[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT'S ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN SAN RAFAEL, CA, APRIL 27, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-604 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Linda T. Sanchez, California Rob Bishop, Utah
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Ric Keller, Florida
David Loebsack, Iowa Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Phil Hare, Illinois Louisiana
Lynn C. Woolsey, California John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas York
Dean Heller, Nevada
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 27, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Additional submissions for the record:
Chappell, Torri, mother and teacher.................. 42
Greenwood, Lenard C., teacher, Montgomery High
School, Santa Rosa, CA............................. 43
Phillips, Diane, parent of public school children.... 44
Valens, Amy, retired teacher, Lagunitas School
District, San Geronimo School...................... 45
Statement of Witnesses:
Blake, Melanie, teacher, Sonoma Valley High School........... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Gonzalez, Pepe, vice principal, Venetia Valley K-8 School.... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Liddell, Sharon E., Ed.D., superintendent, Santa Rosa City
Schools.................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Schott, Elizabeth W., principal, McDowell Elementary School.. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Tempes, Fred, senior program director, WestEd................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
IMPROVING THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT'S ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
----------
Friday, April 27, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
Room 330, Marin County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 3501
Civic Center Drive, San Raphael, California, Hon. Dale E.
Kildee [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Woolsey.
Staff Present: Julius Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
Chairman Kildee. A quorum being present, the hearing of
this Subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12[a] any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record, and I recognize myself for an opening
statement.
First of all, I want to thank the Supervisors of Marin
County for the use of this beautiful facility. I said to your
Congresswoman, why do you come to Washington with all this
beauty here? But, she does it out of duty and responsibility.
I'm very pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses to
this hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary
and Secondary Education, Improving the No Child Left Behind
Act's Accountability System.
I'm Congressman Dale Kildee from Flint, Michigan, and I'm
the Chairman of this Subcommittee. I am especially pleased to
be joined by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lynn
Woolsey. I have enjoyed working with Congresswoman Woolsey for
more than 14 years. She's a leading voice in the House on so
many issues that touch every-day Americans, including education
and, of course, the war in Iraq.
I particularly value her input as a member of this
Subcommittee on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
As Chairman, one of my priorities is to work with my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and educators in
Washington and around the country, to improve and reauthorize
No Child Left Behind this year.
Our country's success in the 21st Century economy will be
directly tied to our ability to continue to produce a high-
quality labor force, and that ability is, of course, directly
tied to our ability to provide every child with a world-class
education.
Since 2002, Congress and the President, however, have under
funded No Child Left Behind by $56 billion, and the President's
proposed budget for this year, 2008, would under fund the law
by another $15 billion, for a total of $71 billion.
California is larger than Michigan, but just in 2006,
because of this short-changing, Michigan lost $331 million in
Title I funding, and you can multiply that many times out here
in California, which certainly would have helped a great deal
here.
However, I'm hopeful that with the new Congress in
Washington this year we'll start to do better. Our budget
resolution does increase two areas of funding, education and
health.
But, funding is only part of improving No Child Left
Behind. I expect the law's basic structure, standards, testing,
disaggregation of the various groups, adequate yearly progress,
and the effects or consequences, some might say penalties, for
schools that do not make AYP, to remain in place.
But, I believe that we should have a critical discussion
within that basic structure to give more flexibility to those
people who are there on the front line, whether they be School
Board members, superintendents, teachers, or parents, to see
how we can give some flexibility, and that is why we came here.
We had a hearing in Flint. We are going up to Philadelphia. I'm
going tomorrow to Arizona, because I've been in Washington for
30 years now as a member of Congress, and the longer I'm there
the more I realize that that's not where all the wisdom lies,
the wisdom is around the country.
And, we recognize, too, that this law. like every law, was
written on Capitol Hill and not Mount Sinai, and even Moses
went up the second time. So, we want to really get your input,
and your input will make a difference, particularly, on the
flexibility on the local level, and you can challenge it in any
way you want.
So, these field hearings are very, very important. In my
home town of Flint, we heard from superintendents, teachers and
parents, and today's panel includes an expert in school reform,
a superintendent, two principals, and a teacher, and I look
forward now to hearing their perspectives on how No Child Left
Behind has worked, and what we can to make it work better.
I'm confident that their testimony will play an important
role in the Committee's understanding of how the law has
impacted not only Marin and Sonoma Counties and other parts of
California, but also places like them all around the country.
I look forward to working together with Congresswoman
Woolsey, with my Ranking Member, Mr. Castle, Chairman Miller,
and Ranking Member McKeon, both of whom are also from
California, and all the Members of the Committee on a
bipartisan reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
In addition to our witnesses, those who would like to
submit written testimony for the official printed record, and
this record will be printed, and bound, and kept in the
Archives of the United States, and used by us before they go
into the Archives, may e-mail it to the Subcommittee Counsel to
my left here. And, do that, please, by the close of business
next week, Friday, May 4th.
I yield now to Representative Woolsey for her opening
remarks.
Ms. Woolsey. And, I, too, want to thank the Board of
Supervisors and President of the Board, Steve Kinsey, but,
particularly, his right arm, Liza Crosse, who made all this
possible for us to be here today, and look out there, and thank
all of you for being here on such a beautiful day, being
interested in our children and their education.
But, most of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Kildee, for
choosing the 6th Congressional District to hold the only No
Child Left Behind hearing in California. Believe me, I am
honored, and I thank you so very much, and I thank George
Miller, Representative Miller, who is the Chair of the
Education and Labor Committee, for agreeing with Congressman
Kildee that, yes, indeed, this is the perfect place to be
hearing about what we need to do and consider before we fix No
Child Left Behind, because today our witnesses represent a
cross section of the experts in our district. It was very hard
to come down to five individuals on a hearing about growth
models.
We could go on all day talking about what we need to do to
fix No Child Left Behind, and we all know that. So, that's why
I'm going to encourage everybody that's here that wants to
submit written testimony into the record, and if you didn't get
that e-mail, my office can provide that to you, or you can send
your testimony through my office, and we will get it to the
Committee.
And, what you are going to do today is help us reshape the
No Child Left Behind Act, and that's why I have been looking
forward to this hearing. It's your experience, it's your
thoughts on the law, it's your reaction to what's gone on for
the last six years, that will make the difference in whether or
not we reauthorize No Child Left Behind so that we improve upon
it, and learn from all of your experience.
And, I say fix it, I don't say reauthorize it, or rewrite
it, I say fix it, take what's good about it and keep it, and
change what isn't working. And we are lucky, now we have
experience on No Child Left Behind, we can take a second bite
of the apple. It's before us. Now, it's important that we take
advantage of this time to make the changes.
We will be working within the framework of the law. We need
to make adjustments based upon the experience of school
districts, of students, of teachers, parents, all around the
country, and I, for one, look forward to working with my
colleagues in coming up with the best possible fix.
My fix will be fair, it will be flexible, and fully funded,
and that's what I'm going to be measuring all of the changes
against. And, as we move forward, it's very important to me
that no child is left behind, and one of the best ways is the
principle of fundamental fairness.
The standards movement has challenged everyone to do a
better job, and to strive, and certainly to understand what
kids aren't getting the best of the best, and which ones are
actually able to survive in this structure we have. And,
standards send a very important message to students and their
families, and that message is it doesn't matter what a
student's background is, where a student lives, if a student is
rich or poor, that student has every right to expect an
education that will take he or she as far as that student can
possibly go.
But, every school isn't starting from and in the same
place. Every school district doesn't have the same challenges.
Low-income schools, for one, a school with a great number of
English learners, have very different challenges from a school
where a majority of the students come from the wealthier
families, wealthier educated families also.
Having the same standard for every school, I don't believe
is the best option for our students. That's why I'm looking
forward to working with the Chairman to develop more flexible
criteria, such as growth models, that would clearly reward
movement in the direction of AYP, even if the bar isn't cleared
in the first year.
We also need to give schools additional flexibility, and
under No Child Left Behind we can branch out from the exclusive
focus on standardized tests, and we know testing is useful, I
mean, education and testing go hand in hand, but it can't be
the only evaluation tool. So, by relying too heavily on the
single criterion I believe we leave the whole child often
behind, and we may fail to capture the uniqueness of any one
school or one school district and, certainly, the individual
challenges those schools, and students, and districts face.
I think we need to be fair. We also need to be flexible,
and to be open to additional measurements on whether a student
is progressing, such as the student's work portfolio, or
decreases in grade-to-grade retention rates. So, I'm looking
forward to working with the Committee to develop a law that is
more flexible, and a law that educates the whole child.
Finally, we need to review and revive, that's for sure,
funding for No Child Left Behind. As the Chairman said, if one
includes the most recent budget request for Fiscal Year 2008
this President has short changed No Child Left Behind to the
tune of more than $70 billion, in fact, California lost $1.3
billion for Title I in 2006 by not fully funding No Child Left
Behind.
And, as an aside, when we fully fund No Child Left Behind
we also have to on the Federal side, we have to fully fund our
commitment to IDEA.
So, when the President puts in place what he considers his
number one program, when he first introduced No Child Left
Behind, and then he doesn't fund it, I believe he's slamming
the door in the face of the very schools, the very districts,
and the children who need the help the most.
So, in the upcoming authorization I look forward to working
with Chairman Kildee and the Committee to ensure that we uphold
the principles of fairness, flexibility and full funding.
So, let's hear from you, and you don't have to agree with
me, you don't have to agree with the Chairman, but know that
what you have to say is very, very important to us, and I thank
you for coming.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Congresswoman
Woolsey.
One privilege I have is, when I'm in a district I can tell
one story about the Congressperson from that district. I'd been
a Senior Member on the Budget Committee, and Representative
Woolsey came into Congress, and a member of the Budget
Committee was appointed to the Cabinet, so there was a vacancy,
and she was put on about halfway through the budget mark-up,
and we were working about 3:00 in the morning, and just
crunching numbers, crunching numbers, and she was assigned then
to serve on the Budget Committee to take the place of the
person that had moved over to the Cabinet.
And, she had come in, probably about 1:00 in the morning,
we were just crunching numbers and saying, well, we can
probably cut $100 million here from this program, she listened,
finally she said, ``Well, but how will that affect the people
served by this program?''
She brought us back to reality, that budgeting is,
essentially, priorities and values, not just number crunching,
and she really actually changed the tone of the rest of the
budget mark-up, and I'll always remember that.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Great moment.
Without objection, this is part of our housekeeping, all
Members of this Subcommittee that are not here will have seven
calendar days to submit additional materials or questions for
the hearing record.
I'd like now to introduce the very distinguished panel of
witnesses here with us this morning. Dr. Fred Tempes is the
Director of the WestEd Comprehensive School Assistance Program,
where he oversees that agency's school and district reform
work, and also directs the California Comprehensive Assistance
Center.
WestEd is a non-profit research, development and service
agency that works with school districts and schools to improve
student achievement.
Prior to coming to WestEd Dr. Tempes directed the
California Department of Education's School and District
Accountability Division, and the Department's Curriculum
Instruction and Assessment Division.
I will now yield to Congresswoman Woolsey to introduce our
other witnesses.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Sharon Liddell has been the Superintendent of Santa
Rosa City Elementary and Secondary Schools since 2003. She has
spent 26 years in education as a teacher and an administrator,
as well as providing professional development opportunities to
teachers and administrators.
Elizabeth Schott has been the principal at McDowell
Elementary School in Petaluma, California, since 2004. She has
served as a Principal and teacher in various elementary and
middle schools around California. Ms. Schott is a doctoral
candidate in educational leadership at the University of
Nevada, Reno.
Pepe Gonzalez has served as the Vice Principal of Venetia
Valley Elementary School, formerly called Gallinas Elementary
School in Marin County since 2005. Before becoming Vice
Principal, he taught for three years in a bilingual 5th grade
classroom. Mr. Gonzalez is a first generation American who was
born and raised in Point Reyes Station, California.
Melanie Blake, Melanie is currently a teacher at Sonoma
Valley High School. She has been an educator for over 20 years,
working with diverse student populations from early childhood
through college. She holds a Master's degree in Educational
Leadership with an emphasis in Assessment.
Welcome, all of you.
Chairman Kildee. Welcome to all our witnesses, and for
those of you who have not testified before this Subcommittee
before, I will explain our lighting system and the five-minute
rule.
Everyone, including Members, and we do this in Washington,
too, is limited to five minutes of presentation or questioning.
Your green light will be illuminated when you begin to speak.
When you see the yellow light, it means that you have one
minute remaining, and when you see the red light it means your
time has expired and you need to conclude your testimony. Now,
we won't interrupt you in the middle of a paragraph or a
thought, and there's no ejection seat, but when you see the red
light try to wind it down.
And, please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak
into the microphone in front of you, and turn it off when you
are finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Dr. Tempes.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRED TEMPES, DIRECTOR,
WESTED COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Tempes. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Representative
Woolsey, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
As Mr. Kildee said, I am Fred Tempes, I direct the
Comprehensive School Assistance Program at WestEd. Over the
past several years we've worked with over 100 schools and
several dozen districts in various program improvements, either
under NCLB or state-designed sanctions, and we've learned some
things over the years working with these schools, which I can
very briefly summarize for you.
How do schools and districts improve? No surprises here.
Schools need to guarantee all students access to a rich,
rigorous, and coherent curriculum. They need to provide those
students with skilled teachers. They need to put in place
principals who are leaders and district administrators who are
leaders, and then they need to hold themselves accountable for
making sure plans actually get implemented and students
actually learn and progress.
I think NCLB has done a great service in moving this agenda
forward. They provide a framework, NCLB provides a framework,
and much of the work that needs to be done now really falls to
states, districts and schools to do.
But, we are here today to talk about the accountability
system, and, Ms. Woolsey, I like your word fix NCLB, I think
there's some fixes that we can look at in the accountability
system.
First of all, let me say the accountability system in
general has been a good thing. It's caused schools and
districts, and parents and community members, to focus on
student achievement, disaggregating student achievement by the
various significant sub-populations has caused the achievement
of the few to no longer mask the achievement of the many, so
it's caused the right focus.
But, and we get to some of the fixes, to be effective an
accountability system must be judged as reasonable by those
being held accountable, and, unfortunately, under the NCLB
accountability plans established by most states we are fast
approaching the point at which the majority of participants in
the system no longer view the system as reasonable. Here's why.
To be reasonable, a system must set realistic targets that
motivate all to strive to achieve them. When participants in
the system no longer view the system's goals as attainable,
they cease to work to attain those goals.
California provides an excellent example of what the
problem is. If you look in my testimony, there's one chart in
page four, and it's the stair-step chart that all of my
colleagues here are familiar with. Many states have taken
advantage of the stair-step approach to accountability, giving
you three years at one plateau, stepping up to the next
plateau. We are at the end of the last permitted plateau.
In California, and the chart I've given you is for high
school English language proficiency, we have set a target of
22.3 percent English language proficient for our students in
California. This is not an unreasonable target. I challenge any
superintendent to stand up in front of his or her board and say
we are not going to be able to educate 22 percent of our kids.
But, now we are at the point where the steps start ratcheting
up rapidly, 11 percent next year, 11 percent the following
year, 11 percent the year after that.
