[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RAISING THE BAR: EXPLORING STATE AND
LOCAL EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 7, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
--------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-773 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 7, 2013...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Given, Matthew, chief development officer, EdisonLearning,
Inc........................................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Gordon, Eric, chief executive officer, Cleveland Metropolitan
School District............................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Richardson, Dr. Chris, superintendent of schools, Northfield
Public Schools, Northfield, MN............................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
White, John, Louisiana State superintendent of education..... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Additional submissions:
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts:
Monty Neill, Ed.D., dxecutive director, FairTest,
prepared statement of.................................. 70
RAISING THE BAR: EXPLORING
STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS
TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY
----------
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Wilson, Foxx, Roe,
Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Heck,
Brooks, Hudson, Miller, Andrews, Scott, McCarthy, Tierney,
Davis, Bishop, Loebsack, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Yarmuth,
Wilson, and Bonamici.
Staff present: James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member
Services Coordinator; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member;
Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services Oversight
Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore,
Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger, Communications
Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior
Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern
and Fellow Coordinator; Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy
Advisor; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly
Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jody Calemine,
Minority Staff Director; Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press
Secretary for Education; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of
Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy
Advisor; Eunice Ikene, Minority Staff Assistant; Megan
O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Michael Zola, Minority
Senior Counsel; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Senior Economic
Advisor.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order. Good morning. And welcome to today's hearing to
examine state and local efforts to improve school
accountability.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this
morning. I would like to thank each of you for taking time out
of your schedules to join us for this discussion.
Last month marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark
``Nation at Risk'' report. By starkly illuminating the failures
in K-12 schools, this Reagan-era report sparked a national
conversation on the state of education in America.
Without a doubt, ``Nation at Risk'' could be considered the
catalyst for the modern education reform movement. In the years
following the report's release, states and school districts
advanced a number of initiatives aimed at raising the bar for
students.
The federal government doubled education spending and,
through the groundbreaking No Child Left Behind law, took steps
to narrow student achievement gaps, strengthen curricula, and
demand greater accountability.
But as I have said before, hindsight is 20/20. Despite the
best of intentions, we can now see clearly that our federal
efforts haven't worked as we had hoped. The Adequate Yearly
Progress metric is entirely too rigid and actually limits
states' and school districts' ability to effectively gauge
student learning.
The antiquated Highly Qualified Teacher requirements value
tenure and credentials above a teacher's ability to actually
teach. Strict mandates and red tape result in unprecedented
federal intrusion in classrooms, stunting innovation.
And despite a monumental investment of taxpayer resources,
student achievement levels are still falling short.
It is time to change the law.
Last Congress, we advanced a series of legislative
proposals to rewrite No Child Left Behind. Instead of working
with Congress to fix the law, however, the Obama administration
chose to offer states temporary waivers from some of No Child
Left Behind's most onerous requirements in exchange for new
mandates dictated by the Department of Education.
As more states adopt the administration's waivers, my
concerns grow. These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-
term problem and leave states and school districts tied to a
failing law. School leaders face uncertainty, knowing the
federal requirements they must meet to maintain their waiver
are subject to change with the whims of the administration.
In the coming months, we will again move forward with a
proposal to rewrite No Child Left Behind. This legislation will
be based on four principles that my Republican colleagues and I
believe are critical to rebuilding and strengthening our
nation's education system.
First, we must restore local control and encourage the kind
of flexibility states and school districts need to develop
their own accountability plans that provide parents more
accurate and meaningful information about school performance.
Second, it is time to reduce the federal footprint. The
Department of Education operates more than 80 programs tied to
K-12 classrooms, many of which are duplicative or ineffective,
each with its own set of strict rules.
Innovation and effective reform cannot be mandated from
Washington. We must put control back in the hands of the state
and local leaders who know their students best.
Third, we need to shift our focus to teacher effectiveness.
We should value our educators based on their ability to
motivate students in the classroom, not their degrees and
diplomas.
States or school districts must be granted the opportunity
to develop their own teacher evaluation systems based in part
on student achievement, enabling educators to be judged fairly
on the effectiveness in the classroom.
Finally, we have got to empower parents. Any effort to
provide students with a top-quality education must include the
involvement and support of parents. Whether through charter
schools, scholarships, tax credits, open enrollment policies,
or other options, parents should be free to select the school
that best fits their children's needs.
As the Nation at Risk report concluded, ``Reform of our
educational system will take time and unwavering commitment. It
will require equally widespread, energetic, and dedicated
action.''
We have an opportunity to work together in good faith to
bring true reform to America's K-12 schools. To change the law
to more effectively support the teachers, school leaders,
superintendents, and parents who are working tirelessly each
and every day to ensure our children have the skills they need
to succeed.
We laid a considerable amount of groundwork last Congress
and the Congress before, and the last Congress holding 14
hearings with dozens of witnesses to explore the challenges and
opportunities facing our schools.
I hope we can build upon the progress as we move forward
with legislation that will change the law by offering states
and school districts the flexible dynamic education policies
they deserve.
Today's hearing is an important part of that effort, and I
look forward to our witnesses' testimonies.
With that, I now yield to the senior Democratic member of
the committee, George Miller, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Last month marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark ``Nation at
Risk'' report. By starkly illuminating the failures in K-12 schools,
this Reagan-era report sparked a national conversation on the state of
education in America.
Without a doubt, ``Nation at Risk'' could be considered the
catalyst for the modern education reform movement. In the years
following the report's release, states and school districts advanced a
number of initiatives aimed at raising the bar for students. The
federal government doubled education spending and, through the
groundbreaking No Child Left Behind law, took steps to narrow student
achievement gaps, strengthen curricula, and demand greater
accountability.
But as I've said before, hindsight is 20/20. Despite the best of
intentions, we can now see clearly that our federal efforts haven't
worked as we'd hoped. The `Adequate Yearly Progress' metric is entirely
too rigid and actually limits states' and school districts' ability to
effectively gauge student learning. The antiquated `Highly Qualified
Teacher' requirements value tenure and credentials above a teacher's
ability to actually teach. Strict mandates and red tape result in
unprecedented federal intrusion in classrooms, stunting innovation. And
despite a monumental investment of taxpayer resources, student
achievement levels are still falling short.
It's time to change the law.
Last Congress, we advanced a series of legislative proposals to
rewrite No Child Left Behind. Instead of working with Congress to fix
the law, however, the Obama administration chose to offer states
temporary waivers from some of No Child Left Behind's most onerous
requirements in exchange for new mandates dictated by the Department of
Education.
As more states adopt the administration's waivers, my concerns
grow. These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and
leave states and school districts tied to a failing law. School leaders
face uncertainty, knowing the federal requirements they must meet to
maintain their waiver are subject to change with the whims of the
administration.
In the coming months, we will again move forward with a proposal to
rewrite No Child Left Behind. This legislation will be based on four
principals that my Republican colleagues and I believe are critical to
rebuilding and strengthening our nation's education system.
First, we must restore local control, and encourage the kind of
flexibility states and school districts need to develop their own
accountability plans that provide parents more accurate and meaningful
information about school performance.
Second, it's time to reduce the federal footprint. The Department
of Education operates more than 80 programs tied to K-12 classrooms,
many of which are duplicative or ineffective, each with its own set of
strict rules. Innovation and effective reform cannot be mandated from
Washington. We must put control back in the hands of the state and
local leaders who know their students best.
Third, we need to shift our focus to teacher effectiveness. We
should value our educators based on their ability to motivate students
in the classroom, not their degrees and diplomas. States or school
districts must be granted the opportunity to develop their own teacher
evaluation systems based in part on student achievement, enabling
educators to be judged fairly on their effectiveness in the classroom.
Finally, we've got to empower parents. Any effort to provide
students with a top-quality education must include the involvement and
support of parents. Whether through charter schools, scholarships, tax
credits, open enrollment policies, or other options, parents should be
free to select the school that best fits their children's needs.
As the ``Nation at Risk'' report concluded, ``Reform of our
educational system will take time and unwavering commitment. It will
require equally widespread, energetic, and dedicated action.''
We have an opportunity to work together in good faith to bring true
reform to America's K-12 schools. To change the law to more effectively
support the teachers, school leaders, superintendents, and parents who
are working tirelessly each and every day to ensure our children have
the skills they need to succeed.
We laid a considerable amount of groundwork last Congress, holding
14 hearings with dozens of witnesses to explore the challenges and
opportunities facing our schools. I hope we can build upon that
progress as we move forward with legislation that will change the law
by offering states and school districts the flexible, dynamic education
policies they deserve. Today's hearing is an important part of that
effort, and I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you so much for bringing this hearing together. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses. I think they have a great span
of experiences and ideas about how we can negotiate this
reauthorization.
This hearing comes at a very exciting time in education.
States, districts, and schools are making large-scale
transitions, transitions to new standards, to new assessments,
to new accountability and school improvement systems, and new
teacher evaluation systems. That is a lot, but they are doing
it all.
As these transitions occur, we are seeing innovations at
all levels. Many districts are looking at technology to help
solve chronic education challenges, from getting high quality
teachers and curricula into hard to staff schools, to use of
new communication devices for students with disabilities.
Teachers in my home state of California are taking on
Common Core as their charge and their responsibility. They are
embracing new standards and assessments as their own in
supporting and preparing themselves to work within them.
Districts in many parts of the country are taking a new
approach to school management, a portfolio approach if you
will, to ensure that there is, in fact, educational options
that meet the needs of all students and families.
Schools are increasingly tapping community partners to
ensure that students are receiving the wraparound services and
the extra time that we know is critical to their success. No
longer are schools content with putting their student on a
waiting list for wraparound services. They are in fact bringing
those services to many of the school sites so the students will
have access to them and helping them in achieving their
educational opportunity.
Districts in California are taking a new approach to school
improvement and are partnering with their peers for school
review and support in turnarounds. Collaboration is now between
districts throughout our state.
However, in all of this great movement forward I fear that
states, districts, schools, and parents have lost their federal
partner. Between congressional inaction on ESEA and
sequestration, we have created an uncertain environment and we
are not offering people the support that could help them
succeed in a time of massive transformation. And yet I believe
we have an incredible opportunity to take schools into the
future with the proper reauthorization of ESEA.
Given that what we are seeing in states and districts now,
it is not time to go backward in our federal policy. Eleven
years ago, No Child Left Behind shined a light on our
classrooms. Prior to No Child Left Behind only a handful of
states publicly disclosed student achievement broken down by
gender, ethnicity, disability, income, or English proficiency.
Even fewer states took action on that information. These
students were invisible. They were struggling in classrooms
across the country and nobody really knew it. Worse, nobody had
to do anything to fix it.
But thanks to the federal accountability provisions,
schools could no longer keep parents and public in the dark.
Our schools could no longer exempt significant portions of
their students from the accountability systems.
We have learned a lot in the last 11 years. Many things we
wouldn't be discussing if it weren't for federal involvement.
Most importantly, the evidence now is irrefutable that all kids
can learn and succeed despite their zip code and their income.
Yet, as the author of No Child Left Behind, and as someone
who has listened to experts in communities across the nation
about the pros and cons, I recognize that we need to modernize
the law with fundamental changes.
Last year the administration opened up the process for
states to apply for waivers as part of NCLB. As of now, the
Department of Education has approved waivers in 35 states with
11 applications still pending. Then and now I would prefer a
full rewrite of ESEA; however, I understand why the
administration took this action.
What excited me most in the waiver process was that states
didn't just run away from the one-size-fits-all approach to
NCLB, they ran toward a system that strikes a balance between
flexibility and accountability. We should learn from this
experimentation when we revise ESEA.
It does not make sense to ask states to reinvent the wheel
when it is not necessary. That said, I have some deep concerns
about those waivers and their implementation.
Many of those concerns stem from the states wanting to
adopt policies that reach back to pre-No Child Left Behind,
such as proposing to diminish or to not have subgroup
accountability. I know that many of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle share my concerns.
The only way to address these deep concerns is to engage in
a true bipartisan rewrite of the law. That is the kind of bill
that President Obama will sign.
We all agree, Democrats, Republicans, and the
administration, that the federal role should shift in this
reauthorization. States, districts, and schools should be able
to manage their schools in a way that current law doesn't
allow.
The federal government will never actually improve a school
nor should it try; however, we must continue to support the
simple idea that low-performing schools should be identified
and required to improve. We cannot afford to scale back our
national and federal commitment to ensure that all students are
served well by their schools.
As such, Democrats believe we should set high expectations
for students and schools. Specifically, federal policy should
1) require states to set high standards for all students
ensuring that they graduate ready to succeed in college and in
the workforce,
2) require states to set goals and targets every year so
that schools get better every year and students make continuous
progress,
3) ensure states and districts take action when students
are not making that progress and schools are stuck in failure,
and
4) target resources and supports to those schools that need
to improve while giving them the flexibility to figure out how
best to accomplish that. I believe we must reengage as a
federal partner both on policy and on funding.
The reauthorization of ESEA provides us that opportunity.
We must not turn our back on our civil rights and moral
obligation to our nation's children.
I want to again thank all the witnesses for appearing
today, and I certainly look forward to their testimony. I spent
a great deal of time reading it last night. I want to hear it
here in the committee room.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Chairman Kline. This hearing comes at an exciting time
in education.
States, districts and schools are making large scale transitions--
transitions to new standards, new assessments, new accountability and
school improvement systems, and teacher evaluations.
As these transitions occur, we're seeing innovations at all levels:
Many districts are looking to technology to help solve
chronic education challenges--from getting high quality teachers into
hard to staff schools to the use of new communication devices for
students with disabilities.
Teachers in my home state of California are taking on
Common Core as their charge and responsibility. They are embracing the
new standards and assessments as their own and supporting and preparing
themselves.
Districts in many parts of the country are taking a new
approach to school management, a portfolio approach, to ensure that
there are education options that meet all student needs.
Schools are increasingly tapping community partners to
ensure students are receiving the wrap-around services and extra time
we know is critical to academic success.
Districts in California are taking a new approach to
school improvement and are partnering with their peers for school
review and support in turnaround.
However, in all of this great movement forward I fear that states,
districts, schools, teachers and parents have lost their federal
partner. Between Congressional inaction on ESEA and sequestration, we
have created an uncertain environment. And we are not offering people
support that could help them succeed in a time of massive
transformation.
And yet, I still believe we have an incredible opportunity to take
schools into the future with a proper reauthorization of ESEA. Given
what we are seeing in states and districts, now is not the time to go
backwards in our federal policy.
Eleven years ago, the No Child Left Behind Act shined a light in
our classrooms.
Prior to NCLB only a handful of states publically disclosed student
achievement broken down by gender, ethnicity, disability, income, or
English proficiency.
Even fewer states took action on that information. These students
were invisible. They were struggling in classrooms across the country,
and nobody knew. Worse, nobody had to do anything to fix it.
But thanks to federal accountability provisions, schools could no
longer keep parents and the public in the dark. And schools could no
longer exempt significant portions of their students from
accountability systems.
We have learned a lot in the last 11 years--many things we wouldn't
be discussing if it weren't for federal involvement. Most importantly,
the evidence is now irrefutable that all kids can learn and succeed
despite their zip code or income.
Yet, as an author of NCLB and someone who has listened to experts
and communities across the nation about its pros and cons, I recognize
that we need to modernize the law with fundamental changes.
Last year, the administration opened up a process for states to
apply for waivers from parts of NCLB. As of now the Department of
Education has approved waivers in 35 states with 11 applications still
pending. Then and now I would prefer a full re-write of ESEA. However,
I understand why the Administration took this action.
What excited me most in the waiver process was that states didn't
just run away from the one-size fits all approach of NCLB. They ran
towards a system that strikes a balance between flexibility and
accountability. We should learn from this experimentation when we
revise ESEA. It does not make sense to ask states to reinvent the wheel
when it's not necessary.
That said, I have some deep concerns about some of those waivers
and their implementation. Many of those concerns stem from states
wanting to adopt policies that reach back to a pre-NCLB time, such as
proposing to diminish or not have subgroup accountability.
I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my
concerns. The only way to address these deep concerns is to engage in a
true bipartisan rewrite of the law. That is the kind of bill that
President Obama will sign.
We all agree--Democrats, Republicans and the Administration--that
the federal role should shift in this reauthorization. States,
districts and schools should be able to manage their schools in a way
that current law doesn't allow.
The federal government will never actually improve a school and nor
should it try. However, we must continue to support the simple idea
that low-performing schools should be identified and required to
improve.
We cannot afford to scale back our national and federal commitment
to ensure all students are served well by their schools.
As such, Democrats believe we should set high expectations for
students and schools. Specifically, federal policy should:
Require states to set high standards for all students,
ensuring they graduate ready to succeed in college and the workforce;
Require states to set goals and targets every year so that
schools get better every year and students make continual progress;
Ensure states and districts take action when students are
not making progress and schools are stuck in failure; and
Target resources and supports to those schools that need
to improve while giving them flexibility to figure out how best to
accomplish that.
I believe we must re-engage as a federal partner both on policy and
in funding. The reauthorization of ESEA provides us that opportunity.
We must not turn our backs on our civil rights and moral obligation to
our nation's children.
I thank all the witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to
your testimony.
I yield back.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7(c), all committee members will be permitted to
submit written statements to be included in the permanent
hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow statements, questions for the record and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record.
Well, now it is my pleasure to introduce this distinguished
panel of witnesses. Mr. John White is the state superintendent
of education for Louisiana. He has got an incredible story to
tell.
We have got to take an extra moment for Dr. Chris
Richardson. He is completing his 9th year as superintendent of
the Northfield Public Schools found in the 2nd Congressional
District of Minnesota. In 2012 he was selected the Minnesota
Superintendent of the Year, and I have had the pleasure and the
benefit of hours and hours of discussion with Dr. Richardson
about No Child Left Behind and reauthorization, and I am
delighted that he is here to share that with you today.
Mr. Miller. Yes, it takes a long time to talk to him.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Kline. Mr. Eric Gordon is the chief executive
officer of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Welcome.
And Mr. Matthew Given is the chief development officer and
executive vice president at EdisonLearning.
Welcome, all of you.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me again briefly explain our lighting system. You will each
have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When you begin, the
light in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute is left,
the light will turn yellow, when your time has expired, the
light will turn red.
At that point, I'd ask you to wrap up your remarks as best
you are able, and after everyone has testified, members will
each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel, and as I
have explained to other witnesses, I am loath to drop the gavel
on a witness when they are speaking. It is not impossible. I am
less reluctant to drop the gavel on my colleagues. I would now
like to recognize Mr. White for 5 minutes.
Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WHITE, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. White. Chairman Kline, Representative Miller, and
members of the committee, I thank you very much for the
opportunity to present today.
Our state's story will reflect well on the legacy of No
Child Left Behind, but there is much that needs to be changed.
A strong ESEA reauthorization would benefit our nation's
schools and children greatly.
I will base my comments on our experiences in Louisiana and
in the city of New Orleans particularly. That city's school
system ranked lowest in our state for years and was almost
taken over entirely by the state-run Recovery School District 6
years ago; it now graduates students from high school at a
higher rate than our state average and among African-Americans
at a higher rate than the national average.
That success starts with a blend of four policies. One,
empowered school leadership where schools receive 98 cents on
the dollar of state and local revenue. Two, uncompromising
accountability. Three, citywide parental choice. Four, long-
term investment in a pipeline of talented principals and
teachers.
Together, these principles form a simple framework. Set a
goal, let the educators figure out how to achieve it, give
parents a choice as to where to send children, and stock the
system with strong educators.
It is worth saying that the New Orleans model was predated
by NCLB's push to identify low performing schools and to
improve them, but it is also worth saying that the simplicity
of the New Orleans model exists in spite of the federal role
and its complexities; not because of it.
Therein lies the critical challenge to a quarterly
reauthorization of ESEA. Congress must promulgate a framework
of accountability, choice, and high quality teaching while
keeping its parameters simple for schools whose greatest
challenge day-to-day is achieving coherence over confusion.
The vehicle for implementing this framework should be one
simple set of parameters from the federal government and one
plan from each state. It is time we acknowledge that the
fragmented federal structure that gives each title and each
grant its own bureaucracy mirrored in every state agency and
school district central office in America is among our greatest
barriers to progress.
In Louisiana, we have condensed 23 federal grants into one
common application for federal dollars from school systems. We
need more movement in this direction. Congress should
streamline grant requirements. States should propose how to
distribute federal dollars to align with their own funding
formulas. States that cannot achieve the performance goals
entailed in their plans should receive fewer funds.
These federal parameters should call both for state
accountability systems that commit to results--especially among
historically disadvantaged students--and accountability systems
that allow states to innovate on the measures themselves.
In Louisiana, our accountability system is evolving to
include not just grade level proficiency and graduation rates
but also real world college and career readiness attainment
measures such as advanced placement results, dual enrollment
credit, and post-secondary employment attainment.
Our system is also evolving towards greater use of
individual student progress as a way of measuring school
performance. Federal parameters should compel states to design
systems in line with these principles but states should have
freedom to craft measures.
States should identify schools that persistently
underachieve or do not show progress. While the federal
formulas for determining these lists have proven bewildering
and should be ended, this assurance remains one of NCLB's most
important legacies.
