[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EDUCATION REFORMS: PROMOTING FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 7, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-498 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Tim Walberg, Michigan John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Richard L. Hanna, New York David Wu, Oregon
Todd Rokita, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota David Loebsack, Iowa
Martha Roby, Alabama Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
[Vacant]
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 7, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bucshon, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, submission for the record:
Florida's McKay Scholarship Program report, April 2008... 51
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Statement of Witnesses:
Amoroso, Dr. Gary M., superintendent, Lakeville Area Public
Schools.................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Barresi, Janet, superintendent of public instruction,
Oklahoma State Department of Education..................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Grier, Dr. Terry B., superintendent, Houston Independent
School District............................................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Additional submission: ``School Meal Standards''......... 19
Maqubela, Yohance C., chief operating officer, Howard
University Middle School of Mathematics and Science........ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
EDUCATION REFORMS: PROMOTING FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION
----------
Thursday, April 7, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, McKeon, Biggert,
Platts, Hunter, Roe, Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, Rokita,
Bucshon, Gowdy, Barletta, Noem, Roby, Kelly, Miller, Kildee,
Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu,
Davis, and Hirono.
Also present: Representative Polis.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant; James
Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Colette Beyer, Press Secretary-Education; Kirk Boyle, General
Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services
Coordinator; Daniela Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Jimmy
Hopper, Legislative Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director;
Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Brian Newell, Press
Secretary; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Linda
Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine,
Minority Staff Director; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy
Director of Education Policy; Sophia Kim, Minority Legislative
Fellow, Education; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press
Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Helen
Pajcic, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Julie Peller,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Alexandria Ruiz, Minority
Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director for
Education; and Laura Schifter, Minority Senior Education and
Disability Policy Advisor.
Chairman Kline [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
committee will come to order. Good morning, and welcome. I
would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I
make an administrative note the ranking member, Mr. Miller, is
in route. And by agreement, we are going to start. I am going
to drag out my opening statements and let him catch up as soon
as he can get here. I think he is on the floor. And that
sometimes takes some time to travel.
Well, over the last several months, our committee has been
actively examining the current state of education in the
nation. We have listened to state and local leaders who are
working to improve the quality of education our children
receive.
Through a series of hearings, we have heard stories of both
challenges and opportunities facing schools. The opportunities
are found in the determination of countless individuals who
realize our current system is failing our children and are
fighting to do something about it. As a result, parents,
grandparents, teachers, reformers and community leaders are
shining a bright light on a broken system and pursuing real
change that puts children first.
The challenges, unfortunately, are in many ways found in an
education bureaucracy resistant to the very kind of meaningful
reforms people are trying to achieve. Policymakers have over
the years added layers of mandates and regulations that weigh
down our nation's schools. Every federal tax dollar spent
should provide results, but we must ensure that the regulatory
burdens don't outweigh the benefits of federal assistance.
Today, the Department of Education administers 90, 90
programs tied to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
other federal laws. Virtually every program has its own
application process, separate or duplicative reporting
requirements and different eligibility criteria. It is a
complicated system levied on our schools, and dedicating the
time and resources necessary to navigate this bureaucratic maze
inevitably means time and resources spent outside the
classroom.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of the red tape
confronting schools, we have even created federal programs
designed to help alleviate the myriad requirements of other
federal programs. Only here. Initiatives like the state flex
program and the local flex program promise relief, yet few
states or school districts have signed up because of the
additional paperwork these programs require or simply because
these programs fail to offer the flexibility schools
desperately need.
Clearly, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work,
resulting in frustration among parents and educators and missed
opportunities for students. If we are going to move forward in
education, Washington has to move in a new direction. States
and schools should be able to set their own innovative
priorities and receive maximum flexibility to advance those
priorities.
If a school determines greater resources are better spent
on reading or new technologies, then it should be free to
adjust its budget to reflect the reality of its classrooms.
This doesn't mean schools and states are left unaccountable for
how federal dollars are spent. Indeed, taxpayers should know
where their hard-earned dollars are going and whether those
dollars are achieving results.
However, we must not allow the need for transparency and
accountability to become a roadblock to local innovation. I am
confident we can provide taxpayers the accountability they
deserve while also offering schools the flexibility they need
to help students succeed.
That is why your testimony today is so important. This is
our first of many opportunities to consider specific reforms to
help fix what is broken in current law. Your personal
experiences in your local communities will help us to strike
the proper balance between serving the interests of students
and the concerns of the taxpayers.
As we have learned, education is critical to the strength
of our workforce and the future success of our children. I look
forward to working with you to help ensure every child has
within their reach a quality education.
And let me say at this point, I would yield to Mr. Miller.
As I pointed out earlier, he is en-route. So let me just
continue here with some formalities and say pursuant to
committee Rule 7-C, all committee members will be permitted to
submit written statements to be included in the permanent
hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will
remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the
record and other extraneous material referenced during the
hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record.
I will take this opportunity now to introduce our
distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Janet Barresi was sworn
in as Oklahoma's state superintendent of public instruction on
January 10, 2011. After working in the Harrah and Norman public
school systems as a speech pathologist, Dr. Barresi served as a
dentist for 24 years, earning the Thomas Jefferson Citizenship
Award for active community service.
In 1996, she returned to the field of education as a
superintendent of Independence Charter Middle School,
Oklahoma's first charter school. She was also asked to start
Harding Charter Preparatory High School, where she served as
board president.
Dr. Gary Amoroso was named superintendent of the Lakeville
Area Public Schools in the fall of 2001. Dr. Amoroso began his
career in 1977 as a social studies teacher in Waukesha,
Wisconsin School District.
Gary, I didn't know you came from Wisconsin.
I have got two confessions here. Gary is my superintendent
in Lakeville, Minnesota. He served as assistant principal,
principal, director of educational services and superintendent
in various Wisconsin school districts before relocating,
wisely, to Lakeville, Minnesota. Dr. Amoroso will become the
new executive director of the Minnesota Association of School
Administrators in July.
And we wish you great success in that change.
Mr. Yohance Maqubela serves as the chief operating officer
of the Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and
Science. Prior to joining the school, Mr. Maqubela was managing
director of the Courtland Business Development Group, a
boutique economic development firm based in New York City. He
also served as the youngest executive director in the history
of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, New York
City's oldest non-profit economic development firm.
And Dr. Terry Grier became the Houston Independent School
District superintendent of schools in 2009. Before coming to
Houston, Dr. Grier served as a superintendent of the San Diego
Unified School District for 18 months and superintendent of the
Guilford County Schools in Greensboro, North Carolina for
almost 8 years. Dr. Grier is especially well-regarded for his
work in reducing high school dropout rates with innovative
programs for at-risk students.
Welcome to you all. And it is indeed a distinguished panel
of experts. We are looking forward to your testimony. I will
remind you that you have a little black box there in front of
you. It is a light system. When you start your testimony, a
green light will come on, indicating that you have 5 minutes
for your testimony. After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come
on. And after 5 minutes, a red light. And I would ask you to
start to wrap up your testimony if you have not already gotten
to that point by the time the red light--red light comes on.
And again--pardon me? Okay. And we are having continuing
discussions here. In keeping with the aforementioned plan, Mr.
Miller will make his opening remarks following the testimony of
the witnesses.
So, Dr. Barresi, you are recognized.
[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning and welcome. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being
with us today.
Over the last several months, our committee has been actively
examining the current state of education in the nation. We have
listened to state and local leaders who are working to improve the
quality of education our children receive. Through a series of
hearings, we have heard stories of both challenges and opportunities
facing schools.
The opportunities are found in the determination of countless
individuals who realize our current system is failing our children and
are fighting to do something about it. As a result, parents,
grandparents, teachers, reformers, and community leaders are shining a
bright light on a broken system and pursuing real change that puts
children first.
The challenges, unfortunately, are in many ways found in an
education bureaucracy resistant to the very kind of meaningful reforms
people are trying to achieve. While well-intended, policymakers have
over the years added layers of mandates and regulations that weigh down
our nation's schools. Every federal tax dollar spent should provide
results, but we must ensure that the regulatory burdens don't outweigh
the benefits of federal assistance.
Today, the Department of Education administers 90 programs tied to
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other federal laws.
Virtually every program has its own application process, separate or
duplicative reporting requirements, and different eligibility criteria.
It's a complicated system levied on our schools, and dedicating the
time and resources necessary to navigate this bureaucratic maze
inevitably means time and resources spent outside the classroom.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of the red tape confronting
schools, we have even created federal programs designed to help
alleviate the myriad requirements of other federal programs.
Initiatives like the State Flex Program and the Local-Flex Program
promise relief, yet few states or school districts have signed up
because of the additional paperwork these programs require, or simply
because these programs fail to offer the flexibility schools
desperately need.
Clearly a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, resulting in
frustration among parents and educators and missed opportunities for
students. If we are going to move forward in education Washington has
to move in a new direction.
States and schools should be able to set their own innovative
priorities and receive maximum flexibility to advance those priorities.
If a school determines greater resources are better spent on
reading or new technologies, then it should be free to adjust its
budget to reflect the reality of its classrooms.
This doesn't mean schools and states are left unaccountable for how
federal dollars are spent. Indeed, taxpayers should know where their
hard-earned dollars are going and whether those dollars are achieving
results. However, we must not allow the need for transparency and
accountability to become a roadblock to local innovation. I am
confident we can provide taxpayers the accountability they deserve
while also offering schools the flexibility they need to help students
succeed.
That is why your testimony is so important. This is our first of
many opportunities to consider specific reforms to help fix what is
broken in current law. Your personal experiences in your local
communities will help us strike the proper balance between serving the
interests of students and the concerns of the taxpayers.
As we've learned, education is critical to the strength of our
workforce and the future success of our children. I look forward to
working with you to help ensure every child has within their reach a
quality education.