Over the past three years, the State of California has
averaged just under three percentage point gains a year. We can
do better in California. We can do better than three percentage
points, but we are not going to make 11 percentage points a
year over the next decade. It's just not going to happen, the
system is no longer reasonable to the majority of the
participants.
Second, a reasonable accountability system must have
realistic consequences, particularly, at the district level
where states are required to apply sanctions on districts, most
of the consequences of those districts falling into corrective
action are just not realistic.
One is hard pressed to imagine the California State Board
of Education taking any of the following actions in any but the
most extreme circumstances.
One, replace the district staff. Remove individual schools
from the jurisdiction of the district and arrange for
alternative governance. Appoint a trustee in place of the
superintendent and school board, or abolish the district. As
Mr. Kildee pointed out, I worked for 20 years in the California
Department of Education, that's not going to happen, and even
if it did there is no evidence that that would make things
better. Not realistic consequences.
So, how can we approve or fix the accountability system?
Many, especially in California, have argued, and probably will
argue here today, for a growth model. That's fine, I think
there are good arguments for a growth model. They are also good
arguments for a status model like NCLB is today.
I think the crucial factor, however, is whatever system we
envision in the next go around it must be reasonable. Teachers,
principals, and district administrators need to be able to go
to work in the morning believing that if they work hard to
provide all students a standards-based curriculum they can meet
the targets laid out for them. I don't think that's the case
now.
How can we make these targets more reasonable? Three things
seem obvious in the current framework. One, revisit the targets
for special education and English learners, and I'll talk a bit
more about English learners in a moment. Increase the time
frame for reaching the targets, and as both Mr. Kildee and Ms.
Woolsey have alluded to this morning, increase the funding to
districts to do this work, via Title I.
Let me talk about English learners, because this is a
crucial issue for us in California. 25 percent of our students
are English learners, another 18 percent come from homes where
a language other than English is spoken.
Under NCLB, we require these students after a year to take
a test in English in California. This test is not designed for
English learners. It's not valid, it's not reliable, that's why
they are English learners, they are not ready to take this
test.
The other thing is, when kids exit English learner status,
they can then exit the group of students that's being
evaluated, so we take out the successful students and then hold
districts accountable for the rest of the students. Keep those
students in that testing group.
I can see the red light is on, so I'll skip over to the
time frame issue. Districts, after two years in program
improvement fall into corrective action. Schools, after five
years in program improvement fall into corrective action.
That's an unrealistic time frame for districts, and I'll
imagine that my colleagues here will probably chime in on that.
Districts need more time. It takes a long time to turn a
district ship around, and they are willing to do it, they need
some external support to do that. I think that you ought to
look at supporting external agencies to support schools and
districts, and I will yield whatever seconds I have remaining.
[The statement of Dr. Tempes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred Tempes, Senior Program Director, WestEd
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony as you begin to deliberate
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is Fred
Tempes, and I am the Director of the Comprehensive School Assistance
Program at WestEd. As you may know, WestEd is a nonprofit research,
development, and service agency with headquarters in San Francisco and
with 14 offices throughout the country. Success for every learner is
our goal at WestEd, a goal we have been pursuing for over 40 years.
At WestEd I oversee our work in support of schools and districts
identified as needing improvement under NCLB or other state-specific
criteria. Over the past several years we have been engaged with more
than 100 schools and more than two dozen districts in California,
Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii as they seek to raise student achievement
and close the achievement gap. I should add that I also serve as the
Director of the California Comprehensive Assistance Center, funded by
the U.S. Department of Education and charged with helping to build
state capacity to implement NCLB. Prior to joining WestEd, I spent more
than two decades in the California Department of Education, and my last
position there was Director of School and District Accountability.
Hence, I believe that I have a good perspective on accountability
systems as they are envisioned at the state level and dealt with at the
local level.
Let me start my remarks by very briefly summarizing for you what we
have learned about how schools and districts improve. In the standards-
based educational world envisioned in NCLB, the path to improvement is
clearly marked. Schools and districts need to:
Guarantee all students have access to a rigorous and
coherent curriculum.
Hire and retain skilled teachers to implement the
curriculum.
Place strong principals and district administrators in
leadership positions.
Be accountable for making sure improvement plans result in
actions and actions result in gains in student achievement.
NCLB has done much to move this reform framework forward, and
although much remains do be done, many of the tasks ahead are best
addressed by states and districts operating within the framework
established by NCLB. For example, in the curriculum arena all states
now have academic standards and annual assessments designed to measure
student progress in meeting those standards, thus creating the
structure for a standards-based curriculum. States and districts now
need to work on aligning instructional materials and strategies to
those standards, using formative assessments to monitor progress during
the year, and providing appropriate professional development to support
curriculum implementation and effective instruction.
The focus of today's hearing is, however, on the fourth component
of the framework for school and district improvement as we see it: a
workable system to hold adults accountable for giving all students
access to a rich and rigorous curriculum that leads to improvements in
student achievement.
The accountability system called for in the No Child Left Behind
Act is undeniably the most controversial feature of the Act, and with
good reason. Supporters of the current system rightly point to the fact
that NCLB has caused schools and districts to pay attention to whether
all students are meeting state standards. And the requirement that
achievement results be disaggregated by significant subgroups means
that the high achievement of some groups can no longer mask the low
achievement of others.
However, to be effective, an accountability system must be judged
as reasonable by those being held accountable. Unfortunately, under the
NCLB accountability plans established by most states, we are fast
approaching the point at which the majority of participants in the
system no longer view the system as reasonable. Here's why.
First, a reasonable system must set realistic targets that motivate
all to strive to reach them. When participants in the system no longer
view the system's goals as attainable, they cease to put forth the
effort to reach them.
California provides a good example of the problem. Table 1 displays
the percent proficient targets for high schools in English Language
Arts in California.
Table 1.--California Percent Proficient Targets
English Language Arts: High School Level
Like many other states, California has taken advantage of the
``stair step'' provision in NCLB that allows for a more gradual ramping
up of proficiency targets. Hence, the proficiency target in English
Language Arts for the current school year for high schools is that
22.3% of students will be at or above the proficient level. That is not
an unreasonable target. But those in the system looking beyond the
current year will see that for next year the target increases by 11
percentage points and 11 points every year thereafter. Over the past
three years, the state as a whole has averaged just under 3 percentage
point gains in English Language Arts per year. Although we can do
better, almost no one in the system believes these out-year goals are
attainable for all schools and districts.
Second, a reasonable system must have realistic consequences
attached to failure. Particularly at the district level, where states
are required to apply sanctions, most of the consequences of falling
into Corrective Action identified in NCLB are just not realistic. One
is hard pressed to see the California State Board of Education taking
any of the following actions in any but the most extreme cases: Replace
the district staff, remove individual schools from the jurisdiction of
the district and arrange for alternative governance, appoint a trustee
in place of the superintendent and school board, or abolish the
district. And beyond the feasibility of these actions, there is little
empirical or other evidence that they have been or will be effective.
How, then, can we improve the current accountability system? Many,
especially in California, have argued for a system that rewards steady
growth rather than the current model that only acknowledges attainment
of proficiency. There are good arguments for either system, but the
crucial factor, regardless of the type of system, must be
reasonableness. Teachers, principals, and district administrators need
to be able to go to work in the morning believing that if they work
hard to provide all students a standards-based curriculum, they can
meet the targets laid out for them. How can we make targets more
reasonable? Three things seem obvious: revisit the targets for the
Special Education and English Learner (see discussion below) subgroups,
increase the time frame for reaching the targets, and increase the
funding available to our most challenged schools and districts via
Title I.
Because one in four students in California is an English Learner
and another 18% come from homes where a language other than English is
spoken, targets for those learning English is a crucial topic here.
Under NCLB, California has established ambitious yet reasonable targets
for the rate at which students acquire proficiency in English. However,
two revisions to the current system or a future system would improve
reasonableness greatly. First, the requirement that English Learners
take the same English language tests designed for English speakers in
English Language Arts and mathematics after one year in our public
schools is based on the unreasonable and unvalidated assumption that
all students learning English should be academically proficient in
English after one year. Testing English Learners on tests developed for
native speakers of English should be delayed until those tests can
yield psychometrically reliable and valid measures of student
achievement.
Second, NCLB does a great service to English Learners by including
them as a subpopulation in the accountability system. Schools and
districts should be held accountable for the academic achievement of
these students. However, the current system requires removal of the
very students who give evidence of school and district success, former
English Learners who have met academic and English language proficiency
targets, thus depressing the scores of the English Learner subgroup
unjustifiably. Students initially identified as English Learners should
remain a part of that subgroup for accountability purposes as long as
they are enrolled in the district.
The question of meaningful consequences for failing to meet
achievement targets is, of course, inextricably linked to the question
of reasonable targets. Assuming realistic targets, the Committee should
look at both the time frames in which sanctions are applied and the
level of support given schools and districts in the different stages of
sanctions.
The question of time frames is particularly salient at the district
level. Whereas schools are given four years to right their ship after
failing to make AYP, school districts will find themselves in
Corrective Action after failing to make AYP at the district level after
just two years. Research and most district superintendents will tell
you making systemic change at the district level takes much more time.
The short time line for district improvement sometimes leads to taking
short-term measures, such as focusing intervention resources on those
students closest to making AYP, that do not result in long-term
benefits to all students in the district. Like schools, districts
should be given at least four years after failing to meet AYP before
facing the more drastic, and one hopes--in the future--more
constructive, consequences of Corrective Action.
Finally, our experience is that schools and districts need support
in their efforts to improve. If they had all the skills, staff, and
time they needed to improve, they would be doing the things they all
know need to be done. But frontline educators tell us every day that
they can best do their job if they receive support from highly
qualified, external school improvement experts--both to help them see
the areas in need of attention more clearly and to provide the ongoing
support and coaching necessary to ensure that plans result in actions.
Currently there is no provision in law for such external support
services. Regional Educational Laboratories, which at one time offered
similar support, are now focused on a rather narrow research agenda.
The Comprehensive Centers, such as the one I direct, did offer
technical assistance directly to schools in a former grants cycle, but
they now provide capacity building support to state departments of
education exclusively.
I do not argue with these shifts in focus, because both further
education research and state-level support are greatly needed. But the
changes have left a deficit of federally supported, school and
district-focused, external support services. Mr. Kildee was the
principal author of legislation supporting the National Diffusion
Network in the 1980s and early '90s. Nothing like this Network
currently exits, but schools and districts need expert assistance more
now than at any time in recent history.
I support the creation of a new, federally funded, regionally
based, external support program designed to increase school capacity.
(In its paper on ESEA reauthorization, the Knowledge Alliance [formerly
NEKIA] called such an effort a ``School Improvement Venture Fund for
Using Research-Based Knowledge.'') If such a technical assistance
program, however named, were to be established and well-supported in
the years ahead, schools and districts would again have a place to turn
for expert support.
I thank the Committee for allowing me this time and for
consideration of my testimony.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Dr. Tempes, and we'll be asking
you some questions.
Mr. Tempes. Certainly.
Chairman Kildee. And, your entire testimony will be
included in the record.
Mr. Tempes. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Dr. Liddell.
STATEMENT OF DR. SHARON LIDDELL, SUPERINTENDENT,
SANTA ROSA CITY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Ms. Liddell. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Congresswoman
Woolsey, and Members of the Committee. Since my paper is about
seven to eight minutes, and you have full copies, I will try to
go over the highlights, but we've already brought up some
important points that I may have to back up on.
My roles as K-12 educator have covered the spectrum, and it
is my honor to testify today on behalf of Santa Rosa City
School Board and our Elementary and High School District.
As a reference, I want to tell you that we have a community
of 157,000 residents. We have approximately 17,000 students in
29 schools. Approximately, 4,100 of those students are English
learners, primarily, Hispanic, so this topic is very important
to us.
Special education includes 2,100 students, and
approximately 5,000 students receive free and reduced lunches
in our district.
We are an urban district, although we look very much like a
suburban district, but we have declining enrollment also, which
affects our funding very much.
The era of accountability has been of great benefit to our
students. We are making progress. Since 2003, we have now
removed three schools from program improvement, we have schools
who are meeting their targets in all subgroups. We have a
program improvement high school who has now met their targets
for two years, but barely missed exiting the program
improvement assistance because of participation rates, which is
another element that we need to talk about.
We have now added a distinguished school to our list, so we
feel like our schools are making progress. There are four
elements I'd like to talk with you about, assessment and
accountability through growth models, in comparison to other
states, subgroup impacts and funding impacts.
We've talked about AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, being
based on externally-imposed targets. The California Academic
Performance Index is a growth model that sets individualized
growth targets for school-wide growth and for each subgroup.
This state system sets individual targets for the subgroups
that are attainable.
Once the schools implement the research-based, standards-
based curriculum programs, schools are accountable in this
model for academic improvement, and build a sense of confidence
and accomplishment as targets are met.
As part of a successful growth model, which ultimately
meets the goals of NCLB, there should be assurance that schools
use formative assessments to provide more timely information at
both elementary and secondary levels. Transferring that data
information into direct instruction is of utmost importance to
improve the teaching and learning.
Second, assessment and accountability in comparison to
other states, we have very rigorous standards in California.
Benchmarks for proficiency, standards in other states are not
considered consistent from state to state. Should states
continue to be compared to one another in the NCLB
accountability? It's important to ensure that states are
consistent in standards and in benchmarks for proficiency.
The Academic Performance Index is based on assessments in
the four core areas in Grades 2-11 on the California Standards
Test, and on the California High School Exit Exam results for
Grades 10-12. This broader accountability of the API provides a
more comprehensive, wide-screen picture as opposed to a data
snapshot.
Optimum national comparisons and accountability will result
from consistent standards, benchmarks, and use of those
formative assessments to determine trends in education and to
help train our work force.
Area three, subgroup impacts, again, English learners,
special education students, economically disadvantaged
students. These students count in several different groups
toward our scores. Students who belong to more than one group
are counted in each subgroup, which results in statistical
over-representation of the student. One method of adjusting
this would be to count the student toward each group as an
equal fraction, totaling one student.
Flexibility in assessing identified English learners during
the first three years after school entry is an important
aspect. It requires specific achievement for students for up to
three years. We know now it doesn't take seven years for
English learners to become proficient, but we do need some time
to prepare them.
Funding impacts are very, very important. Finances at the
local level are stretched, using creative legal funding
combinations to fund these formative assessments and to follow
student progress rather than waiting for the final API and AYP
at the end of the year.
The ability to establish these structures and to continue
them long enough to make a difference create huge impacts on
districts and schools. Unfunded or low-funded mandates
including special education must be addressed for school
districts to be successful at the NCLB endeavor, incorporating
new areas of targeted accountability and flexibility, while
acknowledging progress, all offer the promise of an
accountability system that will fairly and accurately reflect
the performance of students and schools. Most importantly, they
offer the promise of improved academic performance to meet the
global demands facing our students.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our
recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request permission to enter
information that I have here into the record. It is information
that relates to progress that can be made through certain
structures, and other recommendations.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection, it will be included in
the record.
Ms. Liddell. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Liddell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon E. Liddell, Ed.D., Superintendent,
Santa Rosa City Schools
Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Congresswoman Woolsey, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. Sharon Liddell, Superintendent of
Santa Rosa City Schools in Santa Rosa, California. My roles as a K-12
educator have covered the spectrum over the past 27 years. It is my
honor to testify today on behalf of Santa Rosa City School Board and
our elementary and high school districts. My testimony will address the
topic, ``Improving the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act's Accountability
System.''