At the same time, the legislation's regime of prescribed
corrective action did more to generate state and district
central office jobs than it did to transform struggling
schools.
In New Orleans and in Louisiana, rather than prescribing a
plan for turning around every struggling school, we planned for
every child in a struggling school to have immediate access to
a high-quality school seat by using pre-existing school options
more efficiently, opening up new school options, and replacing
failed options.
Each state should develop a plan that guarantees a high-
quality alternative for every student attending a failing
school, and this plan should include any option that has a
demonstrated record of student achievement, be it traditional
public, charter public, or nonpublic.
Furthermore, if states are serious about improvement in the
most persistently low-performing schools they will establish a
point at which the status quo school system loses the privilege
of educating those schools' students.
Our state's Recovery School District takes struggling
schools under an alternate governance umbrella allowing either
the state or a new organization to operate the school.
In New Orleans, this model has yielded an increase in
literacy and math scores among students in the schools from 23
percent proficiency 6 years ago to 51 percent today.
Finally, if we are going to get the question of educator
talent right, we have got to get beyond spending all federal
dollars on short-term activities and outcomes.
New Orleans would not be what it is today had government
and philanthropists not made long run investments in
organizations like Teach For America, New Schools for New
Orleans, Relay Graduate School of Education, Building Excellent
Schools, and Leading Educators, as well as the nation's best
pipeline of charter school management organizations, ready to
turn around struggling schools. Federal dollars can help states
to scale what works, and state's plans should reflect this.
A strong ESEA reauthorization will be uncompromising in its
commitment to accountability but modest in its view of the
federal role and its potential to create confusion over
coherence.
I hope our experience in Louisiana has proved helpful to
your view of the law, and I thank you humbly for the
opportunity to share it this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of John White, Louisiana State
Superintendent of Education
Chairman Kline, Representative Miller, members of the committee, I
thank you for the opportunity to present today to the House Education
and the Workforce Committee some thoughts on the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the extraordinary opportunity
Congress has in considering its re-authorization. Our state's story
will reflect well on many provisions entailed within No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). But there is much that needs to be changed. A strong
reauthorization would benefit our nation's schools and children
greatly.
I will base much of what I have to say on our experiences in
Louisiana, and in the city of New Orleans most notably. That city's
system of autonomous public and private schools, ranked lowest in our
state for years, and taken over almost entirely by the state-run
Recovery School District six years ago, now graduates students from
high school at a higher rate than our state average and, among African-
Americans, at a higher rate than the national average.
That success starts with a simple blend of four policies that
allows for coherent planning at each school: 1.) Empowered charter
school leadership and governance, where schools receive 98 cents for
every dollar of state and local revenue; 2.) Uncompromising
accountability based on long-term results; 3.) Citywide parental choice
of public and private schools, facilitated by government; 4.) Long-term
investments in a pipeline of talented principals and teachers.
Together, these principles form a simple framework for improvement:
set a goal, let the educators figure out how to achieve it, give
parents a choice of where to send children and resources, and stock the
system with strong teachers and leaders.
A particular moment comes to mind when illustrating the power of
these principles. A couple years ago I visited ASPIRE Academy, an
elementary school in the 9th Ward of New Orleans, a neighborhood
particularly devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The school, then in its
second year, was founded by a former administrator of a KIPP charter
school and had replaced a long-struggling traditional district school.
Discussing his plans for the future, he told me that if the school was
going to meet its four-year performance targets--an achievement
required for the school to remain in our system--he knew that he needed
more time with his students, and he knew that his staff would have to
provide each child more than just academic classroom instruction.
``We are going early morning to late evening,'' he told me. ``Three
meals a day, full art and music curriculum for every student, and two
hours more learning than we are getting today.''
Surprised, given the young age of the students, I asked him why he
thought the school should go in that direction.
``First, my parents are asking for it. My kids aren't getting it at
home. It's what's necessary to get them on track.''
He continued: ``And the reason we are able to do it is that the
central office doesn't run the school; the educators run the school,
and the parents chose this school. A grant manager downtown doesn't
tell us how to spend our children's money. We have our school's plan
for our school's kids, and all of our resources are focused on that.''
It is worth saying that the New Orleans model of empowered,
accountable schools was predated by NCLB's push to identify low-
performing schools and to improve them. This is an important legacy of
that law.
But it is also worth saying that the simplicity of the New Orleans
model--one where educators and parents rather than bureaucrats make
choices on behalf of the kids they know and serve--exists in spite of
the federal role and its complexities, not because of it.
Therein lies the critical challenge to a quality reauthorization of
ESEA: Congress must promulgate a framework of accountability, choice,
and high quality teaching while keeping its parameters simple for
leaders of states, districts, and schools, whose greatest challenge day
to day is achieving coherent planning around the needs of students.
Empowered Leadership
The vehicle for implementing this framework should be one simple
set of parameters from the federal government and one plan from each
state. It is time we acknowledge that the fragmented federal structure
that gives each title and grant its own bureaucracy, mirrored in every
state agency and district central office in America, is among our
greatest barriers to progress. It pulls educators in different
directions when the great struggle of a school is to get everybody
working together.
In Louisiana, we have condensed 26 federal grants into one common
application for dollars from school districts. Our districts are using
new flexibilities, allowing them to spend on critical services central
to their plans for change.
We need more movement in this direction. Progress starts with
allowing educators to think for themselves and to innovate in response
to accountability. Congress should streamline grant requirements.
States should propose how to distribute federal dollars in ways that
align with their own funding formulas.
States that won't work within the federal parameters should not
take federal dollars. States that cannot achieve the performance goals
entailed in their plans should receive fewer funds.
We must dispense with reports that go unused, incessant grant
applications, contradictory planning processes, and inconsistent
spending requirements. That starts with simplifying the federal
framework into one simple set of parameters and one simple plan from
each state.
Accountability for Results
The federal parameters should both call for state accountability
systems that commit to results, especially among historically
disadvantaged students, and allow states to innovate on measures
themselves. In Louisiana, our accountability system is evolving to
include not just grade level proficiency and graduation rates, but also
real-world college and career attainment measures such as Advanced
Placement results, dual enrollment credit, and post-secondary
employment attainment. Our system is also evolving toward greater
incorporation of individual student progress as a way of measuring
school and district performance. Federal parameters should compel
states to design systems in line with these principles, but states
should have freedom to craft measures.
The ultimate promise on which states should deliver is student
achievement, and federal funds awarded should in part be predicated on
demonstrated outcomes. To that end, states should also articulate long-
term performance objectives and annual benchmarks along the way.
States are policy laboratories, and we should not limit continued
innovation in accountability systems. The federal government is right
to define parameters for strong accountability tied to outcomes, but
Congress should be wary of over-prescribing the measures entailed.
Consequences: Parental Choice
States should identify schools that persistently under-achieve or
do not show progress. While the federal formulas for determining these
lists have proven bewildering and should be ended, this assurance
remains one of NCLB's most important legacies.
At the same time, the legislation's regime of prescribed corrective
action did more to generate state and district central office jobs than
it did to transform struggling schools. States should create plans that
guarantee greater opportunity for students trapped in low-performing
schools rather than reams of pro forma plans approved by Washington.
In New Orleans and in Louisiana, when we talk about low-performing
schools, we don't start with the question of how to turn around every
school. We start with the question of ensuring a great school seat for
every child. We plan on that basis, using pre-existing school options
more efficiently, opening up new school options, and replacing failed
options, with the goal of every child having immediate access to a
high-quality school seat.
Each state should develop a plan that guarantees a high quality,
viable alternative for every student attending a failing school. This
plan should include any option that has demonstrated a record of
student achievement: traditional public, charter public, non-public, or
otherwise. In New Orleans, students enroll in public schools and in
publicly funded private schools through the same process. This year, a
full 20 percent of parents seeking a new school listed both private
schools and public schools on their applications.
And where states propose to convert currently struggling schools
into better schools using federal dollars, they should be required to
change the governance of the schools in question. Prescribed corrective
action from Washington that maintains current status quo governance
does not work. If states are serious about improvement in the most
persistently low-performing schools, they will establish a point at
which the status quo school system loses the privilege of educating
those schools' students and others are invited in to make change
happen.
Our state's Recovery School District takes struggling schools under
an alternate governance umbrella, allowing either the state or a new
organization--such as a charter school management organization--to
operate the school without interference. In New Orleans, this has
yielded an increase in literacy and math scores among student in those
schools from 23 percent proficiency six years ago to 51 percent today.
Teacher and Principal Pipeline
Requiring states to report school-level outcomes spurred a focus on
schools that states and districts had forgotten about. States should
likewise report and improve workforce measures. But the measures should
speak more holistically to the quality of the workforce than do teacher
evaluation outcomes alone. States should, for example, report entry
requirements for teacher preparation programs and measurable outcomes
of those programs, along with the results achieved by their graduates.
Finally, if we are going to get the question of educator talent
right, we have to get beyond spending all federal dollars on short-term
activities and outcomes. If we are serious about achieving educator
effectiveness, states should use a percentage of federal dollars for
long-term investments in scaling accountable, effective teacher and
principal preparation programs, including effective charter school
management organizations. New Orleans would not be what it is today had
government and philanthropists not made long-term investments in
organizations like Teach For America, New Schools for New Orleans,
Relay Graduate School of Education, Building Excellent Schools, and
Leading Educators, as well as the nation's best pipeline of charter
school management organizations, ready to turn around struggling
schools. Federal dollars can help states to scale what works, and
state's plans should reflect this.
Educating children, especially the most disadvantaged, is an
endlessly complex activity. It requires a relentless focus on
measurable outcomes, coupled with the dexterity to be creative and
adjust course. A strong ESEA reauthorization will be uncompromising in
its commitment to accountability but humble in its view of the federal
role and its potential to create confusion more than coherence. I hope
our experience in Louisiana has proved helpful to your view of the law,
and I thank you humbly for the opportunity to share it this morning.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. White.
Dr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS RICHARDSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
NORTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Richardson. Chairman Kline, members of the committee,
school districts across the country have seen some major
positive impacts in the implementation of No Child Left Behind.
First, the focus on achievement data moved districts from
implementing changes based on whether it seemed like the right
thing to do, to doing it and looking at how students are
performing and making changes based on data.
Second, schools moved from examining only average scores of
all groups combined to disaggregating data, looking closely at
students in each subgroup, and responding to the needs of all
subgroups.
Finally, the focus on each subgroup identified the
achievement gap that exists in many school districts between
white students and students of color, those in poverty, with
disabilities, and English learners.
At the same time, NCLB is deeply flawed.
First, the focus on reading and mathematics not only fails
to consider the importance of things like science, social
studies, the arts, and vocational education, but it also
totally ignores 21st century workforce skills.
Second, the reliance on the test given at a single point in
time in the year as the sole measure of a student's proficiency
or growth is inherently unfair.
Finally, the draconian sanctions placed on schools
identified as ``in need of improvement'' financially punishes
schools and students that face the greatest challenges.
So what needs to change?
First, Congress needs to reauthorize the ESEA as soon as
possible, providing relief for the broken components of current
law. While the waiver process has spared some from the
unworkable sanctions, it leaves this country without consistent
action.
Second, the reauthorization must recalibrate the federal
and state roles in education. Federal investment in public
education represents, on average, just 10 percent of total
district expenditures. Reauthorization should ensure that
federal policy establishes a proportional role.
Second, the federal government must set broad parameters
around testing, allowing multiple measures determined at the
state and local level with clear expectations for
disaggregation of data, identification of achievement gaps,
district and school improvement plans, professional
development, and communication.
Third, each state in collaboration with districts should
have the authority to implement and individualize these
parameters based on their needs, determine the suite of
assessment tools that is appropriate, and establish the
structure for district and school improvement.
Finally, each state and district should have the
flexibility to use federal funding in ways that positively
impact student success allowing those folks that are closest to
the students to address their unique needs.
I would like to share three quick stories about Northfield
that I believe mirror how districts across the nation are using
data to creatively address student needs.
First, every Northfield teacher is part of a grade level or
subject area Professional Learning Community, or PLC. Their
responsibility is to analyze data about their students and
address their needs.
The work of PLCs resulted in implementation of Response to
Intervention or RTI in every elementary building in our
district. Each PLC team combs data, identifies students not on
track, determines appropriate interventions, implements those
interventions.
Many students are back on track within 6 weeks. This
significantly reduced referrals for special education with only
20 initial referrals this year in comparison to 80 or 90
referrals for special education in each of the last 5 years.
More importantly, students have the skills to continue to
access the regular curriculum at grade level.
A second example, a high school PLC's team's longitudinal
data showed failing classes as a freshman increased the chances
that students would either not graduate on time or would drop
out. The PLC developed the Academy with staff who taught a
smaller number of struggling students for half the day.
Academy staff monitored performance and supported students
during the day and after school providing follow-up and
individual instruction. After implementation, the percentage of
freshmen failing dropped from 25 percent down to 8 percent and
our graduation rate went up to 96 percent.
The third example, less than a decade ago, our Latino
immigrant students in Northfield who make up about 12 percent
of our population were struggling with a graduation rate of 36
percent. The grad rate of white students was 90 percent.
Few Latino students attended post-secondary activities.
They created a program called TORCH; Tackling Obstacles Raising
College Hopes, to help support and provide career exploration
post-secondary opportunities. Today, our graduation rate for
Latinos is over 90 percent. We have got an 1100 percent
increase in TORCH graduates accessing post-secondary ed.
I think it is important to realize as we go forward that
not only do we need to address the academic needs but we also
need to address the fact that teachers need the professional
development and also that kids and families need to be
connected with if we are going to ensure success.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. L. Chris Richardson, Superintendent of
Schools, Northfield Public Schools, Northfield, MN
Chairman Kline and Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Chris
Richardson, superintendent of the Northfield Public Schools in
Northfield, Minnesota. Over my forty-three year career in education,
the first ten years were spent as a middle school teacher and
instructional team leader, secondary principal, curriculum director,
and for the last thirty-three years as superintendent of six Iowa,
Nebraska, and Minnesota school districts. In 2012, I was selected as
the Minnesota Superintendent of the Year.
My teaching and administrative experiences have been in diverse
districts with enrollments ranging from 250 to 22,000 students K-12. I
am currently completing my ninth year as superintendent of the
Northfield Public Schools after leading the Osseo Area schools from
1997-2004. Northfield Public Schools has approximately 3,900 students
K-12 of which approximately 83% are White, 12% are Hispanic and 5%
other students of color. English learners comprise 8% of our students,
13% are identified for special education services and 25% qualify for
free or reduced price meals.
During my career as a superintendent, I have led districts in
responding to ``A Nation at Risk'' in the 80's, ``Goals 2000'' in the
90's and ``No Child Left Behind'' or NCLB during the last decade. In
the last few years, districts in Minnesota and a number of other states
have been operating under the waiver provisions granted by the
Department of Education.
School districts across Minnesota and the country have seen some
major positive impacts in the implementation of No Child Left Behind,
the current ESEA act.
First, the focus on student achievement data has moved
school districts from implementing programs or making changes based on
whether it seemed like the right thing to do, to looking in detail at
how students are performing and making changes and modifications based
on what that data shows.
Second, schools have moved from examining and reporting
only the average scores of all groups combined to disaggregating the
data so that we look closely at how students in each subgroup are
performing and respond with specific supports to meet the needs of all
students.
Finally, the focus on disaggregated data for each subgroup
has clearly identified the achievement gap that exists in many school
districts between our White students and our students of color,
students in poverty, students with disabilities, and students who are
English learners.
At the same time, NCLB is deeply flawed.
First, the focus on reading and mathematics not only fails
to consider the importance of science, social studies, the arts, health
and physical education and vocational technical education, but totally
ignores the development of 21st century workforce skills needed by our
students.
Second, the reliance on a test given at a single point in
time as the sole measure of a student's class, school building, or
district's proficiency or growth is inherently unfair. It is the
equivalent of judging the worth of an elected official based on a
single vote.
Finally, the draconian sanctions placed on schools and
districts that are identified as ``in need of improvement'' financially
punishes those schools and students that face the greatest challenges.
So what needs to change?
First, Congress needs to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act as soon as possible, providing all schools and
students with relief from the broken, outdated components of current
law. While the waiver process has spared some states like Minnesota and
school districts like Northfield from the unworkable sanctions embodied
in NCLB, it leaves this country without a consistent focus and
direction in education at a time when it is much needed.
Second, the reauthorization must reestablish and
recalibrate the federal and state roles in education. Federal
investment in public education represents, on average, just ten percent
of total district expenditures. As such, any reauthorization should
ensure that federal policy establishes, at most, a proportional role,
to avoid the proverbial ``tail wagging the dog''. The federal
government must set broad parameters around testing and measurement
allowing multiple measures of proficiency and growth determined at the
state and local level. Additional federal parameters around
disaggregation of data and identification of achievement gaps are
needed as well as the need for district and school improvement plans,
professional development and requirements for communication with
constituents. Each state in collaboration with local districts should
have the authority and responsibility to implement and individualize
these parameters based on their identified needs. Each state should be
able to determine the suite of assessment tools that best measure
proficiency, growth and college and career readiness. Each state with
meaningful involvement of local districts should be able to establish
structures for school improvement plans, and district goal setting of
performance targets, achievement gap reduction and student growth.
Finally, each state and district should have the
flexibility to use federal funding in ways that provide the best
opportunity to positively impact student success. District flexibility
allows those closest to the students to address unique student needs in
ways that are most effective for those students.
I would like to share three brief stories about what we are doing
in the Northfield Public Schools that mirror the efforts that I believe
are occurring across this country. These efforts reflect how local
districts are using data to creatively address student needs and
increase student success. They also demonstrate the power of giving
local districts and schools the opportunity to develop and implement
plans embraced by local teachers and staff that change the lives of
students.
The Northfield Public Schools has been implementing professional
learning communities (PLCs) for several years. Every teacher in every
building is part of a grade level or subject area PLC which meets for
one hour every week during the school day. Each PLC is responsible for
analyzing the data about the students they serve, and developing and
implementing goals and instructional strategies for addressing student
needs.
The work of PLCs has resulted in the implementation of Response to
Intervention or (RtI) in every elementary building. Each building PLC
team, with the help of an RtI coach, combs through the data about
students, identifies students who are not on track to succeed,
determines scientifically based interventions, and implements those
interventions with fidelity over multiple weeks. Many of the students
are back on track in six weeks and others receive additional
interventions to support their learning. The bottom line is that this
process has significantly reduced the number of elementary referrals to
special education in all buildings with only 20 initial referrals this
year in comparison to 80-90 referrals on average in each of the last
five years. More importantly, it provides these students with the
skills to continue to access the regular curriculum at grade level, so
they don't fall behind.
At the high school level, a PLC team determined that a number of
incoming ninth graders were struggling academically and therefore at
risk of failing one or more classes as freshmen. Longitudinal data told
them that failing one or more classes as a freshman significantly
increased the chances that these students would not graduate on time or
would drop out later in high school. The PLC developed the Academy and
selected a group of struggling students. Academy teaching staff worked
with a smaller number of students while other teachers took on larger
numbers of students who were not at risk. The struggling students were
taught for half of their day by a team of teachers who carefully
monitored their performance and supported them both during the day and
after school with a seminar providing follow up, tutoring and
individual instruction in addition to their regular classes. After
several years of implementation, the percentage of freshmen failing one
or more class has dropped from almost 25% down to less than 8% and our
four year graduation rate now exceeds 96%.
Less than a decade ago, Latino immigrant students in Northfield who
make up 12% of the student population were struggling with a graduation
rate of only 36% while the graduation rate of our White students was
over 90%. Few Latino students attended a postsecondary program. Staff
members worked with the community to develop a program to address the
achievement gap and to support Latino students and their families.
Working collaboratively, we implemented the Northfield Tackling
Obstacles and Raising College Hopes (TORCH) initiative to provide
academic and social support, mentoring, career exploration, and
connections with post-secondary education opportunities for Latino
youth in grades 9-12.
The first goal of TORCH is to improve academic success and school/
community connectedness through individual academic counseling; one-on-
one mentoring; transitions to more academically-rigorous classes;
bridging the Digital Divide; youth service; student leadership
opportunities; and regular family check-in's. The second goal of TORCH
is to increase access and participation in postsecondary education
through career/college exploration and workshops; summer enrichment
activities that improve academic skills; college visitations; ACT and
Accuplacer prep; assistance with college/financial aid applications;
and communication with graduates.
Over the past six and a half years, TORCH has seen remarkable
results. Today, the Latino graduation rate in Northfield has climbed to
over 90%. There has been an 1100% increase in TORCH graduates who have
accessed postsecondary education programs and earned bachelor's
degrees, associate's degrees, and postsecondary certificates. Based on
our success, TORCH expanded in 2007 to serve all Northfield youth in
grades 9-12 who are racial minorities, low-income, and/or potential
first-generation college attendees. Many of our Latino students fit
into all of these categories. High school success also required
stronger academic and social supports for TORCH-eligible youth in
middle school so TORCH expanded to middle school students in grades 6-8
providing academic and social support and an even stronger foundation
for future success.