I will now recognize my colleague George Miller, the senior
Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
______
STATEMENT OF DR. JANET BARRESI, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Barresi. Chairman Kline and honorable members of the
committee, I am pleased to offer testimony today on education
reform and to address how I believe we can better promote
flexibility and innovation. I took office in January, amid a
bipartisan groundswell of support in Oklahoma for education
reform. Most Oklahomans recognize we are in a crisis in
education in our state.
In March, we learned that nearly 43 percent of first-time
freshmen who entered Oklahoma's public colleges in the fall of
2009 were not prepared for college. In January, results from
the 2009 national assessment of educational progress showed
that 72 percent of Oklahoma fourth graders taking the test and
75 percent of eighth graders taking the test failed below
proficient in science. And research by Stanford economist, Eric
Hanushek,that compared top-performing math students all over
the world showed that Oklahoma ranked far down on the list near
developing or struggling nations like Bulgaria, Chile and
Thailand.
These results are like a dash of cold water. We understand
mediocre doesn't cut it anymore. And we are taking action.
Just 3 weeks ago, I launched the three R agenda, a
commitment to new fundamentals for the 21st century. The new
three R for our state's future are rethink, restructure and
reform. Rethink is a complete reassessment of how we are
delivering education to empower parents, children and teachers
and to embrace new tools like digital learning.
Restructure involves a transformation of Oklahoma State
Department of Education. I will focus more on the third R,
reform, because it is the primary reason I am here today.
We are now at the half-way point in our state's annual
legislative session, and significant progress has been made on
a number of reform bills. It appears we will implement a
grading system for schools and school districts and annual A
through F report cards, just like students receive, so that
parents can determine how a school is performing without having
to interpret obscure or confusing metrics.
We will also likely end social promotion after the third
grade so students aren't entering their most critical learning
years unprepared. And I am urging passage of legislation
enacting tuition tax credits in Oklahoma to offer parents more
and better choices. Under the legislation, business and
individuals could qualify for tax credits for contributions to
eligible scholarship-granting organizations. And those
organizations in turn would offer scholarships to qualifying
families in need.
But just as we embark on legislative implementation of the
three R agenda, we are mindful of potential obstacles if the
Federal Government is not--is too inflexible. A few examples:
Under the current implementation of No Child Left Behind, the
adequate yearly progress yardstick evaluation is rudimentary
and does not provide meaningful information to parents. But
most importantly, it does not recognize the ultimate goal of
college and career-ready status for all students facing the
21st century workplace.
By contrast, Oklahoma's new A through F school report card
system will offer easy-to-understand results for parents. And
it is based on a number of different measurements that
incorporate gains and improvements.
Another example: As Oklahoma seeks to end social promotion
after the third grade, many districts would like to fund
portions of this effort with federal funds. But it appears that
this would not be possible currently because of federal
restrictions on supplementing versus supplanting.
This demonstrates the ways in which entrenched federal
guidelines present some barriers to innovative state policies.
On the one hand, the U.S. Department of Education has
guidelines that on the surface seem to offer states more
flexibility to meet local needs. But there seems to be a
disconnect between good intentions at the top level and what
actually occurs in practice, such as during program audits.
And let us consider the simple reform of tuition tax
credits. Federal law offers parents in low-performing schools
the opportunity to transfer to another public school. This
isn't true choice. Oklahoma's reforms will offer parents an
array of more choices rather than only the option of
transferring from one public school to another. I urge reforms
that follow this same pathway by incentivizing states to
provide an array of options for students.
As all participating states prepare to transition to common
core standards, more flexibility is also needed in the use of
federal funds for professional development that would support
effective instructional practices. Additionally, broadening the
scope of the designation of title programs to include a wider
array of subject matter such as stem initiatives would help
enable states to offer a more challenging curriculum.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, the
bottom line is this: We can turn our crisis in Oklahoma into an
opportunity, but only if we are prepared to embrace the kind of
bold reforms that fundamentally transform our education system
for the better and only if the Federal Government is prepared
to work with states like ours to allow flexibility we need in
order to innovate. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Barresi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Barresi, Oklahoma State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Chairman Kline and Honorable Members of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, I am pleased to offer testimony today on education
reforms and to address how I believe we can better promote flexibility
and innovation.
I took office in January amid a bipartisan groundswell of support
in Oklahoma for education reform. Most Oklahomans recognize we're in
crisis in education in our state.
In March, we learned that nearly 43 percent of first-time freshmen
who entered Oklahoma's public colleges in the fall of 2009 were not
prepared for college.
In January, results from the 2009 National Assessment of
Educational Progress showed that 72 percent of Oklahoma fourth-graders
taking the test and 75 percent of eighth-graders taking the test fell
below ``proficient'' in science.
And research by Stanford economist Eric Hanushek that compared top-
performing math students all over the world showed that Oklahoma ranked
far down on the list near developing or struggling nations like
Bulgaria, Chile and Thailand.
These results are like a dash of cold water. We understand mediocre
doesn't cut it anymore, and we're taking action.
Just three weeks ago, I launched the 3R Agenda--a commitment to new
fundamentals for the 21st century. The new 3Rs for our state's future
are: Rethink, Restructure and Reform.
RETHINK is a complete reassessment of how we're delivering
education to empower parents, children and teachers, and to embrace new
tools like digital learning. RESTRUCTURE involves a transformation of
Oklahoma's State Department of Education.
I'll focus more on the third `R'--REFORM--because it is the primary
reason I am here today.
We're now at the halfway point in our State Legislature's annual
legislative session, and significant progress has been made on a number
of reform bills.
It appears we will implement a grading system for schools and
school districts--an annual A through F report card just like students
receive, so that parents can determine how a school is performing
without having to interpret obscure or confusing metrics.
We will also likely end social promotion after the third grade--so
students aren't entering their most critical learning years unprepared.
And I am urging passage of legislation enacting tuition tax credits
in Oklahoma to offer parents more and better choices. Under the
legislation, business and individuals could qualify for tax credits for
contributions to eligible scholarship-granting organizations, and those
organizations, in turn, would offer scholarships to qualifying families
in need.
But just as we embark on legislative implementation of the 3R
Agenda, we are mindful of potential obstacles if the federal government
is too inflexible. I am also hopeful that, while policymakers debate
the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, reformers will follow the
lead of states like Oklahoma.
A few examples.
Under the current implementation of No Child Left Behind, the
Adequate Yearly Progress yardstick evaluation is rudimentary and does
not provide meaningful information to parents. But most importantly, it
does not recognize the ultimate goal of college and career ready status
for all students facing the 21st century workplace. By contrast,
Oklahoma's new A through F school report card system will offer easy-
to-understand results for parents, and it is based on a number of
different measurements that incorporate gains and improvement.
Another example: As Oklahoma seeks to end social promotion after
the 3rd grade, many districts would like to fund portions of this
effort with federal funds. But it appears this would not be possible
currently because of federal restrictions on supplementing versus
supplanting. This demonstrates the ways in which entrenched federal
guidelines present some barriers to innovative state policies.
On the one hand, the U.S. Department of Education has issued
guidelines that on the surface seem to offer states more flexibility to
meet local needs. But there seems to be a disconnect between good
intentions at the top level and what actually occurs in practice.
And let's consider the simple reform of tuition tax credits.
Federal law offers parents in low-performing schools the opportunity to
transfer to another public school. This isn't true choice. Oklahoma's
reforms will offer parents an array of more choices--rather than only
the option of transferring from one public school to another. I urge
reforms that follow this same pathway by incentivizing states to
provide an array of options for students.
As all participating states prepare to transition to Common Core
curriculum standards, more flexibility is also needed in the use of
federal funds for professional development that would support effective
instructional practices. Additionally, broadening the scope of the
designation of Title programs to include a wider array of subject
matter, such as STEM initiatives, would help enable states to offer a
more challenging curriculum.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, the bottom
line is this: we can turn our crisis in Oklahoma into an opportunity,
but only if we are prepared to embrace the kinds of bold reforms that
fundamentally transform our education system for the better--and only
if the federal government is prepared to work with states like ours to
allow the flexibility we need in order to innovate.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Amoroso, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. GARY AMOROSO, SUPERINTENDENT, LAKEVILLE AREA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Amoroso. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and
members of the committee, it is my honor to testify today. And
I am reporting from a public school administrator's
perspective. My name is Gary Amoroso, and I currently serve as
the superintendent of the tenth largest school district in
Minnesota, the Lakeville Area Public Schools, home of Chairman
Kline.
We are a district of 11,048 students located about 25 miles
south of the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. I speak
to you from my 34 years as an educator, which include 27 years
as a school administrator. I am here to testify about the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind legislation and
present personal insights and local impact. Before I begin,
however, I would like to make my beliefs about education
perfectly clear.
I believe in accountability. And I believe in opportunities
for all students to achieve academic success. I have dedicated
my career to this mission. And the testimony I bring to you
today comes directly from my life's passion.
From an assessment standpoint, the most troubling aspect of
the current system is its dependence on a single standardized
assessment to determine a school's adequate yearly progress.
The goal of increasing the overall number of students
proficient in reading and mathematics is certainly admirable.
Further, the subsequent culture of accountability has resulted
in greater attention to individual student needs.
However, the use of a single summative test as an indicator
of a school's progress misses the underlying intent of the law.
By focusing on proficiency, schools that implement innovative
changes in delivery models or research-based strategies to meet
individual needs often go unrewarded.
In one of our Lakeville schools, for example, math
instruction was restructured through additional staff time and
professional development to meet the needs of struggling ELL
students and resulted in significant achievement gains. Under
the current accountability model, the school retains the label
of a failing school and was unable to continue this program due
to funding restrictions. Reauthorization to recognize the fact
that education is not simply about getting 100 percent of our
students over an artificial bar.
The latest research in assessment suggests its purpose is
to not simply offer a summative indication of what has been
learned. It is to provide an understanding of what is yet to be
learned and how to best go about learning it. This is an
important distinction.
The accountability model should reflect that purpose,
shifting from summative measures to growth-based assessments
that identify student needs, set individual growth goals and
track progress towards those goals. We have implemented these
measures locally, and our students have made remarkable
progress. Again, let me stress the importance of success in
learning for all students.
