flexible scheduling of courses, providing 

additional time for teacher learning and planning, providing behavioral supports to 

improve discipline, and creating opportunities for more personalized learning by restructuring schools into smaller learning communities. Other school reform efforts 

have focused on creating system learning supports to more closely monitor student 

progress, collaboratively make decisions to address problems in learning, encouraging coaching among one another to improve instructional effectiveness, and creating a culture in which staff value and embrace continuing collaborative learning 

and school improvement. 

Although many of these secondary school reform efforts have addressed important 

problems that have been barriers to improving the academic achievement of students, they have not been able to significantly affect the quality of classroom instruction provided nor improve the outcomes of academically diverse groups of students. More recently, it has become clear that structural and systemic supports 

must be accompanied by attention to improvement to the instructional core of the 

secondary school. This instructional core must include attention to an aligned instructional system that is based on standards-informed instruction, connected and 

coherent courses, engaging instructional materials and activities, and instruction 

that is informed by the knowledge and backgrounds of students to anchor relevant 

and meaningful learning. Furthermore, the instructional core must be centered on 

a view of secondary schools that is grounded in providing a continuum of literacy 

instruction that ensures the ongoing development of those learning skills and strategies required for college readiness and post-secondary success. (See Figure 1) 

As a result of our research, the staff of the KU–CRL has developed a framework 

called the Content Literacy Continuum (CLC; LenzEhren, 1999). This structure provides a vehicle for (a) considering the factors that influence the success of secondary 

literacy efforts, (b) leveraging the talents of secondary school faculty, and (c) organizing instruction to increase in intensity as the deficits that certain subgroups of 

students demonstrate become evident. 

The CLC has been used to guide the use of interventions in the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) developed by KU–CRL over the past 27 years. However, as a 

framework, the CLC is sufficiently comprehensive in scope to accommodate any research-validated intervention that has been effective with adolescent populations. In 


56380-6.eps
100 

short, the CLC is a tool for enabling all secondary teachers and administrators to 

participate in the development and evaluation of a literacy initiative that is consistent with the goals of secondary education for all students and that will dramatically improve literacy outcomes for those who are at risk of academic failure. 

The five levels or types of instruction associated with the CLC are presented and 

described in Figure 2. These five levels are based on keeping content as a central 

focus in literacy efforts, defining roles and responsibilities of all school-level educators, providing a continuum of instructional intensity for ensuring success for a 

wide range of students, and providing a framework for integrating a variety of literacy improvement efforts. Each of these levels collectively represent a framework 

for organizing secondary reform around the goals of improved literacy. 

It is important to note that secondary educators must work collaboratively to synchronize instruction across the five levels to ensure the success of a schoolwide literacy effort. The continuum of instruction represented in the CLC framework is 

more than a way of sorting or organizing instructional practices and commercial 

educational programs. Several instructional principles define how the levels of instruction should be implemented to complement and reinforce one another to ensure 

a coherent learning experience for students. First, the instruction provided at each 

level should reinforce a common set of literacy strategies that can be enhanced and 

leveraged at each level of the continuum. This cross-level focus ensures that students are learning a set of critical core strategies with sufficient opportunities to 

practice different applications across different content areas and under different 

conditions. Second, content enhancements used to ensure content area learning at 

Level 1 of the CLC that compensates for poor learning strategies should be built 

on and around the critical core set of literacy strategies taught and practiced at the 

other levels of the continuum. Third, the literacy strategies that define Levels 2 and 

3 should help students apply the skills acquired from instruction in Level 4. Fourth, 

the intervention provided by a speech-language professional represented in Level 5 

should be informed by the core set of literacy strategies and content enhancements. 

In other words, CLC should not be thought of as framework for siloing programs 

that seem to fit at a given level. Regardless of the program, there are instructional 

conditions that must be created across the levels regardless of the goals of individual programs to create the type of instructional synergy necessary to improve literacy in secondary schools. 

THE CLC ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Adopting the CLC requires a focused schoolwide effort. A school interested in putting the CLC in place needs to take stock of the literacy and content mastery performance of students, as well as its existing efforts to meet literacy needs. Faculty 

should consider how the efforts already under way fit into each of the five CLC levels and learn how to integrate SIM and other necessary components into current 

practices. Initial adoption takes place over a 3- to 5-year period as school staff work 

through activities associated with the phases of planning, implementing, and sustaining a literacy improvement initiative. A commitment for the duration of the 

adoption process on the part of the administration and faculty is a necessary component. 