The bottom line is that teachers and administrators in Northfield
and districts across Minnesota and the nation have continued to step up
to address the academic needs of the students we serve, just as we did
before NCLB was implemented. We also know that the power of
professional learning communities for teachers and personally
connecting with kids and families is just as important as academic
instruction in ensuring student success. We understand the political
and funding issues you face and sincerely hope you understand the
complexity of the education effort we undertake every day with every
student.
A reauthorized ESEA needs to provide the broad federal parameters
that maintain the focus on continuing to use the data we have about
children to increase student proficiency and reduce the achievement
gap. At the same time, it needs to provide the assessment, programming
and funding flexibility to each state and school district necessary to
support the professional expertise--and unleash the creativity of--our
educators, the teachers and administrators, working in our classrooms
and schools every day to make instructionally sound decisions driven by
a never-ending desire to improve student learning. Please work to find
that compromise. Our children and our future depend on it.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Chris.
Mr. Gordon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC S. GORDON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CLEVELAND
METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Good Morning Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on accountability and school improvement initiatives in
our nation's public schools.
I want also to recognize Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, known
well in Cleveland for her advocacy of every child's right to a
quality education.
The Cleveland Metropolitan School District is the second
largest school district in Ohio, where more than 40,000
students and their families count on us to provide the best
education possible for them.
Our system is particularly challenged by having a 47
percent census poverty rate, the second highest among the
nation's Great City Schools, and a free and reduced price lunch
rate of 100 percent, meaning all students are served free
breakfast and lunch. We further serve 22 percent special needs
children and 6 percent for whom English is a second language.
In Cleveland, we talk often about a Nation at Risk. Prior
to my appointment as CEO, I served as the chief academic
officer and was one of the main architects of a transformation
plan designed to move the district forward.
However, that plan was quickly mired in contractual and
legal barriers and that led me, our Democratic mayor, and
ultimately our Republican governor to approach both sides of
the Ohio House and Senate and seek legislation that helped us
create the Cleveland Plan, which has since drawn national
attention for a collaborative approach that I believe provides
a frame for how we can think about the role of federal policy
as well.
Even with some of the toughest challenges in the nation,
Cleveland has embraced accountability, as demonstrated by
volunteering for the local Trial Urban NAEP testing initiative
with the high academic standards set by the independent
National Assessment Governing Board.
It should not be surprising, therefore, that I support
requiring Title I-funded schools to set academic performance
targets to anchor and guide their schoolwide and targeted-
assistance plans.
And, while consensus on a precise trajectory for progress
for each such school may not be attainable, continuing growth
in these highest needs schools should be the pivotal element
particularly with so many students performing below proficiency
and many of the low achieving student groups also performing
below their statewide average peers.
Moreover, NAEP has demonstrated that far greater numbers of
students are not proficient when tested against higher academic
standards similar to the Common Core standards adopted by many
states including Ohio.
And when we say accountability in Cleveland we mean it and
we have done it--done so by putting our money where our mouth
is, where my colleagues and I have asked our voters to support
a $15 million levy that they cannot afford but holding us
accountable by taking it away in 4 years if we are unable to
succeed.
Some of the federal statutory and regulatory barriers to
school reform have been removed through the flexibility
provided to Ohio and other states under the U.S. Department of
Education's waivers.
With a shared commitment and some--excuse me--from which we
can learn. Otherwise, under the decade old No Child Left
Behind, 100 percent proficiency requirements would have
overwhelmed the capacity of our system, requiring improvement
plans for nearly every school.
One of my strongest appeals is for legislation that allows
a reform minded-leader and school system like Cleveland to
focus and target our time, people, and resources to improve our
schools rather than using a one-size-fits-all model.
With the shared commitment and additional flexibility,
Cleveland schools can model the most visionary and successful
reform strategies in the country and replace the one-size-fits-
all reform plans of the past with a portfolio school model that
provides results in other cities around our nation allowing for
autonomy at our school level in exchange for accountability,
providing choices for families, increasing the ability to hire
and place staff at the school level, and driving resources
based on student-weighted funding needs as opposed to district-
wide enrollment numbers.
Without federal support for disadvantaged students and
accompanying accountability expectations in ESEA, districts
like Cleveland would have truly been left behind.
I would encourage an increased federal investment in ESEA
to help underwrite the types of reforms that Cleveland has
initiated and the movement toward world-class academics for all
students.
The traditional provisions of federal law that protect the
integrity and impact of federal funding such as maintenance of
effort, supplement not supplant, and others continue to be
important. Yet, there is still need for some additional
flexibility to allow superintendents, like myself, to better
tackle academic and capacity problems in our most difficult
Title I schools that are constrained by rigid requirements and
unnecessary paperwork.
I would challenge, however, the assumption that delegating
those requirements to the states is the simple and best answer
to resolving implementation problems because of the state
requirements that I struggle with daily as the superintendent.
I am also concerned about state actions to avoid NCLB
accountability, lowering state academic standards and
proficiency cut scores, or establishing super subgroups that
allow us to hide individual subgroup accountability.
The economic downturn over the past years has had a
devastating impact in Cleveland and in our state, and
sequestration of important federal education aid for low
income, minority, and English language learners along with
students with disabilities has had a further disruptive effect
on educational services.
Nonetheless, I remain optimistic about the Cleveland Plan
inspired by the citizens in our community trying to improve the
success for students, and I look forward to your support
through the reauthorization that will give my colleagues and me
the tools we need to improve the work in America's schools
today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Gordon, Chief Executive Officer,
Cleveland Metropolitan School District
Good Morning Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of
the Committee. I am Eric Gordon, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify on accountability and school improvement initiatives in our
nation's public schools. I want also to recognize Congresswoman Marcia
Fudge, known well in Cleveland for her advocacy of every child's right
to a quality education.
The Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) is the second
largest school district in Ohio, where more than 40,000 students and
their families count on us to provide the best education possible for
them. Our school system is particularly challenged by having a 47%
Census poverty rate, the second highest among the nation's Great City
Schools, and a free and reduced price lunch rate of 100%.
Prior to my appointment as CEO, I served as Cleveland's Chief
Academic Officer and one of the main architects of a transformation
plan to move Cleveland forward to become not only a premier school
district in the United States, but also a district of premier schools.
This aggressive plan to graduate our children ready for jobs and higher
education at times has been mired in contractual and legal barriers to
school reform-barriers that citizens and leaders across Cleveland and
on both sides of the legislative aisle at the State Capital, have
worked to overcome. The Cleveland Plan drew national attention in the
New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review as a
model of collaboration that brought Democratic Mayor, Frank Jackson and
Republican Governor, John Kasich together in a common mission to do
what's right for kids.
Moreover, some of the federal statutory and regulatory barriers to
school reform also have been removed through the flexibility provided
to Ohio under the U.S. Department of Education's waiver initiative,
allowing us to better target reform efforts on the schools in greatest
need and more productive spending of federal Title I funds on effective
school improvement measures. Otherwise, under the decade-old No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), the 100% proficiency requirement for students
in every subgroup for school year 2013-2014 would have overwhelmed the
capacity of the district by requiring improvement plans, corrective
action plans, or restructuring plans in nearly all of Cleveland's
schools, as well as directed expenditures to Supplemental Education
services (SES) that have demonstrated minimal academic value since the
2002 enactment.
Notably, however, the critical requirements of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) still remain in Cleveland and Ohio, and
still warrant continued support. Accountability for the performance of
disadvantaged groups of students (low-income, minority groups, English
learners, and students with disabilities) is essential, as well as
transparent reporting of assessment results in the aggregate and in the
disaggregated form, remains appropriately the cornerstones of federal
aid.
Even with some of the toughest challenges in the nation, Cleveland
has embraced accountability, as demonstrated by volunteering for the
local Trial Urban NAEP testing initiative with the high academic
standards set by the independent National Assessment Governing Board.
It should not be surprising, therefore, that I support requiring Title
I-funded schools to set academic performance targets to anchor and
guide their school wide and targeted-assistance plans. And, while
consensus on a precise trajectory for progress for each such school may
not be attainable, continuing growth should be the pivotal element--
particularly with so many students performing below proficiency and
many of the low-achieving student groups also performing below the
overall statewide average. Moreover, the National Assessment of
Education Progress has demonstrated that far greater numbers of
students are not proficient when tested against higher academic
standards, similar to the Common Core standards now adopted by the vast
majority of states.
Now with a shared commitment and some additional flexibility, our
Cleveland schools can better model the most visionary and successful
reform strategies in the country, and have replaced the ``one size fits
all'' reform plans of the past with a portfolio school model that is
producing dramatic results in cities throughout the nation. The
portfolio model allows for--
greater autonomy for our schools and increased
accountability for producing the results our families expect and our
children deserve;
families to have school choices and access to high quality
public and charter school options in every neighborhood which fosters
public engagement;
increased autonomy for schools to hire and place staff
where they are needed most and to direct resources where they will make
the most difference; and
student-weighted funding formulas to determine school
budgets with decisions based on individual student needs rather than
enrollment numbers.
Reforms, school improvement strategies, and school intervention
measures instituted in Cleveland include--
focusing on the District's Central Office on Key roles and
transfer authority and resources to schools;
growing the number of high performing district and charter
schools in Cleveland;
investing and phasing in high-leverage system reforms
including high quality preschool education, year round-calendar, talent
recruitment, and capacity building for staff;
extensive community engagement; and
performance-based accountability for educators and staff
Concurrently, Cleveland is aggressively implementing the Common
Core standards adopted by the State of Ohio. I can't overstate the
challenge which these world-class academic standards present to our
School Board, district administration, and every principal and teacher
in Cleveland. And, we are probably more aggressive in approaching this
increased academic rigor than most school districts. Although we still
have more to do, Cleveland has taken the following steps thus far to
improve our schools--
Provided training for all staff that develops and
prioritizes mastery of rigorous educational standards aligned to state
standards
Developed and monitored a guaranteed and viable Scope and
Sequence for all subjects
Carefully monitored student growth using a variety of
measures throughout the school year
Implemented research-based classroom instructional
strategies
Measured non-academic indicators of student achievement
using conditions for learning surveys throughout the school year to
yield better decision planning for staff
Provided Social and Emotional Learning Curriculum for all
students that promotes emotional and academic growth
Increased our technology options for all students
Without federal support for disadvantaged students and accompanying
accountability expectations in ESEA, districts like Cleveland would
have truly been left behind. I would encourage an increased federal
investment in ESEA to help underwrite the types of reforms that
Cleveland has initiated and the movement toward world-class academics
for all students. The traditional provisions of federal law that
protect the integrity and impact of federal funding (i.e. maintenance
of effort, supplement not supplant, etc.) continue to be important.
Yet, there is still need for some additional flexibility to allow
superintendents, like myself, to better tackle academic and capacity
problems in our most difficult Title I schools that are constrained by
rigid requirements and unnecessary paperwork. But, the presumption that
delegating federal requirements to the States is the best answer to
resolving the implementation problems of NCLB is rebutted by
conflicting state requirements that I struggle with daily as
superintendent, and documented state actions to avoid NCLB
accountability through statistical manipulations, lowering state
academic standards, lowering proficiency cut scores, or establishing a
super-subgroup under waivers in order to avoid subgroup-by-subgroup
accountability.
The economic downturn over the past few years has had a devastating
impact on our city and state. And, the sequestration of important
federal education aid for low-income, minority, English learners, and
students with disabilities has had a further disruptive effect on
educational services.
Nonetheless, I remain optimistic about the Cleveland Plan, and
inspired by the citizens of our impoverished jurisdiction who passed a
15-mill levy to support the Plan and our commitment to providing a
premier public education for all of our students.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Given, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GIVEN, CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
EDISONLEARNING
Mr. Given. Chairman Kline, Senior Democratic Member Miller,
and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to
address you today.
I have been asked to discuss innovative state strategies
and approaches to accountability in ways in which states and
school districts are taking the lead on education reform. I
hope that you find my remarks useful as you continue your
deliberations on the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
First, as context, I would like to provide a brief
description of EdisonLearning. EdisonLearning is a premier
education solutions provider dedicated to improving outcomes
for students in elementary and secondary schools around the
world.
We have served hundreds of schools and hundreds of
thousands of students, primarily economically disadvantaged
students, with the focus on school turnaround and innovative
virtual and blended learning solutions.
Recent initiatives to provide states more flexibility as
well as incentives for innovation have given us a glimpse of
what states are doing with respect to accountability and for
expanded transparency.
Initiatives have included new school grading systems, the
provision of interventions to turnaround persistently low
performing schools, and renewed focus on high school graduation
and college and career readiness.
The following are some major trends in those areas we have
seen in our work with states, districts, and schools. As states
have become more proficient and expansive in their assessment
of schools we are seeing building level challenges earlier than
ever.
Various school grading regimes provide a more detailed view
of school performance and provide an opportunity to take
corrective action before schools are labeled persistently
underperforming.
One of the most effective policies we have seen is the
introduction of external partners to improve the quality of
public education. Several states have developed a request for
proposals process for approving external partners and many
require the low performing partners to partner with an approved
organization and take state-defined steps to increase
achievement while leveraging state and federal resources.
For example, under Indiana law, if a school remains in the
lowest performing category for 5 consecutive years, the state
board must consider assigning a special management team to
operate all or part of the school.
In addition, the Indiana Department of Education has
developed a list of approved partners that may provide targeted
or comprehensive support to struggling schools.
We have worked successfully across Indiana, most recently
as a partner in Gary. Our early wins point to long-term
success. We have seen increased family and community engagement
and significant achievement gains in reading and mathematics.
Virginia has a similarly robust accountability system and
conducted its own RFP process in 2009 to identify qualified
lead partners. Only four organizations, including
EdisonLearning, were deemed to meet the state's standards for
high-quality, comprehensive school improvement services.
We have been able to demonstrate our ability to turn around
low-performing schools by working shoulder to shoulder to
strengthen school leadership, improve the use of data, and
support standards-based instruction. Based on our history of
efficacy, EdisonLearning is an approved partner in 12 of the
states.
Federal policy should encourage comprehensive turnaround
partnerships without dictating the specific strategies to be
implemented. Where No Child Left Behind fell short was in
dictating rigid turnaround options rather than giving states
flexibility to implement promising research-based strategies
that would meet the needs of particular schools including the
districts' capacity and strategy.
The recent shift in graduation reporting requirements
highlighted the need for high school reform. What is needed now
is a set of policies that promote innovative, data-driven
approaches to secondary education in conjunction with
accountability systems that reflect the new post-secondary
reality of 21st century college and career requirements.
Virtual and blended learning programs are some of the most
promising methods that can be leveraged to address secondary
school challenges. In our experience, the most compelling
example of the effective use of blended learning is for the re-
engagement of students who have dropped out of school or are at
risk of doing so.
Through a strategic partnership with Magic Johnson
Enterprises, we have been able to serve students who want to
graduate but have found the obstacles overwhelming.
There is a role for the federal government to play in
incentivizing data-driven reform and we commended the efforts
to promote innovation that leads to better outcomes.
At the same time our experience tells us that these
incentives can be made more effective in several ways and
ultimately reform cannot succeed if states, districts, schools,
and their communities do not buy into it and share
accountability for it.
Specific lessons we have learned from our partnerships are:
incentives in the form of funding to improve low-performing
schools are a necessity regardless of where they come from;
prescription must include specific support for low-performing
schools including partnering with experts to improve teaching
and learning.
These supports must be triggered early. The longer a school
struggles, the greater chance that a self-fulfilling culture of
defeat will settle in making change even more difficult.
New strategies such as blended learning must be employed to
increase the number of college-and career-ready graduates. The
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
provides a tremendous opportunity to further innovation that
leads to measurable, sustainable improvements for all students.
We agree that schools must be held accountable for teaching
all students and cannot walk away from failure. In high schools
in particular, we underscore the pressing nature of the
challenge faced by millions of students who may not graduate
and will be underprepared for college or career.
The next generation of ESEA must balance the need for
greater state and local flexibility with the need to encourage
increased accountability and transparency.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Given follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Given, Chief Development Officer,
EdisonLearning, Inc.
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to address
you today. I've been asked to talk about innovative State approaches to
accountability and ways in which States and school districts are taking
the lead on education reform. I hope that you find my remarks useful as
you continue your deliberations on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
About EdisonLearning
Before I discuss what we're seeing ``on the ground,'' I want to
provide some information about EdisonLearning to give context to my
testimony. EdisonLearning is an education solutions provider dedicated
to improving outcomes for students in elementary and secondary schools
around the world. We currently partner with schools and organizations
in 25 States, the United Kingdom, and the Middle East. Our core
competencies, reflected in our extensive portfolio of K-12 solutions,
are the product of nearly two decades of research, practice, and
refinement based on quantitative and qualitative data. EdisonLearning
has nearly twenty years of expertise in education reform, partnering
with school districts, governments, and charter authorizers and boards.
We are a State-approved turnaround partner in 12 States: California,
Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
State and District Trends
Recent initiatives to provide States more flexibility and
incentives for innovation have given us a glimpse of what States are
doing with respect to accountability for student success and expanding
transparency, including through new school grading systems, and
providing interventions to turn around persistently low-performing
schools. The following are some of the major trends in these areas that
we have seen in our work with States, districts, and schools.
Partnering for Success
One of the most effective practices that we have seen is the use of
external partners to improve the quality of public education. Several
States have developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for
approving external partners, using certain State and federal resources,
and many require that low-performing schools partner with an approved
organization and take legislatively defined steps to increase student
achievement. Mass Insight's School Turnaround Group, which is a
national leader in school turnaround research, counsels, ``[a]n RFP
(Request for Proposal) is a critical first step in vetting and
selecting Lead Partners to manage school turnaround efforts.'' \1\ By
rigorously vetting providers through a competitive process, States can
set a high bar for services, have better oversight of improvement
efforts, and insulate districts from the costs associated with
competitive procurement, while still giving districts the flexibility
to select providers that best meet their needs. Some States also allow
districts to choose partners that are not on the State-approved list if
these partners offer proven improvement strategies. We have observed
increased interest at the district level in partnering for professional
development--often in specific content areas--and innovative approaches
to instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ School Turnaround Group (2011). Forging partnerships for
turnaround: Emerging lessons from state RFP processes. Mass Insight
Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Turnaround Partnerships
Comprehensive turnaround support continues to find an increasingly
receptive audience at the State level. ``Comprehensive'' means
different things in different contexts; it can range from hands-on
instructional improvement services to full management of educational
and operational components of a school. One State that is relatively
prescriptive in its requirements for low-performing schools is Indiana,
where we are currently working with four schools to increase student
achievement.
Under Indiana law, if a school remains in the lowest performance
category for five consecutive years, the State Board must consider
assigning a ``special management team'' to operate all or part of the
school. In addition, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) has
developed lists of approved ``Lead Partners'' and ``Turnaround School
Operators'' that may provide targeted or comprehensive support to
struggling schools.
Within this system, EdisonLearning is currently working closely
with the IDOE to turn around one of the State's lowest-performing high
schools in Gary, Indiana. We conducted a comprehensive needs assessment
of the school to determine what interventions were needed to accelerate
achievement. Based on this ``Collaborative Quality Analysis,'' we
developed a detailed plan to address the school climate and culture,
which we found to be major factors in the school's low academic
performance. This year we have begun to implement our whole school
reform model, with a focus on the school climate and community
engagement. Our early ``wins'' point to long-term success. We have seen
increased family and community engagement and significant achievement
gains in Reading and Math in grades 11 and 12. We have also begun
working with an intermediate school in Marion, Indiana.
Virginia has a similarly robust accountability system and conducted
its own RFP process in 2009-10 to identify qualified lead partners.
Only four organizations, including EdisonLearning, were deemed to meet
the State department of education's standards for high-quality,
comprehensive school improvement services. When we partnered with our
first Virginia schools in 2010, we met some resistance to our presence,
but that quickly changed as we have been able to demonstrate our
ability to turn around low-performing schools by strengthening school
leadership, improving the use of data, and supporting standards-based
instruction.
In addition, several other Virginia school divisions have expressed
interest in turnaround or dropout recovery programs. The aggressive
bipartisan effort of Governor Bob McDonnell to enact further reform
measures in the Commonwealth has raised hope that more schools will
have the opportunity to benefit from additional help in implementing
turnaround strategies. Key among the new reforms is the creation of the
Opportunity Educational Institution to enable State takeover of failing
schools similar to Louisiana's Recovery School District (RSD) and
Tennessee's Achievement School District.
As I mentioned earlier, EdisonLearning is an approved partner in 12
States. While some of these States have developed well-defined
intervention systems to support low-achieving schools, others seem
hesitant to follow through with the type of successful interventions
that I've described. Federal policy should encourage comprehensive
turnaround partnerships without dictating the specific strategies to be
implemented. Where No Child Left Behind fell short was in dictating
rigid turnaround options rather than giving States flexibility to
implement promising, research-based strategies that would meet the
needs of a particular school.
Targeted Partnerships
Another way in which States work with outside providers such as
EdisonLearning is by partnering to provide high-quality, targeted
embedded support, including professional development, training,
coaching, and modeling. This trend is no coincidence. The advent of
more rigorous State standards and their focus on preparing students for
college and careers requires thoughtful unpacking, mapping, and pacing
of curriculum and instruction to meet the call for college and career
readiness.