From a funding standpoint, the current system of sanctions
for Title I schools has been especially frustrating. It has
resulted in a diversion of dollars from individual student
assistance programming to mandatory set-asides that are often
unused. This eliminates any flexibility that districts may have
to use the funds.
For example, over the past 2 years, three of our elementary
schools have been placed on the in need of improvement list,
resulting in mandatory set-asides. Over those 2 years, 1,722
students have had the option to transfer to another school.
Only one student opted to do so and declined the right to
receive funded transportation.
As a result, a substantial portion of the funding was
unused for its original intent of providing additional academic
support. I do not believe this is in the best interest of our
students.
In the absence of set-asides, school districts could better
meet the individual needs of students through innovative
programming such as a responsed innovation program, curriculum-
based formative assessments and professional learning
communities. These programs provide a means to identify student
needs and most advantageous approach to meeting these needs,
but come at an expense.
In Lakeville, these programs have been implemented at three
schools only through grant funding. I say with all certainty
that students in Lakeville would benefit if we had the
flexibility to fund these programs.
Reauthorization to revisit the system of sanctions based on
proficiency to allow districts to focus on student-centered
needs and to make allocation decisions free of mandatory set-
asides. This, in effect, offers local control to educators to
make decisions, which truly allows all students to succeed.
I do understand and appreciate the time constraints of the
committee in making modifications to the law. I respectfully
request you to seriously consider that schools need a
reauthorization relief now. I am very appreciative of this
opportunity to provide testimony to the committee and for its
willingness to reconsider improvements in the No Child Left
Behind legislation.
I will consider it a privilege to respond to any question
that you may have. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Amoroso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Gary M. Amoroso, Superintendent,
Lakeville Area Public Schools
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the Committee:
It is my honor to testify today and I am reporting from a public school
administrator's perspective.
My name is Gary Amoroso and I currently serve as the superintendent
of the tenth largest school district in Minnesota, the Lakeville Area
Public Schools, home of Chairman Kline. We are a district of 11,048
students located about 25 miles south of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis
and St Paul. I speak to you from my 34 years as an educator, which
include 27 years as a school administrator.
I am here to provide testimony about the reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Legislation and present personal insights about local
impact. Before I begin, however, I would like to make by beliefs about
education perfectly clear--I believe in accountability and I believe in
opportunities for all students to achieve academic success. I have
dedicated my career to this mission and the testimony I bring to you
today comes directly from my life's passion.
From an assessment standpoint, the most troubling aspect of the
current system is its dependence on a single standardized assessment to
determine a school's adequate yearly progress. The goal of increasing
the overall number of students proficient in Reading and Mathematics is
certainly admirable. Further, the subsequent culture of accountability
has resulted in greater attention to individual student needs. However,
the use of a single summative test as an indication of a school's
``progress'' misses the underlying intent of the law.
So by focusing solely on proficiency, schools that implement
innovative changes in delivery models or researched based strategies to
meet individual needs often go unrewarded. In one Lakeville school, for
example, math instruction was restructured through additional staff
time and professional development to meet the needs of struggling ELL
students and resulted in significant gains in achievement. Under the
current accountability model, the school retained the label of a
failing school and was unable to continue this program due to funding
restrictions.
Reauthorization should recognize the fact that education is not
simply about getting 100% of students over an artificial bar. The
latest research in assessment suggests its purpose is not to simply
offer a summative indication of what was learned but to provide an
understanding of what is yet to be learned and how to best go about
learning it. This is an important distinction. The accountability model
should reflect that purpose, shifting from summative measures to
growth-based assessments that identify student needs, set individual
growth goals, and track progress towards those goals. We have
implemented these measures locally and our students have made
remarkable progress. Again, let me stress the importance of success in
learning for ALL students.
From a funding standpoint, the current system of sanctions for
Title-I schools has been especially frustrating. It has resulted in a
diversion of dollars from individual student-assistance programming to
mandatory set-asides that are often unused. This eliminates any
flexibility that districts may have to use the funds.
For example, over the past two years, 3 elementary schools have
been placed on the ``In Need of Improvement'' list resulting in a
mandatory set-aside. Over these two years, 1722 students have had the
option to transfer to another school. Only one student opted to do so
and declined the right to receive funded transportation. As a result, a
substantial portion of the funding was unused for its original intent
of providing additional academic support. I do not believe this is
serving the best interest of our students.
In the absence of set-asides, school districts could better meet
the individual needs of students through innovative programming such as
the Response to Intervention approach, curriculum-based formative
assessments, and professional learning communities. These programs
provide a means to identify student needs and the most advantageous
approach to meet these needs, but come at significant expense. In
Lakeville, these programs have been implemented at three schools only
though grant funding. I say with certainty that ALL students in
Lakeville would benefit if we had the flexibility in funding to provide
these programs.
Reauthorization should revisit the system of sanctions based on
proficiency to allow districts to focus on student-centered needs and
to make allocation decisions free of mandatory set-asides. This, in
effect, offers local control to educators to make decisions, which
truly allow all students to succeed. I do understand and appreciate the
time constraints of the Committee in making modifications to the law. I
respectfully request you to seriously consider that schools need
reauthorization relief now.
I am very appreciative of this opportunity to provide testimony to
the Committee and for its willingness to consider improvements in the
No Child Left Behind Legislation. I will consider it a privilege to
respond to any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mr. Maqubela, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF YOHANCE MAQUBELA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, HOWARD
UNIVERSITY MIDDLE SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE
Mr. Maqubela. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
Miller, members of the committee and invited guests. My name is
Yohance Maqubela, and I am the chief operating officer of the
Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and Science,
affectionately known as MS-2, a fully authorized District of
Columbia public charter school serving grade sixth through
eighth.
As many of us are aware or who have seen the documentary,
``Waiting for Superman,'' when compared against the other 50
states, students in the District of Columbia face enormous
challenges. I am here today to speak a little bit about the
possibilities that exist when we give schools and school
systems greater flexibility and what more could be done if we
were to go even further.
The primary principle underpinning MS-2s foundation is the
belief that all students should have a truly equal opportunity,
not just to any education, but to a top-flight, phenomenal
education, regardless of their individual life circumstances.
Through the flexibility provided to us through our charter
legislation, we have been able to create a truly unique
educational model for our student population that takes into
account and addresses these specific circumstances without
compromising our commitment to the highest levels of academic
excellence.
So what is this program, and how do we use our flexibility
to make it truly innovative? First and foremost is our
partnership with a major research university. In creating our
school, its founder, Dr. Hassan Minor, drew on all of the
collective intellectual capital of the Howard University
community to ensure that no design element was overlooked. In
practice, this forward-thinking model translates into a
synergistic relationship where over 50 university graduate and
undergraduate students work in our classrooms as student
interns.
Despite the fact that our academic program is extremely
rigorous, nearly two-thirds of our students come to us in the
sixth grade performing, not just slightly below grade level,
but woefully below grade level with many of them literally
coming to us as beginning readers. To correct this, the
traditional 6-hour day, 5 days a week, 180 days of the year is
terribly insufficient. Since we are own our local education
agency, we have the power to create a truly dynamic program
that includes a longer school day, Saturday academy as well as
summer academy.
Our longer school day includes a mandatory extended day
component where we operate our stem connections program. This
engages our students in practical applications of the various
scholarly disciplines they study through the course of the
regular day. University graduate and undergraduate students and
professors, along with professionals from the community at
large, come in and teach courses such as engineering design and
technology, architecture, robotics, nanotechnology, digital
media, aerospace engineering and computer science, just to name
a few.
Our stem connection program was so impressive that recently
our school received major funding from Google to build a state-
of-the-art computer automated design and manufacture laboratory
patterned after the renowned MIT fab lab. Trust me when I tell
you that the details of our success are far too many to list in
the time allotted to me here. However, as a brief example, I
submit the following.
For the past 3 years, MS-2 has received the most awards and
honors in the D.C. city-wide science fair, including this past
Saturday where five of our six participants placed. For the
past 2 years, MS-2 students have won the D.C. city-wide
spelling bee and have gone on to represent the District of
Columbia in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. For the past 3
years, MS-2 students have won the regional Sprint solar car
competition and have placed in the national finals for this
competition. And for the past 2 years, MS-2 has been the only
D.C. public or public charter school team to make it to the
state finals for the middle school math counts competition.
In fact, in 2006, when visited by the then director of the
National Science Foundation, Dr. Arden Bennett, he was so
impressed with our model that he tasked his media department to
create a documentary film featuring the school's program.
Clearly, no singular model is the answer to fixing our nation's
entire educational crisis. However, I hesitate to think where
our program would be if we did not have the flexibility
permitted.
Most likely, it would mean that we would not have Ms.
Kimberly Worthy, an uncertified, yet highly qualified teacher,
who was D.C.'s first state teacher of the year from a charter
school. Nor would we be able to have Mr. Wesley Ellis as chair
of our social studies department. While only in his third year
of the profession, Mr. Ellis is such a phenomenal teacher, that
when three members of the executive council of the Boeing
Company visited his classroom last year, he was invited to
attend space camp, even though such invitations were previously
restricted to math and science teachers exclusively.
While we have clearly been able to demonstrate our success,
even in the current environment, we feel that with changes, we
could go even further, as we are still hampered by the
deficiencies inherent in the No Child Left Behind legislation
as it currently exists.
In its current form, the use of the--as a sole measure of
advancement of determining whether a school is failing or not,
the use of adequate yearly progress is simply insufficient when
taking into account that many charter schools and other school
systems start, not in elementary school, but in middle school
to be able to amend problems that have existed over 6 years.
And to try to amend those in only 7 months is way off mark.
Middle schools and other schools that start after
elementary should be granted adequate time to truly work with
their new students before judging the effectiveness of their
programs. Also, the desire to see schools test high in math and
reading comes at the detriment of other vital subject areas.
Students from the truly best schools can do more than read and
perform math on grade level. They are well-rounded human
beings. And changes to the legislation need to reflect that.