A hallmark of the entire adoption process is that it is co-constructed with school 

leaders, resulting in a growth partnership. It is clear that one of the reasons that 

secondary school reform efforts have failed to significantly improve the academic 

performance of all students is that few efforts have addressed the unique culture 

that shapes the likelihood of change in secondary schools. System change in secondary schools must be closely tied to the individual in the system responsible for 

the nature and quality of classroom instruction. Therefore, the success of literacycentered secondary school reform is likely to hinge on the ability of school leaders 

to collaboratively co-construct change with teachers. School leaders must be able to 

create a shared (a) vision that allows for individual contributions, (b) knowledge 

base that leads to individual learning, (c) system of leadership that seeks the voice 

of individuals, (d) sense of responsibility that shapes individual planning and action, 

(e) system of evaluation that guides self assessment, and (f) accountability system 

that motivates individual action. Using this set of values to guide reform would call 

into question traditional systemic approaches that rely solely on top-down models 

to accomplish school change. 

CONCLUSION

Although professional development is required to implement the CLC, it is more 

appropriate to conceptualize CLC adoption as a school-improvement initiative requiring more than professional development. Adopting the CLC is framed in the 

101 

context of helping schools meet their school-improvement goals. The current focus 

of schools and school districts on meeting the No Child Left Behind requirements 

regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) typically enhances the motivation of 

schools to target improvement efforts on behalf of all learners. Serious attention 

must be paid to tapping into or creating the infrastructures to promote individual 

and systemic change, including data-based decision making, effective leadership activities, and the creation of professional learning communities. 

REFERENCES

Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J., Kissam, B., & Taymans, J. (2004). SMARTER planning for 

academic diversity. In Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D.D., & Kissam, B. (Eds.), Teaching 

content to all: Inclusive teaching in grades 4–12 (PP. 47–77). Boston: McGraw-Hill. 

Lenz, B.K. & Ehren, B. (1999). The strategic content literacy initiative: Focusing on 

reading in secondary schools. Stratenotes, 8.1. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning Web site: http://www.kucrl.org. 

Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Beals, V. (1984). The learning strategies curriculum: The word identification strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 

Center for Research on Learning. 

Lenz, B.K., with Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Boudah, D.J. 

(1994). The unit organizer routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises. 

Schumaker, J.B., Denton, P.H., & Deshler, D.D. (1984). The learning strategies curriculum: The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Center for 

Research on Learning. 

Figure 2: The Content Literacy Continuum 

A Framework for Guiding the Development of Schoolwide Literacy Services in Secondary Schools 

Level of Instruction Teacher Actions Example Professional Competence 

Level 1: Enhanced 

Content Instruction.

Goal: Students 

learn critical 

content required in the 

core curriculum 

regardless of 

literacy levels.

Teachers: (a) ensure mastery of 

critical core content for all 

students regardless of literacy 

levels by leveraging the principles of universal design in 

explicit teaching routines, (b) 

ensure that all students acquire the vocabulary and 

background knowledge required for basic literacy associated with comprehension and 

communication through 

classwide accommodations, individual accommodations, or 

technology, and (c) respond to 

increasingly complex content 

demands requiring strategic 

manipulation of content such 

as categorizing, developing 

analogies, comparing, questioning, or evaluating.

Teachers use Content 

Enhancement Routines such as The 

Unit Organizer Routine to deliver content. Teachers use 

standards-based 

planning models to 

target critical content that needs to be 

enhanced.

Teachers responsible for ensuring 

content mastery must select 

the critical content, learn how 

to enhance that content for 

mastery, and then implement 

these enhancements through 

the use of explicit and sustained teaching routines. Special service providers must 

help core curriculum teachers 

provide this type of instruction. This facilitates a mindset 

in which instruction is delivered in ways that students acquire content information as 

well as active approaches to 

learning and responding. 

102 

Figure 2: The Content Literacy Continuum—Continued 

A Framework for Guiding the Development of Schoolwide Literacy Services in Secondary Schools 

Level of Instruction Teacher Actions Example Professional Competence 

Level 2: Embedded 

Strategy Instruction.

Goal: Students are presented opportunities 

to learn and apply a 

set of powerful 

learning strategies 

for improving literacy 

across core curriculum classes to 

learn critical content.

From a small set of powerful 

learning strategies, teachers 

select one or two strategies 

that match the specific demands needed to learn the 

critical content in their core 

curriculum courses. Teachers 

use direct explanation, modeling, and group practice to 

teach the strategy and then 

prompt student application 

and practice in content-area 

assignments throughout the 

school year. For students receiving more intensive strategy 

instruction (Level 3), teachers 

assist them in generalizing 

strategy use to core curriculum 

courses. Instruction in strategies is embedded across a 

number of instructional settings, including settings in 

which tutoring is provided.

Teachers teach the 

steps of a paraphrasing strategy 

(RAP), regularly 

model its use, and 

then embed paraphrasing activities in 

course activities 

through the year to 

create a culture of 

‘‘reading to retell.’’ 