State-run Districts
As we will likely hear today from State Superintendent John White,
Louisiana pioneered the modern State-run model in 2003 when the
legislature established the RSD, an entity that was originally focused
on turning around low-performing schools in New Orleans. The RSD has
fostered significant achievement gains and elimination of the
achievement gap between students in Orleans Parish and those in the
rest of the State.\2\ It is a frequently referenced model for State
intervention. Leading the next generation of State-run turnaround
districts are the Achievement School District in Tennessee, District
180 in Kentucky, and the Education Achievement System in Michigan.
Kentucky in particular has done an excellent job of holding its
District 180 schools accountable for implementing ambitious improvement
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Transforming Public Education in New Orleans: The Recovery
School District. The Scott S. Cowen Institute for Public Education
Initiatives at Tulane University http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/History-of-the-RSD-Report-2011.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping It ``In-house''
Another trend that we have seen is a State-level commitment to
deliver professional development and turnaround support ``in-house''
through statewide or regional support networks. Unfortunately, these
kinds of initiatives are logistically complex, and many States do not
have the capacity to provide individualized support to thousands of
schools. Large-scale turnaround is a formidable task, but qualified
organizations like EdisonLearning can help States realize economies of
scale in the delivery of high-quality school improvement supports. In
Hawaii, where we support 55 schools across four islands, we work with
clusters of schools to ensure fidelity to best practice while providing
highly customized services.
Identifying School Needs
States, districts, and schools have embraced the concept of data-
driven decision-making as an important component of school improvement.
Data are the roadmap of a successful improvement journey; they tell us
where we are, where we want to be, and what we must do to get there.
Thus, many States and districts are requiring a comprehensive school
needs assessment to inform improvement planning and implementation. We
have seen RFPs that explicitly require a school diagnostic review. This
is another area in which some States and districts have taken a Do-It-
Yourself approach, with State or district teams conducting needs
assessments themselves. In our experience, the objective eye of a third
party is critical to the conduct of an accurate review. The
collaborative nature of EdisonLearning's own in-depth evaluation makes
it an objective assessment that engages teachers and administrators and
allows for meaningful customization of services.
Supporting English Language Learners
Across the nation, we are seeing greater focus on supporting
English Language Learners. Subgroup reporting requirements have
strengthened transparency and accountability for educating students
whose first language is not English. Consequently, we have seen an
increase in the number of RFPs thatexplicitly require professional
development and support to help teachers and administrators meet the
needs of English Language Learners. Comprehensive strategies that
extend beyond the classroom to engage and empower not only students,
but also their families, have been the most successful. Similarly,
strategies that foster integration rather than working in isolation
yield better results. This is why EdisonLearning's philosophy is one of
inclusion--we train all teachers together to support all students
through differentiated instruction and intervention instead of creating
instructional silos.
Rethinking High School
The importance of an effective high school design cannot be
ignored. For this reason, EdisonLearning is one of the few school
improvement partners that truly differentiate school improvement
services for elementary and secondary schools. In addition to
innovative blended learning programs and creative uses of technology,
we have noted the following trends:
RFPs explicitly seeking expertise in improving high
schools (as opposed to lower grade levels)
Greater emphasis on competency-based and experiential
learning
A focus on the Common Core
Increasing willingness to offer flexibility and wrap-
around supports to students whose life circumstances place them at risk
of disengagement
Attempts to minimize the need for remediation in post-
secondary education
The recent shift in graduation reporting requirements highlighted
the need for high school reform. What is needed now is a set of
policies that promote innovative, data-driven approaches to secondary
education in conjunction with accountability systems that reflect a new
post-secondary reality. One way in which States and districts are
working to improve outcomes is through the expanded use of technology;
however, as educators work to engage students in an increasingly
digital society--especially at the high school level--many are still
finding policies written for an analog world. For example, blended
learning programs typically emphasize competency-based learning, while
longstanding policies focus on the amount of time spent in the
classroom.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bailey, J., Ellis, S., Schneider, C., Vander Ark, T. Blended
Learning Implementation Guide. Digital Learning Now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Education through Technology
EdisonLearning is already working with many districts to
incorporate innovative educational solutions within its school
improvement strategies, including individual online courses and blended
learning environments. For example, at our partner school in Gary,
Indiana, students not only have access to traditional coursework in the
brick-and-mortar classroom, but they can also enroll in a rich variety
of online courses including core subjects and electives with a STEM
emphasis. Consistent with the school's focus on college and career
readiness, our courses require students to use technology in the
classroom the same way it is used in the real world: to enhance
productivity, efficiency, creative expression, communication, and
access to information.
In our experience, the most compelling example of the effective use
of blended learning is for the engagement of students who have dropped
out of school or are at risk of doing so. Through a strategic
partnership with Magic Johnson Enterprises, we have been able to serve
students who want to graduate but find the obstacles overwhelming. In
order to adequately support these students, our Magic Johnson
Bridgescape(r) Academies combine 1) a blended instructional model, 2)
an individualized instruction path for each student, and 3) the
counseling and coaching necessary to earn a high school diploma and
achieve success beyond graduation. EdisonLearning currently partners
with districts in 6 States to operate 17 Magic Johnson Bridgescape(r)
Academies.
In order for these types of innovative solutions to be successfully
incorporated into a strategy or framework for school improvement, there
must be mechanisms in place to allow for flexibility and innovation.
Examples of such mechanisms include seat-time waivers, competency-based
credit, and a general recognition of online and blended learning. Ohio
was the proving ground for the Magic Johnson Bridgescape(r) dropout
prevention and recovery model because it pioneered special
accountability provisions for high schools designed to re-engage
dropouts. The results were overwhelmingly positive:
64% of eligible students received their high school
diploma and continued on the path to post-secondary education and the
world of work.
Eight out of ten of our Ohio Magic Johnson Bridgescape(r)
Academies made AYP.
74% of students in the program at the end of the 2011-12
school year returned for the 2012-13 school year and continued working
toward a high school diploma.
Conclusion
There is a role for the federal government to play in incentivizing
data-driven reform, and we commend efforts to promote innovation that
leads to better outcomes. At the same time, our experience tells us
that 1) these incentives could be made more effective in several ways,
and 2) ultimately, reform cannot happen if States, districts, schools,
and communities do not buy into it and are not held accountable for it.
Specific lessons that we've learned from our partnerships are:
Incentives for improving low-performing schools are a
necessity--regardless of where they come from, and so is funding to
support them; however, these incentives are most effective when States
and districts use the money to identify and implement proven strategies
to improve the quality of education and increase student achievement.
Prescription must include specific consequences for low
performance, including partnering with experts to improve teaching and
learning. Such provisions must be mandatory rather than permissive or
precatory.
The external partner requirement must be triggered early.
The longer a school struggles, the greater the chances of a self-
fulfilling culture of defeat will settle in, making change even more
difficult. Early intervention is key in improving schools.
When States develop lists of approved partners from which
districts and schools may choose, they have better oversight of
improvement efforts.
Federal incentives help, but States and districts must
collaborate with each other to lead reform efforts.
State-run districts must have a clear mandate, ambitious
timelines, and dedicated funding. They must be eligible for federal
funding.
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
presents a tremendous opportunity to further innovation that leads to
measurable, sustainable improvement for all students. We all agree that
schools must be held accountable for teaching all students and cannot
walk away from failure. The next generation ESEA must balance the need
for greater State and local flexibility with the need to encourage
increased accountability and transparency.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Thank you all. I think there is a pretty strong agreement
amongst you sitting there and we sitting here that there were
some really important positive things that came out of No Child
Left Behind.
Obviously the focus of making sure that every child gets
the education they need in the very name of the bill and the
importance of getting the data that is disaggregated. I think
all of you have used that term or if you think of it every day,
so that we can make sure that we are not leaving groups behind.
And yet all of you have got some complaints about No Child
Left Behind and a desire to see a change and to see the
legislation rewritten. We have been working on this for some
years because we couldn't agree with you more that it needs to
be rewritten.
Two congresses ago when Mr. Miller was the Chairman we were
working, trying to sort through this and figure out the proper
role of the federal government and the proper roles of states
and local governments and superintendents and principals and
teachers and that gets often at the crux of the problem.
So the critics of more state and local flexibility argue
that states and school districts and arguably superintendents
can't be trusted to hold their schools accountable and that
this approach will cause harm to the most vulnerable students
including the low income students, and Mr. Gordon, you talked
about the 100 percent free lunch and breakfast.
But Mr. White, you had pretty compelling testimony that you
have the ability in Louisiana, in New Orleans to make sure you
are not leaving those students behind.
Could you respond to that criticism that says that the
government, the U.S. Department of Education has to step in and
can't give the flexibility that many of you are talking about?
Mr. White. Certainly.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that certainly there is a role
for the federal government to insist on accountability for
results, and I think every state needs to and wants to work
with the federal government on that question and I think the
federal government should insist on results.
At the same time, it is fair to say that, certainly in our
state, I believe we are years ahead because of the work that we
have done ourselves on measures both to protect the rights of
historically disadvantaged populations and to ensure that our
education system is actually fulfilling its responsibility to
prepare kids for adulthood.
As a result, I think a problem would be if we continue to
insist on the idea that a pro forma set of metrics developed in
Washington are suitable for every circumstance in the state
because it totally negates the power of the states to be policy
leverage-holders, and I hope that in the next incarnation of
ESEA the reauthorization will very much take into account many
of those ideas that we have seen because they have evolved from
the states, and secondly will allow states the continued
flexibility to articulate those kinds of innovations.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Richardson, you and I have sat at roundtable
discussions many, many times where we had representatives of
the teachers' union, Education Minnesota, we had principals, we
had superintendents, and in your testimony you talked about the
importance of giving school districts and schools the
opportunity to develop and implement plans that are embraced by
the larger community. Can you talk about the importance of that
buy-in into whatever you are doing or we are doing?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, Mr. Chair. What I have seen over the
years is that if you do not bring all of the key stakeholders
together in working through processes, you tend to be the
person out in front trying to run with the idea and people
behind you are letting you go.
What I found over the years and this is my 33rd year as a
school superintendent, is that the best way to see change
happen is to bring the folks along. And so as we work with
professional learning communities in our district, as we have
worked with RTI in our district, as we work for the TORCH
program in our district, the efforts came through the
administrators and teachers and community members sitting down
together and working through that process.
When you do that, people have buy-in, people will work with
you, and they aren't sabotaging you during the process. And I
think we have been able to demonstrate pretty clearly that by
doing that and by, I think, kind of unleashing the creativity
that our teachers and building administrators have we have been
able to do things that would never have been able to be done if
we had just been a prescribed format and that is the only
format that we can go forward with.
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
My time has expired.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Let me just say I want to thank this panel so
very much because I think you have, you know, across different
districts, different kinds of states and student loads, you
have shown us that there is in fact a path forward here.
It is interesting that each of you from your different
perspectives has fully embraced the idea that there has to be
this federal measure of accountability and that at the end of
the day No Child Left Behind and ESEA are basic fundamental
civil rights acts, and it is because our country holds up so
high in value an education, the importance of an education that
all children are to have the opportunity to achieve.
And, you know, Mr. White, I spent a lot of time over the
years--I have been here a long time visiting in New Orleans
schools and when I walked away--I was almost crying most of the
time I visited that state and visited the schools, mainly in
New Orleans, and after the hurricane the energy that came with
the Recovery District, came with the entrepreneurs that flocked
to New Orleans to demonstrate what was possible in the
classroom with that exact population; it was so desperately in
need and had been denied so long and New Orleans was just
exciting, and I think that is important.
And Mr. Richardson, you know, you point out when, you know,
when you had this arrival of the Hispanic population that were
struggling within your school district, there is a way to
manage that, there is a way to address that, and performance
was improved.
And so what we see is that, you know, there is no parent in
this country that doesn't want their child counted whether that
child has some--suffers from disabilities or is an exceptional
child or is a middle-of-the-road child or is a minority or
English learner and stuff like that, they want that kid counted
and absolutely, you know, No Child Left Behind did that.
I remember the first time those results were published in
my local newspaper. I have met a lot of mothers and
grandmothers and fathers and grandfathers up close and
personal, and they didn't want to meet with me, they wanted me
to bring the superintendent of schools to meet with them.
But you have also said that in the same span of time that
districts and states and others have figured out how to move
forward given their situation. Cleveland, obviously, is
struggling.
But you now believe that the Cleveland Plan, Mr. Gordon,
that you in fact have figured a way forward, and you are
getting community support for that. You are still going to be
measured on the progress of the students and you are willing to
measure yourself not only pursuing Common Core assessments but
also alongside of NAEP so we can really see if in fact we are
getting the education that allows them to participate in our--
fully in our society and in our economy.
And, Mr. Given, obviously your enterprise is based upon
people being able to look at the test scores and decide they
may want to head off in a different direction.
They want to build additional capacity or they want to
manage the portfolio that each one of you is in fact managing
now. Nobody talked about portfolio 11 years ago. We talked
about it when we introduced our discussion draft here, and the
arrows came flying in on both sides of the aisle. Nobody
mentioned portfolios.
Now it is a common discussion. It is a common discussion
and portfolios lead to a different teacher core and different
professional development. So the real question is can we do
what we should be doing, which is making sure that every child
has the opportunity to be exposed to a high-quality education
and we get to measure the outcomes?
You get to use the data, how you want to change the
circumstances, improve them, or continue your growth wherever
you are in this timeframe.
I just--I would like to hear your comment on this because I
think this is about as clear an example of where the federal
role should be and where it has been and maybe where it should
come back to a number of steps in terms of this kind of
innovation that is taking place in this type of response to
your local economies, your local constituents, and the parents
of these children.
Mr. White, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Gordon? You have got to
hurry. That light is orange.
Mr. White. Representative, with the question being us
taking the information we have and how to make the best use of
it in our states, we are--we start with the ideas, as I said in
my testimony, of a great school seat for every child.
And we know that there are still kids in our states--too
many kids in our state for whom we have not fulfilled that
promise. Starting with the student outcomes, we then move to a
portfolio idea where we say how can we ensure that irrespective
of the exact type of governance structure, irrespective of the
instructional plan that we determined, that actually the parent
and the child are getting exactly what they need and that we
use data both to ensure that we are providing that seat for
that child and to ensure there is complete accountability for
what in the end the child receives. I think that is a model
that every state is and should adopt.
Mr. Miller. Go for it, Mr. Richardson. He won't cut you off
here----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Richardson. Okay, thank you. I think that again the
thing that we have seen is that when folks are working together
in the process, we get things to happen that don't happen when
they are being driven by another location.
So the trick is to try to get the parameters right at your
level and to the flexibility right at our level to get the work
done.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Gordon, I will get back to you--
--
Chairman Kline. He is a master. Absolutely a master at
this.
Thank you very much and thank you for your understanding.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. White, your testimony discusses the challenges
presented by the current fragmented federal funding structure.
Could you talk about how you have condensed 23 federal programs
into one, and maybe say a couple of things about how the
fragmentation has negatively impacted your schools? I think we
probably know a good bit about how that happens but bring that
in if you need to.
Mr. White. Representative, one of the things I take from
Dr. Richardson's testimony is that at a school having a unified
plan and having every teacher, every parent, every community
member invested in that one plan is the great challenge; that
for a school coherent planning around the needs of the child is
the big challenge.
Everyone is on the same page, and I think one of the
unfortunate consequences of the federal law as it is currently
articulated is that it drives activity in a million different
directions. And when I look at the spending and the
requirements for each grant, when I look at the corrective
action requirements that come out of failure on subgroups and
on NCLB overall, I see a lot of central office jobs in states
and school systems, I see a lot of confused teachers, and I see
a lot of rules and regulations.
I don't see coherence and that means that even in the most
dire circumstances such as we face in New Orleans and many of
our districts where the challenge really is coherent planning
around the needs of the child, we have the most aggressive
corrective action.
We have the most amount of federal involvement and being
driven in a million different directions. We can stop that to
some degree today by states stepping up and taking
responsibility by creating one application for federal funds so
that districts can operate one plan, by having one monitoring
cycle in the use of those dollars, and by having and taking
advantage of new requirements or new flexibilities that have
been extended to states that we are very grateful for, but we
ask you to please take that a step further.
Please make that framework of coherence and simplicity over
confusion in a million different directions a core principle of
the ESEA reauthorization.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
I have often said the schools are designed for the
administrators, not for the students. I have seen it over and
over again.
Mr. Given, in your testimony you talked about your work to
develop blended and virtual education options as school
improvement strategies. Could you talk about how these new
approaches improve school and student performance and what are
some of the policy barriers either at the federal, state, or
local level that prevent access to blended and virtual learning
options?
Mr. Given. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The technology today has advanced obviously dramatically
from the days of textbooks and chalkboards. We are in a new
position where we can deliver instruction to the student, at
the student's level, at that student's ability, and in that
student's own time where they can learn at their own pace and
be supported by qualified, helpful, and proficient teachers and
be instructed by them but do that in a more individualized
manner.
So we spent a great deal of time developing curricula, the
technology that underpins that curricula to make sure that
students can be delivered education where they are and where
they need it.
And so that is the promise. We have seen some very good
success recently especially engaging extra low performing
students, in fact, students that have dropped out of school.
And we are recruiting back to schools in different programs;
some in Cleveland through our Magic Johnson Bridgescape program
but there are policy barriers and most of them are at the state
level and a lot of them have to do with things like seat time,
attendance accounting, and credit recording and how those
students are going to receive credit we think they should
receive credit for mastery of the material.
If they have met the standards, understand them, and can
show proficiency in there, they should get that credit and be
able to move themselves through the high school process. So
some states allow for that. Some states do not.
I am not sure that there is a prescriptive federal role
there because I think that is something that the states can
really dial-in in their own communities, but it is a very
interesting and very promising path forward for students,
especially underperforming students.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. The federal government is
trying to impose itself at the post-secondary level in this
area. Let's hope it doesn't look for a way to do it at the
elementary and secondary level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Andrews, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
I don't think you can overstate the importance of math
skills in the global economic competition in which we find
ourselves. In this regard, No Child Left Behind is kind of a
two-chapter story. If you look at the eighth grade results on
the NAEPs test for math, in the earliest years of No Child Left
Behind we went from 27 percent of our eighth graders being
proficient to 36 by 2005; pretty impressive gain.
Since 2005, however, we kind of stalled out. We have gone
from 36 only up to 43 so we are gaining on the NAEPs test 1
percent per year. To put that into some perspective, in
Shanghai, in the most recent year, 75 percent of the students
tested as proficient in math.
So at this rate, we will catch up to Shanghai 30 years from
now. The global economy is not going to wait 30 years for us to
do that. Based upon the experiences the four of you have had,
what is the single most effective math improvement strategy you
have seen and if you could briefly describe it to us.
Mr. White?
Mr. White. Representative, it is far and away the caliber
and the background of the educators involved in the question.
And I would suggest that in your consideration of our workforce
measures, that the Congress consider going even beyond looking
at teacher evaluation measures to look at actually, who are we
attracting into the profession and what are the standards that
the institutions who credential those people use to admit
candidates in the first place?
Mr. Andrews. Are we paying math teachers enough?
Mr. White. I don't think we are paying teachers enough
period, but I would also say that when you are talking about
particular competitive fields like mathematics where people can
step into the private sector and make double what they can make
as a teacher right out of undergrad, not to mention all of the
requirements that go into that have to be demonstrated in order
to really master math and teach it at a secondary level, we
really need to be ensuring that we have a better system of
workforce development than we do and it goes beyond teacher
evaluation.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you.
Dr. Richardson, what would you say?
Mr. Richardson. I would say again, strongest piece is
having the high quality professional staff to do the job, but I
think it is also really looking at the concept of how soon we
intervene now when we find students are not mastering specific
concepts.
Mr. Andrews. Have you found online tools to be useful in
targeting that intervention?
Mr. Richardson. We have been able to use some online tools
in terms of materials that allow us to, once an intervention is
identified or once an area where a student is behind is
identified, we are able to target them and give them specific
instruction in that area.
Again, I think it takes the master teacher to do that and
and also takes teachers on a regular basis like every week
looking at how students are doing.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon, what is your view?
Mr. Gordon. Congressman, I would agree. I would agree that
both of those elements are important. I would say that there is
a third element. I just returned from a trip to China and
actually partnered Cleveland with Shanghai and had the
opportunity to engage with Chinese educators. And I would say
that we also have to pay attention to what mathematics we are
teaching our children in America.
We know that fourth-graders do well, 8th graders do less
well, 12th-graders do pretty poorly, and we know from Ohio for
example that Ohio's math achievement scores have raised year
after year even as NAEP scores have remained flat.
That is a question of what is being taught because kids are
learning; the question is, are they learning the right content
as well? So we need the right instructors. We need to make sure
that we have the right responses and that comes from that
instructor. I actually think blended learning is a part of it,
not technology alone, but it still matters what we are
teaching.
Mr. Andrews. Do you have vacancies for math teachers in the
Cleveland schools?
Mr. Gordon. Despite the declining enrollment, mathematics
is an area where we have vacancies.
Mr. Given, what is your view on this?