Finally, millions of students across this country are
currently being unintentionally shortchanged by adults who
believe they are part of the solution. This is because the
national conversation around urban educational reform is
centered upon fixing the lowest standard as opposed to
attaining the highest standard. In the global arena which our
children live and will compete, it is not enough just to be on
grade level. Our children must master their studies. And the
only way to guarantee this is to ensure that all students are
instructed by properly skilled professionals who believe in
their students' greatness.
At its core, MS-2 was founded out of commitment to service.
And in deciding to expand upon its nearly 150-year legacy and
do its part to improve the K-12 education, Howard University
invoked a gold standard. And in the short period of time, MS-2
has proven that with the proper flexibility and proper support,
anything is possible.
Thank you for your time. And I will be happy to answer any
of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Maqubela follows:]
Prepared Statement of Yohance C. Maqubela, Chief Operating Officer,
Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and Science
Good morning Chairman Kline, members of the Committee and invited
guests. My name is Yohance Maqubela, and I am the Chief Operating
Officer for the Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and
Science (MS)2, a fully authorized District of Columbia public charter
school serving grades 6 through 8.
In the prestigious tradition of Howard University, (MS)2 provides
an educational experience of exceptional quality for a diverse middle
school student population with high academic potential. Located
directly on Howard University's main campus, as a non-selective school,
(MS)2 opens its doors to students regardless of their past academic
performance, social-economic condition, race or ethnicity, or learning
style. Through an educational model that is student-centered and
inquiry-based, (MS)2 creates an environment that is engaging,
nurturing, fun, and safe for the academic risk-taking needed to master
rigorous scholarly disciplines.
The primary principle underpinning (MS)2's foundation is the belief
that all students should have a truly equal opportunity, not just to
any education, but to a top-flight education, regardless of the various
factors that have shaped their lives. Through the flexibility provided
in charter school legislation, we have been able to create a truly
unique educational model for our student population that takes into
account and addresses the specific circumstances that have shaped their
lives, without compromising our commitment to the highest levels of
academic excellence.
So, what is our program, and how do we use this flexibility to make
it truly innovative? First, and foremost, is our partnership with a
major research university. Though we are a separate legal entity from
Howard University, for all intents and purposes, we are a full part of
the Howard University family. In creating our school, its founder Dr.
Hassan Minor, a Senior Vice President at Howard University, was able to
draw on the collective intellectual capital of the University community
to ensure that no design element, academic or otherwise, was
overlooked. Input from the School of Education, College of Engineering,
Architecture, and Computer Science, and School of Social Work was used
to create a school of academic excellence where all students can
thrive. In practice, this forward-thinking model translates into a
synergistic relationship where annually, over 50 Howard University
graduate and undergraduate students work in our school as interns,
ensuring that each of our teachers has at least one part-time teaching
assistant who is either an education major or is pursing a degree in
the same subject as the class in which he or she works. Moreover, (MS)2
students have the ability to personally interact with university
students, faculty, and staff on a daily basis, all while being educated
on an elite college campus.
On such a campus, our students have the added benefit of being able
to participate in the many special events, lectures, and visits of
distinguished guests. All of this goes into creating middle school
students who are not only educated for success, but also confident in
interacting with those who have attained success and stature.
Possibly the greatest demonstration of the flexibility created by
the charter model is the fact that we are our own Local Education
Agency (LEA). As such, the power to create the most dynamic academic
program for our specific student population, and adjust it at any point
in time as deemed necessary, rests in the hands of those who are best
equipped: the faculty. Despite the fact that incoming students are not
required to demonstrate past academic success, or a particular degree
of scholarly aptitude to gain admission, the academic program is
extremely rigorous, and designed to prepare middle school students for
the highest levels of success in high school, college, and their varied
professional pursuits. However, with nearly two thirds of our students
coming to us performing woefully below grade level in the core academic
areas, it is clear that the traditional six-hour day, five days a week,
180 days of the year is terribly insufficient. Thus, our program
contains a longer school day, which affords two additional academic
periods per day, a Saturday Academy, and a Summer Academy. Further, we
provide every student and every teacher with the most appropriate
resources, including a plethora of school-based instructional
technology and a two-to-one computer-to-student ratio that puts a
computer in every student's home allowing access to an online version
of his or her specific academic program.
Our longer school day includes a mandatory component where we
operate our S.T.E.M.-Connections Program. Through this program our
students engage in practical applications of the various scholarly
disciplines that they study throughout the course of the traditional
day. University graduate students and professors, along with
professionals from the community at large teach such courses as
Engineering Design and Technology, Nanotechnology, Architecture,
Robotics, Digital Media, Aerospace Engineering, and Computer science,
just to name a few. Our S.T.E.M.-Connections program is so impressive
that recently our school received major funding from Google to build a
state-of-the-art Computer Automated Design and Manufacture Lab,
patterned after the renown M.I.T. Fab Lab.
Trust me when I tell you that the details of our success are far
too many to list in the time allotted to me today. However, as a brief
sample I submit the following: for three years (MS)2 has received the
most awards and honors in the D.C. Citywide Science Fair, including
this past Saturday, 2 April 2011, five of our six participants winning
awards; for the past two years an (MS)2 student has won the D.C.
Citywide Spelling Bee and gone on to represent the District in the
Scripts National Spelling Bee; for the past three years (MS)2 has won
the Regional Sprint Solar Car Competition and gone on to place in the
National Finals; and for the past two years (MS)2 has been the only
public or public charter school team to make it to the State Finals for
the middle school MATHCOUNTS competition. In short, over the past four
years, no other public or public charter school has been as awarded in
competitions on a regional or national basis. In fact, in 2006, when
then Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Arden Bement, Jr.
visited our school, he was so impressed that he tasked his media staff
to create a documentary film (which was completed last year) about the
school highlighting our program as a national model of how to best use
technology in the instruction of mathematics and science.
In addition to attending a school with an excellent academic
program, in order for students from this nation's most impoverished
urban areas to attain the highest levels of success in school and in
their future professional lives, it is important that they see and
interact with individuals who have already attained the most advanced
levels of the excellence that they aspire to. To this end, it is part
of (MS)2's model to provide opportunities where our students can
regularly meet, hear from, and interact with the dynamic people who
shape the world around them. Individuals such as US Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan, his British counterpart Education Secretary
Michael Gove, radio personality Mr. Tom Joyner, Chemistry and Physics
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaver, acclaimed actress Ms. Cicely Tyson, and
Chairman of Citigroup Mr. Richard Parsons, are just a few of the movers
and shakers who have visited our school.
Clearly, no singular model is the answer to fixing our nation's
entire educational crisis. However, I am hesitant to think of where our
program would be if it were not for the flexibility permitted. I am
sure that it would mean that we would not have Ms. Kimberly Worthy, an
uncertified yet Highly Qualified teacher who was D.C.'s first State
Teacher of the Year from a charter school. Nor would we be able to have
Mr. Wesley Ellis as Chair of our Social Studies Department. While only
in his third year of the profession, Mr. Ellis is such an outstanding
teacher that when three members of the Executive Council from the
Boeing Company visited his class last year, he was invited to attend
Space Camp even though such invitations were previously reserved
exclusively for math and science teachers. Again, these are just two
further examples, from a nearly endless list, of how such flexibility
has allowed our school to shine.
In regard to the No Child Left Behind legislation, in its current
form it is flawed in its sole use of `adequate yearly progress' (as it
is presently defined) to determine whether or not a school system is
failing. When taking into account that many charter school Local
Education Agencies do not start in elementary school, but rather, like
us, begin to receive their students in middle school, or high school,
it is not reasonable to require that all students can be completely
remediated in the seven prior to their assessment. In fact, how can a
school be judged on annual progress in the first year that a student
enrolls? Rather, a school should be assessed on how much its students
grow over the course of the year. Secondly, the desire to see schools
test high in math and reading comes at the detriment of so many other
vital subject areas. Students from the truly best schools can do more
than read and perform math on grade level. They are well-rounded and
well-versed in all of the disciplines. Changes to NCLB need to be
reflective of this. Finally, millions of students across this country
are unintentionally shortchanged by the adults who believe they are
part of the solution. This is because the national conversation around
urban educational reform is centered upon fixing the lowest standard
and not attaining the highest standard. In the global arena in which
our children live and compete, it is not enough just to be on grade
level. Our children must command their studies. The only way to
guarantee this is to ensure that all students are being instructed
properly skilled professionals who believe in their greatness.
At its core, (MS)2 was founded out of a commitment to service. For
nearly 150 years Howard University has been serving some of this
nation. This service has not been delivered at some substandard or
mediocre level, but rather, at a high standard of excellence. So in
deciding to do its part in improving K-12 education, Howard invoked the
Gold Standard. And in a short period of time, the Howard University
Middle School of Mathematics and Science has established itself as a
leading institution on the national landscape of public education.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Grier, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY GRIER, SUPERINTENDENT HOUSTON
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Grier. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Congressman Miller
and members of the committee.
And a special good morning to Susan Davis, who we used to
work together when I was superintendent in San Diego.
I am Terry Grier, superintendent of the Houston Independent
School District in Houston, Texas. I represent a school board
and 203,000 students. We are the nation's seventh largest
school system and the largest school system in Texas.
Having served as superintendent for multiple districts, I
have seen firsthand wonderful accomplishments the hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal education grants have supported
and how many children have benefited from this important
financial aid. The traditional focus of federal education aid
on disadvantaged, minority, students with disability and
language minority students remains the appropriate federal
priority. And I strongly agree with the attention directed to
their disaggregated academic performance and the admirable task
of closing the achievement gap.
Supporting and improving instruction and placing a quality
teacher in every classroom and an outstanding principal in
every school are the key to educational reform. And while there
is no one best way to accomplish it, I would like to spend a
few moments of your time to tell you what we are doing in
Houston.
Our work, however, is impeded by various state and federal
barriers that compromise our efforts. A major strategy in our
district strategic direction is to transform our system and
culture in our lowest performing schools, what we are calling
the Apollo 20 Project.