As a reference for my testimony, let me briefly describe our
district. Santa Rosa is a community of 157,000 residents. Santa Rosa
City Schools (SRCS), the largest school district north of San
Francisco, serves approximately 17,000 students in grades kindergarten
through twelve. Approximately 4,100 students are English Language
Learners, primarily Hispanic. Special Education includes 2,100 students
in various groups. About 5,000 students receive free and reduced
lunches. We are an urban district with declining enrollment.
The era of accountability has been of great benefit to students in
Santa Rosa City Schools. As a result, we know more than ever before
about the academic progress of each and every student. It has caused us
to develop professional learning communities, examine student data, use
data to make instructional decisions, institute specialized programs,
and to develop pyramids of interventions for struggling students.
However, there are some areas which could be improved in NCLB.
Assessment and Accountability through Growth Models
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is currently based on meeting a
certain set of externally imposed targets. As it is currently designed,
this accountability does not recognize schools or subgroups for
incremental growth from one year to the next.
The California Academic Performance Index (API) is a growth model
that sets individualized growth targets for school-wide growth and for
each subgroup. The state API system sets individual targets for each
subgroup that are attainable once schools implement research-based,
standards-based curriculum programs. Schools are accountable for
academic improvement and build a sense of confidence and accomplishment
as targets are met.
As a part of a successful growth model which ultimately meets the
goals of NCLB, there should be assurance that states, districts, and
schools use 6-8 week, formative assessment systems in order to provide
better, more timely information about student learning at both
elementary and secondary levels. Transferring the data information into
direct instruction is of utmost importance. Therefore, require that the
assessments provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching
and learning.
Assessment and Accountability in Comparisons to Other States
California established rigorous grade-level standards in all the
content areas and endeavored to refine these standards since their
inception in 1999. The criterion-based assessment system, known as the
California Standards Tests (CST) was written to assess these standards
annually for all students in grades 2-11. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) gave each state the authority to set its own
standards. In order to maintain high standards, California chose to use
the fourth-highest band of five as ``proficient'' to measure student
growth in relation to standards, considered some of the most rigorous
in the United States. Benchmarks for proficiency are not considered
consistent from state to state. Should states continue to be compared
to one another in NCLB accountability, it is important to ensure that
states are consistent in standards and in benchmarks for proficiency.
Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) results are based upon English
Language Arts (ELA) CST and Mathematics CST results of students in
grades 2-8 and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results
for grade 10. The ELA and mathematics performances of ninth and
eleventh grades are not a consideration of the accountability system.
The Academic Performance Index (API) on the other hand is based on
assessments in the four core areas in grades 2-11 on the CST and on
CAHSEE results for grades 10-12. The broader accountability stroke of
the API provides a comprehensive, widescreen picture as opposed to a
data snapshot.
Optimum national comparisons in accountability will result from
consistent standards, benchmarks, and the use of formative assessment
systems to provide ongoing, timely information about student learning
at both elementary and secondary levels. Data collected can be used as
diagnostic information and improved direct instruction practices for
all learners, as well as to determine trends in education. Refined
achievement targets can be further developed based on rates of success
actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
Assessment and Subgroup Impacts
Students may be identified in one or more subgroups, such as
English Learner, Special Education, and economically disadvantaged.
Students who belong to more than one are counted in each sub-group
which results in statistical over-representation of the student. One
method of adjusting this would be to count that student toward each
group as an equal fraction totaling one student.
English Learners come to school districts with quite varied
backgrounds, i.e. elementary and secondary students with little or no
English skills; some with limited academic background in their home
language; some with parents who do not speak English or have academic
skills in their home language; some with backgrounds rich in academic
skills and multiple languages. Flexibility in assessing identified
English Learners during the first three years after school entry, while
requiring specific achievement for students for up to three years, will
allow students to make academic gains toward meeting state standards
and English speaking skills in preparation for sustainable performance
in determining AYP. Alternate, U. S. Department of Education- approved
assessments, seeking specific gains may be used during that three-year
period to gauge English proficiency and content knowledge.
Special Education students represent specific impacts involving
individual education programs (IEPs), accommodations, and
modifications, which may include conflicts with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Flexibility in use of approved
alternative assessments, such as out-of-level assessments, would allow
schools to meet the requirements of both IDEA and NCLB.
Students who qualify as economically disadvantaged students may or
may not be part of the English Learner and/or the Special Education
subgroups. However, background elements may cause students to resemble
one or both subgroups. Low academic vocabulary, minimal pre-school
experiences, low-frequency of reading experiences, all require
intensive direct instruction, interventions, more time on task,
specialized materials reinforcing the need for teacher and
administrator training, fully-funded mandates, and thorough
understanding of how data transfers into instructional practice.
Assessment and Funding Impacts
Finances at the local level are stretched as far as possible using
creative, legal, funding combinations to fund needed formative
assessments to follow student progress throughout the year rather than
waiting for final API and AYP assessments at the end. This process
enables strategic, direct instruction to occur as soon as a need is
identified. Regular programming, staffing, interventions, tutoring,
technology, after-school programs, additional sections, longer school
days, teacher and administrator training all must be funded. The
ability to establish these structures and the ability to continue them
long enough to make a difference create huge impacts on district and
school budgets.
Unfunded or low-funded mandates must be addressed for school
districts to be successful at the NCLB endeavor. Raise levels of Title
I and NCLB funding to cover the costs that states and districts incur
to carry out NCLB requirements, without reducing expenditures for other
educational programs. As state and national data is reported, research
and development of increasingly more effective accountability systems
should be given a high funding priority.
Incorporating new areas of targeted accountability and flexibility,
while acknowledging progress, all offer the promise of an
accountability system that will fairly and accurately reflect the
performance of students, schools, and school districts. Most
importantly, they offer the promise of improved academic performance to
meet the global demands facing our students.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations.
______
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Schott.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH SCHOTT, PRINCIPAL,
McDOWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ms. Schott. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and
Congresswoman Woolsey for giving me the opportunity to testify
today about the accountability system of the No Child Left
Behind Act, and how it might be improved in its
reauthorization.
As a third-year principal of McDowell Elementary School in
Petaluma I hope to provide you with a representative view of
NCLB's effect on schools like ours.
McDowell Elementary School is home to 340 students in
kindergarten through 6th grade. Roughly, 71 percent of our
students are English learners, and 73 percent receive free or
reduced price meals.
Before McDowell entered program improvement year two in the
fall of 2005, I regret to say that the soft bigotry of low
expectations was our way of thinking. Being labeled PI Year 2
was the kick in the shins our school needed to begin serious
work on changing our practices in curriculum and instruction.
Our staff realized that continuing to do things the same way,
only harder, was not making our students successful.
Upon being shown proof that schools with even more
challenging populations than ours were bringing more than twice
the number of students to proficiency than we were, our
teachers said, if they can do it, so can we. So, we initiated a
reform of our reading program in November, 2005, that mimics
Reading First as closely as our site funding allows, since our
district doesn't qualify for Reading First.
Year two also mandated that we provide funding for
supplemental educational services, a sanction that deserves
serious reconsideration by the Committee. In our area, where
public transportation is an issue, and personal cars and home
computers are few, we have one SES provider within walking
distance of the school.
Their level of service is disappointing, but they are the
only game in town. Their tutors are not trained in Reading
First methodology, and so one would have to question their
effectiveness at supplementing classroom instruction for our
most impacted learners.
Furthermore, the required 20 percent set aside from sites
Title 1 budgets for SES has a negative impact school-wide. The
$80,000 that we will have spent on SES before exiting PI could
have been used to provide our school with a reading coach for a
year, one of the most effective pieces of the Reading First
model that we have not yet found a way to fund.
Despite our initial efforts in '05-'06, we did not make AYP
for certain subgroups in last spring's testing, and so we are
in year three of program improvement. Our regional consultant
allowed us to continue with the reforms we designed last year,
but it will take three years before the fruits of our labor
show up in the test results of this year's kindergarten class.
Time, as you can see, is not on our side.
If we fail to make AYP again, the district will have the
right to replace all or most staff. In the case of Petaluma, a
wholesale replacement of staff at our site would result in
students being instructed by teachers who are actually less
well trained than those already in place, due to our extensive
Reading First-like professional development.
Such an intervention by the district would ultimately be
detrimental to our students, jeopardizing future gains in
student achievement and dismantling a staff that now believes
that kids can do it.
An alternative would be an accountability structure that
gives credit for the progress and changes being made at a
school, with benchmarks that demand a set amount of growth each
year, like California's API. Such a model would be a far-more
motivational and statistically reasonable model than the 100
percent proficiency target by 2014. This mathematically
unattainable goal has undermined the credibility of NCLB's
accountability system from the start.
I agree that drawing a line in the sand is an effective way
to begin a reform process. The first iteration of NCLB
certainly has served its purpose of getting people's attention
and mandating that they attend to the foremost goal of
schooling, student learning. The required growth targets and
time line need to be restructured, but not abandoned. Educators
are only human after all, and we will back slide into old
practices that are bad for students if the bottoms of our feet
aren't kept a bit warm.
One of the first parent letters I wrote as the new
Principal of McDowell School in September, 2004, was the School
Choice Letter. I found it deeply embarrassing to have to tell
people that their child's school was inadequate, and that they
had the right to go find a better education across the freeway.
However, my personal shame was irrelevant in comparison to
the far more somber story the scores told. We were failing to
educate our students.
I feel we have now effectively begun to sustain progress,
but there looms an impending sense of doom at my school about
not being able to turn the ship fast enough and travel far
enough to outrun the final sanctions of PI 4 and 5. A more
progressive, psychometrically reasonable growth-based model of
accountability in the reauthorization of NCLB would go a long
way toward guaranteeing that reform efforts at McDowell and
schools like ours are sustained and energized long enough to
sweep up all of our students into a wave of success.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Schott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth W. Schott, Principal,
McDowell Elementary School
Thank you Chairman Kildee, Representative Woolsey, and Members of
the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today about the
Accountability System of the No Child Left Behind Act and how it might
be improved in its reauthorization.
As a third year principal of McDowell Elementary School in
Petaluma, California, about 30 miles north of here, I hope to provide
you with a representative view of the No Child Left Behind Act's effect
on schools like ours.
McDowell Elementary School is home to 340 students; roughly 71% of
our students are English Learners and 73% of our students receive free
or reduced price meals. These percentages exceed the district's and
county's levels by a minimum of 35-40%. A small number of schools in
our county are in a demographically comparable situation, and one other
elementary school in the Petaluma City School District has a similar
profile to McDowell's. Most of these schools that are not in Petaluma,
however, benefit from being in districts that qualify for Reading First
funding, which is helping them make a real difference in their
students' achievement. Petaluma City Schools does not qualify for a
Reading First Grant due to its relatively isolated pockets of high risk
students. McDowell and schools like ours, therefore, fall between the
cracks in terms of being able to access resources available to more
homogeneous districts.
Before McDowell entered Program Improvement Year II in the fall of
2005, I regret to say that the mindset of attributing our poor results
to the test, and to the learner, and to the changing families, and to
the fact that we have children just 12% of their time between
Kindergarten and 12th grade, still had a stranglehold on the staff at
McDowell. Sadly, I include myself in that category. What has been
described as the ``soft bigotry of low expectations'' was our way of
thinking, although I would characterize it more as a perpetuation of
the ``self-esteem before anything else'' thinking of the 90s. We had a
bunch of kids in our school who couldn't read proficiently, but they
didn't necessarily feel bad about it, and that was what was important.
There was also a measure of thinking ``this too shall pass'', whereby
teachers felt they could just wait out NCLB, and continue doing what
they'd always done which ``the test'' just wasn't capable of measuring
the success of.
Being labeled Program Improvement Year II was the slap in the face
our school needed to begin serious work on changing our practices in
curriculum and instruction. Our staff realized that continuing to do
things the same way--only harder--was not making our students
successful by a measure that, while still not embraced by all, clearly
wasn't going anywhere. It was then, and still is, my philosophy that we
cannot wait for people's minds to change when something as critical as
student success is at stake. We must change behavior first and the
subsequent increased successes will cause minds to follow.
Foreseeing that Year III of Program Improvement was going to bring
mandated changes in curriculum and instruction should we continue not
to meet our targets, our staff decided to take control of the process
of making those changes. Upon being shown proof that schools with even
more challenging populations than ours were bringing more than twice
the number of students to proficiency that we were, our teachers said,
``If they can do it, so can we.'' So we initiated a reform of our
reading program in November of 2005 that mimics Reading First as
closely as our site funding (with district contributions) allows. With
the help of a consultant who donated much of her time in that first
year, we received training in research-based methods for delivering the
adopted series, established an assessment calendar that tracked student
progress at minimum three times per year, and began regrouping for
reading instruction so as to better target instruction.
We did not, however, make our AYP targets for certain subgroups in
last Spring's testing, and so we are in Program Improvement Year III.
When we met early this year with our external consultant from the
county as required, we outlined the changes we made last year, and
showed her the progress we were seeing on our assessments. We have been
allowed to continue with the reforms as designed last year. This year's
Kindergarten class will be the first to have received the direct,
explicit instruction in the fundamentals of reading as outlined in the
National Reading Panel's 2000 publication Teaching Children to Read,
for an entire school year. Since second graders will no longer be
tested after this year, it will be three years before the fruits of our
labor will show up in this Kindergarten class's test results. In the
meantime, we hold on to the fact that schools receiving Title I High
Achieving Schools awards in our state who are in Reading First
districts are predominantly in their third, fourth or fifth year of
Reading First. We know that we must stay the course in order to realize
lasting gains for our students.
Time, however, is not on our side. We could have, and should have,
taken the radical steps of last year at least two years sooner. But now
we are up against it, probably making most of our AYP targets this
year, thereby halting the decline into Year IV of Program Improvement.
But we may fail to meet the 2008 target increase, and the district
would have the right to:
Reopen the school as a charter
Replace all or most staff including the principal
Contract with an outside entity to manage the school
Recommend State takeover
Undertake any other major restructuring
It is the second of these options that is the most disturbing, and
one of the areas where the accountability structure of No Child Left
Behind may have room for improvement.
In the case of Petaluma, which I doubt is unique in California or
the country, McDowell is the only school that has undertaken the
training and instructional reform described earlier in this testimony.
We are implementing research-based reading strategies that are known to
be effective with students like ours, and we are seeing progress. No
other school in the district has done anything like this. And, as
Garden Grove Superintendent Laura Schwalm says, now ``* * * our
teachers believe the kids can do it.'' If there were to be a wholesale
replacement of staff and administration at our site, students would be
being instructed by teachers who were actually less qualified, and less
well trained, than those already in place. Additionally, the teachers
at McDowell want to make this reform work for our students. They are
deeply committed to turning the tide at our school, while other
teachers throughout the district have no interest in teaching our
students. Such an intervention by the district would be disastrous for
our students.