Mr. Given. Well, not to sound like a broken record,
Congressman, but some of the things that my colleagues have
said are absolutely the case.
What I think is interesting over the last No Child Left
Behind era is the focus early-on on reading first, and that
literacy focus kind of left out numeracy as a really critical
area started very early in elementary and moving it forward
into high school teaching. As Mr. Gordon said the right things
and the right intensity of things; how rigorous are we being in
our standards? I think that is an important element here too,
but all of the challenges that have been mentioned are
certainly challenges across the board. Finding the most
qualified teachers to deliver that service is a challenge.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to
hear this consensus across experiences and kinds of districts
and hopefully we can work together and write a law that
facilitates the improvements that these witnesses have
described to us.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg?
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
Mr. Given, it is clear that your organization has a great
deal of experience in turning around troubled, challenged
schools for the benefit of the kids--of the students. How
important are the state and local efforts in reforming schools
in proportion to federal assistance?
Mr. Given. Thank you, Congressman.
We have seen the action in school reform happen at the
states. Obviously No Child Left Behind lays out some parameters
as schools are found persistently underperforming. There are a
lot of challenges in the way those parameters are set out and I
think the superintendent on this panel would find that those
challenges are very real.
There is a talent challenge when schools have to be
reconstituted; who is going to fill the reconstituted, the
missing seats, when we are already at a talent deficit in some
things like mathematics as we discussed.
So I think as the states look at strategies and I am sure
Mr. White could echo this very well, they have got to be really
flexible to the state's environment and that state's strategies
of what is going to go on or else they can't work because there
aren't the tools in place to make them work.
And so I think having the federal government push those
resources to the states and having the states if there is
encouragement and incentive to use replicable, proven
strategies to improve those schools, we are going to see some
wins and we are starting to see those wins not only in
Louisiana but in other states like Virginia and Indiana that I
mentioned, and Hawaii is another great example.
Mr. Walberg. That being the case, do we in Congress need
then to strongly highlight the need for this type of reform to
be driven at the state and local levels?
Mr. Given. I think highlighting is a good idea. I think
highlighting it earlier in the process, as I said in my
testimony, we have the tools today to evaluate and understand
that there are challenges in schools much earlier than we did
previously.
We have more efficacy data on what is happening in a
school. We have more data on student performance and on teacher
performance, so if we can encourage earlier intervention, it is
going to be easier to solve the problem than scrapping an
entire school and try to build one from scratch which is some
of what we are doing now.
Mr. Walberg. It is sad that seems like common sense,
doesn't it, but we have missed it.
Mr. Given. It does. You are right.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. White, you have given us a great example
in your testimony of how parents and educators working together
have created prosperous conditions for students in New Orleans,
to say the least, especially in comparison to what was going
on.
One of the goals that we have in reauthorizing ESEA is to
reduce bureaucratic involvement and turn decision-making back
to educators, parents, and students as well. How did current
federal laws create confusion and add to difficulties in
creating successful schools and students in your opinion?
Mr. White. Well, Mr. Congressman, I think that they start
with the idea of prescriptions from Washington that essentially
send to different people in a million different planning
processes, a million different spending requirements, and
distracts from some of the simple principles that I and others
on this panel have articulated today, which are teachers and
parents looking at real outcomes and planning for real next
steps.
I think that the idea that states should identify the
lowest performing schools is one of the strongest legacies of
No Child Left Behind, but how we provide parents with better
alternatives and how we turn those schools around ultimately
must be decisions that are owned by people closer to the
problems or else we will continue to create central office jobs
and not a lot of better outcomes for kids.
Mr. Walberg. And you see the ownership by those most
closely connected to students themselves as primary and
significant to success?
Mr. White. Absolutely. The parent must have choice
especially those who have been historically disadvantaged and
who are trapped in struggling schools must be given better
options. And we have talked about, today about creating a
portfolio of better options and schools and districts must be
given power to--and requirements--as to how they turn those
schools around.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Dr. Richardson, I applaud you for working with our
chairman. It is good work you do. What would you consider to be
a more appropriate federal role in areas such as testing, data
collection, reporting, and how would you shift that
responsibility to states and local school districts?
Mr. Richardson. Congressman, my sense is that states are
really in local schools looking for the federal government to
provide a broad set of parameters; basically again identifying
the concept of accountability making sure that we are providing
assessment that looks at growth, that looks at proficiency,
that looks at achievement gap, and also provides broad
parameters around district and school planning and in terms of
communication with constituents and parents.
What I think we don't need is extremely prescriptive pieces
of: ``you will do with this--you will do a single test; you
will deal with underperforming schools in a particular
prescribed set of steps,'' because I think what we find is
every school district and every school needs different levels
of support. And again, I think what we found is that when we
have been given that ability to do that, I think we do much
better at the local level and at the state level than we do at
the federal level.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. You can
see that there are a lot of people following the fine example
set by Mr. Miller in asking a question with 5 seconds left on
the clock.
Mrs. McCarthy, you are recognized.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to
do better here.
One of the things that I wanted to bring up, this is
National Nurses Week and I have always been focusing on school
nurses mainly because I come from a nursing background myself.
So it is a little bit different but with all the schools
that you are talking about are underserved areas and obviously
nutrition, physical education is probably something that also
would help with learning abilities.
So with that, I will be reintroducing the Student to School
Nurse Ratio Improvement Act because what we found that the
schools that have a very low and Mr. Gordon, you know, I am not
picking on you, we saw that like in Cleveland 15 percent of
your students are considered very fragile.
I would tend to think the numbers might be higher or lower
in some of the other schools because you are 100 percent free
or reduced lunches, 100 percent breakfasts, that is usually a
sign of poverty.
So what we have seen is that schools having a nursing
shortage, it does take time away from the principals, from the
teachers, because if they don't have a school nurse then they
are taking over those duties.
So in your--you know--I was just wondering we saw also that
schools that don't have school nurses there is a lot more
absentees. There are a lot more sick days obviously and we see
that this also brings down the marks of children. And yet in
those schools and I am very lucky on Long Island, most of our
schools do have school nurses and we also saw those marks go up
when the nurse was very involved with the superintendent, with
the principals to make sure nutrition and physical education
were part of it to make them healthy and especially the lower
grades, the kids had more energy to concentrate on the subjects
itself.
So I was just wondering, Mr. Gordon, in your testimony, you
listed school improvement strategies that are being implemented
in your district. Have you explored the issue of school nursing
shortages and if so, how and if not, why not? And I guess I can
put that to everybody.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you Congresswoman. We actually put a lot
of attention in Cleveland to the social and emotional learning
needs for our children that our nursing corps along with our
psychologists, social workers, and guidance counselors are
largely responsible for. I don't have a shortage of nurses
available, I have a shortage of resources to invest in my
nurses.
Therefore, over the last several years we have laid off
over 1,000 people; many of them school nurses, social workers,
and guidance counselors.
Even as we know that the meta-analysis around social and
emotional learning has a correlation of having these skills and
wellness is attributed with 11 percent gain in reading.
It is something that I need desperately. So I would say for
us the challenge is that the physical challenge, it is the
resources to think of a wraparound strategy for the needs that
my children and community have.
Mrs. McCarthy. So let me ask you well--being that it was a
competitive grant, which it would have to be, to be able to use
those funds to bring school nurses back into your buildings or
at least rotate into a better situation on having nurses rotate
especially in the city areas where they can go to school to
school, Mr. Richardson, Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. Congresswoman, I think one of the key
issues that we are going to face again is looking at sizes of
districts. As a district of about 4,000 students, our ability
to look at a competitive grant and be successful in writing a
competitive grant for additional nursing services rapidly is
going to be extremely limited.
We are very fortunate right now. We do have registered
nurses in every building. Where we really see and really
struggle is in buildings that have district-centered special
education programs especially for low-incident students, for
autism spectrum students, for students that are medically
fragile and the issue being that it really does take up a huge
amount of that nurse's time to support those students, which
then leaves very limited time for that nurse to be able to
address the needs of regular education students within the
building.
So we would look more for support in terms of helping to
augment nursing services in those buildings that have district-
centered services and the special ed.
Mrs. McCarthy. Mr. White?
Mr. White. I would echo of lot of what Dr. Richardson just
said, which is that the states and school systems must provide
basic services and basic infrastructure especially for the most
severely impacted students and at the same time--and must have
requirements regarding school nurses--at the same time, the
solutions that schools develop regarding the nutrition issues
are just like the ones they develop regarding academic issues.
We should empower our schools to develop solutions for their
populations more than we should restrict them to state-led
systems.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Mrs. Brooks?
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is such an emphasis in our K-12 system for everyone
to go on to a 4-year college and I have come from our state's
community college system and I am curious.
In the middle schools, kids are asked to choose the college
track or the career and vocational track, and so many, I think,
kids really don't know what those different possibilities for
careers are and we have so many jobs right now that aren't
being filled because there are so many young people that really
don't know about this possibility because they were on what
they thought was the college track.
I am curious how your school systems are blending, if they
are at all, the college, the so-called college track versus the
career and vocational track because when kids choose to go to
the career and vocational programs they often feel like they
are going to a totally separate school and in fact, they are
going to totally separate schools.
They are off-campus often for hours at a time during the
day, meaning they can't even explore or take, often, those AP
courses. And we have some students said that I think would like
to test and take both rather than deciding in eighth grade or
ninth grade what track they are on. So I am curious what your
school systems are all doing to align those systems and give
our young people a better opportunity to explore careers or
their futures.
Mr. White?
Mr. White. Well let me echo first of all the idea that
diploma tracks should never take a child off of--allowing them
to make a decision that changes their future. You never want at
14, 15 years old, to make a decision that impacts the rest of
your life irrespective of your changing--wanting to change that
decision a couple of years later. So we are creating seamless
diploma paths that allow for constant movement of back and
forth from one to the next.
Second, we have to integrate our technical college system,
our private workforce development system at our high school is
much better than we have so that kids are earning college
credit that can be transferred on an academic or a technical
path as they go forward. But third, let me say that regarding
ESEA reauthorization if we don't allow states the ability to
determine some of the accountability measures, we will not
allow states to progress in real career and workforce
attainment measures including--included in our school
accountability system. And if we don't do that then we will
never resuscitate the career education systems because we will
continue to systemically devalue career education attainment if
we don't give the states the power to create those kinds of
measures.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. I would agree very much with Mr. White in
terms of the sense that the more we can do in terms of making
it very seamless all the way through graduation, the
opportunities either to go into a vocational program or
technical program or to go into college track, and I think we
have done that in Minnesota by really focusing on trying to
make sure that students have opportunities all the way through
12th grade to continue to take courses that will let them
branch out or go to various places.
I think the other thing that we really focused on is we
really focused on college in the schools and also PSCO or post-
secondary programming, which for the most part in Minnesota
tends to go to career and technical colleges where students are
able to either take courses within our system that have
credit--that gives them credit for their technical school or
that they have options close by where they can take advanced
technical courses.
Mrs. Brooks. My--I am curious though whether or not
students have the opportunity to--because often in the career
programs are off-campus, off-site--do students have the
opportunity to take AP classes if they choose career and tech
classes?
Mr. Richardson. In Minnesota, they do.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay, terrific.
Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you. I would start with the premise that
we know ACT college readiness is largely considered a 21. ACT
career readiness is largely considered a 20. They are
essentially the same in today's world and so we have to abandon
the notion that the old-fashioned woodshop is career technical
education and instead, need to think about construction
industries as career technical education, school-to-
apprenticeship programs, school programs that allow my students
to access our community college for the career tech programs
that are already being provided for adult retraining instead of
provided for students in their primary training.
So our strategy is that regardless of the option you choose
in a portfolio district, and our options include those that are
more traditional career and technical options, manufacturing,
construction, and more of the nontraditional moving into the
STEM industries, a partnership with GE, that every one of those
should allow you access to a high-wage career and to the
opportunity for post-secondary advancement, which we have
actually intentionally talked to our community about as college
and career readiness; not one or the other, but both.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Fudge, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for your testimony today, and certainly,
it is good to see Mr. Gordon. I am sure Cleveland is happy to
have you.
I have some questions and I am hoping that since it is a
short time you can give me some brief answers, I would
appreciate it. First, let me just ask, would any of you
disagree with the fact that the cuts to Head Start and Early
Head Start and Title I are going to be detrimental to your
programs going forward as young people will not be as prepared
coming into school?
No one disagrees with that? Thank you.
Let me ask you as well and I will start with Mr. White, in
your testimony you argued that states should achieve their
performance goals or receive fewer federal dollars.
So let me ask you, are you--and then you said further that
it is especially true for historically disadvantaged students--
should not our role be to educate all students?
Mr. White. Our role should absolutely be to educate all
students and we need to insist on quality. I believe the
federal role should be to help states set high quality targets,
and I believe that at some level that federal government needs
to stop funding consistent failure against those targets.
Ms. Fudge. So then you do believe that there is a federal
role in education?
Mr. White. I absolutely believe there is a federal role in
education. I believe that federal role needs to more greatly
empower states.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Richardson, Dr. Richardson, what is the median
household income of your district?
Mr. Richardson. I am sorry?
Ms. Fudge. What is the median household income of your
district?
Mr. Richardson. About $25,000.
Ms. Fudge. And what is the demographic makeup of your
district?
Mr. Richardson. Demographic makeup: approximately 83
percent white, about 12 percent Latino, and then a very small
number of African American, Asian, and other populations.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Now I will go to my CEO. Mr. Gordon, what federal
parameters should we preserve in the new ESEA? We talked about
all of the things that are wrong with it. What do you think is
right with it?
Mr. Gordon. You know, Congresswoman, Congress spends $55
million a year annually in Cleveland alone so you have a large
investment in our city and large investments across the
country.
I think that Congress needs to set clear, high standards
and expectations. I do believe there needs to be flexibility. I
don't think it can be simply divulged to states. States do it
well and I have worked in New Orleans and watched from afar
after having left to empower school leaders like me to do the
work that you are asking us to do.
But there are other states and unfortunately often in my
own where we instead comply our way to quality and without some
form of expectation about what flexibility is going to be,
meaning to me as the practitioner trying to do the work, you
can end up with principals like mine spending an hour a week of
logging-in their week's agendas into a computer so that they
have been compliant to a state regulation.
So for me it is clear expectations against high standards
and then clear definitions of how that flexibility moves not
only through the state but to me as the leader on the ground
doing the work and my teachers and principals in our schools.
Ms. Fudge. I agree. I think that the states should not have
any more authority than they currently have.
But let me as well ask you this question, Mr. Gordon. The
Cleveland school district has spent a great deal of time on
school safety and social and emotional well-being. As we cut
funding, whether it be through sequester or something else and
as our states continue to cut funding, is not one of the first
things cut are the people who actually deal with social and
emotional well-being?
Mr. Gordon. You know, unfortunately in Cleveland and we
have been facing budget cuts as, you know, for year after year
for the last 5 years. We like many districts, try to keep those
cuts far away from the direct classroom instruction and that
meant our nurses, our social workers, our guidance counselors,
and where we had the resources, our school psychologists.
Those are the people who provide the social and emotional
learning and wellness issues for our district. We have since
gone beyond there and have had to cut instructional teachers as
well and even 50 minutes out of the instructional day.
We have restored much of that because of what has been done
locally but issues like sequestration continue to make that a
challenge for us to even provide the basic services without
even attending to the needs that many of my children bring to
school.
Ms. Fudge. And so as we talk about things like reasonable
gun safety et cetera and they keep talking about the mentally
ill people who need mental help, how do we provide that help if
we have cut all of the resources to give those people--those
young people the kind of assistance--I don't need you to
answer. I know the answer.
Lastly, I just want to understand clearly that you do
believe that that there are some good things in the ESEA. I
don't call it No Child Left Behind because in my opinion, it
has left many, too many children behind, but I do hope that as
we go forward you can be more succinct with us in telling us
what things you really do believe are important----
Mr. Rokita [presiding]. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
We will now hear from Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, gentleman, for being here. Incredibly important
topic.
I want to--my first question actually is really focused on
teacher evaluation as a toll for accountability. It seems
appropriate today, today is National Teacher Appreciation Day
and in my professional career ``B.C.,'' before Congress, what
we refer to as our evaluations were called ``appreciation
reviews.''
And so my question is how important is the teacher
evaluation in recognizing and developing high-performing
teachers to the accountability process and what should be
considered in that process?
Let me just preempt by saying I am not a fan of cookie
cutters that come from Washington. One size doesn't fit all,
and so I am really looking to draw on your expertise and
experience to see what kind of things should go into that
portfolio of evaluating, not just of identifying high-
performing teachers but moving our teachers and to high-
performance where they, you know, they may not be there quite
yet.
Mr. White?
Mr. White. Thank you, Representative.
First, I would say that the states are in very different
situations on this. You have states that have hundreds of
districts in collective bargaining agreements, states that have
a small number of districts, and are right to work states. They
have very different frameworks that each state is doing this
in.
But I think universally, they should consider observed
performance in the classroom. They should include evidence of
students' progress while being taught by that teacher.
But at the same time, I think Congress should consider that
teacher evaluation is not the only instrument we have in terms
of ensuring the best teacher in every classroom.
We train our teachers from the time many of them--most of
them are 18 through the time that some of them become district
superintendents, and we should be looking at allowing states
the purview to develop not just teacher evaluation systems but
entire education development or educator development systems
stretching back into reforming our teacher preparation systems.
Our states need the imprimatur from Congress to bring higher ed
to the table and to help develop and change our teacher
preparation schools.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. Congressman, my sense is in Minnesota we
have been really focused on three core pieces.
First is again, the observation of staff in terms of their
work in the classroom and their work with parents and with
other members within the community.
Second core piece has been looking at the student
performance and really trying to work through and look at what
should be the suite of data that we gather around performance
of students.
I think the third piece has been taking a hard look at how
are teachers interacting with the folks that they need to deal
with on a regular basis.
So we are looking at some 360 components to the evaluation
where we are really focusing on how do students see them, how
do parents see them in terms of their ability to communicate,
in terms of their ability to provide the instruction that is
beneficial.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman.
Excuse me. Like my peers, we are looking at some of the
similar components in Cleveland. We have a rubric that we have
collaboratively developed with our teachers' union where we
gather evidence of performance through observation and other
artifacts.
We are a state that uses student data although we do not
use a full suite of data in the state of Ohio. We use a single
measure which is a concern of mine because tests--the tests we
are using were not designed for those purposes. They weren't
validated and made reliable for those purposes. So a suite of
multiple measure would be more effective.
And we need to make sure that we attend to the content
knowledge in these professionals as well, which is often not as
easily measured through the observational measure.
In addition, I would say we have to focus it on the
development of practice as well and so we have used our 22
observational elements to drive professional development that
if many of the teachers in our system are low in a particular
element that that should tell us what we need to be supporting
those teachers and their improvement in.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Given, please.
Mr. Given. Let me reinforce a couple of points that have
been made already but I think are really critically important.
One is first brought up the value added that a teacher
brings to an individual student, how that student is
progressing during the year with the teacher I think is a--the
critical element, not an absolute measure, but what are they
adding from a value perspective to that student.
Secondly, looking at the scope of things, so as Dr.
Richardson pointed out, it is not just what they are teaching
but how do they interact and how are they part of the school
community as a whole.
And then looking at the multiple measures and then perhaps
more, most importantly, what are you doing with that
evaluation? How are we training them differently based on the
data we are getting from evaluation and what is going--what is
the next step to make everyone better and to give that student
a better experience?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
And I would just close my comments with, you know, we
also--the competency of the supervisors who are doing those
evaluations is--we need to improve that as well.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Polis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
This is a very exciting hearing. I hope it provides a good
start for our committee to do its important work in getting
accountability right. I think it is important that many years
hence from No Child Left Behind, 12 years hence, that we don't
take a step backward, but we can certainly acknowledge that we
need to make accountability work, improve transparency.
I don't see this as fundamentally ideological or partisan.
I think we have learned a lot of lessons about getting the
accountability right and your testimony is very valuable in
helping us construct the correct federal approach.
My question is for Mr. Gordon. Congratulations on
Cleveland's success, in particular the growth and successful
charter schools in the last decade.
I have seen results from one of your charter school
networks, Breakthrough schools, which serve over 2,000 K-8
students in nine schools. I understand that seven of them are
authorized by your district and many of them share facilities
with other schools.
Breakthrough students, which are more than 97 percent
minority, 85 percent low income, significantly outperformed
Ohio public school students on tests at every grade level.
Congratulations on that and some of your other great success
stories.
How have you been able to design an accountability system
that supports quality schools regardless of their--whether they
are run by the district or public charter schools in a fair and
agnostic way?
How have you been able to set up an accountability system
that looks at all of the schools equally rather than singling
out certain kinds of schools for more or less accountability?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman.
We are in the process of doing that work now but we did it
through legislation in Columbus. Ohio has had a traditional
structure of charter versus the district and creating
competition.
We recognized in Cleveland that that was failing, that all
we were doing was arguing about who owns children as opposed to
whether they were learning.
And so as part of the legislative package that we sought in
Columbus with the support of our Republican Governor and
bipartisan support, we actually have a commission of citizens
of Cleveland representing our traditional public educators, our
charter partners, business leaders, philanthropic leaders who
are tasked with evaluating the performance of all of
Cleveland's schools including our charter schools and reporting
that to the community and doing so not only on the measures
available by state but also by asking who they serve.