We began implementing Apollo 20 in nine secondary schools
that the Texas Education Agency labeled as either failing or
unacceptable this school year. An additional 11 struggling
elementary schools will be added during the coming school year.
The Apollo 20 Project is one of the most ground-breaking
and comprehensive school turnaround projects happening in this
country today. The turnaround strategy for this project is
based on extensive research of successful charter schools
conducted by Dr. Roland Fryer, a Harvard University professor
and the director of Ed Labs.
Dr. Fryer identified the following five strategies that
were being used in these successful charters: human capital,
quality principal in each school, effective teacher in each
classroom, more instructional time, a longer school day, a
longer school year, a cultural of high expectations and no
excuses, high dosage tutoring and data-driven accountability.
In these nine schools last year, we replaced all the principals
and assistant principals in these schools.
We required all the teachers to reapply for their jobs,
replacing in some schools as many as 70 percent of the
teachers. We added an hour to the school day, 2 weeks to the
school year. We have been very clear that in 3 years, we expect
no dropouts, 100 percent graduation and 100 percent of the
seniors attending college.
Now, we are just finishing our first year in this program.
And I am very pleased to tell you that in these four high
schools, 100 percent of the mainstream students--and these are
students not including all special ed students--have been
accepted to either a 2-or 4-year college.
High-dosage tutoring, one tutor per two students--and these
are tutoring positions that we created with the help of match
charters out of Boston. We recruited the tutors. They come from
all over the country to help tutor our students.
We are also heavily engaged with a new teacher project out
of New York and working to transform our entire human capital
efforts in the Houston Independent School District, how we
recruit and hire our teachers and principals, how we hold them
accountable and evaluate their performance. We have just
completed working with over 1,000 of our teachers to involve
them in developing a new teacher appraisal instrument where
approximately half of that instrument will be tied to student
academic performance. We believe it important to involve our
employees as we improve our schools.
We strongly believe in implementing innovative strategies
to transform our school system. But we believe and know that we
must have the flexibility needed to be innovative and effective
in raising student academic performance. And certainly, the
Federal Government has a central role in facilitating high
goals and performance standards and holding states and
districts accountable for results with all students.
If the reforms that states and districts are choosing to
implement over time are not working, they must be held
accountable through transparent reporting of student
performance by sub-groups without statistical gimmicks that
allow certain schools to avoid responsibility for their student
outcomes. Now, we have a number of barriers, and I am going to
just touch on one or two at the federal level and again at the
state level.
The biggest issue for us, one of, certainly, the biggest
ones is our Title I, ESEA Title I program. Fifty-six percent of
those funds have been designated as set-asides. I certainly
recognize and realize there ought to be set-asides for
important areas like parental involvement. I have no problem
with that. But 56 percent of these funds being earmarked really
ties our hands at the local level.
Another big issue is supplemental educational services.
School districts like ours that have such a wonderfully
designed tutorial program that we designed ourselves is being
affected. We cannot be a supplemental educational provider
because of constraints of federal and state law. That just
simply has to change.
We have SES providers in our school district that are
giving children cell phones and tutoring them over cell phones
and charging $90 an hour with absolute no indication anywhere
that those efforts are working. We also have a number of state
barriers that I won't go into, but would be glad to answer
because of time during the questioning period.
I can tell you that we in Houston are up to the task of
reforming our schools. We have a courageous school board. We
have willing teachers that want to be involved in solving these
deviling problems. We have to have some relief from these
mandates, both at the federal and the state level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Grier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Terry B. Grier, Superintendent,
Houston Independent School District
Good morning, Chairman Kline, Congressman Miller, and members of
the Committee. I am Terry Grier, superintendent of the Houston
Independent School District in Houston, Texas. I represent the School
Board and 203,000 students. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the educational reform initiative that we have undertaken in Houston
and the impact of federal law and federal programs which both support,
and at times, complicate those efforts.
Having served as superintendent for multiple districts, I have seen
firsthand wonderful accomplishments the hundreds of millions of dollars
in federal education grants have supported and how many children have
benefited from this important financial aid. The traditional focus of
federal education aid on disadvantaged, minority, students with
disabilities, and language minority students remains the appropriate
federal priority, and I strongly agree with the attention directed to
their disaggregated academic performance and closing achievement gaps.
Supporting and improving instruction is the key to educational reform.
And, while there is no one best way to accomplish it, I would like
to spend a few moments of your time to tell you what we are doing in
Houston. Our work, however, is impeded by various state and federal
barriers that compromise our efforts and impact our most vulnerable
children.
A major strategy in our district's Strategic Direction is to
transform our systems and culture in our lowest-performing schools
through what we are calling Apollo 20. We began implementing Apollo 20
in nine secondary schools that the Texas Education Agency labeled as
either ``failing'' or ``unacceptable'' this school year. An additional
11 struggling elementary schools will be added during the 2011-2012
school year.
The Apollo 20 project is one of the most ground-breaking
and comprehensive school turn-around projects happening in the country.
The turn-around strategy for the Apollo 20 project is based on
extensive research of successful charter schools conducted by Dr.
Roland Fryer, a Harvard University professor and the director of
EdLabs. Dr. Fryer identified the following five strategies that were
being used in one or more successful charter schools:
Human Capital--Quality Principals and Effective Teachers
More Instructional Time--Longer School Day and Extended
Instructional Calendar
Culture of High Expectations and No Excuses
High Dosage Tutoring
Data-Driven Accountability
We strongly believe in implementing innovative strategies
to transform our school system, and we must have the flexibility needed
to be innovative and effective in raising student achievement.
Innovation is appropriate only if it is framed by the goal of improving
student outcomes.
The Federal government has an essential role in
facilitating high goals and performance standards and holding States
and districts accountable for results with all students. If the reforms
that states and districts are choosing to implement over time are not
working, they must be held accountable through transparent reporting of
student performance by subgroup without statistical gimmicks that allow
certain schools to avoid responsibility for their student outcomes.
At the local level, we face barriers to implementing instructional
reforms and innovations from multiple sources. We refuse to use these
barriers as excuses, but any effort to remove or mitigate unnecessary
or unproductive requirements in a worthy task.
Federal Barriers
Designing and implementing instructional activities under federal
programs is complicated by a myriad of requirements and statutory set-
asides, as well as reservations of funds for particular activities.
ESEA Title I provides the most striking example with the No Child Left
Behind statutory set-asides totaling some 56% of the funds depending on
how you add them up [1% for state administration, 1% for parental
involvement, 4% for state-determined school improvement, 10% for
professional development for school improvement status, 10% for
professional development for district improvement status, 20% for SES
and school transfers, 5% for non-qualified teacher professional
development, and 5% at state discretion for recognition and rewards.] I
might note that the modest flexibility built into the No Child Left
Behind Act regarding the 20% set-aside was purposefully regulated out
of existence under the previous administration, and during the past two
years, the current administration has been unwilling to modify that
over-regulation. With such a large proportion of statutorily-directed
spending since 2001, instructional decision-making at the district and
school level for Title I has been exceptionally challenging. Over the
years, the amount of school level Title I allocations have been
decreasing as more of the set-aside funding has been triggered.
More importantly, evaluations of the implementation of the SES set-
aside requirement has demonstrated minimal results at best, yet the
expenditure requirement lives on without the type of evidence of
effectiveness that we can document in our supplementary programs.
Districts should retain flexibility in the appropriate use of these
funds, including some discretion to use those funds to provide tutoring
to students who are performing behind as compared to their grade-level
peers during the school day, rather than paying for after school
tutoring to external providers whose effectiveness is unknown. In
addition, there should be flexibility in using those funds to lengthen
the regular instructional day and school calendar to provide students
in struggling schools increased time for learning. In-school tutoring
and more instructional time are two researched-based effective
strategies that are often implemented in charter schools, yet are not
implemented in traditional public schools. We must be bold and creative
in adopting and infusing best practices, and have the flexibility to
use targeted Title I funds for their implementation, rather than
relying on external providers for that support.
Though every superintendent that I know complains about federal
requirements and the lack of flexibility to best utilize federal funds,
it is important to note that some of the categorical grant requirements
meet their desired result. For example, the Education Stabilization
Fund under the Stimulus Act has few federal requirements, and as a
result, a number of states cut their own state education funding
further than necessary, and simply replaced it with Stimulus
Stabilization Funds. Local school districts, therefore, received little
value-added funds in the states that gamed the system. Texas,
unfortunately, was one of those states which cut our state education
aid, while simultaneously taking the Stabilization Funds and increasing
the State's Rainy Day fund. Texas, however, was unable to ``offset''
the Stimulus Title I funds due to the categorical requirements that
accompanied those programs.
This experience suggests that at proper balance of requirements and
flexibility needs to be crafted in any reauthorization. But, there are
certainly many of the 588 requirements in just Title I Part A,
identified by the Department of Education's Inspector General in a
March 2006 report, could be deleted without damaging the purposes and
benefits of the program.
State Barriers
Federal requirements are not the only barrier to local
instructional flexibility and innovation. The state departments of
education impose multiple additional requirements on federal programs--
sometimes for state policy purposes and sometimes to shield themselves
from federal program and audit questions. For example, the California
Department of Education refused to allow my district to use our Title I
Stimulus Funds to maintain reasonable class sizes in certain key Title
I schools in the midst of massive state budget cuts. Frankly, I believe
that my local academic team is much more qualified to make those
instructional judgments than state program officers.
Even the flexibility intended in current federal law is at times
restricted by the state agencies. States often require categorical
reporting of activities and funds in Title I schoolwide programs, even
though the Act allows the commingling of these federal, state and local
funds. This type of reasonable coordination and integration among a
variety of funding sources and school level and district level plans is
a worthy consideration during the reauthorization of ESEA.
Since I am currently in the middle of cutting up to $324 million
out of our $1.5 billion local budget, my concerns with state level
inflexibility is probably heightened. For example, the state currently
requires approval from the Commissioner of Education for a waiver to
begin school early. Some of the most successful schools, including
charter schools, such as Harlem Children's Zone and MATCH Schools in
Boston have a longer school year.