An accountability structure that takes into account the progress
and changes being made at a school, with benchmarks that demand a set
amount of growth each year, more like the Title III accountability
model, would be far more motivational and statistically reasonable than
the current absolutist scheme. The ``100% proficiency'' goal has
undermined the credibility of NCLB's accountability system from the
start. Starting from where you are and establishing growth targets that
are psychometrically attainable and that end at a rational proficiency
threshold is worth the committee's careful consideration.
This factoring in of the time it takes to accomplish any major
reform needs also to be applied to a school's English Learner
population. The current accountability model in NCLB doesn't seem to
take into account the research on the time it takes to learn a second
language, particularly the academic vocabulary of that language.
Schools with English Learner subgroups are being held to a double
whammy of a standard due to the neighborhoods they serve. I'm not a
lobbyist for Title III, but again, their level of accountability--the
district--effectively neutralizes the location factor of a school and
holds the district accountable for making sure all students in the
district are learning. Best practices research tells us that reform at
the school level is only partially effective, and that true change
happens when there is articulation of curriculum, instruction,
professional development and resource allocation originating at the
district level.
District level accountability for Special Education programs housed
at individual schools would also be a more fair way to assess the
effectiveness of such classes. We have a Special Day class at my
school, which currently houses Kindergarten through second grade
students. This year, I don't expect Students with Disabilities to even
constitute a significant subgroup at my school. Last year, however,
there was another Special Day Class at my site, one with third through
sixth graders in it. Up until last year, districts were allowed to
report site-based programs as ``district programs,'' aggregating
accountability at the district level. Last year, however, the reporting
rules changed, and individual sites were held accountable for their Day
Class results, even if many of the students were not from one's own
attendance area. This, and the school choice provision starting in Year
I of Program Improvement, caused our district to move our intermediate
Special Day Class to another site this year, one not in Program
Improvement. This was a loss for our site in all ways not related to
NCLB's accountability system. We lost valued staff and students who
were part of our family. Children who had always walked to school were
now having to ride a bus across town to a school their parents had no
idea even how to get to.
I understand that an extreme throwing down of the gauntlet is an
effective way to begin a reform process. The first iteration of No
Child Left Behind certainly has served its purpose of getting people's
attention and mandating that they attend to the foremost goal of
schooling--student learning. The variability in how states have
operationalized ``proficiency'', however, needs to be addressed. It
simply isn't fair for some states to call grade level proficiency 85%
correct, and others to call it something less. Additionally, the
required growth targets and timeline needs to be restructured--but not
abandoned! People are only human after all, and we will backslide into
old practices that are bad for students if the bottoms of our feet
aren't kept a bit warm.
Furthermore, while I am not an expert on the issues surrounding
students with disabilities, there seems to be something mean about the
current law's dismissal of many such students' learning challenges in
its assumption that they can attain proficiency at the same rate and
level as typically learning students. I try to imagine what that must
feel like to students and parents, and it seems unempathic at best.
Yes, all students must show progress, but in the case of students with
disabilities, this progress is outlined in and guaranteed by the IEP
process.
This is but one example of where NCLB and IDEA clash to the
detriment of students and schools. The other is in the arena of the
modifications to the testing protocol written into students' IEPs. If
those modifications are used during testing, the student isn't counted
in one's participation rate, and is automatically given a performance
rating of ``Far Below Basic.'' Allowing NCLB to supersede IDEA is
confusing to families and punitive to schools.
Another area that deserves serious reconsideration is Supplemental
Educational Services. In our area, where several of the families have
one car at the most, and parents aren't proficient English speakers,
and home computers are the exception, we have one SES provider within
walking distance of the school. Their level of service is
disappointing, but they are the only game in town. Their tutors are not
trained in Reading First methodology, and so one would have to question
their effectiveness at supplementing classroom instruction for our
struggling learners. The level of sophistication (and language) needed
to access the online providers is beyond most parents, and my concern
about our local provider is the same regarding the expertise of those
on the other end of the modem.
The funding we receive as a schoolwide program of Title I is
clearly circumscribed and monitored by the state, as well it should be.
But SES doesn't seem to be so scrupulously tracked. The set aside for
this consequence of being in Program Improvement costs our school's
Title I budget approximately $20,000 per year. At minimum, we will have
to commit these dollars to an ineffective intervention for another two
years. In total, that will represent nearly $80,000 that could have
been used to provide our school with a Reading Coach, the one piece of
the Reading First model we have not yet found a way to fund.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about what motivates me as a
principal to get out of Program Improvement, and to stop being affected
by the consequence end of the NCLB accountability system. One of the
first parent letters I wrote as the new principal of McDowell School in
September of 2004 was the school choice letter. I found it deeply
embarrassing to have to tell people that their child's school was
inadequate, and that they had the right to go find a better education
across the freeway. Paradoxically, since that time, our enrollment has
increased steadily, with this year finding us the fastest growing
school in the district. In certain populations, federal accountability
measures aren't what matter most about their child's school. Apparently
having a bilingual school secretary, many bilingual classified and
certificated staff members, a free after school Boys & Girls club
program (thanks to Prop 49), and being within walking distance of home
all mitigate our poor showing on state testing.
Nevertheless, beyond my personal shame at having to facilitate
transfers and see our name in the newspaper as an underperforming
school, the scores told a far more somber story: we were failing to
educate our students. I feel we have now effectively stopped the
hemorrhaging and are working diligently to sustain our progress. I find
silver linings constantly to keep teachers motivated--pointing out that
we moved from a Similar Schools ranking of one last year to two this
year, for instance. There does loom, however, an impending sense of
doom at my school about not being able to turn the ship fast enough,
and travel far enough, to outrun the final sanctions of Program
Improvement Years IV and V. A more progressive, psychometrically
reasonable, growth-based model of accountability in the reauthorization
of No Child Left Behind would go a long way toward guaranteeing that
McDowell's reform efforts are sustained and energized long enough to
sweep up all of our students into a wave of success.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF PEPE GONZALEZ, VICE PRINCIPAL,
VENETIA VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and Congresswoman
Woolsey, for the opportunity to speak here today. I was
fortunate enough to get to walk here this morning from my
school, which I'll be speaking specifically to, a few blocks
down the road.
Venetia Valley is a K-8 school that embodies a very diverse
student population. We have enrollment of about 609 students,
ranging from three areas here in San Rafael, Santa Venetia
neighborhood, Los Ranchitos, and the canal areas, are all very
close to the civic center.
Students come to us with a variety of skills and come from
very diverse homes. The demographic breakdown of our students
is 60 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, 6 percent African
American, 2 percent Filipino and 27 percent White. We are very,
very diverse, and representative of the State of California.
Of these students, 44 percent of them are English language
learners, and 21 percent of these students have been
reclassified as fully English proficient.
Our average parent education level is a 2.6, a 1 meaning
that the parents had not finished high school, and a 5 with
having some post graduate education. So, we have a very
changing, trending change in population that we've had to face.
Over these past five years, the following demographic
trends have emerged--the percentage of Hispanic students has
increased from 38 to 60 percent. The percentage of students who
qualify for free or reduced lunches also increased from 33 to
52 percent. 7 percent of our students have moved outside the
City of San Rafael to other more affordable neighborhoods, a
number that has doubled in the past five years.
Along with these demographic trends, we have been tracking
student progress. In the past two years, our API has increased
by 54 points overall, currently placing us at 6 in the overall
school ranking.
The past two years we have met our adequate yearly progress
goals, as 42 percent of our students are at or above the
proficient level in English Language Arts, and 53 percent of
our students are proficient or above in level of mathematics.
Venetia Valley is the only school in Marin County to run a
dual merge bi-literacy program, and only one of hundreds in the
entire country. The program was being funded by Federal Title 7
money that was overriding the state proposition. Our parents
were asked to sign a waiver in order to be taught bilingually
in both English and Spanish, and they currently have to
continue to do that.
Our program is offered to two of the four classes,
kindergarten to 3rd grades, we have roughly about 40 students
per grade level K-3, and about 28 students in the 4th and 5th
grades that continue into the program. Our school is K-8,
however, in the middle school grades we go to a middle school
model, where Spanish is offered as an elective and not as part
of the curriculum.
In our K-5 model, literacy in all language arts are taught
strictly in English. Thematic kits in science, social studies
and the arts are done in Spanish, as mathematics is the only
constant curriculum that's taught every other day in Spanish
and English.
Our teachers come from very, very diverse backgrounds. Some
have Latin American Native Spanish speaking languages, and
others are non-native that have acquired Spanish as their
second language.
As our demographics have changed, it has become more
difficult to have a balance of native and non-native Spanish
speakers in our classrooms.
Some of the things that we've been able to do here, and had
to adjust to in the past for No Child Left Behind is, we have
to meet these expectations for our district adopted a mandated
reading program in 2002. Teachers were trained and expected to
meet these district pacing guides for every class in the
district, and every grade level, was on specific pacing guides.
We had to hire a district literacy coach and a site literacy
coach, which monitors and trains teachers and guides them
through the new program.
Routine assessments are now done quarterly. We have--
comprehension scores to meet these individual needs. It's
become more work, but we have the resources available to do
that, which has been a great success for us.
After school programs have become an extremely important
part of our system. We have community partnerships that allow
us and help us fund these programs to give these students that
need it that extra support. Our after school program has two
components, a literacy and mathematics enrichment program, as
well as a homework support part.
Computer programs were implemented and are part of the
program to give struggling readers support outside of the
structured classroom.
The after school program has a strict entrance policy,
beginning with the teacher nomination, for we only allow
students that are truly far below basic or in the basic range
to enter. They have to get a permission slip, and then there's
a signing of a contract, for if a student fails to attend the
program for three days there is a waiting list that we activate
quickly, and there's a high turnaround rate in that program.
The program coordinator works very closely with
administrators and other teachers to continually meet the
teachers' needs and the children's needs.
Venetia Valley offers an after school program to all its
students, kindergarten through 8th grade.
We continue to strive to increase the level of parent
involvement, which is something that we've really, really
pushed in the past few years. We have a great partnership with
parent service projects here locally in Marin, and the
increase--we are trying to increase the number of Latino
parents to attend meetings, extra curricular activities, and
all around general participation in our classrooms.
Parent universities are held monthly to teach parents how
to better serve their student's needs. Classes range from how
to help children on homework to how to read the report card.
Parents gain an understanding of how to be better parents, and
just an overall sense of the education system.
The increase of parent knowledge is something to ultimately
benefit the children and what they gain from the school.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pepe Gonzalez, Vice Principal,
Venetia Valley K-8 School
Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Congresswoman Woolsey, and Members of
the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. I am Pepe Gonzalez,
Vice Principal of Venetia Valley Elementary School in San Rafael.
I. School Background
Venetia Valley, a K-8 School, embodies a diverse population with an
enrollment of 609 students. Students attending Venetia Valley School
come from three major communities within San Rafael: Los Ranchitos,
Santa Venetia which are areas that are in the northeast corner of the
city near the Marin County Civic Center. Students come with a variety
of skills and from very diverse homes. The demographic break down of
our 609 students is as follows: 60% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 6% African
American and 2% Filipino and 27% white. Of these students 44% are
English Language Learners and 21% of the students have been
Reclassified as Fully English Proficient. Our average parent education
level is 2.6 (1 meaning that parents had not finished high school, 5
having a post graduate education)
Over the past 5 years, the following demographic trends have
emerged: the percentage of Hispanic students has increased from 38% to
60% and the percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced
lunch has increased from 33% to 52%. Seven percent of our students have
moved outside the city of San Rafael, a number that has doubled in the
past five years. Along with these demographic trends, we have been
tracking student progress. In the past 2 years our API has increased by
54 points overall, currently placing us at a 6 in overall school
ranking. The past two years we have met our Yearly Adequate Progress
Goals as 42% of or students are at or above the proficient level in
English Language Arts while 53% of our students are at or above the
proficient level in Math.
Venetia Valley is the only school in Marin County to run a dual
immersion billiteracy program, and only one of hundreds in the country.
The program was being funded by Federal Title VII money that over rides
the state mandated proposition. Parents are required to sign a waiver
allowing their children to be taught in both English and Spanish. Our
Biliteracy program is offered to two out of the four K-3 classes,
roughly 40 students per grade level. In the fourth and fifth grades the
program condenses down to one class of roughly 28 students.
Literacy and all Language Arts are taught strictly in English.
Thematic units in Science, Social Studies or the Arts are done in
Spanish as Mathematics is taught every other day in Spanish. Our
teachers vary, coming both from various Latin American countries having
Spanish as their native tongue while some have acquired Spanish as
their second language. As our demographics have changed it has become
more difficult to balance the number of native Spanish speakers with
non-native Spanish speakers in the biliteracy program.
II. Best Practices
Venetia Valley has had to adjust and modify teaching practices in
order to continually meet NCLB growth expectations. The District
adopted a mandated reading program starting in the 2002-2003 school
year. Teachers were trained and expected to meet district pacing guides
to be consistent for all grade levels throughout the district. School
sites created literacy coach positions that mentored teachers and
guided them through the new program adoption. Routine assessments
became implemented to obtain quarterly lexile and literacy scores to
better meet individual students' needs.
After school programs were created with community partnerships to
give students who are not proficient or advanced extra support. The
after school program has two components, literacy and mathematics
enrichment and homework support. Computer programs were implemented and
are part of the program to give struggling readers support outside of
the structured classroom environment. The after school program has a
strict entrance policy, beginning with teacher nomination, parent
permission and the signing of a contract. If a student fails to attend
the program more than three days students from the waiting list will be
activated. The program coordinator works very closely with the
administrators and teachers to continually meet the children's' needs.
Venetia Valley offers after school programs for Kindergarten through
eighth grade students.
Venetia Valley is striving to increase the level of parent
involvement and general school knowledge. Through a partnership with
Parent Service Project our goal is to increase the number of Latino
parents who attend meetings, extracurricular activities and over all
participation in the classroom. Parent universities are held monthly to
teach parents how to better serve their students needs. Classes range
from how to help children with homework to reading report cards.
Parents gain an understanding how to be better parents. The increase of
parent knowledge ultimately benefits the children and what they gain
from school.
III. Measures of Success
Though our demographics have changed over the years we have met our
expected API goals. Being a K-8 school makes us very unique and allows
us to see our kids grow throughout their elementary experience. We are
able to foster a high level of community as families often have
multiple children in our school ranging in various age levels. Parents
respect the security of our school and its programs.
Venetia Valley prides itself in being diverse while still
maintaining high academic expectations. We team with several community
organizations that bring in outside programs to better round our
students education. Art, drama, physical education and music programs
balance out the academics.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez.
Ms. Blake.
STATEMENT OF MELANIE BLAKE, TEACHER,
SONOMA VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
Ms. Blake. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Congresswoman
Woolsey. I am pleased to have been invited today to testify on
improving the No Child Left Behind Act's accountability system.
I am Melanie Blake, and I am a teacher at Sonoma Valley
High School. I come here today on behalf of the 340,000 members
of the California Teachers Association, to share my experience
and observations as a teacher, which reflect what is happening
with many of my colleagues as well.
Sonoma Valley High, and all of our neighborhood schools,
are an integral part of a small world community in Sonoma
County. If you walk through our town you would see the last
mission built in California, small shops situated on a quaint
plaza, nestled in rolling hills, and surrounded by vineyards.