Graphic organizers 

(e.g., The Unit Organizer) introduced as 

part of Level 1 instruction are used to 

model and prompt 

paraphrasing of critical chunks of content.

Teachers adopt a mindset that it 

is important to embed instruction in learning strategies 

within content-area instruction. Content teachers learn a 

shortened form of an EightStage Instructional Sequence 

for selected learning strategies 

(e.g., Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning, etc.) that they can use 

to provide classwide instruction. Teachers assist in the 

generalization of strategies 

that may emerge from Level 1 

instructional routines; these 

emerging strategies may guide 

students in strategic approaches to content literacy 

demands such as making 

comparisons, categorizing, or 

questioning. 

Level 3: Intensive Strategy Instruction.

Goal: Students who 

need more intensive 

strategy instruction 

than what can be 

provided through embedded strategy instruction are provided more intensive 

and explicit strategy 

instruction.

Special education teachers, reading teachers, and other support personnel provide more 

intensive instruction through 

additional learning experiences. These may be provided 

in the general education 

classroom, in a pullout program, through the offering of 

a separate course, or through 

beyond-school tutoring programs. Assessments for 

screening and ongoing databased decision making are put 

in place to help identify students who may profit from 

these courses. These students 

are generally those who minimally have developed the decoding skills and fluency levels associated with reading 

proficiency at the third- to 

fourth-grade level and need to 

develop the comprehension 

strategies to successfully meet 

the reading demands of the 

core curriculum.

Instructional options 

such as additional 

courses are created 

to systematically and 

intensively teach 

learning strategies 

that students need 

to meet course demands. When core 

curriculum teachers 

notice students having difficulty learning 

and using strategies 

such as paraphrasing, they work 

with support personnel to provide 

more intensive instruction.

Special education and other support personnel learn how to 

provide intensive and explicit 

instruction, practice, and feedback in specific learning strategies and the process of strategic tutoring that shows students how to apply strategies 

as they complete assignments. 

Professional development focuses on helping teachers 

learn the strategies and 

course management competencies required to provide 

the intensive instruction required to ensure student mastery of learning strategies. 

103 

Figure 2: The Content Literacy Continuum—Continued 

A Framework for Guiding the Development of Schoolwide Literacy Services in Secondary Schools 

Level of Instruction Teacher Actions Example Professional Competence 

Level 4: Intensive Basic 

Skill Instruction.

Goal: Students develop 

the foundational decoding, fluency, and 

comprehension skills 

associated with K3 

literacy through specialized, direct, and 

intensive instruction.

Special education teachers, reading specialists, and speechlanguage pathologists team to 

develop intensive and coordinated instructional experiences 

designed to address several 

literacy deficits. Special education teachers and reading 

specialists will most likely deliver these services. They also 

assist content teachers in 

making appropriate adaptations in content instruction to 

accommodate severe literacy 

deficits. Intensive instruction 

in listening, speaking, and 

writing can also be part of 

these services. Services may 

be delivered in a pullout program, through the offering of 

a separate course, or through 

beyond-school programs.

The staff develops 

course options for 

support services that 

directly address deficits that cannot be 

addressed Through 

less intensive efforts. 

Students still participate in the history 

class because the 

teacher is presenting 

content in ways that 

take into consideration literacy problems. Intensive research-based programs, such as The 

Corrective Reading 

Program, typically 

are chosen.

Special education teachers and 

reading specialists learn research-based approaches to 

implement programs that develop foundational literacy 

skills and strategies in students who read below a 

fourth-grade level. 

Level 5: Therapeutic 

Intervention.

Goal: Students with underlying language 

disorders learn the 

linguistic, related 

cognitive, 

metalinguistic, and 

metacognitive 

underpinnings they 

need to acquire content literacy skills 

and strategies.

Speech-language pathologists 

learn curriculum-relevant approaches to language therapy 

that interface with other intensive intervention provided to 

students. Speech-language pathologists and special education teachers learn to collaborate to provide coordinated 

and integrated services.

Students identified as 

language impaired 

may have difficulty 

learning The Paraphrasing Strategy. 

They may need support to provide more 

language-sensitive 

instruction or clinical 

intervention delivered 

by speech-language 

pathologists who can 

address the linguistic and 

metalinguistic 

underpinnings of the 

Paraphrasing Strategy (RAP) and the 

academic content.

Speech-language pathologists deliver curriculum-relevant language therapy in collaboration 

with special education and 

other support personnel who 

are teaching literacy. Speechlanguage pathologists collaborate with special education 

teachers to assist content 

teachers in making appropriate modifications or accommodations in content instruction to address the needs of 

students with language disorders. Speech-language pathologists work with special 

education teachers to help 

students with language disorders acquire learning strategies. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