We recognize that there is no silver bullet to transforming public
education. At the same time, we must be use research-based and data-
driven evidence to drive innovative transformational efforts to meeting
the unique needs of every one of our students. The Houston Independent
School District is committed to leading the way in closing the
achievement gap and ensuring all of our students are prepared for
college and careers. To do this requires more local freedom from
current state and federal laws, regulations and guidelines with
increased accountability for results at all levels.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
______
[Supplemental material submitted by Dr. Grier follows:]
Supplemental Information Submitted to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce
School Meal Standards
There is strong research that when students have a healthy
breakfast, they have increased student academic performance. Food is a
basic need, and we must do all that we can as stewards of the public to
ensure that our students start their day off with a healthy meal.
That is why I advocated for and received strong support from our
Board of Education to implement a Breakfast in the Classroom program.
In just the last two years this program has been expanded to serve
students in 217 of our schools. Through Breakfast in the Classroom, we
serve 102,360 meals a day. This school year alone will have served more
than 18million breakfasts to HISD students.
In addition, through our 2007 Bond Program, the Houston community
invested in the building of a food service preparation and storage
facility. HISD prepares school breakfasts and lunches in this facility
and delivers prepared, nutritional meals to our school. Last year, HISD
serves more than 42 million meals. This year, we anticipate serving
nearly 48 million.
Our district has seen a slight increase in the number of students
who qualify for free or reduced meals. The chart below is reflective of
the increase, with a larger increase in those students who qualify for
free meals under the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program.
STUDENTS QUALIFIED FOR FREE/REDUCED MEALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Reduced Total F/R
Month/Year eligible % eligible % eligible %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr-11.................................. 148684 74.01% 13426 6.68% 162110 80.69%
Apr-10.................................. 142980 71.57% 16199 8.11% 159179 79.68%
Apr-09.................................. 136198 68.91% 18101 9.16% 154299 78.07%
Apr-08.................................. 134431 68.53% 19455 9.92% 153886 78.45%
Apr-07.................................. 136902 69.01% 19327 9.74% 156229 78.76%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA has proposed changes to Nutrition Standards in the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. While we are certainly in
favor of increasing nutrition for our students, we are concerned about
the lack of funding to do so.
To implement the new standards, Congress has approved an additional
$0.06 per lunch served starting in October 2012. Our concern? We
anticipate the cost of milk alone will increase by $0.06 per lunch
going into next year. The effect? Food costs will have already outpaced
the proposed reimbursement increases going into the 2012-13 school
year.
In addition to rising costs of milk and other food items, here is
our estimated cost to meet USDA's proposed nutrition standards:
Here is our estimated cost to meet proposed USDA proposed nutrition
standards:
Increased cost to breakfast meals: $467,000
1. Increased daily portions of fruit ($270,570)
2. Increased daily portions of grains ($9,082)
3. Increased daily portions of meat and other protein sources
($187,677)
Increased cost to lunch meals: $783,000
1. Increased daily portions of fruit and vegetables ($315,418)
2. Increased daily portions of grains ($67,912)
3. Increased daily portions of meat and other protein sources
($399,670)
Additional cost of training hours for kitchen employees:
$400,000
1. Change from ``Nutrient Standard'' to ``Food-Based'' menu
planning requires different procedures in meal preparation, serving,
and accounting at cash register
Total estimated cost: $1,650,000
From our analysis believe HISD will have at least a $1.65M gap
between revenue and cost as a result of USDA's proposed rules.
While we are strong advocates for providing children with
nutritious meals, we recognize that increased nutritional standards and
rising food costs place an increased financial responsibility on school
districts. In these times of federal, state and local budget
constraints, we cannot afford to have additional unfunded mandates.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
1. Houston ISD received in IDEA-B ARRA entitlement $ 43,556,473
(Formula: $42,452,708; Preschool: $1,103,765). In addition to
allocating funds to cover personnel and contracted services costs, the
following items with corresponding costs were purchased:
Districtwide special education data management system to
provide a comprehensive, web-based online tool to develop
Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for students with disabilities.
This system is integrated with the student information and personnel
information systems ($1.5 million).
Increased and improved access to technology with new
computer workstations for students with disabilities. The Universally
Designed for Learning (UDL) workstations align directly with
recommendations made in a review of the district's Special Education
Program ($3.5 million).
Districtwide access to Kurzweil 3000(tm), a comprehensive
reading, writing and learning software for struggling readers including
individuals with learning difficulties such as dyslexia, attention
deficit disorder or those who are English language learners. In
addition, Kurzweil 3000(tm) supports the principles of UDL enabling
students of all abilities to engage with digital text ($320,000).
Districtwide computers and wireless mobile carts for use
by students with disabilities in all classroom settings ($3.3 million).
Supplementary reading and mathematics materials that
support the district's literacy and numeracy plans ($2.7 Million).
Technology, software and hardware to enhance services for
students with disabilities ages 3-5 ($1 million).
Assistive technology and augmentative communication
systems such as FM systems ($270,000).
Test kits and protocols to evaluate and identify students
with disabilities ($600,000).
Extended school year services for students with
disabilities based on IEPs ($2.4 million).
These expenditures provide access to the district's curriculum to
students with disabilities so that they can be ready for college and
careers of their choice.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND MEETINGS
State legislation in Texas places increased accountability
on local school districts beyond the federal legislation and guidelines
for serving special education students.
The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 requires
public schools to provide free appropriate public education in the
least restrictive environment to students with disabilities ages 3-21.
There are extensive guidelines for identification, eligibility,
development of IEP, reevaluation and parental rights. Texas has
additional requirements that exceed federal law. The district is a
member of a coalition of school districts in the state that supports
proposed Paper Reduction legislation.
The state's requirements for special education exceed
federal requirements with many additional supplements such as ones for
services to students with autism, transition services, and extended
school year services. In Houston ISD, on average, a student's IEP from
start to finish (drafting, scheduling meeting, holding meeting) can
take approximately 6 hours per each member of the ARD committee and can
run up to 25-30 pages. If the student requires one of the myriad of
supplements our state requires for autism, visual impairment, extended
school year, etc. we may be looking at 40-50 pages. In the best case
scenario, this process takes place once a year. But for many of our
more severely disabled students, multiple meetings necessitating
additional time and paperwork may be warranted.
Conservatively, here are HISD's calculations:
Number of students with disabilities enrolled in 2010-
2011: 16,380
Approximate number of ARD Committee members per student
per meeting: 5
Average number of meetings per student per year: 1.3
Average hours per meeting (including document
preparation): 6
Average hours related to ARD/IEP process for the district:
16,380x3x1.3x6= 638,820 hours
This does not include paper work required for transfer students,
requests for initial evaluations, and three year reevaluations. Our
schools are drowning in paperwork and this bill, if passed, will help
reduce some of it.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Dr. Grier.
Thanks to all the witnesses.
I will now recognize my colleague, the senior Democrat on
the committee, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My apologies for
coming in late. Just sometimes in this business, you have to be
in two places at one time. I tried, but I didn't make it.
This morning's hearing is very exciting for me. It signals
to me that a majority on this committee is ready to move
forward in a meaningful way in the reauthorization of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is great news for
our nation's children and for our communities and for our
future.
We have now had a series of hearings in this session of
Congress looking at the burdens on schools. As I have said
before, we are right to look closely at the role of the Federal
Government in education. We are right to identify burdens on
states and school districts and the individual schools.
And we are right to incentivize high performance. In my
opinion, the take-away from these hearings has been that we
are--there is a growing consensus in this committee about what
a great bill might look like to help strengthen our schools.
The role of the Federal Government should be setting high
standards for all students and establishing a strong system of
accountability tied to those standards. We also need to
encourage more data and data-driven decisions made by schools.
When we have this data, then the Federal Government can step
back and give more flexibility to states and school districts.
Additionally, flexibility will lead to greater innovation
as long as the end goal is always about improving students'
outcomes. I believe high standards, strong accountability and
data-driven decision making and local flexibility to improve
student outcomes is a recipe for success in this
reauthorization.
Now we have to stop talking and act. Our students can't
afford for us to wait any longer. And I think the testimony of
this panel suggests that the districts and schools can't afford
for us to wait any longer.
Too many students in too many schools are continuing to
fail the mark and the expectations and the needs of the parents
and our communities. More than 7,000 students become dropouts
every school day in this country. This adds up to over 1
million students each year who do not graduate from high school
with their peers.
Thirty-one percent of the nation's high school students do
not graduate from high school on time with a regular diploma.
If you want to talk about job growth and economic recovery,
reauthorize ESEA. Graduate more students college and career-
ready and increase job earnings, investments, sales and tax
revenues. The list goes on and on.
These hearings have made it very clear that what our
students need to succeed isn't a mystery. Some of these
elements were in place in No Child Left Behind. But for all of
its flaws, the current law did help us see for the first time
what was happening in our schools. Now we know what is
happening, and we know we need to give schools the support and
the resources to help spur the real change that our students
need and to help improve and move our schools forward.
When I talk about supports and resources, I am not just
talking about money. I am talking about the information and the
data so that schools and parents and students and
administrators can make informed and smart decisions. We can't
look back. Instead, we need to build on what we have gotten
right and improve on what we didn't.
There is no room for partisan politics when it comes to
education. The status quo and failing our students and our
future and economic stability and our global competitiveness is
at risk. We have to take a stand as a nation that is no longer
acceptable for some students at some schools to make gains
while most students lag behind. If we don't hold our schools
accountable for all of the children in their classrooms, we
will fail our country.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, which we have
done. Excuse me. Just got a time lapse here. And I want to
thank you for your testimony. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning's hearing is very exciting for me. It signals to me
that the majority on this committee is ready to move forward in a
meaningful way with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
This is great news for our nation's children, for our communities
and for our future.
We've now had a handful of hearings in this session of Congress
looking at the burden on schools.