What you would not guess if you visited our community is
that we are also a school district which has been designated
for program improvement, a failing district under the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Two of our elementary schools and both of our middle
schools are designated as program improvement. Sonoma Valley
High was a PI school just one year ago, although we were able
to exit program improvement status this year. So, I feel
qualified to speak to you today about what NCLB means to the
field experts, the teachers, principal, and staff who work with
students every day.
First, I want to assure you that I, along with my teaching
colleagues recognize that accountability is a necessary
component of our school systems, and it is fitting that this is
the focus of this hearing today. NCLB has been a driving force
for schools to take a deep look at our students, and focus on
students by subgroup.
We recognize that there is an achievement gap, especially
for students with disabilities, English language learners, and
economically disadvantaged students. We embrace the opportunity
to work to close that achievement gap, and we consider that our
task and our responsibility as educators.
Unfortunately, accountability under NCLB has been reduced
to a matter of test scores and little else. I've seen the
consequences of an unfair testing system on English language
learners. In our schools, we have students from other countries
who arrive every year with their families to work in the
vineyards and in our tourist industry. In a sense, these
students have twice as much to learn. They must master core
academics and English.
Our EL students need time to acquire academic proficiency
in English, requiring an absolute performance measure does not
recognize these students' ongoing achievements. It punishes the
students and the schools for, in essence, not learning fast
enough. I've seen the discouraged students and, unfortunately,
it happens at all grade levels.
The current assessment model also inadvertently penalizes
our students in other ways. In Sonoma, we have an active and
generous community, supplementing our core curriculum with arts
programs, community involvement opportunities, career
preparation, and more. But, children with low test scores
cannot access this rigorous and enriching curriculum, because
they are tethered with additional language and math classes.
This punishes students who are deemed low performing by this
one single measure. They are the ones most in need of these job
skills and relevant curriculum to keep them connected to
schools. So, the very students we seek to support are the ones
who are disenfranchised by this one-test-fits-all model of
assessment.
I know my students would be better served with a multiple
measures type of assessment, that recognizes their ongoing
improvement. Our state's accountability measure, the Academics
Performance Index, or API, is designed as an improvement model
that sets targets for students and subgroups of students to
meet achievement goals and move them closer to proficiency.
At the same time, California's system recognizes the
advances made by students in schools, and it contains
provisions for intervention for schools that repeatedly fail to
make these targets.
I urge you, on behalf of students, parents, CTA, to allow
states the flexibility to decide the type of accountability
model that best fits their particular needs. The achievement
gap can continue to be a focus with this model through analysis
of subgroup data.
I know, as do many practitioners, through the current
research and our own daily experiences, that NCLB is not
narrowing the achievement gap. I know accountability further
disadvantages the English learners when the system depends on
an over reliance on sanctions other than support. We have many,
many examples of that in our valley.
Teachers welcome accountability when it means that students
can feel welcomed into our schools knowing they have a chance
to succeed and are not destined to fail.
The reauthorization of NCLB gives Congress the opportunity
to build an educational accountability system that encourages
students and teachers to reach their highest potential.
I hope you will work with us, the field experts, to build
an accurate and fair accountability system for our students.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Blake follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melanie Blake, Teacher, Sonoma Valley High School
Chairman Kildee and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, I am pleased to
have been invited today to testify on ``Improving the No Child Left
Behind Act's Accountability System''. My name is Melanie Blake and I am
a teacher at Sonoma Valley High School, located about 30 miles north of
where we sit today. I have been a public school teacher for over twenty
years. I hold a master's degree in educational leadership with an
emphasis in assessment. I have several teaching credentials and have
worked with students of all ages, from elementary school through
college. I have taught developmentally challenged students, high
achieving students, native speakers and English Language Learners. I
currently teach seniors English, civics and economics. I come here
today on behalf of the 340,000 members of the California Teachers
Association, all of whom have been affected by the No Child Left Behind
Act.
Sonoma Valley High School is a wonderful place to work, with a
group of dedicated teachers, supportive administrators, and involved
parents. We are part of a district that also includes 5 elementary
schools and 2 middle schools that feed into our high school, as well as
two alternative education schools and two K-8 charter schools. Our
schools are an integral part of a larger community that is a rural/
suburban mix in the southeast corner of Sonoma County. If you walked
through our community, you would see the last mission built in
California, small shops and a traditional movie house all situated on a
quaint plaza, complete with playgrounds and picnic area, nestled in the
rolling hills and surrounded by vineyards. What many people would not
guess if they visited our community is that we are also a school
district which has been identified for Program Improvement--in other
words, a failing district under the No Child Left Behind Act. Two of
our elementary schools and both of our middle schools are designated as
Program Improvement Schools and my own school, Sonoma Valley High
School, was a PI school just one year ago. The high school was able to
exit Program Improvement status this year, but as the level of expected
proficiency sharply increases over the next few years, we may become
labeled a failing school again. So I feel qualified to speak to you
today about what NCLB means to the ``field experts'' in our educational
system, the teachers, principals, paraprofessionals and support staff
who practice our craft in schools--with students--every day of the
year.
First, it is essential that we all recognize that accountability is
a necessary component of our school systems, both statewide and
nationally, and it is fitting that you make that the focus of your
hearing today. NCLB has been a driving force for all schools to take a
deep look at our students, and in particular, to focus on students by
subgroup. We recognize that there is an achievement gap, especially for
students with disabilities, English learners, and economically
disadvantaged students. And I, along with my teaching colleagues,
embrace the opportunity to work to close that achievement gap. That is
why California instituted the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA)
in 1999, well before the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act in 2001. Unfortunately, accountability under
NCLB has been reduced to a matter of test scores and little else.
Currently, a one-time high stakes test often determines whether a
school is considered to be making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and is
succeeding under NCLB, or whether it is a school in need of improvement
and therefore faces sanctions. This snapshot approach is an unfair and
misleading measure of student achievement and fails to discriminate
between schools that are truly in need of intensive and sustained
intervention and those that may have missed the expected proficiency
level by just a small amount.
This one shot assessment model is especially problematic for our
English Language Learners and the schools and teachers that serve them.
Students arrive every year from other countries. This is especially
true in communities like ours, which has a large population of
agricultural workers who work in the vineyards. These students must
learn two curriculums: core academics and English. They need time to
acquire academic proficiency in English. Requiring an absolute
performance measure does not recognize these students' achievement. It
punishes the students and the schools for, in essence, not learning
fast enough. This discourages learners and robs them of access to the
same curriculum as their peers.
The current assessment model also fails to reward and recognize
schools that offer students a rich and rigorous curriculum, that build
students' higher order thinking skills and dispositions of inquiry so
valuable to future employers, and that offer opportunities to engage
students in community service. Each of those avenues supports the
learning and development of children and youth and all are being
decimated by the over-emphasis on test preparation and test scores.
Moreover, our current measure of AYP does not even recognize the
growth in student achievement as measured by test scores that IS
occurring every day in schools. Many students are moving from far below
basic to below basic, or below basic to basic levels of proficiency.
Yet only those students who achieve a level of proficiency or above are
recognized as making progress. California's Education Coalition, of
which CTA is a member along with the PTA, the California Schools Boards
Association, the Association of California School Administrators and
many others, are united in advocating that academic growth among all
segments of the school population should be acknowledged as making
progress.
Our state's accountability measure, the Academic Performance Index
(API), is designed as an improvement model that sets targets for all
students, and all subgroups of students, to meet achievement goals that
move them closer to proficiency. At the same time, California's system
recognizes the advances made by students and schools and contains
provisions for intervention for schools that repeatedly fail to make
those targets. CTA urges Congress to allow states to decide the type of
accountability model that best fits their needs and context, while
maintaining the requirement in federal law that such systems analyze
student achievement data by subgroup, so that the achievement gap
remains a focus of attention.
We know, through the current research and through our own daily
experiences in schools, that NCLB is not narrowing the achievement gap.
We know that the current accountability system further disadvantages
minority and poor students with its over-reliance on sanctions rather
than support and assistance to schools and students that need it. We
know that unless schools are funded at a level that makes proven
reforms such as class size reduction and sustained teacher
collaboration time feasible, the achievement gap will continue.
Teachers welcome accountability when it means that students can
feel welcomed into schools, knowing that they have a chance to succeed
there, not that they are destined to fail. The reauthorization of NCLB
gives Congress the opportunity to build an educational accountability
system that encourages students and teachers to reach their highest
potential; I hope that you have the courage and wisdom to do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
______
Chairman Kildee. Before we begin the questions, Lynn and I
would like to remind you that there is coffee in the corner, so
if you want to replenish, audience or the witnesses, please do,
we are somewhat informal here.
But, I really appreciate very much your testimony. I'd like
to ask you a question, and we'll see how long it will take to
respond, and Lynn, you might yield to me a bit, and I'll yield
to you a bit when it's time.
Ms. Woolsey. Fine, yes.
Chairman Kildee. We talk about AYP, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and growth models. Is that and/or, can we have a
combination, or is there some blend of the two? Let's just
start down here, if you have any comment, start with Dr.
Tempes.
Mr. Tempes. Yes, I think the notion of a growth model and
the notion of a status model, where you have to jump over the
bar, might be blended, and I think my colleagues here have all
talked about API as a good model for doing that.
My point is reasonableness. You can have a growth model
that has unreasonable expectations as well. So, I think that
the flexibility that we are asking for in California doesn't
preclude other states from saying we want to use a status
model, and I think the Department of Education is moving in
that direction, but the opportunity that was presented to us we
thought to have a growth model was kind of pulled out from
under us with some technicalities.
So, I think you can have either/or, really, but you ought
to allow either/or.
Chairman Kildee. Dr. Liddell?
Ms. Liddell. I do think that there is room for both. I
think that the growth model does give us the feeling of
accomplishment and being able to meet targets and to meet
student needs.
Having a target, like the AYP, is useful, and my suggestion
would be that we have a team of statistical analysts take as
look at how that could be blended, or how the specific question
and data that we want to focus on, to know whether our children
are moving toward success and proficiency, and whether or not
we are closing the achievement gap. That takes more than just
one person's perspective, it takes a lot of people sitting
around the table analyzing the system.
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Schott?
Ms. Schott. Follow the status, is that what you are saying?
I think the problem with that model is that if you set a bar
you say, okay, we'd like 67 percent of our kids at proficient,
and we'll be happy with that. I don't know how you go tell the
33 percent's parents that we've decided that they aren't the
ones we need to bring to proficiency.
So, I think the growth model is possibly the humane model,
and you could just call it Adequate Yearly Progress, it's a
name, you just change that to that's what your Adequate Yearly
Progress is, is your 5 percent between--there is a target in
California, the 800 on the API is the target, and you are
expected to make 5 percent of the difference between where you
are now and 800 every year.
I guess that is a blend then, isn't it? There's a blend
already in place.
Chairman Kildee. Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Gonzalez. I also agree that we need to have goals and
targets that we need to attain. However, Dr. Tempes spoke to
the reasonableness of these goals, specifically, with the ELL
population, English language learning population, special ed
and the lower income students. And, whatever that model is, we
just have to be very, very careful when we set standards and
goals for these students, and that's, in my opinion, the
demographic change that has really affected us.
So, I think the model is necessary.
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Blake?
Ms. Blake. Thank you.
In Sonoma Valley, we have a school that's now in year five
program improvement. They have 68 percent low socioeconomic
students and rising, 62 percent EL learners and rising,
What we need is an accountability model that allows for
accountability for student growth in those areas. Special
education children, I've worked with them every day for ten
years, and ELL students, they are not necessarily in our
current model by AYP by 2013, we are not going to have 100
percent of those students making proficiency every year in the
test, because we have new children coming into the system every
year, especially in California, where we have non-English
speaking students arriving all year, every year.
And so, a model that recognizes student growth in
achievement, as they move toward proficiency, is a model that's
going to allow us to make those goals, and help students to
really be successful.
Chairman Kildee. Generally, a growth model is based upon
the individual, how that individual is growing. So, you need a
data system to follow the individual.
AYP, generally, is the 3rd grade at X school this year, and
the 3rd grade, who are different people, the following year,
and it did not meet the Adequate Yearly Progress. Is there some
way we can fuse the two where we are determining that that 3rd
grade is making progress, and at the same time the individual
is making progress?
Yes.
Ms. Liddell. In our district, we have--we started with the
Reading First model in 2003, and we did the same thing some of
my colleagues did in placing it even in schools that didn't
qualify for it. We were able to fund it into those schools with
the coaches and the training for all the administrators and
teachers.
And then, we've replicated that for students that are
under-performing students in the secondary level. That model
works very well, but the key piece to it is that data points
are selected, such as reading fluency, comprehension,
vocabulary, and data is collected on that on a regular basis,
and put into what we call OAR system, Online Assessment
Reporting system.
The teachers can push a button as soon as the information
is in and get a report back on an individual student, on their
class, on the school, on the district. We are able to monitor
students as they move along all through the year, and that's
what gets us finally to the NCLB goal. We have to know all
along the way if we are reaching those students.
So, you are exactly right, we do need to know how we can
address student needs individually or we can't move them. We
have reduced the achievement gap in our special education
group, and in our English language learner groups by about 35
points, and this is the method that we've used. It's very
important to address the individual student.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, we hear about API working, but my concern with API
versus No Child Left Behind, believe me, I don't think No Child
Left Behind and AYP is the total answer, but API stops working
for me when students that are English learners, come from
economically disadvantaged families, have a year's growth in a
year, but never catch up.
So, I think the major thing that's wrong with No Child Left
Behind, and measuring AYP, is where is the support for the
school and the districts and the students that need more help
every year to catch up.
Now, and then I want to make a side thing. I believe, and I
want you to respond on this, that special ed kids that are
cognitively unable to catch up forever, I believe that, and
tell me if I'm wrong, that their IEP----
Ms. Liddell. IEPs.
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. IEPs measure annual yearly
growth, and that we should make sure that happens, that each
one of these kids then annually grows as best they can, and all
the way through their schooling.
And so, how do we make sure that we don't leave the kids,
English learners and--not just measuring, of course we should
keep those kids, the English learners, in the mix forever so
that we can show.
I want all of you to answer, if you will.
Mr. Tempes. Right, let me just briefly, because there's a
word you need to keep in mind.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
Mr. Tempes. And, that word is nuanced. What we have now is
an accountability system that is kind of a sledge hammer
approach, all kids will hit this goal by this year.
Special education, the accountability measures for special
education, students receiving special education, needs to be
nuanced. Some kids should be held accountable for meeting those
standards in the same time period as everybody else. Some kids
should have an alternate assessment system, and be held
accountable for those measures.
You go down to Mr. Gonzalez's school, children who are
learning English should be held accountable for learning
English at a proper rate. Those students should not be held in
the same time period for hitting the academic measures until
they are ready to be tested.
So, you need to nuance the approach to recognize these kids
are different, that's why they are called, the services are
called special education, that's why we have English learners.
We have schools that also need a nuanced approach. We have
schools that are designed not to keep students all year long,
and they are being held accountable as if the students were
there all year long. The goal for them still is to get them
back into the regular school.
So, a more nuanced approach to the accountability I think
would meet some of the concerns you are talking about.
Ms. Woolsey. But, that nuance will get them there
eventually.
Mr. Tempes. Correct.
Ms. Woolsey. I mean, there's an end.