So ensuring they serve representative populations, the
attrition rates so that we can ensure that students who arrive
at the school stay at those schools, and other factors such as
that.
Mr. Polis. And you are using the same criteria to evaluate
schools regardless of whether they are run by the district or
by charters, is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. And how has the growth of high-
performing charter schools like Breakthrough and others put
positive pressure on your school district to improve other
failing schools?
Mr. Gordon. Congressman, again I think the big difference
in Cleveland compared to all of Ohio is of the willingness for
our two organizations, our two--for us to partner. So we are
working hard to learn from our partners in the charter school
world.
They have also looked to us, for example to build out on
their teacher evaluation system. It is in the shift from
competition and to a collaborative desire to improve the
quality of experience for children in Cleveland getting more
kids in better seats regardless of who owns them.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
And my final set of questions is for Mr. White.
As you mentioned in your testimony, your accountability
system is evolving to include not just grade level proficiency
and graduation rates but also real world college and career
attainment measures, dual enrollment credit, post-secondary
enrollment; terrific measurements.
We are going in a similar direction in Colorado. I want to
ask how you see these additional requirements as consistent
with a basic federal role in promoting accountability and
transparency.
Wouldn't setting statewide goals which include proficiency
and growth allow the federal government to hold states
accountable and in addition be able to build in-state
measurements to build--meet your particular needs in Louisiana?
Mr. White. Yes, and I think the federal government has
already established rules regarding some basic parameters on
issues like the graduation rate, for example, which has been a
very positive step for this country. But that basic idea of
parameters within which states can innovate is the appropriate
framework for accountability in the reauthorization.
Mr. Polis. Before the federal government got involved with
the calculation of graduation rates, 12 different states were
calculating in different ways and making it very difficult to
compare?
Mr. White. They were, but if you also look at how, then,
states are using graduation rates in their accountability
systems, it varies. In our state, we have a straight graduation
rate, but we also have a graduation index that measures ACT,
advanced placement, and dual enrollment credit. So there are
basic parameters that should be set but within those parameters
the states should be able to innovate.
Mr. Polis. And I would also point out that states establish
their own graduation requirements and in some states like mine,
school districts actually have that prerogative. Thank you for
your testimony
I yield back.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Guthrie is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I was in the
state legislature before and in my home state we are actually
going through some opportunities for the state commissioner now
to take over some schools because some legislation I worked on
and it was kind of inspired by No Child Left Behind. And I know
there are things we have to fix in it, but certainly the goals
that we close gaps and we improve all children--certainly what
my predecessors before I was here had in mind.
And New Orleans, I am kind of interested in that model.
Obviously the people and school system, before, wanted kids to
learn, but now there has been documented improvements since you
were able to take over the school system, I understand, or the
state interacted with the school system. What have you done
different?
I mean, if you could say this is the story of New Orleans
and two or three points and say this is why we were able to get
the achievements out of the same demographic of students that
you didn't have before, and I know everybody wants them to do
well, but you all were able to get the performance. What was
different?
Mr. White. I think two simple principles. Number one, big
investments to make sure the absolute best educators are in
every single classroom and number two, a governance structure
that puts the resources at the school level, the power to
choose how we address students' needs at the school level, and
power in the hands of parents to choose the right school for
them.
That kind of structure drives innovation and innovation
close to the child, I believe with everything we have seen, is
100 percent necessary in order to solve the problems of those
students who bring the greatest problems to our classrooms.
Mr. Guthrie. How do you identify the highly effective
teachers and make sure they were the ones? And did you fire
teachers that you--did you have the ability to fire teachers
that weren't highly effective?
Mr. White. I think that starts with governance and every
manager in that school system is fully empowered to make those
decisions at the school level. Every single one of them is
required to have a teacher evaluation system, but, you know,
those parameters were defined by our state board to meet our
needs and that governance was defined by our state board to
meet our needs. When we are given that authority and given the
mandates that came with the federal law, but given the
authority to design a solution, we will do it.
Mr. Guthrie. Did you replicate that in other parts of the
state now? Are you----
Mr. White. We are. We are creating similar zones of
empowered schools in our most challenged areas most notably in
Baton Rouge, the city and little bit to the north of New
Orleans.
Mr. Guthrie. Did--so I know that the system the kids are
graduate--are doing better. Do you still have schools that
are--parents have the choice to move kids within public schools
within New Orleans, I understand.
Are the schools just essentially abandoned now I mean are--
because parents have chosen to move them out or did you have to
close schools or do you bring reinforcements in the schools?
I mean how did you--I assume you haven't closed schools and
so when you see parents make decisions to leave the school,
what do you do to that school to change because you want the
competition to go on and innovate that school instead of close
it?
Mr. White. That is why I say in my testimony that we should
not start with the idea that there should be a rule for how you
turn around every low performing school.
We should start with the basic idea of, what is every
resource at our disposal to ensure that every child who is in a
struggling school has an alternative? And if that alternative
means turning it around then we should require real
transformation in turning it around.
I believe we should require governance change when we are
going to say that that school counts as part of the plan for a
better seat for that child. We can no longer, you know, muddle
around with year after year after year of prescriptive,
corrective action from Baton Rouge, from Albany, from
Washington, D.C., wherever it happens to be.
We need to insist on real change. That starts with giving
parents choice, and if we are going to say that a school is in
a turnaround plan, then that means we need to change
governance.
Mr. Guthrie. We saw that at Frankfort, in Kentucky. That
was, how long are you going to let it go before you know--we
have the two cycles of if you fail and my idea was you don't go
out looking at schools and point your finger, you find
successful schools and how do you replicate that.
That is what we are trying to figure out. So I am
interested in how you have replicated that throughout
Louisiana. Was it things in the No Child Left Behind Act that--
the things that you had to--got in your way or did it help you,
did it hurt you, was it indifferent to you? And how can we
improve it to make sure you have the ability to do things like
you have done in New Orleans?
Mr. White. I think two things. Number one, the corrective
action regiment of prescribing year after year after year of
planning needs to go. Second, we need to allow federal dollars
to be able to spend--be spent by states longer-term.
The answer to your question, on how do we turn around
schools and it is not the only way, but how we do it is make
investments in charter management organizations who themselves
are operating schools in Louisiana so that they can scale.
Those schools then become our home-grown turnaround
solutions. They come in and they become the managers and the
instructors within those schools that have our greatest
challenges.
So we are growing our own solution, but only because we can
make long-term financial investments through state and
philanthropic dollars in those organizations. We should be able
to do the same thing with federal dollars.
There is too much federal purchasing power for us not to be
able to make long-term investments in what works and that would
be an application of that in Louisiana.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you. It is interesting to
study more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to turn to you, Mr. Gordon for a second. I know
you spoke about the fact that districts need to set performance
targets for student learning and you also mentioned that the
federal government can require those targets to be set by
districts. So help us a little more why is that necessary?
Mr. Gordon. Congresswoman, it is not that I think that it
is the only strategy, I think there are several.
So for example, NAEP is a great tool that is already used
across our country that would allow you to know whether Ohio is
moving achievement for children in the same way that Louisiana
is and then to differentiate your level of investment and
support in our two states.
What I think is necessary is that you can be assured that
your investments in Cleveland are providing the same high-
quality level of education for the children in Cleveland that
you also want to New Orleans.
And I think without having some common expectations of us
in the field whether it be in our districts, in our schools, or
at our states, you don't have the confidence that your
investment in my graduation rate is the same as the investment
in New Orleans' graduation rate.
You do that through some kind of common measures that
allows you to assess whether that investment is delivering at
your expectations.
Mrs. Davis. Have and of course--and I am sorry I had to be
out of the room for a while so I am just wondering, is there
any--does anybody disagree with that on the panel?
You basically agree that it is important to have those high
expectations that are set that the districts obviously play a
very important role in that. I was a school board member for 9
years in San Diego so I understand that, but I think our
concern obviously is what the federal role should be and
whether it is in evaluation systems, making sure that they are
done and, you know, where that role really lies. Anybody?
Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Gordon. Congresswoman, I would say our evaluation
system is an example.
Cleveland chose to create an evaluation system based on the
evidence and research that is a higher bar than the rest of the
state of Ohio. One of the challenges that I have as the
superintendent in Cleveland is that my evaluators not only need
to pass the credentialing that I set for my teachers, but they
also have to pass the state of Ohio's prescribed credentialing
even though we are using a higher bar.
So my evaluators, my principals, and teacher evaluators are
now taking two assessments to demonstrate their readiness. My
dilemma is, do I reduce my expectations to the Ohio standards
so that we only use one of credentialing since they can't be
waived through flexibility against the criteria?
So my position is that the federal government is making a
significant investment in cities like mine, needs to be able to
set expectations for performance, and then does need to be able
to provide the level of flexibility that gets to me at the
school level to do the work and where states are allowing that
to happen, I think that is great. I think there are other
states who get caught in complying their way to quality and
that there needs to be some mechanism to ensure that their
flexibility actually arrives at the school.
Mrs. Davis. Is the measure for that though significant that
the folks who are looking at that at the Department of Ed for
example, I mean, how is that being translated in a way that you
have that support and at the same time you are not overburdened
by it?
Mr. Gordon. In the way we are looking at it in Cleveland is
we are trying to model what we have learned through some of the
waivers in other states including Indiana and Michigan and some
others.
We are aggressively working with our state department to
seek an innovation zone waiver that says we have sought
legislation that allows us to do this. We set high
accountability for ourselves, and we are asking again what I am
asking of you--we have set targets that the state should expect
of us and in exchange we are asking them to give us the freedom
to do the work.
Mrs. Davis. What else is missing?
Mr. Gordon. You know, I think for us as a state, it really
is--we have tackled the legislative barriers in our state. We
have tackled the financial challenge through our community. We
need the flexibility to move.
I am trying, right now, to invest in 13 schools all of
which are in some level of compliance through our state and the
Department of Education, and I cannot reconcile the kinds of
things that we know have worked in Indianapolis for example
because they are contrary to the expectations of compliance in
my state.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
My time--did you--Mr. Richardson did you want to say
something?
Mr. Richardson. Congresswoman, I think again the key piece
is going to be, can you set parameters that will give us clear
direction and at the same time drive the actual implementation
down to the district--into the building level?
And that is the devil is in the details I think in the
process, but if you can create that then I think we have the
combination that we are going to need.
You heard flexibility from I think everybody at this table.
We need to have that flexibility but you have to set--which
means you have to set these parameters in a way that doesn't
end up having us mired in the bureaucracy.
Mr. Rokita. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Rokita. We will now hear from Dr. Heck for 5 minutes.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here. You know, it seems as we--
I represent Nevada. In Nevada, the school districts are set up
by counties. So each one of the 17 counties is its own school
district, which is unique I think and presents certain
challenges because we have urban, rural, and we actually have
frontier counties.
So obviously every school district has some unique needs.
Clark County school District is the fifth largest school
district in the country with over 300,000 students.
And it seems as we talk about accountability the rate
limiting factor where the federal government always tries to
hold people accountable is for funding. That is the hammer for
accountability.
And Mr. White, in your written statement you talk about--
you mentioned that states that can't achieve performance goals
entailed in their plans should receive fewer funds, yet some
argue that the answer to the inability to achieve those goals
is a lack of funding and that perhaps they need more funds to
actually achieve the goals.
And in your response to my colleague, Mr. Guthrie's
question you had stated that big investments--you made a big
investments to make sure the best teachers were in the
classroom.
So how do you answer the question where you made it big
investments--what were those big investments that put those
best teachers in the classrooms and how do you answer the
charge that well if you don't meet the goals that you may
actually need more funding to meet your goals.
Mr. White. I think as a matter of policy having worked at
the state and district level, I can tell you that one of the
unfortunate consequences of No Child Left Behind is that it
sent billions of dollars toward failing enterprises, and I
think for no organization is that strategy a good one.
I think we need to, in part, predicate federal dollars on
states doing what they say they are going to accomplish for
children. I think the reciprocation for that is for the federal
government to get out of the business of tying federal dollars
to how they think we should behave every day.
It has the effect of creating dozens and dozens of
different little planning processes, which is really what
unfortunately the spending side of No Child Left Behind
constitutes. There should be one plan, one simple plan from
every state in response to one simple set of parameters from
the federal government.
With respect to the question of does that then deprive the
most disadvantaged? No, I would actually say that what it does
is it causes the organizations that are responsible for the
struggles to actually focus their resources where they matter
most.
The reality is if we look at schools today, the sad fact is
they are predominately funded on a teacher's salary model which
preserves status quo rather than drives the resources to the
lowest-income communities.
I can guarantee you that the best thing the federal
government can do would be to send a wake-up notice to people
who still use that model by saying that federal dollars will
now be predicated on outcomes and you would see real policy
changes in that regard.
Mr. Heck. I appreciate that.
Dr. Richardson, in your statement you mentioned that the
draconian sanctions placed on schools and districts that are
identified as ``In need of improvement,'' which I would assume
therefore cannot meet performance goals financially punishes
those schools and the students that face the greatest
challenges. Hearing what Mr. White just mentioned, how do you
rectify the idea of funding related to performance?
Mr. Richardson. I think in terms of looking at the needs of
individual school districts in the needs of individual schools
that some of the structure that is currently in place so with
No Child Left Behind especially in terms of the sanctions which
actually take dollars away from a building who is in the midst
of their own school improvement plan to increase the quality
and performance at that time makes it extremely difficult for
them to move forward.
And I think the issue and actually I think Mr. White shared
it is the idea that to some extent you are going to have to
push dollars in to provide additional high-quality staff, to
provide additional programming options to meet the need. What
we found instead I think with the initial iteration with No
Child Left Behind is that we were constantly drawing dollars
away from our neediest schools at a time when they needed those
dollars most.
Mr. Heck. I see.
Mr. Gordon, in your statement you mentioned how the
Department of Education waiver initiative gave you more
flexibility to productively spend the federal Title I funds on
effective school improvement measures, and then you mentioned
that there is still a need for additional flexibility to allow
superintendents like yourself to better tackle academic and
capacity problems in the most difficult Title I schools. What
are some of the flexibility parameters that you would like to
see?
Mr. Gordon. I would say the single most apparent example
would be that I absolutely agree that we need to tackle our
lowest schools and in our state we have the lowest 5 percent,
which most of them are in our eight urban communities meaning
that two-thirds of my district gets identified in one swipe.
I do not have the ability to say where I am going to start
the work in Cleveland. So as one example we had improved a
school from an F school in Ohio to a C school only to have it
identified as one of the single lowest performing schools in
the state with no opportunity for me to say I have got this
school moving, I really need to move these resources to another
place where the school is actually trending backward.
It is that kind of flexibility that allows my state and the
district to interact together to determine where are we going
to use these resources most effectively.
Mr. Heck. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Heck. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rokita. The gentleman's time is expired.
We will now hear from Mr. Tierney for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Well, thank you.
This has been an enlightening conversation. I thank all of
you for your testimony, thoughtfulness, and my colleagues as
well.
You know we look at this all the time about the federal
involvement sliding back what 30 or 40 years ago with
traditional mandates that states had to educate kids that were
minorities or challenged economically and then with
disabilities states could either take the money the federal
government gave them and live up to the standards or not take
the money on that, but we have always had this tension between
what is a right accountability standard and how much
flexibility and whatever and let us be serious here.
If the states had done their job, there would be no need
for the federal government to come in. So it is hard for some
of us to say well just give the money to the states and let
them have flexibility because they will fix the mess they got
themselves into. It doesn't make a lot of sense on that.
So I think we have to find a way to deal with that tension.
And my feeling that only what a small percentage of money is
coming from the federal government really mostly your money is
your own resources, state and local.
We have had a lot of great particular questions. I am going
to step back a little on this and ask a question. We have had a
lot of evidence lately and a lot of science telling us of the
positive impact that pre-K education can have.
That if we can really bring kids to school who have the
right nutrition who had all of their health concerns addressed,
whose parents were helped to make sure that they were able to
raise these children, get them ready for school and reading and
language and all of that, that would have a positive impact.
That would lower the dropout rate, increase the graduation
rate, put less or fewer kids into special ed and all of that.
So if we take a premise that there is going to be a hard time
getting any more money from the federal government down and we
have a very limited amount of money, do any of you think that
it would be wise to have that money go toward a pre-K program
and leave K-12 to the states and local communities or not or
should it somehow be split?
What would be the impact of that? Anybody can start. I
would like to hear from all four of you.
Mr. White?
Mr. White. Thank you, Representative.
I am sure I--my opinion is shared that we could always use
more money, but I would say that my finding has been that
states use their pre-K dollars be they in childcare, be they in
pre-kindergarten, or be they in Head Start in generally
inefficient ways because the system of early childhood
education that exists in most states is so fragmented and that
it almost guarantees that kids fall through the cracks.
States can, through their own statutes and regulations,
unify to use their funds much more efficiently than is
predominately the case, and I certainly am working on that in
our state and urge other states to do that as well.
Mr. Tierney. And would they have enough money for a really
good pre-K program without any--deviating money from the K-12
federal resources to the state resources?
Mr. White. Again, certainly I would like our own state
legislation to levy dollars for purposes of early childhood but
we are not using our current dollars as efficiently as we can
and it has to be step one.
Mr. Tierney. I understand. And I guess I will extract my
answer out of that.
Mr. Richardson, go ahead.
Mr. Richardson. Congressman, I think as we are working with
it in Minnesota, right now we are currently looking at the
state stepping up and increasing the level of funding in terms
of preschool programming.
I think one of the key issues I think that we are
discussing right now is what is the accountability in terms of
the preschool program in terms of how those dollars are going
to flow to various preschool providers and really thinking
about does that need to be structured in a way that again makes
sure that we have the kind of accountability we need or is it
going to be laid out in a voucher strategy where basically
parents can take the dollars and go wherever they want to go.
So I think a big part of this is going to be, I think,
states stepping up to do this piece but I think also they have
to do it with some real structure and some accountability at
that level.
Mr. Tierney. I guess what I was trying to ask and
apparently didn't do too well on that is would you get better
bang for your buck in the federal money if you just focused all
of that on pre-K and said we are going to help, you know,
states and local communities get the best pre-K program they
can possibly have and leave states and local communities to
their own devices for K-12.
Then you have all of the flexibility that you want. You
wouldn't have as much of a burden on your pre-K and you go
about your business.
Mr. Gordon. Congressman, I would say you would get some
bang for your buck but not better bang for your buck. We know
the impact of high-quality preschool education, but it is the
first step, and then you need booster shots essentially along
the way.
We know that up to half of the difference between urban
student performance and suburban is the opportunity gap; what
happens in 12 summers or the extended learning time, and those
things don't stop right after pre-K or kindergarten.
So you would get some immediate growth but then there is
still the responsibility to have the right level of resources
and time people and resources to ensure that that growth is
sustained over time.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Given?
Mr. Given. We don't play in pre-K directly. That is not
someplace that we have a lot of experience. We certainly echo
the need for those resources in other places.
The high school dropout rate, for example, if we start
taking dollars and putting them all into pre-K and we leave
this generation of kids that are going to graduate or not
graduate from high school alone and not give them the extra
support they need, that is problematic because you have got a
12-year waiting time for those kindergartners to get into 12th
grade, and what are we going to do with the kids that are
already in first grade. So I think that there is that there
is----
Mr. Tierney. I guess the premise would be that you would
have all of the money you know----
Mr. Rokita. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Tierney. I understand that. I ask the gentleman for 30
seconds if----
Mr. Rokita. The gentleman's time is expired. We will now
hear from Dr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. You guys are nuts, you know it?
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This--my question will be a little bit off the beaten path,
but it has to do with finances and generated by an email that I
received from a person who works as a clerical person in a
school district in my district in Indiana.
And I will direct this to Dr. Richardson and to Mr. Gordon.
Have you had discussions about compliance with the Affordable
Care Act and how that may have an effect on your school
district?
Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. Congressman, yes, we have, and I think
districts across our state and I am guessing across the
country, are having those same discussions.
I think the key pieces we are looking at right now are
really around determining who is eligible for insurance and
where we thought initially it seemed very logical that it would
be full-time employees and employees that have jobs over 20
hours per week.
What we are now finding is, as people are beginning to look
at the nuances they are telling us well, that this person works
15 hours a week but then they also coach in an extracurricular
activity or they take tickets or they do other pieces, what we
are hearing is that those are going to be combined together to
determine if that individual is eligible for insurance
benefits.
And so what I think we are seeing is the potential of
significantly more individuals being eligible for insurance
than what we thought, and I think for districts across the
country that is going to mean significantly more dollars that
are going into paying those benefits for the employee as part
of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Bucshon. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman.
We too have been looking at this carefully. What we have
found is we are a self-insured organization because of our
size. We have a very veteran staff.
What we have found is that our health care costs have been
escalating dramatically even prior to the health care act. So
where we thought we would see impact on projections of cost, we
did not.
What we are seeing, though, is that there are limits then
on how much we can ask our member employees to contribute that
will have impacts on how we negotiate that the share of that
escalating cost.