As I've said before, we are right to look closely at the role of
the federal government in education.
We are right to identify burdens on States and school districts,
and we are right to incentivize high performance.
In my opinion, the takeaway from these hearings has been that there
is a growing consensus in this committee about what a great bill should
look like to help strengthen our schools.
The role of the federal government should be setting high standards
for all students and establishing a strong system for accountability
tied to those standards.
We also need to encourage more data and more data-based decision
making by schools.
When we have this data, then the federal government can step back
and give more flexibility to states and school districts.
Additional flexibility will lead to greater innovation as long as
the end goal is always about improving student outcomes.
I believe high standards, strong accountability, data driven
decision making and local flexibility to improve student outcomes is
our recipe for success in this reauthorization.
Now we need to stop talking and ACT. Our students can't afford for
us to wait any longer.
Too many students in too many schools are failing.
More than 7,000 students become dropouts every school day in this
country. This adds up to over one million students each year who will
not graduate from high school with their peers; 31 percent of the
nation's high school students do not graduate from high school on time
with a regular diploma.
If you want to talk about job growth and economic recovery,
reauthorize ESEA, graduate more students college and career ready, and
increase job earnings, investments, sales, and tax revenue. The list
could go on and on.
These hearings have made it very clear that what our students need
to succeed isn't a mystery.
Some of these elements were in place in No Child Left Behind.
For all its flaws, the current law did help us see, for the first
time, what was happening in our schools.
Now that we know what is happening, we have to give schools the
supports to help spur the real change that our students need and to
help move our schools forward.
We can't look back. Instead, we have to build on what we got right
and improve on what we didn't.
There is no room for partisan politics when it comes to education.
The status quo is failing our students and putting our future, our
economic stability and our global competitiveness at risk.
We have to take a stand as a nation that it is no longer acceptable
for some students at some schools to make gains while most students lag
behind.
If we don't hold our schools accountable for all the children in
their classrooms, we fail our country.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the necessary
changes we need to help support our schools to put all students on a
pathway to success.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
And for the guests here and the witnesses, we all get
caught in this trap that Mr. Miller was just talking about. For
some reason, Congress over the years has designed a system
which, not only requires us sometimes to be in two places at
once, but sometimes three or more. And it turns out that it
just doesn't work that way. The system breaks down
occasionally.
Mr. Miller said something that I think is worth emphasizing
here. We have a growing consensus, I believe, in this committee
that No Child Left Behind is failing in many ways and needs to
be corrected. And that means we have got to move forward on
legislation.
We have heard repeatedly about flexibility, and we are
going to continue to explore that today, that in a variety of
ways, our witnesses have said that there is too many
restrictions, we have a set-aside problem, we have other
restrictions on schools and districts to be able to make
rational decisions and that we clearly need some system of
accountability. One of the larger questions is accountable for
what, to whom.
But obviously, there is data, to use Mr. Miller's term,
that is going to be part of this. And assuring that we have
enough data and the right data will be part of the ongoing
discussions here. So I do believe that with this growing
realization that we have to move in some of the fundamental
pieces, we are going to be able to start moving forward as
early as next month with stages of making some of the
corrections that we have been talking about here today.
Dr. Barresi, you have talked about moving to a grade system
for your schools. And this is a system that we have seen
popping up in other states and other places. Can you just take
a minute or so and tell us what are you going to use to
determine how you are going to determine what that grade is?
Ms. Barresi. Well, I appreciate the question. And the bill
is moving very nicely through our legislature. And I appreciate
their devotion towards this subject as well.
Our desire is to create a simplified grading system that
will allow parents to understand the overall performance of
their child's school, but then also for community members and
chambers of commerce to be able to easily understand the impact
of education in their overall school.
To be specific, in the current bill going to the
legislature, 66 percent of that assessment will be in overall
academic achievement and test scores, if you will. That is
about 25 percent of that number will be in the overall
improvement of the school itself. And then 25 percent will be
the overall improvement in the lowest quartile of students
within that school. And so, that will allow schools to be able
to show growth over a period of time, particularly in their
lowest performing schools.
Another large percentage, 34 percent, will be on whole
school improvement such as graduation rates, participation in
A.P. and I.D. courses, participation in SAT and ACT courses.
Also, with the use of our improved data system that we are
working on, we will be able to correlate those students that
originally had scored in limited knowledge, but were now
succeeding through high school, from middle school through high
school.
And so, this grading system then brings in multiple
metrics, not just one test score. And it becomes a meaningful
measurement for parents and for everyone.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. It is interesting to watch that
progress.
Dr. Amoroso, you and I have talked so many times, I am
almost embarrassed to ask a question because I fully know the
answer to this, based on those many questions. So let me just
limit it to this.
We have talked about AYP and the restriction of the--of the
single test. Could you just take a minute to cut to the chase
on what that problem is that the current one test, one measure,
one AYP and what you would like to see that change to?
Mr. Amoroso. Thank you, Chairman. Our perspective is that
assessment really can be looked at as a three-legged stool. One
leg can be some type of state-driven vehicle. We look at the
other leg really being a tool utilized by the district.
In our district, we use the--excuse me. We use the
measurement of academic progress, which is a standardized
measure. We use it in grades two through eight. And what it
does is provide us an opportunity to do a diagnostic testing of
our children in fall. That tells us where the students'
achievement levels are at. It also makes a prediction of where
their achievement level needs to be in spring.
We then do a second assessment using the measurement of
academic progress in the late winter. And that lets us know
what type of growth has been achieved by every student. We get
that data immediately. That data is then used to inform
instruction for the remainder of the year with our children.
Our current model, when we use the MCA2s in Minnesota, our
students take those tests in spring. We get the results the
following fall. We have lost the opportunity to work with the
children. That data that has been provided doesn't inform our
decision making. And so, we believe that multiple measures is
the way to go.
And then the third leg of this stool is what happens in the
classroom, the assessments that take place with our classroom
teachers working with their children and then the communication
that we have with our parents. We believe that the conversation
need not be one measure that gives you a snapshot in time. We
believe the conversation needs to be about multiple measures
which provide an opportunity to create data, which can be used
to help inform instruction and move the child along.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. I know we have witnesses that anticipate a
question. This isn't going to work. Given what your testimony
is today and what I said in my opening statement, my, sort of,
conclusion is that the federal role should, sort of, go from an
old Univac computer to an iPad, that this has to be much
thinner, more efficient than in the past. And I would just like
to comment on some of the things that I think we should
consider in the reauthorization of the ESEA.
One that would obviously--this bill would set high
standards and goals for college and career-readiness of all of
our students when they leave--and hopefully, they will leave
high school with a diploma, that we would maintain for all
students, including current sub-groups, that accountability,
but with a richer index, measures that uses growth graduation
rates, high-quality modern assessment systems. You have just
addressed some of that--provide states, districts and schools
with the flexibility to improve schools based upon their
students, school, community needs, whether that is an extended
day or wrap-around services or new curriculum.
That is for schools and districts to make those decisions--
to support real-time data-based decision making to allow the
Federal Government to get out of the way and support a real-
time performance-based system, ensure performance is
transparent so the parents and communities can decide what
their participation should be and so they understand the
decisions that the school has made about the education of their
children.
And hopefully, when we look at sustainable models around
the country, that community involvement and parental
involvement seems to have a lot to say about sustainability
over extended periods of time as opposed to 1-and 2-and 3-year
wonders and that we would consolidate programs so that
districts could better and more easily access funds, provide
more flexibility on what can be funded, at what level and
encourage local community partnerships that have strong,
consistent outcome indicators to measure program successes.
We find now in big portfolio districts, multi-faceted
districts, you may have to have a partnership with the police
department, with the parks and recreation, with health services
so that you can address the needs of the students in those
schools. And finally, and most, I think, very, very important
that we support a professional environment for teachers and
school leaders and let them get back to doing their jobs and
provide them with the information and the resources they need,
again, in real-time to make adjustments, to make decisions
throughout the school year, not just at the end of the year or
the beginning of the--of the next year.
And, Dr. Grier, I would like to begin with you and just in
terms of a comment. Each of you have sort of outlined the
directions that you are going in. And I would just be
interested to see if there is a possibility for a much--what I
call a thinner federal role, serious accountability, but I
would shift that accountability more to parents and community
than us.
Mr. Grier. I think that there must be a very careful blend
of accountability and flexibility for results. And I agree with
the comments that you have made. We also get, in public
education across the country--I have served as superintendent
in a number of states. It is very perplexing sometimes the
descriptors that the Federal Government and the state
governments use to describe effective schools.
I know in districts where I have worked in the last three
states I have been in, it is very hard to explain to parents
how a school can be a failing school because it did not make
AYP, but at the state level, it is a recognized or even called
an exemplary school. And it is very confusing to parents when
you--and your staff--when you are trying to discuss reform
efforts and the need for reform.
So we have to have accountability, but we also have to have
the flexibility to do what we need to do. When 56 percent of
your Title I funds are designated or earmarked, I happen to
believe that our administrative team, that includes teachers
and parents in our site-based teams, are better prepared to
decide how to spend that money than folks mandating to us how
those resources need to be spent.
Mr. Miller. Be careful now.
Mr. Grier. I know. I want to be careful----
Mr. Miller. And the rest of the comment, we have about a
minute left here, hopefully.
Anyone else?
Certainly.
Mr. Maqubela. When we were all in school, there was no No
Child Left Behind. And there was no AYP. So in looking at that
and looking at this very issue of accountability, we have to go
back and look at what was the purpose, what was the cause to
have us have these assessments as they have now turned out to
be across the board.
Well, at that time, America was leading the world, not only
in innovation, but in education in every sector. So we created
this, not just to judge schools, but to turn around the school
systems across this country where our students were being
educated. So in looking at that, we can't have one generic
national model that looks at every single school district the
same.
I think one of the things that I hear many of my colleagues
say, not only here, but every time I travel around the country,
is you need to look at what is going on not only in the school
district, but in that particular school. So clearly, we need to
have a common sense understanding of what success looks like.