Mr. Tempes. Well, that's the hard part.
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. 12th grade you are out.
Mr. Tempes. That's the hard part, is people say, well, you
are not going to hold yourself accountable for English learners
or special education students, I think that everybody here
would reject that.
We want to be held accountable for all students
appropriately.
Ms. Woolsey. So, Mr. Gonzalez, and then you too, Dr.
Liddell, tell me what other support systems are needed to make
that possible, besides punishing your schools and sending your
kids away.
Ms. Liddell. Very often, these IEPs that you mentioned are
in conflict with IDEA, and so there does need to be a nuance in
that, maybe flexible assessments for students at certain
levels.
We do have a systems approach that works, where you do
similar replication of a model, like we talked about, and there
are some specialized programs out there that address the
language abilities of students, no matter whether it's English
language learners, or special education learners, or low
socioeconomic learners, because their characteristics actually
resemble each other. They have low vocabulary. Their fluency is
not good. They may not have reading background from their home,
all kinds of characteristics that are very, very similar.
There are models out there now that we know of that work
very well in a two to three year period, to bring all of those
students up into a proficient model of use of English, whether
it's reading, writing, and that type of thing, and those kinds
of models need to be shown to all of the schools that need to
have that, and use a systems approach to make this happen for
the students, and watch them with the OARs data.
Ms. Schott. I think that Reading First has been fairly
successful for schools that have been with it for four or five
years. We are seeing in California that the Title 1 high
achieving schools that are receiving the awards from the State
Department are coming from districts that have been with
Reading First for four or five years, primarily, large groups
of them.
what would help my school would be being able to getting a
Reading First grant, but because it's a district level of
eligibility, and I'm----
Ms. Woolsey. Well, tell me why McDowell isn't eligible? I
didn't understand that.
Ms. Schott. Okay. Reading First grants are given to
districts, and districts have to have 40 percent of their 3rd
graders not performing at proficiency. And so, in a variable
district like ours, Petaluma will probably, in this lifetime
events, they'll be never qualified, as a district, we'll never
qualify for a Reading First grant.
And so----
Ms. Woolsey. So, your school is punished because the
district as a whole is successful.
Ms. Schott. Yes, it's a neighborhood kind of thing.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Gonzalez. You spoke of the IEP, and we pass students,
if a student has an IEP, and is in special education, they are
passed on to the following grade based on their individual
education plan goals that they have met.
So, their grade level goals are different than their IEP
goals, and they will pass on to the next grade level if they've
met those goals.
So, though a student may not be passing classes at the same
level as a regular education student, if their goals are met
they are passed on, and that's where we see the discrepancy or
the nuances in the law.
Ms. Woolsey. So then, are you, is that held against your
AYP score?
Mr. Gonzalez. If a student is supposed to go from 7th to
8th grade, does not have the grades to go, if you basing them
strictly on grades, and they are not going to pass 7th grade,
but they've met their IEP goals, they are now 8th graders, and
they have to take the 8th grade test, though they have not met
the district and the state standards.
Ms. Woolsey. And, that's different from a student who comes
in not knowing English, and needs to have the catch up to get
there, or a student that didn't have books in their house, and
they are finally gobbling it up, but it takes time.
Mr. Gonzalez. And, one other component to that is, if a new
student arrives to us in 3rd grade, with no previous education,
well, they are in 3rd grade so they are asked to take the 3rd
or the 4th grade test, though they haven't had the previous
education of kinder, 1st and 2nd.
Ms. Schott. Did you want to say something?
Ms. Blake. Yes.
Ms. Schott. Go ahead.
Ms. Blake. What teachers are seeing when it comes to
testing is that over the last six years or we've started to see
what we are calling a culture of testing. And, teachers need to
have the flexibility to really be able to look at the data, see
where students are currently functioning, and move them
forward, and so it's very discouraging for a school like Sonoma
Valley High, where we are put into program improvement, not
based on student accomplishments, but because one subgroup of
students failed to meet the 95 percent threshold for
attendance.
And, in a district where you have migrant ed children, and
you have children moving in and out of the district, it's very
frustrating and discouraging to have your school labeled as a
failing school for some very small sort of obscure component
that really did not have a lot to do with student performance.
So, two things, the idea of formative assessment that gives
the students and the teachers in the classroom some power over
student progress, so we can say to that student, yes, you may
not have reached this level, but you went from basic to
proficient, or you went from below basic to basic, and that
matters, because right now unless a student reaches proficiency
each year they are tested that other growth doesn't seem to
matter.
And so, that's why the formative mixed in with these
ultimate goals is important to teachers.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have more questions when you are through.
Chairman Kildee. I'll take some, and then it's your
district, so you can.
Let me ask this. You know, California, Massachusetts,
Michigan, set high standards for a child, and from rigorous
tests. Other states, I won't name them, I'll get in trouble
with some of my colleagues, but you probably know who they are,
have standards that are rather low, and, therefore, it's easier
to show good results on testing.
Yet, Congress felt very cautious about trying to move into
national standards and national testing, because, we believe
that education is a local function, it's a state
responsibility, and it's a Federal concern, and it's a Federal
concern for two reasons. We live in a mobile society. A person
educated in Mississippi may wind up in California, and vice
versa. And we are competing in a global economy. Education
gives us the cutting edge in that.
But, it's a local function, state responsibility and a
Federal concern, so we were very, more than reluctant, and
chose not to have national standards and national tests.
Could we, however, and we do it somewhat, could we expand
somewhat, at least some statistical sampling, and take the NAEP
test and do some sampling of states, maybe not individual
students of states, and see how their standards and testing are
measuring up to, say, the NAEP.
I'd like to have all of you comment on that, if you could.
Mr. Tempes. Yes, that's interesting, I have that down on my
list of accountability topics to raise today, because we hold
schools accountable, we hold districts accountable, we ought to
hold states accountable at some level as well. And, I think the
way that you've just outlined, Chairman, Kildee, of comparing
California's AYP achievement with the NAEP achievement, and
granted there will be a gap that can be attributed to
difference in standards, but you know that in some cases that
gap is too wide to be attributed just to standards, it's a
lower standard.
And, I think you ought to consider holding states
accountable for reasonable standards. I don't know what the
consequence, but NCLB is based on standards and consequences.
So, I would endorse that notion of using NAEP to measure the
rigor of state accountability systems. If it's too far, too
much discrepancy, then there ought to be some consequence.
Chairman Kildee. Doctor?
Ms. Liddell. I would agree with my colleague. I believe
that there does need to be consistency in standards and
consistency in benchmarks, in order for us to all be compared,
and NAEP would be a good way to do it, or some other format in
which the standards are examined. They don't have to be exactly
the same, but so that the rigor is measured, and it is an
accountability program that is consistent across the country,
for what we want students to know.
Chairman Kildee. Okay. Ms. Schott?
Ms. Schott. I don't have anything to comment.
Ms. Blake. Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Gonzalez. I would agree, the national system as well.
However, states like California, Arizona, Texas, New York, that
have high language learning populations would have to be
addressed just like each school site would be, and as well with
teaching standards for teachers and the credentialing issues. I
know that we've had teachers come from different states, and
they have through the hoops in each state. So, I think that
would be a great thing to have nationalized as well.
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Blake?
Ms. Blake. In the Chronicle yesterday a couple of studies
were released, one talking about how in Marin County the 1999
Teacher of the Year left the teaching profession because there
were too many obstacles, too many pressures, too much work in
the weekends, too much work in the summer. We cannot continue
to have this schizophrenic approach to testing and assessment
of children in our classroom. We need an accountability system
that allows teachers to look at their students and expect
reasonable growth and reasonable expectations toward an
ultimate goal of proficiency.
If we want to have a state standard for proficiency, or a
national standard for proficiency, that's okay, but teachers
need to know that the accountability system in the classroom is
going to be supporting student learning, supporting a rich and
rigorous curriculum, and it's going to do it in a way that
allows us to measure real growth and real learning for those
students.
Otherwise, it's just another target that doesn't mean much
to the children in the classroom.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Let me ask this question and I'll yield to Congresswoman
Woolsey.
Right now if you miss AYP by that much, or by a country
mile, in the third year you get school choice as the effect,
right, and then the fourth year you get supplemental education
services.
Could we write the bill where if you just barely miss AYP
there's some effect, but if you miss it by a country mile
there's a deeper effect?
Do you want to go down the line again?
Mr. Tempes. I hate to use the word nuance again, but I
will, and when--it's a good system with the kind of caveats
that we've all laid out here today, for identifying schools in
need of improvement. But each school is individual, and you can
take a look at schools that have the same, even a country mile
off the mark, and one school is going in the right direction
and another school is not doing anything.
The system needs to be nuanced enough to say, okay, neither
of you are meeting AYP, you can continue on the course you are
going on, you we need to intervene in. And, this really can
only be done at the local level. I think you need to empower
state departments of education and districts to do that kind of
work.
Chairman Kildee. It does introduce a certain subjective
element, right?
Mr. Tempes. Without a doubt, and I mean I think that is
better than to try to dictate from Washington one of these
things will happen.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Yes, Doctor.
Ms. Liddell. We have an example of that in our school
district. We have a high school, and I will say to you that
this high school just received a six-year WASK recommendation,
so it is considered an excellent high school. However, it has
missed the AYP the last couple of years, and the reason is
because of the participation rate. Just barely, it wasn't even
very much, just a small percentage point.
And, if we had the flexibility it would encourage those
families, and parents, and teachers, and staff members, to know
that they were working toward an attainable goal. They are in
the 5th year of the sanctions now. It is getting pretty rough
over there, and the morale goes down. After you've been in
something that long, it gets really tough to keep people
motivated and moving.
And, that's part of the picture that we have to do, as well
as the funding.
Ms. Schott. I don't know why this came to my mind, but how
would you decide how close was close enough? And where would
that be decided? Would it just be participation rate? I mean,
maybe it's sort of the danger of this status type
accountability system, if there is a bar. If there isn't a bar,
then, you know, or if the bar moves, you know, I'd want to know
who is making that decision.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. I think you raise a valid
question, because I don't know what the answer is either, and
I'm glad to get this variety of ideas.
Dr. Gonzalez, do you have any comments?
Mr. Gonzalez. The same thing was where we made our growth
and met our goals in all areas except our special education, I
think it was four years ago, and it was the same thing. We made
everything, except we almost made it there, so where do you
draw that almost, not enough, or how big that country mile is?
Chairman Kildee. Okay, Ms. Blake.
Ms. Blake. In addressing your comment about a school that
just misses the mark, and then a school that is consistently
and deeply in trouble, I do believe that we absolutely need to
make that distinction, and for schools that are truly
struggling we need to provide support, not punishment, and not
sanctions. Those schools are struggling many times because they
are in high poverty areas, or they are dealing with a lot of
special circumstances with students who have very special and
specific learning needs.
So, we need to provide a system that can discriminate
between a school that just barely missed it because of a
participation rate and a school that is deeply embroiled in
very serious learning struggles with their students.
The thing that needs to always be remembered is that the
focus must stay on the student, and the student learning, and
what support can we give to these schools, and these teachers,
and the administrators, and the parents who are struggling to
build a rich learning community, because right now we have
teachers leaving the profession because we feel like our hands
are tied.
We spend years and years getting degrees, and getting the
expertise, and then we get into our classrooms ready to work,
ready to roll up our sleeves and work, only to find out our
hands have been tied by unrealistic goals.
We need to make these measurements attainable and
achievable for our students over time, and that doesn't mean to
say that they are never going to have an ultimate bar, but if
the bar is up here, and my student can't speak English, or they
come to me without prior education, or they come with special
learning needs, we need to be able to establish a pattern of
performance objectives that will allow the child to reach that
goal and know they are not predestined to failure.
Chairman Kildee. I appreciate the fact that we got somewhat
varying and concurring responses to that from the richness of
your own experiences. That's very helpful to me.
And now, I yield such time as she may consume to the
Gentlelady from California.
Ms. Woolsey. I could just go on and on about this. This is
so exciting, you've been wonderful. I just so appreciate you.
Well, nuance and flexibility, it all goes together, and for
Ms. Schott's question, how do you decide, well, first of all,
look where we are. We are in Marin and Sonoma Counties. What if
we were in East LA? I mean, I can say that, nobody--we don't
have anybody up here that would defend that. I mean, there are
parts of this country, even in our own state, that are in so
much trouble, and I still don't think they are in trouble
because it's their own fault. I believe it's because they need
way more help than McDowell and Venetia needed, McDowell or
McKinley in Petaluma.
When we first got started with this, and I was arguing with
Chairman Miller about No Child Left Behind, and my district,
Marin and Sonoma Counties, some of the best scores in the
country, I was absolutely sure we didn't have a big gap.
And so, I called Dr. Wong in Sonoma, the Superintendent of
Schools, and Mary Jane Burke here in Marin, and asked the
direct question. My staff called them. Can the Congresswoman
say, leave these schools that are doing so well alone, these
school districts, because they are doing fine. And, both of
them said, after they knew I wasn't going to put it all over
the paper and get them in trouble, because that wasn't the
intention, I just needed to know what I could argue from, they
said, no, Congresswoman, even in our wonderful districts we
have gaps, and, indeed, we have to do something about it.
So, when we talk about nuance and flexibility, it will be
clear if we allow ourselves this flexibility, which schools and
which systems are actually investing in bridging that gap. I
don't think there will be anything subtle about that, and it
will be clear which ones can't without just extreme help, not
punishment. I think that we should be a long way from punishing
schools that are working so hard to meet these challenges.
So, I have a couple of places I'd like to talk and ask you
about. One is, Mr. Gonzalez, in your testimony you talked about
what I call educating the whole student. So, talk about, if you
will, how the system we've set up, if you see it, any of you,
starting with you, Mr. Gonzalez, interfering with art, music,
and geography, and civics, and history, I mean, when we get
through with this we've got to have whole people out in our
society.
Mr. Gonzalez. And, we've had to emphasize so much on
literacy, mathematics, and with the help of the literacy
coaches and the state, or the district-mandated program, we put
8:30-10:30 every morning is sacred reading time, 11:00-12:00 is
writing time, after lunch from 1:00-2:00 is math time, and then
we have that last hour of the day which we are having to
contract out YMCA for PE, local--for music and art and drama,
but the teachers themselves are so focused on the literacy and
the math that the science, social studies are taking a back
seat. And, like you said, it's very important that we educate
and have these well-rounded students, but our teachers are so
overwhelmed with so much that's being asked of them that we are
asking outside agencies for help.
And, we are very fortunate that we have those resources
here. I know that in some districts and some school sites those
resources aren't there, so that's something that, yes, we do
struggle with, and we have to go outside of our school for
help.
Ms. Woolsey. And, Mr. Tempes, maybe you could talk about
this on the same question, could we bring, as one of our
measurements besides testing, that, indeed, these different
schools are doing a good job on these other programs?
Mr. Tempes. Without a doubt. I mean, it's clear that NCLB
inadvertently has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum in
ways that Pepe just described.
I'll give you a good example. In California, we do a
physical fitness test, I guess it's the 5th and 7th grade every
other year, those are standards, you know, and they are
actually very practical real standards. We've got an epidemic,
everybody knows about obesity and everything, we've got
standards, nobody pays any attention to them. Nobody is held
accountable for making any progress on those, not to mention
music, art.