That is a concern for us, and it is really going to lead
ultimately in plan designed change. We have a very wealthy
health care package after years of negotiating and it is going
to mean really redesigning that health care package in a way
that remains sustainable for us without reaching some of the
affordability caps for members.
Mr. Bucshon. What percentage so to speak of your employees
that work for your district do you currently provide insurance
coverage for?
Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood
of 80 to 85 percent of employees.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay.
Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Nearly all and it is because we have all full-
time employees or nearly all full-time employees.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay, because let me give you the example that
I got from an email from a school district. Their district is a
small district. They have about--they have 52 clerical-type
people that were not, you know, not being provided insurance,
and what has happened is they have all had their hours cut to
28 hours per week.
So I am just wondering, you know, if this is--I think this
is going to be broad-spread across a lot of school districts
around the country. I am very concerned about that for a couple
of reasons.
Number one, as a physician, I think everyone needs to have
access to quality affordable health care in a timely manner,
but my concern is is that the people that we are trying to help
may actually be disadvantaged because of this.
The City of Long Beach, California for example has recently
reported in the Los Angeles Times I think it was--something
like 16,000 part-time employees--are cutting all of those
people to less than 30 hours based on affordability. So do you
have any projections about what the costs maybe to your
district just off the top of your head?
I will start with Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. I am sorry, I don't today.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay.
Dr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. I don't think I am in that position at this
point to give you a number. And I think one of the things,
Congressman, is the fact that I don't see us necessarily
reducing anybody's hours, but what I do see is those people
that have again these multiple positions where we had positions
would never be part of this because of their extremely part-
time nature are now going to be counted together with other
parts of positions to create jobs that are over 30 hours. I
think for the most part though we will keep everybody in place
at the hours they are at.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Rokita. Thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Davis recognized for 5 minutes. Excuse me--
correction--excuse me, Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.
As a former teacher, school principal, and school board
member, I can personally attest to the importance of a strong
federal role in education.
As local districts face cutbacks and financial hardships
under the sequester this is the case more than ever. We need
federal support to ensure equity for all children and equity in
student opportunity.
There is nothing that we should call an achievement gap. It
is call--it should be called an opportunity gap because that is
where the gap is and if the federal government were not
involved in education, I would not have ever gotten a new
school book where someone else had answered the math problems--
that I had to erase the answers.
And it appears as each year we put our poor little children
in petri dishes, and we use them as experiments when we know
that all of this leads to just money, privatization; we just
experiment with them.
And I think as we wrestle with these issues I hope we can
categorically reject vouchers as a way forward. Vouchers,
simply put, they gut our public education system, and I think
we should maintain our support for free, quality, public
education.
Mr. Gordon, in your testimony you said federal
accountability for the performance of the student subgroups is
essential. Why is the federal role in education so important
and what federal parameters would--should we preserve in the
new ESEA?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I would argue that subgroups are critical, actually,
because of my experience outside of urban education. Prior to
coming to Cleveland I taught in an affluent suburban school
district in the Columbus, Ohio area where we had very low
numbers of minority children, very low numbers of children
whose first language was not English, and significantly lower
numbers of children with special needs.
In that district, we were able to meet Adequate Yearly
Progress standards at the time and our states of local report
carding whether or not those children performed. Which means
that in that system you often could and did lose minority
children, children who don't speak English as a primary
language, and children at risk.
Now I picked that up and bring it to the city that is where
my passion is and where my work is; it is a lot more
transparent. We are more visible about it. That needs to happen
in Ohio's smallest and most homogenous districts in the same
way that it is happening in Cleveland.
There is more movement to be done in Cleveland. We have a
lot further to go, but I know the children who were essentially
vanished in systems that--where they were washed out because of
not paying close enough attention to the N-size of the
subgroups.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
This is for Mr. White.
Prior to the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind,
only two states included student subgroups in their
accountability system. Federal requirements changed that.
Doesn't history tell us that federal policy should still
set guidelines around the state accountability systems so that
they serve the needs of all students?
Don't you sometimes face pressure to serve adults'
interests rather than student interests and doesn't federal
policy sometimes give you momentum to do the right thing for
the students?
Mr. White. I think the federal government should absolutely
set parameters within which states should plan.
I think the unfortunate consequence of the federal
government trying to achieve so many different things for so
many different people is that we create so many different
categories and so many different rules and regulations and that
out of the best of intentions we end up confusing schools who
don't really think about their kids in categories, they think
about them as individual human beings and they plan around
their individual needs.
So we have maintained subgroups in our accountability
system. We support systems that protect the rights of the most
disadvantaged, but we need a simple system from the federal
government that allows schools to plan around the kids they
know and love, and not around a bunch of rules and red tape.
Ms. Wilson. This is for everyone. High-stakes testing has
held----
Mr. Rokita. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Loebsack is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
When you are near the end of the question time you get to hear
a lot from a lot of folks and I get to learn a lot. So I really
appreciate not only the questions, but especially the answers
from all of you today.
I have been in office since January 2007. I think it is
fair to say that many of us in this body and certainly a whole
lot of folks from around the country including I am sure all of
you here, have grown pretty weary of yet again reassessing No
Child Left Behind, yet again trying to reauthorize ESEA.
It is clearly time and we have got to do it, but we have
got to do it in the right way and I really appreciate in
particular Dr. Richardson, you know, and what you said you
summed it up but--and we have been talking sort of around how
you summed it up in trying to delve a little bit more deeply
into the different issues when you said that the parameters
have to be right at the federal level but the flexibility has
to be right at the state and local level.
I don't think anybody would disagree with that. I don't
think anybody in this room would disagree with that. The big
disagreement and the big question comes as to how much we are
going to be doing at the federal level, what those parameters
are going to be, how much flexibility there is going to be at
the state and local level.
That is really the question. I think it is the essence of
what we are trying to figure out today, and so I am looking
forward to continuing to work with folks on both sides of the
aisle to try to get this right, to try to get the balance
right.
And just so you know, before I decided to run for office
and when I ran in 2006, some years prior to that, I had been
hearing about No Child Left Behind because my wife taught
second grade for over 30 years.
So she and her friends had my ear quite a bit as you might
imagine about all of the problems with No Child Left Behind. I
am one of those who is a strong proponent of looking at the
whole child. We have already talked a little bit about that
today.
I think that we have clearly got a--we have to focus on
academic achievement; there is no question about that. I taught
at a college for 24 years. I wanted those students to be ready
when they came to that college where I taught and if they
weren't, I wasn't very happy as you might imagine.
The fewer the remedial courses I think at the college level
whether it is 2-year or 4-year, whatever, the better it is, but
academic achievement we all know that is critical but we also
know that students cannot be successful without the proper
nonacademic supports.
Recent tragedies I think at Sandy Hook and other places
really only reinforce the need to strengthen access to mental
health, other nonacademic support personnel, including
counselors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, but very
little attention has been paid.
It is a resource issue, I get that. I understand that, but
I think we have to have the policies right too. I am going to
be introducing a bill this week that is going to focus on these
nonacademic supports.
Mr. Gordon, you mentioned, again, I would just like to go
back, you already did respond to some extent, but you mentioned
the Cleveland School District's focus on conditions for
learning surveys, social and emotional learning curriculum, the
tangible successes that you had in these areas. Can you provide
a little more detail on specifically those successes?
Mr. Gordon. Congressman, thank you.
First of all, I would say that any school district or
school that is looking at these non-academic supports needs to
think of them in the context of academics and so one of the big
disconnects that I think you see around the country is those of
us who think of them as a separate.
In Cleveland, we think of them as integrated together. We
have a promoting alternative thinking strategy curriculum that
we teach to all of our children that is a literacy-based
curriculum so that we are embedding it within academics.
We put planning centers in place to reduce discipline
incidences. We have reduced instances over 48 percent over the
last 4 years. We have cut our suspensions in half. We have
reduced our expulsions by 11 percent.
We think about the student support team so that we reduce
the number of kids who are over-identified into special
education services, so while we are still too high, our numbers
are going down, not up.
But we do it all in service of the research and evidence
and programs that are connected to kids to demonstrate these
kinds of behaviors which can be measured and also demonstrate
higher levels of literacy.
So we aren't out there simply saying ``let's implement a
character education program so everybody feels better about
themselves,'' we are actually saying that we need to implement
an alternative thinking strategy that allows kids to self-
regulate, self-manage so that they can actually access content,
so that they can problem solve without getting frustrated,
those sorts of things. So those would be some examples.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you. And I think that we can
certainly use those as models. Again, not to be overly
prescriptive at the federal level with however we reauthorize
ESEA, hopefully sooner rather than later.
But nonetheless, I think it is important that when all of
us go to our districts and we talk to folks like you, not just
here in Washington, D.C., but on the ground, that we listen to
what you have to say and that we take advantage of your success
stories.
So thank you very much to all of you. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rokita. Gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses. This has been a very
informative hearing.
When we passed No Child Left Behind many years ago, one of
the things that we insisted was that people graduate from high
school, and if you allow a high dropout rate you have a little
perverse incentive for that because people are dropping out
from the bottom, the more people dropout, the higher your
average is.
If you don't have a factor punishing school districts for a
high dropout rate, you actually give them an incentive to allow
the dropout rate to creep up.
Unfortunately we gave a lot of flexibility to the
localities on how they measured dropouts, and we found that
even the dropouts, some dropout factories with 50 percent
dropout rates, were achieving AYP, so it has been a complete
disaster. Would any of our witnesses give us a recommendation
on how we can accurately count and set reasonable goals for
graduation rates?
Mr. White. Well, I think and certainly one thing that I
know a lot of us have learned through our recent interactions
with the Department of Education that it starts with how good
the parameters are within which you can have the discussion.
I believe that with regard to graduation it has to be
starting with the states at that given moment in time. On the
other hand, the measure that the federal government has rightly
put in place of regarding a consistent cohort graduation rate
has over--by and large taken care of the problem you are
discussing regarding the dropout measure.
And so if a parameter is that the accountability system
must include the federally-approved cohort graduation rate and
that is the starting point of the discussion among other
starting points, then that is a positive step.
Mr. Scott. And setting a reasonable goal?
Mr. White. Yes, there should be a reasonable goal, and as I
said, then you get into what are the consequences for not
achieving the goal, and I think that those consequences start
with a simple plan in the instances where the--it is not being
achieved.
The dropout factories, we cannot correct through reams of
corrective action out of D.C. A simple plan in terms of how we
assure every one of those families has a better alternative is
where we should start.
Mr. Scott. One of the--if you talk about responses to
failure, one of the things I think is the least effective is
the school choice thing, where if a school is failing, students
have the choice to go somewhere else.
It seems to me that that doesn't help; the ones that are
leaving aren't the ones who were having trouble, the ones that
are left behind still have trouble and in fact, if every
student made a rational choice they all ought to get up and go,
and there would be nobody in the school.
Mr. White, you have indicated that you want to stop funding
failing schools. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide
actually more funding with a strategy--to help fund a strategy
to turn it around?
Mr. White. First, with respect to the overall problem of
the school choice implementation, I agree with you that it was
a flawed implementation.
And I would advocate and I say this with great deference
and respect to my colleagues and districts, that the problem
with the school choice framework as it was implemented is that
it gave those who govern--the problem in the first place--the
power to actually be the ones to remedy it by essentially
driving themselves out of business or sort of contradicting
their own internal politics.
I think that was a mistake. States should have a basic plan
for how any child who is consigned to a struggling school has
an alternative. We should use all means at our disposal
including using more current alternatives, more efficiently and
enrolling more kids in those alternatives. I don't think that a
plan that consigns kids to just waste away in a struggling
school is a plan for success.
Mr. Scott. And yes, but if you cut the funding for the
school they are worse off and the ones that get to sneak out
the back door are those that are politically sophisticated and
you talked about politics--it helps the politics of the elected
school board because the people who are presenting the most
pressure to them all of a sudden can get out the back door.
It makes more sense and in fact--those who are politically
powerful try to figure a way to get out of the school rather
than going to the school board and saying my children are at
the school you better fix it and those--the ones that have the
influence to really move the school board sneak away, and you
are relegated with a bunch of people with no political
influence in a school if you cut the funding with less money.
Mr. White. Two quick responses. Number one, it has not been
my experience that those who are politically disconnected don't
take up choice opportunities when given it.
In New Orleans, our population is 96 free and reduced lunch
and every single parent participates in a city-wide school
choice process every year.
Secondly, I would say that the real systemic underfunding
doesn't come from federal dollars, it comes from local and
state dollars where we fund based on the salaries of
inexperienced teachers and low income communities, experienced
teachers in high income communities, and if we really want to
change that, we need to give states and districts a better
mandate, a better impetus to change than we have given them and
I think that starts with money.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
The gentleman's time is expired.
Ms. Bonamici is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony.
As a member of Congress and a former state legislator and a
public school parent, which I was for more years than I have
been in elected office, I have spoken for many years with
parents, students, teachers, administrators, about these issues
and there seemed to be two sort of common themes of concern
that I have heard; and one of them is about budget; and I
appreciate the conversations we have had about that and I truly
urge all of my colleagues to work on getting rid of the
sequestration cuts that are affecting Headstart, IDEA, Title I,
Title II.
Our local budgets are not able to make up those gaps so
that is one concern. And the other seemed concerned that I hear
is about the high-stakes testing or teaching to the test. When
this happens is the focus on the teaching to the test subjects
that help students get a well-rounded education like arts,
music, PE, social studies, second languages all get left
behind, and I chose those words carefully.
Dr. Richardson, I agree with your analysis about the flaws
of No Child Left Behind including that the focus on what is
tested at the expense of other important subjects, the reliance
on a test given at a single point, and I have heard again and
again there are too many summative assessments and not enough
formative assessments and also the draconian sanctions.
So thank you for recognizing those problems. I have to say
as someone who sees strong public education is key to economic
development, I have never heard a business recruiter say they
need a good test taker.
They want people who can communicate. They want
collaborators. They want problem solvers, and they want
innovators. So what changes do we need to make to the ESEA
because it is important that we reauthorize this, absolutely
critical?
What changes do we need to make to ensure that students get
that well-rounded education with all of the subjects that help
them become creative, critical thinkers? That is who we need
for the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. So I
would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Richardson. Congresswoman, I think--and I appreciate
your comments. Thank you very much.
I think that the real focus, I think, for us has been that
it has, you know, ESEA has basically really focused instruction
on reading and mathematics to the detriment of really all of
those other areas, and again, we have not touched the concept
of all of the soft skills that are part of the 21st century
understanding.
My sense is that's where if the parameter says, at state
and local level create a suite of assessments that makes sense
in terms of not only addressing a look at mathematics and
reading but also looks at the other areas.
And also look at, how are we going to be accountable for
making sure that students do understand collaborative skills,
teamwork skills, and whatever as part of that process.
I don't think that can be driven beyond the parameter level
at the federal level. That needs to be driven at the state and
local level to make it work, and again, as I said before, the
devil is in the details. You have to set the parameters that
are going to make sense that gives state and local officials
the ability to get the work done.
Ms. Bonamici. Right. We talked about dropout rates. We have
the data that shows that students who study art are more
involved in--or art or drama--are better readers, students who
are in music programs, better at math and they are engaged,
they are less likely to drop out.
So I want to hear from the others about what changes do we
need to make to make sure that we have these critical thinkers
that we need for our global marketplace.
Mr. White. I believe we have to start rooting our long-term
vision regarding accountability not just in proficiency but
also in real-world outcomes. The--beyond that general
parameter, a rigorous accountability regarding real-world
outcomes, career attainment and college attainment--actual
attainment--not just an indicator but actually attainment.
Beyond that, I think the federal government has actually
very limited power to do it well because I don't think we are
talking about things that the federal government can mandate
people to do well.
The federal government should set parameters that allow for
measurement of real-world success attainment and then allow
states and educators to build the systems that achieve those
accountabilities.
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. I would say that I agree with that largely. I
would say that what the federal government can do is look at
how using these strategies, the arts, the sciences, real-world
experiences, are impacting more simple measures of reading and
mathematics and that is what I think NAEP already allows us to
do.
I would also say that we have to call into question whether
we are actually seeing the performance we needed from children
prior to accountability because many people who argue that
accountability systems have caused us to only teach reading and
math are the same people that are in my system where we were
failing large numbers of children even on reading and math
before the assessments occurred. So we can't let it be an
excuse-maker. It has to be about thinking about the next level
of investment.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
The gentlewoman's time is expired.
Ms. Bonamici. My time is expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
I would like to again thank the witnesses for taking the
time to testify to the committee today. At this time I would
like to recognize Mr. Miller for closing remarks.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
First of all, let me just say thank you, thank you because
I think that you have shown us that if we look deep enough
here--there's a pony in there somewhere, in terms of the
reauthorization. I am very optimistic because I think that this
panel has delineated for the members this bifurcated role;
there is a state and local role and there is our role.
And I think you have demonstrated that is not an
abandonment of traditional roles or traditional concerns and if
we have the right accountability system, we will be able to see
what you are doing and more importantly your parents and
community leaders and others will be able to see what you are
doing.
And, you know, I am very optimistic about this moment that
we are in, and a lot of it is because of the things that you
have done in your areas, but I also represent a very diverse
congressional district with respect to school districts.
I have the highest performing schools in the state and I
have the lowest performing elementary schools in the state and
high schools, but they are making dramatic changes in my
poorest performing areas. And seeing the empowerment of parents
who can pick and choose where their kids are going to go and
the reasons they want to go there.
Somebody said they are poor, they are not stupid, and they
are making these choices and from the poorest most violent
neighborhood in my district they are going to graduate school
and they are also getting shot. So that is the dichotomy, but
it is happening and in fact, these parents are continuing to
make these choices.
Just a couple points. One is, we talk about college or
career ready and you have I think made the point that this is a
seamless process. You don't know where you are going to end up
when you are in 11th grade.
I just met with the manufacturers--I come from a
manufacturing district. It is chemicals, it is refineries, it
is steel and the fact is now they are, you know, they are in
joint ventures with colleges, with the state universities, with
community colleges, and kids move back and forth and they are
looking at credentials and 2-year degrees and back and forth.
So I think we have got to clear the air about, that this is
not one or the other. The other one is the idea that you are
using ACT as a confirmation of what is going on in the schools
and how many students are progressing there.
I mean if you are going to try to get into college you have
got to be able to pass the entrance examine or score well on
that. I think that is encouraging. That mix of measurements
that you have talked about at different levels; at the school
level, at the district level, I think can help develop that
accountability system in terms of when people look at what is
happening in Cleveland or what is happening in New Orleans or
in Louisiana.
I also like of course what Louisiana does in terms of
following your teacher graduates--from your schools of
education who are coming to teach and how they are doing.
It appears that each of you are suggesting that the data
that has been driven by No Child Left Behind has in fact turned
out to be very valuable in how you structure your resources and
deploy your resources in schools and the mix of schools and the
portfolios that you want to develop. Is that--would that--would
I be correct in making that assessment?
It is not that the data is perfect, but this is data we
haven't had in real time to some extent, you know, before No
Child Left Behind or certainly it was hidden. Is there any
disagreement on that? Or refining?
Mr. White. Only that I think that states have taken that
imprimatur and are now frankly well ahead of the NCLB framework
and they are developing new sources of data that we should use
in the next framework.
Mr. Miller. Yes, I wouldn't challenge that at all. It was
pretty primitive what we were doing. You know, I was also very
disgruntled with--you know, people came in here the minute
after it was signed and we said we want 100 percent of students
to be proficient in 2014 and they were waving the white flag
and saying we can't do that.
When I look at their districts, they were 7 percent
proficient. I said come back and see me when you are at 60
percent proficient and tell me what you can or cannot do but
don't, you know, don't concede at the beginning.
And I think what we have seen through the use of
portfolios, the advancement of technology, the additional
professional development that we see in various districts
around is that we now have the ability to really develop those
resources and we don't have to suffer those consequences and we
can do that in real time in terms of how these teachers are
doing.
And again, I see it where schools that were a dump for 20
years are now becoming--are becoming really high performing and
they are also becoming high-performing for the community. There
are as many parents on campus in 24 hours as there are students
in some instances in the schools and they have really become a
learning environment for the entire community about their
children, about themselves, many acquiring English language
skills.
So I just think this is an amazing opportunity and you have
really plowed some difficult ground out there and we should not
in the reauthorization crush that initiative. I mean, I think
that is important.
There are laggards, there are people who have 1,000
excuses. I have listened to them. I have been on this committee
for 39 years. I have had more 5-year plans than the Soviet
Union, and they haven't worked out terribly well; about the
same, about the same.
And I hate 5-year plans because that really tells me we are
sort of kissing off if we don't do it right, 7 or 8 years
before we get back to that school and we revise it again and
get it up and running and that looks like a lot of kids that
are ill-prepared to continue on.
So I think you are going to find out that you may have
really laid the foundation here for a really important
discussion on both sides of the aisle about how we proceed on
ESEA, and I just want to thank you very, very much.
I hope we can call on you as we go through this process
over the coming months, and use you as a little bit of a
faculty here.
Thank you.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
As the chair of the Early Childhood and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, let me say that I enjoyed the testimony that I
heard. I enjoyed learning from you, and let me also say that I
echo almost everything that Mr. Miller is saying.
The big difference being that as he said, he has been here
39 years and I have been here for 3. So I don't know if that is
a comment on me or Mr. Miller or both, but I appreciate the
spirit and the bipartisanship also of this hearing.
I am also optimistic and it is because of you and the
people you represent--not only the students but also the
professionals that you represent by your testimony here today
and I think that is positive.
I do trust you and those that you represent perhaps more
than some on this committee based on what I heard but maybe
less than others, I am not so sure but the point is I trust the
states. I trust the school districts to know what is best for
their students first off.
And I do trust less the bureaucrats that I find in that 10-
story or so building down the street to know what is best for
our kids. Maybe that is the one difference today.
But certainly, we do understand and respect the roles of
the different parts of government and again, I do also hope
that we use your testimony as we look forward to this
reauthorization and take what you have told us here today and
make sure that the best, the good parts of ESEA, No Child Left
Behind, whatever you want to call it, are kept at least for
measurement purposes so we can do the best job we can, not for
us, not for the unions, but for our children and our future.
So with that, there being no further business before this
committee, I thank you again and this committee stands
adjourned.
[Additional submission of Hon. John F. Tierney, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts,
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Monty Neill, Ed.D., Executive Director, FairTest
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for
allowing this testimony on the vitally important questions of
assessment and accountability.
My name is Monty Neill, and I am the executive Director of
FairTest, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing. (See http://
www.fairtest.org.)
Educationally beneficial accountability must rest on strong
evidence of important learning outcomes and other strong information
about school quality. Accountability must be structured first and
foremost to assist school improvement. Where schools clearly are unable
to improve, then a healthy accountability system requires stronger
actions.
In this testimony I seek to accomplish the following:
1) To explain the scope and reasons for a growing parent, student,
teacher and public backlash against high-stakes standardized testing,
the central component of current accountability systems.
2) To summarize briefly and provide references on how and why
testing has failed as the key component of accountability.
3) To describe and provide examples of what assessment could be,
describing systems Congress should help states develop.
4) To briefly discuss and provide references on the misuse of
testing in the evaluation of teachers. And,
5) To outline a step by step accountability structure that Congress
could implement to replace No Child Left Behind and the waiver system
the administration has persuaded many states to implement.
Please note that I also chair the Forum on Educational
Accountability. I am not presenting on their behalf, but I am using a
good deal of their work in presenting a superior accountability system.
(See http://www.edaccountability.org.)
Resistance
We are in a time of rapidly growing resistance to high-stakes
misuses of standardized tests. Let me give you some examples:
Providence Students held a zombie walk; they persuaded a group of
prominent citizens to take the state test--and most of them failed it.
They also released a program for genuine school reform, including use
of authentic performance assessments.
In New York City parents and students boycotted testing in 30
schools, then held a 500-person rally. Such boycotts occurred across
New York State, where 1600 principals have signed a petition against
test misuse, while hundreds of researchers signed an open letter
against high stakes testing. Researchers in Massachusetts, Chicago and
Georgia have signed similar letters.
In Chicago, students boycotted, parents held a play-in at school
headquarters, and a steady flow of public forums on testing have been
held across the city. Numerous grassroots community groups have joined
with parent and student groups and the Chicago Teachers Union to forge
a growing movement. The union made the use of student test scores to
judge teachers a key issue in their successful strike last spring, a
strike that polls said had the support of a strong majority of the
city's people. In response, Chicago has dropped some testing.
In Indiana, voters elected Glenda Ritz, a critic of high-stakes
testing, over Tony Bennett, a staunch defender of such testing.
In Seattle, teachers have twice boycotted tests that are not
connected to the curriculum and eat up computer labs for a third of the
school year, denying students time to use computers for real
educational pursuits. Students themselves boycotted the tests when
administrators tried to administer them. The administration has reduced
the amount of MAP testing--the target of the protests--and educators
promise to continue their efforts to ensure reasonable testing.
And in other states, parents and students have `opted out' of the
tests, including in California, Colorado, Oregon, Oklahoma, Florida and
Pennsylvania.
All this comes on top of the National Resolution on High Stakes
Testing, sponsored by FairTest and a dozen others, calling for a
sweeping overhaul of assessment and accountability. (See http://
timeoutfromtesting.org/nationalresolution/). That resolution has been
endorsed by more than 530 organizations and 17,000 individuals. Before
that was the Texas school boards resolution, which said testing is
``strangling'' education. It has been signed by 86% of Texas school
boards. That has laid the ground for what is likely to be a marked
retreat in the amount of mandated testing through bills nearing passage
in the Texas legislature.
People are rebelling over the amount of tests, the low quality of
the tests, and their misuse as high stakes hurdles for students,
teachers and schools.
The tests
I've not the space to discuss in detail the limits and flaws of the
tests or the damage caused by their high-stakes misuse. I'll just make
a couple of key points, and direct you to references.
First, the tests are narrow and measure only a limited slice of
what students need to know and be able to do. High stakes pressures too
many schools to teach to the test, narrowing the curriculum and
undermining subject quality. This denies children the high-quality
education they need and desrve. It is a likely reason why gains in NAEP
have slowed and even halted in both subjects, at grades 4 and 8 and 12,
for almost every demographic group. Quite simply, the testing mania is
not working (Guisbond, Neill and Schaeffer, 2012).
Second, the looming Common Core tests will be, at best, marginally
better, a point also raised by the Gordon Commission report.
Unfortunately, these new tests have devoured hundreds of millions of
dollars and may dominate schooling in the next few years. They will not
solve the problem of assessment quality; the high stakes misuses
remain; the negative consequences will also continue. (FairTest, 2012a;
Gordon Commission, 2013.)
Third, we still have no serious proof that schools can overcome the
effects of poverty and racism on a wide scale. Schools continue to
account for some 25% of the variance in student outcomes. We should
continue to work to improve schools, and perhaps the impact of schools
can increase as schools strengthen. But pretending that schools alone
will solve poverty, and will do so via standards and tests, is
dangerous. It leads us to blame schools and educators for things they
cannot possibly accomplish, provides excuses for continuing to poorly
fund schools and related programs such as early childhood programs, and
allows us to avoid addressing issues of jobs, income, housing,
transportation, and other factors that, more powerfully than schools,
create the odds of student success.
None of this means we should not assess students, evaluate teachers
and schools, gather information that can be used to improve schools, or
require no accountability. It means we have failed to construct an
educationally sound and healthy way of meeting those important goals.
What should we do instead: Assessment
Over the years, FairTest and its allies have developed a multi-part
proposal for assessment and evaluation. It includes limited use of
large-scale tests, a core of information from classroom and school
evidence, and use of school quality reviews (Neill, 2010).
Large-scale tests. Many nations with better and more equal
education outcomes test only one to three times before high school
graduation and largely avoid multiple-choice questions (Darling-
Hammond, 2010a; FairTest, 2010). Congress should require statewide
tests once each in elementary, middle and high school, in language arts
and math. Congress could allow states to sample, as NAEP does. The
critical point is that no stakes should be attached to these
standardized exams. Rather the results would help inform an overall
evaluation. Where serious discrepancies exist between test results and
other evidence, that could be the basis for an investigation.
Local and classroom evidence of learning. If you want to find out
what kids know and can do, look at their actual work. This is what many
other countries do (Darling-Hammond, 2010b). By focusing on the
classroom, we can assess important learning standardized tests cannot,
such as research projects, oral presentations, essays, using computers
to solve real-world problems. Such assessments enable us to evaluate
higher order thinking skills and deeper knowledge about student
learning than can standardized tests. (Forum on Educational
Accountability). Developing and using high-quality assessment improves
teaching and learning. The evidence can be summed up and presented
annually to the school's community and the state (Neill, 2010; FairTest
2010).
Building the system on local evidence means trusting teachers. Some
need to improve their assessment skills, so ensuring teachers can work
and learn together is important. This is what high-performing nations
have done (Darling-Hammond, 2010, a, b).
To ensure quality, some other countries have systems where samples
of student work from each classroom are re-scored by independent raters
to verify a teacher's initial score (``moderation''). This has been
done well enough to ensure local quality and provide comparability
across a state. (FairTest, 2010, provides examples and links.) Schools
would explain their results in an annual report.
Here I will turn to two examples, as this is the heart of our
position: it is feasible to use classroom and school-based evidence in
an evaluation process.
The New York Performance Standards Consortium includes 26 high
schools, 24 of them in New York City, that use a common use a
``practitioner-developed and student-focused performance assessment
system'' (New York Consortium, 2013). They require graduating students
to prove their subject knowledge through performance-based assessment
tasks that show oral and written skill, including an analytic literary
essay, an applied math project, an original science experiment showing
understanding of the scientific method, and a history research paper
showing valid use of argument and evidence. The tasks are practitioner-
based, student-centered.
The students in the New York City Consortium schools are
demographically nearly identical to the city as a whole. Their results,
which they attribute most strongly to their assessment system, far
exceed New York City averages, in terms of graduation rates, college
attendance and persistence in college. Indeed, they exceed the national
average for percentage of grads still in college in year 3. Test-based,
top down education `reform' in New York City, has not worked; the
Consortium has.
The Consortium requires that students and teachers work together to
develop the topics for the graduation tasks. Each student may have her
own task. They are worked on over weeks, not just one or a few periods
as with Common Core tasks. They are judged using a common scoring guide
across consortium schools. Students must defend their tasks before a
committee, including their teacher and two others, usually from outside
the school--as do doctoral candidates. Samples are re-scored to ensure
consistency across the schools. The system has been independently
reviewed and found to be sound.
The Learning Record (n.d.) was developed for use with multi-
lingual, multi-cultural populations, to assess progress in reading,
writing, speaking and listening. Using a structured format, the teacher
regularly observes and describes the student and her work, and collects
work samples, to provide multiples sources and types of evidence. This
is a very detailed process that takes place throughout the school year.
The Record is a well-structured instrument that provides clear guidance
on how teachers are to document learning across relevant dimensions,
from phonemic awareness to deep comprehension, going well beyond what
standardized tests measure. Student progress is summarized in writing
and the level of learning is placed numerically on a developmental
scale. LRs have been re-scored, using hundreds of records, with high
inter-rater agreement, and studies have supported its validity.
I would note that there are similarities between the Learning
Record and the Work Sampling System developed by Samuel Meisels, which
also provides in-depth classroom-based information, can use moderation,
and has been validated for use with younger children, ages 3--8
(FairTest, 2010).
These are different kinds of systems, but they are complementary.
Certainly project-based learning fits with the Learning Record, and
Consortium schools often rely on portfolios.
For producing public reporting, for large-scale purposes, the key
point here is that teacher judgments can be verified if the structures
for gathering the work and the processes of evaluation, the scoring
guides and procedures, are sufficiently clear and strong.
Moderation, systems of re-scoring and sometimes score adjusting,
has been used successfully in other nations (Darling-Hammond, 2010a).
My point is that large-scale moderation rooted in high quality
assessment practices can work. This need not be hugely expensive
provided that a) moderating becomes a normal part of teachers' work,
and b) moderation uses samples. The idea here is that if 3-5 randomly
selected Records or Portfolios or common tasks from a given classroom
are re-scored, and the teacher's score found accurate, then we can have
good confidence in her general accuracy. A placement of `3' on a
developmental scale on the Record, or a passing or exemplary score on a
task, would mean the same across a wider area, such as a state.
Congress should take steps to dramatically shift course to this
direction. However, if Congress is not ready to take such a step, it
should authorize a pilot project for states to voluntarily begin
constructing truly new, educationally sound assessment systems. I
attach a draft amendment toward that end.
Two additional quick points:
First, building this system requires significant professional
learning. That is a good thing, because the result is superior
teachers, teachers who know their subject, their craft and their
students better.
Second, this cannot work in a context of punitive accountability.
Evidence, outcomes, must be understood by educators and communities as
being used to help improve teaching and schools. Teachers who cannot do
their jobs well should be counseled out and if necessary removed, which
good teachers will support, and the system I have described will
provide far better evidence for that process than do standardized test
scores. Similarly, schools that cannot improve despite assistance do
require interventions, perhaps including staff removal. But if this is
seen as the purpose of the system, or as a quite possible outcome based
on bad and erratic data, as it now is in many cities, the system will
not work properly.
A note on teacher evaluation
The preponderance of research evidence shows that tools such as
value added and growth formulas cannot be used fairly in judging
teachers in real-world contexts (FairTest, 2012b). Efforts to take
account of factor such as varying student backgrounds, are inadequate.
The very process of using student scores even as a weighted fraction of
decisions will be damaging to the life of schools, in part because it
will intensify teaching to inadequate tests. The administration should
never have required this of states to obtain NCLB waivers, nor should
Congress require it when it reauthorizes ESEA (FEA, 2011b).
But, teachers should be evaluated, and student learning should be
part of that evaluation. Thus, use of rich forms of evidence of student
learning should be included with well-designed reviews and systems such
as Peer Assistance and Review. Montgomery County used this well. One
consequence was that a significant portion of teachers did leave.
Another was that teachers knew they had a tool that was helpful. I use
the past tense because Montgomery County believes that imposition of
the use of student scores to judge teachers will sabotage what has been
a productive system.
What should we do: Accountability
The Forum on Educational Accountability has proposed a
fundamentally different approach to accountability. Its work rests on a
key point in the Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind
(2004), now endorsed by more than 150 national education, civil rights,
religious, disability, parent and civic organizations: Overall, the
law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to
raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for
making the systemic changes that improve student achievement. The Forum
(n.d.) has focused on assessment, accountability, school improvement,
and equity/opportunity to learn.
FEA's (2011a) recommendations on accountability for the
reauthorization of ESEA say:
Eliminate ``adequate yearly progress'' (AYP) requirements
and sanctions, but continue reporting important data disaggregated by
demographic group. Avoid tying goal of ensuring all students are on
track to be college and workforce ready to any arbitrary deadline.
Expect demonstration of reasonably attainable rates of improvement
(e.g., those now achieved by schools in the top quarter on improvement
rates).
In evaluating and recommending interventions in and
changes to schools or districts, use both multiple sources of evidence
(comprehensive indicators) and periodic reviews of schools and
districts by qualified state teams.
Allow a broad, flexible range of ``turnaround'' options.
Use indicators and reviews to tailor change actions to schools' needs.
Build improvement plans from elements demonstrated to be essential to
school improvement--e.g., collaborative professional development,
strong leadership, parent involvement, and rich and challenging
curriculum--and allow schools and districts to determine how they will
address these areas to help build their capacity for long-term
improvement.
Establish the principle of holding schools and districts
accountable through monitoring and appropriate public reporting to
ensure consistent, successful efforts to fulfill improvement plans.
Set the percentage of schools required to engage in
turnaround activities based on standards for intervention and federal
appropriation levels, rather than set percentages regardless of
funding.
Assist states and districts in developing and implementing
sound and fair schoolwide evaluation policies aimed at schoolwide
improvement, rather than the Blueprint model, which largely shifts
test-based accountability from schools to educators. Educator
evaluation programs should include evidence of student learning and
other measures of educator competency, but the federal government
should not mandate the inclusion of scores from large-scale tests.
Further discussion of a few of these recommendations:
FairTest also recommends consideration of school quality reviews
(SQR) as a means to accomplish the ongoing school evaluations that FEA
recommends regarding accountability and improvement. The SQR is the
central tool for school evaluation in places such as England and New
Zealand (see Rothstein, 2008; Ratner &Neill, 2009). Instead of test
results, their systems focus on a comprehensive school review by a team
of qualified professionals every 4-5 years. This leads to a report
describing the school and recommending actions for improvement. Schools
that need extra help would be reviewed more frequently. Schools that
are reviewed would also provide extensive data about their resources,
their processes, how they strive to improve, problems they are
encountering, and so on.
This is usually envisioned as a formal process and would be
controlled by the state. It may be that states would prefer a more
informal process. For example, in England a network, Raising
Achievement, Transforming Learning (RATL) pairs schools so they can
help each other (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2009). These have been shown
to produce improvement. Interestingly, it is not necessary to pair a
good school with a weak school--even two weak schools collaborating
seem to produce significant improvement. It seems to be the process of
thinking and working together that spurs positive changes.
For a more formal evaluation system, the SQR can make a useful
contribution by providing rich information beyond evidence of student
learning. Schools are not only places of learning, they should be
places where children are healthy and happy as well as challenged and
supported to learn, in social, emotional and behavioral ways, as well
as academically. SQRs, complemented by other sources of information,
can provide information for evaluation and more importantly for
improvement.
FEA also has developed a proposal for turnarounds based on ``common
elements'' identified by research as key to successful schools and
turnaround efforts. FEA recommends that this approach replace the four
requirements in Race to the Top and the Department's NCLB waivers. At a
minimum, should Congress retain those four options, then ``common
elements'' should be an additional option. Unlike the Administration's
approach, ``common elements'' are based on research and evidence from
practice. (See Forum on Educational Accountability, 2010; Ratner &
Neill, 2010.)
In conclusion
In a period of strong and growing resistance to tests, tests that
are educationally inadequate and whose use is failing to genuinely
improve America's schools, as will be the case with the coming Common
Core tests, it is imperative that Congress take steps to dismantle the
educationally harmful test and punish system it has created.
But we do need to evaluate students, teachers, schools and systems.
Schools and districts do need to give an accounting to their
communities, the public and the state. The state will need at times to
intervene to ensure local officials do their jobs well and schools do
their best. And it is fundamentally important to provide educationally
sound assistance to schools in need.
The procedures I have described can do that, and do it in ways that
are educationally beneficial. FairTest--and FEA--propose a fundamental
overhaul of federal law. This now seems beyond what Congress proposes
to do. But we should dream big, our children deserve it. The current
system does not work, nor will tinkering solves its dangerous
inadequacies. Instead, Congress needs to move in a dramatically
different direction. I hope this testimony will help you consider
whether and how to do so.
references
Darling-Hammond, L. 2010a. Benchmarking Learning Systems: Student
Performance Assessment in International Context. http://
edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub--docs/assessment/scope--
pa--ldh.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2010. The Flat World and Education. New York:
Teachers College Press. FairTest. 2012a. Common Core
Assessments: More Tests, But Not Much Better. http://
www.fairtest.org/common-core-assessments-more-tests-not-much-
better. Contains further research links.
FairTest. 2012b. Why Teacher Evaluation Shouldn't Rest on Student Test
Scores. http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Teacher-
Evaluation-FactSheet-10-12.pdf. Contains extensive bibliography
on this topic.
FairTest. 2010. Multiple Measures: A Definition and Examples from the
U.S. and Other Nations. http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/
files/MultipleMeasures.pdf.
Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA). n.d. Reports, position
papers and recommendations. http://www.edaccountability.org/.
Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA). 2011a. Recommendations for
Improving ESEA/NCLB--Summary. http://www.edaccountability.org/
FEA--2--Page--Summary--Recommendations--2011--final.pdf.
Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA). 2011b. ``What Should
Congress Do About Teacher Evaluation?'' http://
edaccountability.org/What--Should--Congress--Do--About--
Teacher--Evaluation-
--FEA--letter--9-20-11.pdf.
Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA). 2010. A Research- and
Experience-Based Turnaround Process. http://
www.edaccountability.org/pdf/FEA-
TurnaroundStatementJune2010.pdf.
Forum on Educational Accountability, Expert Panel on Assessment. 2007.
Assessment and Accountability for Improving Schools and
Learning. http://www.edaccountability.org/
AssessmentFullReportJUNE07.pdf
Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. 2013. A
Public Policy Statement. http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/
pdfs/gordon--commission--public--policy--report.pdf.
Guisbond, L., Neill, M., & Schaeffer, B. 2012. NCLB's Lost Decade for
Educational Progress: What Can We Learn from this Policy
Failure? http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/NCLB--Report--
Final--Layout.pdf. Contains relevant, extensive bibliography.
Hargreaves, A., and Shirley, D. The Fourth Way. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin. Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind.
2004. http://www.edaccountability.org/Joint--Statement.html.
Learning Record. N.d. http://learningrecord.org.
Neill, M. 2010. ``A Better Way to Assess Students and Evaluate
Schools,'' Education Week, June 18. http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2010/06/18/36neill.h29.html.
New York Peformance Standards Consortium. 2013. Educating for the 21st
Century: Data Report on the New York Performance Standards
Consortium. http://performanceassessment.org/articles/
DataReport--NY--PSC.pdf. More about the Consortium can be found
at http://performanceassessment.org/.
Ratner, G., and Neill, M. 2010. Common Elements of Successful School
Turnarounds: Research and Experience. http://
www.edaccountability.org/pdf/
CommonElementsSuccessfulSchoolTurnarounds.pdf. Documents the
research evidence behind FEA `common elements' recommendations.
Ratner, G., and Neill, M. Integrating `Helping Schools Improve' With
`Accountability' Under ESEA: ``The Key Role For Qualitative, As
Well As Quantitative, Evaluations And The Use Of
Inspectorates,'' Working Paper II. http://www.fairtest.org/
sites/default/files/SQR--Inspectorate--working--paper--2.pdf.
Rothstein, R. 2008. Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right.
Washington and New York: Economic Policy Institute/Teachers
College Press. See esp., Ch. 7.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]