We'll see a jump now in science education, because science
is being folded in, but, you know, the system has that
consequence. And, the people that I talk to, my friends in
education, are particularly worried about civics education.
Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
Mr. Tempes. Who is going to be voting, who is going to be
making these decisions? Pretty scary.
Ms. Woolsey. Yes. Before you, forgive me, I didn't say
anything about PE, you know, for shame.
Mr. Tempes. We have these measures in place now, we just
need to use them.
Ms. Woolsey. Right, that's right.
Ms. Liddell. Those are very good points, and we have, both
the secondary and elementary levels, we have the same critical
elements going on that my colleagues have, where there's just
not enough time in the day, or in the school year, to get
everything in.
So, we do the best we can and be creative about our time.
We bring in people for after school programs to try to boost
our students in different areas, and we have certain music
programs that occur after school outside the school day.
All of those take money. Within the school day, if we have
a high school student who comes to us in, let's say, the 10th
grade, and does not speak English, and has not had very much
schooling in the past, we have ten years of education to impart
on that person, and he's supposed to take the California high
school exit exam right then, which is part of the AYP.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, and can I interrupt?
Ms. Liddell. Certainly.
Ms. Woolsey. He's also supposed to want to stay in school.
Ms. Liddell. Right.
Ms. Woolsey. And, he feels humiliated.
Ms. Liddell. Exactly right, and so, what we've learned to
do now is to offer support programs, two periods of English and
writing, and two periods of math and all of those kinds of
things, but then you lose the time for the other elements in
schooling.
Without more funding, without money to be able to add back
in either time, or creative ways of doing things, our hands are
tied.
Ms. Schott. You alluded to the too-short day, it's a
problem. When the California framework, the framework for
English language arts was being released, recommends two and a
half hours a day of language arts for students in 1st through
3rd grades, we run out of time around, I don't know, noon,
there just isn't enough.
So, at McDowell we have taken the stance that reading
research over the last 15 years tells us as kids leave 1st
grade not reading at grade level they have a one in eight
chance of ever reading at grade level. We've got to get those
kids reading.
If we get kids reading and proficient in math by the time
they go to their junior high or middle school experience, well,
first of all, we are going to have some really happy teachers
in our district at the 6th and 7th grade levels, and they are
going to be able to take on the enrichment, and they won't be
having to do the double periods of language!
Ms. Woolsey. Except for the new kids.
Ms. Schott. Well, except for newbies, yes, you fold them
in, but the kids who have been here forever, if we can get them
into grade level reading, then the intermediate and secondary
schools can take it from there and do the science, and the
social studies, and all that fun stuff.
Ms. Woolsey. Melanie?
Ms. Blake. Thank you. I completely agree with my colleagues
here at the table and the comments they've made about not
enough time to teach, insufficient resources interfering with
academics, two math periods and two English periods. All of
that we are seeing happening in our classrooms.
I'd also like to point out one other critical thing that
teachers are noticing in their classrooms, and that is, that
with the culture of testing we are so busy teaching students
what to think that we are losing the critical thinking that
allows students to teach themselves, that allows students to
teach each other, and that allows them to learn how to think
for themselves.
We want to have educated citizens, and if we wait until
high school to try to fold in geography, and civics, and
economics, and critical thinking skills, and to become good
citizens, and what it means to be a good citizen, we've waited
too long, and that's the problem with front loading so much of
just testing and these kind of academics. We need to be able to
work on the whole child early on.
Ms. Woolsey. So, the Chairman has generously allowed me to
ask another kind of question.
I want to talk about the impact of the testing and the
labels that come along with it, the school labeled in
improvement, and the idea of if a school is in improvement that
students can immediately transfer to another school.
I shouldn't tell you what my thoughts are, but I really
believe that that's backwards. I think we should have as much
help for that school as possible for much longer than one year,
and then, but you tell me, is it positive to leave the school
and go to another school?
First of all, in Petaluma, where do they go?
So, respond to that, about, having the option, you go now,
you go where?
Ms. Schott. We've had fewer than five children leave our
school in the three years that we've had to offer choice. They
go, in the first year they went to McKinley, because McKinley
wasn't in program improvement, and it's walkable. I mean----
Ms. Woolsey. Guess what? It is now.
Ms. Schott. Oh, I know. So, now they are offered Valley
Vista, but I'll give you an example. I took students from our
school over to the School Board meeting, 6th graders, which is
across town, past Valley Vista, and as we were driving into
Petaluma one of the students said to me, is this Santa Rosa? I
mean, we were five minutes from my school.
And so, for us to tell parents who walk to our school
currently, well, we are not--you know, we aren't doing a very
good job so you can take your child over to Valley Vista, they
don't even know where Valley Vista is, so they wouldn't send
their kindergartner there.
So, we've had about five students leave. We are the fastest
growing school in our district, and so what it tells me is that
NCLB sanctions are less important than a place where parents
like having their kids go to school.
That doesn't let us off the hook, we still need to be
educating our kids, even if they aren't holding that as their
highest standard.
Mr. Tempes. I would agree. I don't think there's--the
people who are going to move their children to another school
for academic reasons did this long before the school was
designated as program improvement. And, I think it sends the
wrong message that you are bad, and now we are going to take
anybody who is interested enough to move their kids out of
there, and that will only make the things more difficult.
It's system improvement, not system undermining, that we
ought to be interested in.
Mr. Gonzalez. The tone that you set the parents is, our
school is not good enough, take your kid to where they are
providing a better education, whereas, it's the opposite. I
mean, those teachers are probably working just as hard, if not
harder, than any other school district or school that isn't
program improvement.
So, the one that you are sending to these parents is just
really, really negative in general.
Ms. Liddell. Go ahead, I'll go last.
Ms. Blake. In Sonoma Valley, what we have seen is, for
example, with El Verano Elementary School, they are now in
fifth year of program improvement, and the parents, and the
staff, and the children, have rallied around that school, and
the community has rallied around that school, and it's a
terrible notion to even think that that really powerful
learning isn't going on in this elementary school. The children
are making academic progress. It doesn't always show up in the
AYP in the way they would like it to, but we can see those
scores coming up every year for the students that come in and
stay year after year.
And so, actually, we've kind of seen a funny reverse
effect, where people have rallied around these schools and
said, you aren't going to label us as a failing school. We know
we aren't failing. We know our children are getting a good
education.
And so, hopefully, we can build that kind of community to
say, we don't have to live with that label. We don't have to be
defined by this one test, this one year.
Ms. Woolsey. And, where would those kids go anyway? They
would have to be bussed somewhere from El Verano.
Ms. Blake. That's correct, most of the other elementary
schools are already impacted, and certainly there's another
school up the road, that's Flowery, they are now also in
program improvement, year one, and people are actually busing
their children or driving their children into Flowery because
they turned it into a dual immersion school. And so, they are
looking for creative ways to keep people connected to their
schools and the learning.
Ms. Liddell. There have been so many good ideas, I hardly
have anything to add, but I do think that when we send out the
letters at the beginning of the year, it is heartbreaking for
those schools to have to send that out, for the principals and
the teachers. It is demoralizing for them to have to do that,
and we do have very few students who actually transfer. We
offer a few schools for them to transfer to, but we do not have
a lot of takers.
Some of our schools who were labeled program improvement
actually are some of the finest schools in our district, and
they have shown the great growth that each year for the last
five years that is really wonderful and powerful for people to
see. And, we let the community know that.
So, it is useful in that way, but it is not useful as a
tool at the beginning of the year to send out to the community.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I thank you.
I just want to say a couple words before, the President--
the President, don't we wish, before the Chairman summarizes.
But, when we first started this, I live in Petaluma, it
became very clear to me I was playing a major role in
education, and maybe I didn't know all that much about it, and
it had been a long time, because my kids are in their 40s, and
my grandchildren hadn't quite started school yet, because my
oldest grandson is in the 1st grade now.
So, I asked to volunteer for a morning a week for a
semester at McKinley School in Petaluma. I thought I'd pick the
school closest to my house that actually had a diverse
population.
And, when they nicely agreed, thinking I was doing
something to get PR and press and all that, and when they
realized, indeed, that wasn't why I was doing this it became,
it was really nice.
I was only an hour on Monday, every Monday of the semester,
and then I had to get on an airplane and go to D.C. I went to a
different classroom for one hour each week, and I'm telling
you, and I participated, I was a volunteer, I wasn't the
Congresswoman standing around watching, I volunteered. These
were the smartest kids, these were the greatest teachers, that
was the most darling school I've ever been--I've ever seen, I
mean, I go to them, but they give me the best of the best when
I go.
One hour, and I have more energy than 95 percent of the
people on earth, and everybody here can tell you that, and my
staff, I was exhausted. The work that goes, and the energy,
well, the last week I was there McKinley got their label of not
measuring up, and I'm telling you, these teachers, the
principal, they had tears in their eyes, and it was by just a
barely percentage point. And, it was very clear to me then that
you cannot have one standard and start labeling schools that
are working with some of the hardest challenges we have.
So, I thank you for bringing this to us. We have another
bite at the apple. We will be working together, and we will
take everything you've said today into account.
So, thank you very much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, and I follow through on some of
your very good questions there.
Right now, we have at the end of the second year school
choice, that's the effect, right, and at the end of the third
year supplemental educational services. Now, this is maybe
just--would it help at all, it's not a major change, if we
flipped those two.
Ms. Liddell. It would be good to look at all that chart,
and think it through again, and think through how the sanctions
fold together, and how they can be supported, because they
need--it takes at least five years to make the difference that
needs to be made in a school.
Chairman Kildee. Anyone else?
Ms. Schott. I would only support anything having to do with
supplemental educational services if that was a program that
was revisited from the bottom up.
As I mentioned in my testimony, there's one provider within
walking distance of my site. Online providers, I don't--I've
been given information that we are supposed to check Interpol
clearance on online providers, not just--because you can't get
fingerprints, and they may not be in our country.
So, SES is a Medusa, it needs to be--well, and, the people
who are providing the tutoring to our most impacted students
are not as well trained as the people in their classrooms.
I just think that can't be effective.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, will you yield just a minute on
that? That's one of the fixes that I've drafted, is that the
SES programs have to live up to the same standards as the
teachers and the districts. I mean, and how do we measure them?
And, we don't.
Ms. Schott. And, they cost a lot of money.
Mr. Tempes. If I could just chime in with Mr. Kildee's
question. You can do that if you want, it won't make any
difference. Neither of these programs are big players in ed
reform, and I agree with Liz Schott, you just ought to
reexamine them and look for, the big word out of Washington is
scientifically-based research. So, ask for the scientifically-
based research on how those two are affecting students, student
achievement.
Ms. Liddell. We had one provider on our list, and this is a
true story, who was an acknowledged provider, came in to our
reading office and asked for information on how to do it,
because they didn't know how to do it, and didn't have the
materials. We had the same thing.
This is really incredible, because that is, if you don't
have the child or the older student, whoever is receiving the
service, receiving the same type of service that they are
getting in the school, it's not going to do them any good.
Ms. Woolsey. Or better.
Ms. Liddell. Or better, exactly.
Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
Ms. Blake. I would like a chance to respond also to that
question.
In our school district, going back to El Verano, we had
staff that encouraged parents to take advantage of that
opportunity to seek outside assistance, and shortly later
parents were coming back with complaints to the school district
asking who monitors these people anyway, and how did they get
licensed to provide this kind of follow-up support.
And so, even with that opportunity people overwhelmingly
came back to the school for that additional report, which
brings me to the need for funding for these kind of support
systems in our own schools. We are the experts, we are trained
to provide that, that's why we are called teachers. And, we
need the opportunity to be able to provide that, but in order
to do that we need multiple measures, and we need a fully-
funded system that allows us to really intervene with research-
based methodologies that we know will make a difference with
our students.
Ms. Liddell. And, that don't stop after one year.
Ms. Woolsey. Well I should go there.
Chairman Kildee. You never left there, you know.
Ms. Woolsey. Here we go again.
Chairman Kildee. It was interesting, the term failing
school doesn't appear in the law, and no matter how many times
you say that, it does occur, though, doesn't it? You get that
all the time, in Michigan, in Virginia, the term failing school
has become part of the lexicon, even though it nowhere appears
in the law. So, it's one of the things that is a reality that
you have to face, probably more than just a public relations
thing, too.
People say, well, that's just a public relations talk to
editorial writers, and, you know, they'll understand, but the
word failing school has come into the lexicon, and we really
want to make this a better bill.
As I said, we'll probably keep the same basic structure,
but that chart, you told us to look at our own chart, right, of
the effects, consequences, penalties, whatever we want to call
them, right, that certainly, you know, wasn't written--was
written in Washington, D.C., right? We've learned a lot today.
California has so much to offer us, as you've been told so
many times, in so many areas of your life you are like a
country out here. Your economy is bigger than so many other
countries. And, your educational system is, you know, one
that's, it's a great educational system.
Every educational system has problems, but we've learned
some things today, and people who really love education, and
love kids, and we want to go back and see what we can do to
help you carry out your job.
Ms. Blake, you mentioned, maybe I'm paraphrasing a bit,
when I taught I taught at a school for ten years, I loved it,
but creativity was a very important thing. And, very often when
you are, you know, arranging, as you mentioned, Mr. Gonzalez,
arranging your hours to make sure they get this, and this, that
you really don't have much time for the creativity and some of
the things that really are important for a person's growth.
As I say, we'll probably keep the same basic structure, but
each one of those elements in that structure can have much more
flexibility. And, as you mentioned, Dr. Gonzalez, that chart
certainly was not written at Mt. Sinai, right?
Ms. Liddell. It needs to be looked at, you might want to
consider having a group of educators work with the Committee on
that, to look at it and give some input into what could be, and
what flexibility means at the school site.
Chairman Kildee. And, if you could do that, some have done
that. Minnesota has got educators together, and they've sent in
a list of some specific changes. Another group gave us
something, and if you could, I mean, the five of you could sit
down here probably, and come up with some idea on--because
those consequences, effects, penalties, whatever we want to
call them, we generally try to use the neutral term effects,
right, of not reaching AYP, but again, you could help us on
that.
And, I really appreciate, this has been an excellent panel,
people who really are right there in the front line, and I very
much appreciate it, and at this point I want to remind those
who did not testify formally as witnesses that you may submit
your testimony, and we will make sure it's printed in the
written record, and you can submit that by a week, by May 4th,
week from today, and you can get, I think Mr. Horwich has cards
right here with his e-mail address on that, and we'll be happy
to do that.
Again, I'm glad that, Lynn, you asked us to come out here,
and all members, this is for the record here, have seven
calendar days to submit additional remarks, and any member who
wishes to submit follow-up questions, we may have some follow-
up questions for the panel, should coordinate with the Majority
staff within the requisite time.
And, without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Additional statements entered into the record by Ms.
Woolsey follow:]
Prepared Statement of Torri Chappell, Mother and Teacher
Why No Child Left Behind Needs to be ``Left Behind'' and replaced
with another plan that:
focuses on LEARNING instead of TESTING,
encourages teacher REFLECTION instead of BLIND COMPLIANCE,
promotes professional COOPERATION instead of COMPETITION,
results in INSPIRATION instead of PUNISHMENT AND FEAR.
I am encouraged that people are beginning to examine NCLB and
engage in conversations about its future. I believe that it needs to be
discarded and replaced by a plan that is created by reflective
educators who are actively involved in teaching and inspiring young
learners instead of publishers, politicians and researchers who do not
have actual experience with children and how children learn in a REAL
situations, not situations created for testing or research purposes.
The well-being of the children needs to be at the forefront. The focus
needs to be on learning NOT testing.
NCLB offers a culturally biased, narrowly defined view of success
which relies solely on test scores to define success and only offers
punitive measures to change situations that don't ``measure up''. The
focus on public display of API and AYP creates destructive competition
in communities and legitimizes the unsound belief that a test score can
accurately measure a child's understanding or learning, a teacher's
competence, a principal's ability to lead and the overall success of a
school If the ADULTS in business and government were subjected to an
annual test to measure if they were meeting standards and to determine
their success, there would be an outcry of unfairness. Knowing this,
how can anyone think that this is a sound approach with CHILDREN,
children as young as 7 years old who still believe in Santa Clause and
the Easter Bunny.
Standardized tests measure low level thinking. It is time we came
up with a way to encourage and value higher level thinking. By focusing
on `standards based testing' to educate our children we are actually
LOWERING our standards of what kind of thinking we value and hope the
next generation is capable of.
``Weighing the pig doesn't make it grow.'' * * * ``Testing the
child, does not make him learn.'' These high stakes tests do not inform
the teachers or parents of what children do or do not understand. They
are not allowed to see the tests after they have been scored. There is
no way of knowing if the child missed a question because of careless
error, language or lack of content understanding. The scores are not
helpful in improving individuals' growth and learning.
Inspiring, excellent teachers are being driven out of the
profession of teaching because NCLB does not respect teachers or
children. This is affecting the fabric of our society and must be
changed.
We need to develop an assessment system that:
Informs teaching by determining understanding of ideas/
concept not just the memorization of facts or the ability to find
somebody else's `right' answer.
Includes useful feedback and a way to incorporate that
feedback into future learning/teaching.
Uses multiple measures.
Uses examples of authentic student work not just fill in
the bubble tests.
Respects different kinds of learners/multiple
intelligences.
Is culturally unbiased.
Encourages student self assessment.
Measures on a scale of naive to sophisticated NOT right
and wrong.
I hope that our Congress will have the good sense to respect
children and teachers enough to get rid of NCLB and put in place a
different system that will be focused more on learning on growth than
fear and punishment. The future of our country depends on it.
``Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count;
everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.'' Albert Einstein
______
Prepared Statement of Lenard C. Greenwood, Teacher, Montgomery High
School, Santa Rosa, CA
To the Honorable Representative Dale Kildee: I would like to thank
you Chairman Kildee, Congresswoman Woolsey and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to be present at the Field Hearing and
voice my Testimony on this crucial issue that affects us all. It was a
genuine pleasure to attend and talk with you Sir.
Although this misnamed ``No Child Left Behind'' law has so many
obvious problems that require serious attention before contemplating
reauthorization, I will attempt to direct this testimony towards my
personal teaching experiences. I have witnessed the methodic and
irrational dismantling of Public Education since ``NCLB'' was forced
into our school system.
As we spoke of, following the hearing, I have had the pleasure of
teaching English, Theatre Arts, Creative Writing and now full time
Photography at Montgomery High School for the past 20 years. Throughout
the years, it has always been an increasingly difficult struggle to
secure enough funding to offer most of these courses.
At present, my district gives me $150.00 a year to run
five classes of Photography with over 165 students year round. Each of
my other Fine Arts colleagues receives the same small funds for a full
five-class load. Unbelievable-YES! But true.
The Arts in California are under attack. 61% of all our
schools here in California do not have one full time Arts instructor.
40 % of our schools lack any Music program. WHY? FUNDS!
The Arts, creativity, is the one beautiful essence of the human
heart, soul and mind which sings to the world, ``I'M ALIVE''. As Art
teachers, we open the minds of our students to allow creativity to
grow, to be nourished, to be expressed upon a world stage that grows
more and more violent and impoverished. The human soul does not grow by
being drowned in Academics with no chance for the spirit to create and
blossom.
In fact, it is The Arts, in all its form, with its magnetic draw to
create that brings so many students to school. It is The Arts that open
ones mind to the possibilities in the adventures of Math, Science,
English and History. It is the blend of Arts and Academics that builds
and molds the whole student. And, without The Arts, we are doomed to
higher drop-out rates, falling test scores and a future of mindless
adults who must only pacify themselves with their latest video games or
television show.
Today's high-tech society has altered the Parent/Family engagement
of yesterday and made it more challenging for students to stay focused
with learning. But creativity doesn't have to disappear while
technology takes its place. I believe it is of the utmost importance
that we reinvest in Vocation Arts and Programs which open doors to our
students to Sustainable Living Education and Real Life Courses that are
meaningful. Students want and need to learn Real Life Skills that they
can use in every day life. As we attempt to heal the Earth from decades
of human abuse, our students need courses in Elementary and Secondary
Education which address the impending issues they will be facing as
adults entering into their inherited generation:
Global Climate Change
Alternative Energy and Production
Organic Gardening and Agriculture
Safe Food Production and Health
Mass Transit and Pollution
Sustainable Living and Green Building
Fair World Trade and Labor
Cross-Cultural Arts and Communication
Global Collaboration for Peaceful Commerce
Personal Money Management and Finance
These positive and essential education programs should be fully
funded and mandatory in the Public School System along with The Arts.
We must start thinking progressively and realistically with highest
urgency toward Stewardship of our Planet Earth. We must not wait until
students are of college age. We must open our student's minds to think
critically and creatively.
We became teachers to help students learn, not to test them into
the ground. Teaching to the test will not motivate teachers to come
into the field or students to want to come to and stay in school.
Students do not gain the essential skills they need in this ever-
changing world by taking endless tests only for a Federal or Corporate
scorecard. We must test and assess their progress by many different
means, not by the current ``one size fits all'' method. Each school,
each student, in every community is unique. Individual schools need
more control and flexibility in what works best for their student
population.
If we measure student learning by the overly simplistic ``setting
the bar at a certain level'', then we miss all those special students
who can run, throw, swim, hit and perform at even higher levels of
assessment.
Therefore, I ask The Committee to listen to the teachers in the
trenches, hear the hollow sounds of creativity draining from the young
minds of today, and reevaluate the essential changes needed to properly
execute the $71 billion under funded ``NCLB''. Or better yet, go back
to the ESEA drawing board with all the data the Committee has gathered
around America, and fully implement and fund The Arts and Essential
Real Life courses in our public schools. Priorities in our Country need
restoration.
For years now from the students I hear the desire to learn more, to
know what is important in this world they are inheriting. I see them
losing their natural inventiveness, ingenuity and imagination; the void
of creativity lost as apathy takes over. They crave to gain knowledge
and discover their own skills that will shape their lives in a positive
way. I see my fellow teachers frustrated, morally drained by the
continuing attacks upon their unique abilities that they long to
utilize, while their salary is whittled away and Health Insurance
Premiums skyrocket and become an unfeasible financial burden. Dedicated
teachers once honored and distinguished for their unique abilities and
patience are being methodically reduced to automatons. Many are leaving
their cherished profession largely due to ``NCLB'' and the Corporate
undermining of our Public Education System.
I ask The Committee to give consideration to establishing a
committee whose sole purpose is to Protect and Support The Arts in
Public Schools.
Every child should have the opportunity to create, to build self-
esteem and self-expression through The Arts. Since the drastic changes
from the ESEA to the so called ``NCLB'' law, we have all lost this
hugely valuable aspect of humanity in our Public Schools. We owe it to
our youth to open every door possible to their creativity. We can only
do this by fully funding The Arts Programs across America. And we can
only be successful with implementing any aspect of any Federal
Education Mandate by fully funding those laws.
______
Prepared Statement of Diane Phillips, Parent of Public School Children
Dear Chairman Kildee and Congresswoman Woolsey: My name is Diane
Phillips. I am a parent of two children in the California public school
system. I am writing to you to register my concern about the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in response to the recent House
Subcommittee session on education Friday April 27, 2007 at the Marin
County Civic Center.
It is my opinion that the effects of NCLB on our public schools
have so far been catastrophic. Our schools are now severely limited by
NCLB's current punishment and reward approach to achievement and
accountability. High-stakes tests overshadow all teaching and learning,
turning our schools into joyless institutions.
Certainly there are poorly performing public schools, as well as
poorly performing teachers, but these are problems to be dealt with on
a case by case basis, not by a blanket law that blames educators and
students.
While all children can learn, not everyone learns in the same
fashion, or within a set time frame. Please consider the dramatic
variances in school readiness, grade level skills and socio-economic
status among children. None of these factors figure into the logic of
NCLB. How is this law helping the hundreds of thousands of children who
go to bed hungry, who lack healthcare and who do not come to school
ready to learn?
The NCLB legislation removes teachers, students, parents and local
communities from active involvement in what will be learned and how to
measure growth and development. Unlike authoritarian countries,
democracies believe in the capacity of ordinary individuals to direct
the affairs of their communities, especially their schools. Democracy
requires its members to participate in the political, social, cultural
and economic institutions affecting their development.
It is my belief that there are so many inherent problems with NCLB
that it must be eliminated, not re-authorized. What is needed instead
is a legislation calling for greater local involvement in policy-making
and implementation. Recognizing that there is no single approach that
fits every learning context, I encourage local choice in deciding
curriculums. While I respect the determination behind the prescription
for universal success, it is not realistically achievable.
It is my hope that there will be further investigation of this
legislation before Congress casts another vote.
Thank you for your time and concern.
______
Prepared Statement of Amy Valens, Retired Teacher, Lagunitas School
District, San Geronimo School
Dear Chairman Kildee and Congresswoman Woolsey: The testimony that
we heard today was indicative of the amount of work we need to do to
become a well-educated society. We have not even begun to define what
we mean by well educated. We focus on two comparatively ``easy'' parts
of the puzzle: English language literacy and mathematics. Because high
stakes tests to assess levels of language literacy and math skills must
by their nature look at these skills simplistically, teachers find
themselves forced to address these subjects without the context of who
they are teaching and why one would want to have these skills. We heard
several speakers explain that in meeting these demands they must ignore
or relegate to the fringes, other equally important areas of literacy,
such as social studies, science, the arts, civics, social and emotional
literacy, and even physical education. I wonder what the content of
their lessons look like!
I recently attended the 2nd Cesar Chavez Education Conference at
Fresno State University. Teachers using Reading First (lauded by
several of your witnesses) talked about the terrific constraints placed
upon them by this program, which expects a teacher to rigidly follow a
script for success. What kind of success are we settling for? I hope
you will seek testimony from Dr. Elaine Garan of Fresno State
University about that! We may have schools that are meeting the goals
of NCLB, that are in at least as much trouble as the ones that are not.
If they are really spending, as at least two witnesses indicated, most
of their day on memorization skills related to reading and math without
time for higher-level thinking, experiential learning, socialization,
and creativity, the students who succeed are being prepared for low-
level jobs indeed. They are being given little chance of developing
their imaginations: thinking capacities that we crucially need as a
society. I was particularly dismayed by Principal Schott's remark that
creativity could wait until fifth or sixth grade. I hope she is
overstating her case, but I fear she is not. What a dreary world she
wants to offer her young charges! What will the drop-out rate look like
if this fashion, that I wince to call ``teaching'', is continued?
On a more positive note, I was impressed by the questions that each
of you asked the panel. The areas you have identified are the crucial
areas to address. On top of my personal experience, having taught since
1968 in a variety of settings from inner city schools in Dayton, Ohio
to an alternative public school in semi rural California (I estimate
that I have personally interacted at some depth with about 1,500
students), I have spent the last two years reading and listening
extensively to the testimony of a wide range of educators. The key is
that we all want children to succeed. The question is how do we measure
success? No matter how tempting it is to look for a panacea, there is
not one way to educate all children. So why do we think there is just
one way to measure them?
It is not hard to find methods beyond standardized tests that will
give accurate, less costly, more beneficial assessments of the ability
of a school to provide a good education to its pupils. The science
behind these other methods is at least as legitimate, being based on
research in many domains that informs the best practices taught in our
schools of education. That there will be a degree of subjectivity in
these other methods goes without saying. Standardized tests are also
not without subjectivity, and David Foster, of the Noyce Foundation,
offers compelling evidence that rising test scores correlate highly
with learning how to take the particular test, not necessarily a
generalized improvement.
We could use criteria developed by a panel of preeminent educators
as the most valuable part of assessing our schools. Using these
criteria, local evaluations could be carried out by qualified members
of the community a school serves, in tandem with educators who do not
have a stake in the individual schools they are observing. The results
could be shared collegially, with follow through having the intent to
improve, not punish. Testing, when applicable, could be specific to
concerns expressed at the local level. Teachers would participate in
setting goals for their specific students, and be able to access
information obtained for their future teaching. To fund this, take away
the huge amount going to high stakes testing, and put it into these
human resources.
Barring changes of this magnitude, parents have every right to
question the validity of one-size-fits-all high stakes testing, and opt
their children out of those tests. Parents such as those in the school
I just retired from, who have made a strong philosophical decision
about how they want their children taught, refused in great numbers to
have their children tested before NCLB entered the picture. These, and
others like them, are not people being led down a path by
administrators wanting to hide local conditions. They are
conscientiously raising their children. If punishment were not part of
NCLB's structure, no one would need to question the motives of such
parents, who prefer to see their children's teachers teaching, instead
of proctoring.
The bluntness of Annual Yearly Progress as a deciding factor was
touched on by most of the witnesses. It becomes close to ludicrous in
some situations. In small schools, such as mine, where there may be
only 11 students of a particular grade level, one student's bad day, or
another student's brilliant one will alter the picture entirely. This
is equally true of API scores, whose publishing in the papers seems to
serve the real estate community more than any other group.
I doubt that I have said anything that you have not heard before.
But hopefully it helps to hear one more voice for truly raising all our
children to become fruitful and creative members of society.
Thank you for your patience and your concern. I have included a
list of experts whose testimony I hope you will seek before you decide
how to ``fix'' NCLB.
Please consider:
Dr. Elaine Garan, Fresno State University.
Dr. David Foster, Noyce Foundation.
Dr. Steve Hart, Fresno State University.
Dr. Glen Devoogd, Fresno State University.
Dr. Mark Phillips, San Francisco State College.
Dr. Paul Crowley, Sonoma State College.
Dr. Maryann Nickel, Sonoma State College.
Dr. Phillip Kovacs, University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Ms. Susan Ohanian, writer and educator.
Dr. Peter Farruggio, University of Texas Pan American.
Ms. Susan Harman, CalCARE.
Mr. Rog Lucido, Educators and Parents Against Testing.
Dr. Gerald Bracey, George Mason University and University of
Arizona.
Dr. Ken Goodman, University of Arizona.
Ms. Yetta Goodman, University of Arizona.
Dr. Richard Allington, University of Tennesse.
Dr. Monty Neill, FairTest.
Dr. David Berliner, University of Arizona.
Mr. Richard Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute, and Harvard.
______
[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 11:16 a.m.]