However, at the national level, we need to continue to pass
that intense monitoring one step down, so from the Federal
Government to the state government to the municipalities to the
individual schools. And for us, we know that there is nobody
better equipped in managing that school to understand what the
specific needs are of those particular students that are in
that school than the head of that school, the principal as
reported to him or her by the faculty in that building.
So to take that power out and pass it one step up and take
it away from the municipalities and pass it up and pass it up,
we have the situation that we are currently in and where, just
as Dr. Grier says, you have outstanding schools that you know
are doing your school and your students a true service that are
deemed as failing.
Ms. Barresi. Congressman, what I heard from you is--and
rightly so--a recognition of the importance of local control of
schools and a recognition of the importance of data in
informing, not only instruction, but critical decision making.
And that is very important. If we have those flexibility of
dollars within our state to apply them to the particular
situations we have in our states--in Oklahoma, we have a very
large Native American population, a very largely growing
immigrant population, English as a second language.
We have a mixture of rural, urban and suburban schools,
each of them with very different types of challenges and needs.
And so, if we had increased flexibility informed by data to
make those decisions on where we spend our dollars, it would be
excellent, particularly, for instance, in our student grading
system I just discussed.
If parents and educators within a school decide that it is
unsatisfactory, the grade they received, if they say, well, we
don't like this D, we want to increase it to a C, here is our
2-year plan on how to do that. I would love to be able to have
a grant pool where they could apply with competitive grants to
be able to enact that plan. That is a great deal of community
and parent buy-in, and it is accountability.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McKeon?
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony. I had the opportunity in
2006 for a short time to chair this committee. And we were
preparing for the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act or No Child Left Behind. I was
involved, as many of us on this committee were, in writing
that. We thought that that probably was the solution to end all
solutions for education.
And immediately, we started getting bombarded with
criticisms as soon as it was passed. And that went on for
years. And as I traveled around the country in 2006, it seemed
to me that people were saying to me that a few things. And I
talked to school board members. I talked to superintendents,
principals, teachers, parents. And the different parts of the
country all said the same thing.
You know, if we could--if we could solve English secondary
language, if we could deal with the students with disabilities,
if we could deal with growth models, there were about five or
six things. And then we lost the majority. Mr. Miller became
the chairman of the committee. And he tried really hard for 4
years to get this reauthorized. And now, Mr. Kline is trying
really hard to get this reauthorized.
Chairman Kline. Where is the story going?
Mr. McKeon. I am going to where--you know, if somebody were
judging us like we are judging these schools, we would probably
be a failing Congress or a failing federal--maybe we were
judged, and maybe that is why----
Chairman Kline. I don't know.
Mr. McKeon. Anyway, the point is each of you mentioned
flexibility. If you were in our seats, I would like to hear
from each of you what you would do to make that flexibility
happen. I don't care where you start.
Mr. Grier. One of the things I would suggest is that you
would consider eliminating all set-asides, perhaps with the
exception of a 1 percent for parental involvement and let local
school districts and school boards and superintendents, with
input from their teachers and administrators, decide how to
best spend those dollars and, at the same time, hold us
accountable for results.
Mr. McKeon. Okay. Okay. Some people think local control is
state. Some people think it is county. Some people think it is
school--in area schools, it would be school district. Okay. So
you would bypass the state?
Can we do that, constitutionally? I mean, with the state?
Mr. Grier. Well, I can tell you the states I have worked
in, the last three states, North Carolina, California and now
Texas, federal money that flows through the states through the
departments of education that get hung up there and they take
it off the top----
Mr. McKeon. I know it. I agree with you totally.
Mr. Grier [continuing]. It----
Mr. McKeon. Could we give it straight to the school?
Mr. Grier. Straight to the school districts.
Mr. McKeon. Okay.
Next?
Mr. Maqubela. I think one of the key issues when we talk
about flexibility is incorporating within the legislation some
kind of mechanism to evaluate each school district and schools
individually based on their----
Mr. McKeon. You think that is the federal responsibility to
evaluate each school?
Mr. Maqubela. Not that it is their responsibility, but
there is a mechanism within the federal legislation that allows
states----
Mr. McKeon. How about if we took the Federal Government out
of that?
Mr. Maqubela. Well----
Mr. McKeon. And we just gave you the money, and you just do
what you want?
Mr. Maqubela. Well, I think, you know, obviously there are
pros and cons to that. However, for us, I think that when we
look at it, there needs to be----
Mr. McKeon. How about if we just cut the taxes and let you
tax at the local level and be totally in charge of it?
Mr. Maqubela. I mean, certainly, for us, we would love to
get the money directly.
Mr. McKeon. Great.
Next?
Mr. Amoroso. We would love to get the money directly, but I
don't think our board of education wants to tax for it. That
would be----
Mr. McKeon. They would rather have us tax?
Mr. Amoroso. Yes, probably.
Mr. McKeon. And then give you the money?
Mr. Amoroso. But we would----
Mr. McKeon. The problem is when it comes here, it goes
through a siphon, and it doesn't all get back to you.
Mr. Amoroso. That is true. But I also believe that we have
so many areas that we are already taxing within our local area
that I don't believe the Federal Government needs to be totally
out of the picture. I think the Federal Government has a
responsibility to ensure equity, access for all children.
But I think when you start boring down then into the
operationalizing of that, I think that is where the Federal
Government needs to step aside, work through the states.
There is no problem having accountability structure with
the state. When you provide us with the dollars, as Dr. Grier
said, give us the dollars directly, but hold us accountable for
creating a plan on how those dollars are going to be utilized.
Submit that plan to the state. Have the state approve it. And
then there is an accountability that goes beyond just the
district.
Mr. McKeon. Well, you know, we have been chewing on this
now for 4 years trying to get this reauthorized. And during
that 4 years, we have had kids go through the system or fall
out of the system. And we are still sitting here talking. And I
got three different answers on flexibility. And probably----
Chairman Kline. And that is all you get. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
For some of us that have been here a long time, everything
that you are all saying with the flexibility and local control
is something that we all went through.
But, Dr. Amoroso, everything that you basically said were
the goals that we all had here in No Child Left Behind, to look
at each child individually and where did they need help. One of
the biggest problems were, in my opinion, from what I heard
from my school districts, was things that weren't working, we
couldn't get that data fast enough to change it around. And
that was a big problem.
There were a number of things that have been said as far as
the local control, which I happen to believe in. But with that
being said, we also know you are the best of the best. There
are school districts out there that unfortunately do not use
their money wisely. And that is why we need to look at how we
have accountability.
And going back to the state, you know, I live in the great
State of New York. And they have taken over one of my schools.
And they have had it for 10 years and haven't made any
improvements on it. So again, how do we take the best of the
best of the information that you all are giving us and be able
to phase that into some challenging schools? And we all have
challenging schools. There is no two ways about that.
We all want the best education for our students. But to be
very honest with you, I am hoping as we go through this
reauthorization--I don't want to be back here in 10 years and
say, okay, here are the problems we have, because that is a
whole generation of kids we have lost.
And yet, I have schools in my district that are serving an
underserved area. But it was the principal and the
superintendent bringing that energy to the school and making
sure 97 percent of those kids are graduating to go to college.
No one is looking at the grade schools that we have with
the challenges that some of my same schools have. You know, so
to me, it is within, which is a little bit of what you are
doing in your charter schools. But it is also the principals,
which I believe that we should be looking at how we develop
better principals. How do we develop those that can go into the
schools and take charge to have the leadership that they need?
You are all the top of the cream. And so, I will take
anyone that can help me out on where we go with that.
Mr. Maqubela. Congresswoman, you hit the nail right on the
head. And myself, I spent numerous years in New York. And part
of my time there was working in the New York City Department of
Public Schools. And they had a very innovative model in the
early 2000s where they looked at individual schools and the
leadership of those schools and developed the metrics to
determine what makes a quality principal.
And then they developed a system to give those quality
schools that were headed by quality principals the latitude and
the leeway to still be a part of the public school system, but
have more flexibility similar to a public charter school or an
independent school.
I think when we talk about this legislation, there needs to
be a mechanism for the Federal Government to allow states to
develop a plan--because what you say is right. Not all state
boards of education are created equal. And not all school
leadership is created equal.
But where the Federal Government allows the states to
create a plan to then assess the performance of top-performing
school districts and top-performing schools to give them that
flexibility. No one knows how better to serve the children in a
school than the faculty and the administration that run that
school.
But your point is well-taken. We need to develop more
quality leadership in our schools. But when we identify those,
we can't hamper them and bog them down and bar the innovative
genius within them by giving them the same treatment as we do a
failing school.
Ms. Barresi. Congresswoman, one of the most important
things we can do as we transition the changes within No Child
Left Behind is to move away from the idea of AYP. We are
addressing a new situation in this country where we have to
focus on college-ready and work-ready meaning the same thing.
And so, it is a new way of looking at this.
And so, we need to incentivize innovation. We need to
incentivize success and take those techniques and models and
find where we can apply them to areas that across the country
that represents the same demographics.
I have seen successes in the inner city, and I have seen
successes in rural Oklahoma. And there is nothing that any of
those schools are doing that cannot be replicated within
schools within those same areas. They need to be incentivized
to do that.
I had the opportunity last week to attend the Council of
Chief State School Officers. There was widespread agreement
among all of us that the greatest challenge we have is in
teacher and leadership effectiveness and identifying,
recruiting and developing professionals that can go into our
classrooms.
So as we are faced with the requirements of highly
qualified teachers that focus more on degree level and
certification, what we need to do is look at individuals that
have the skill and the expertise to meet the individual needs
of children within those schools.
Mr. Grier. Just real quick, I concur. One of the finest
charters school networks in Houston, the principal/
superintendent running that network has a B.A. degree. And
right now, the flexibility they have to hire principals in
their schools and compared to what we have in our district is
like night and day. I would like to see us, in terms of
certification--the kind of principals we need to run urban
schools need to be innovators.
Their training program needs to be almost as much or more
from the MBA side of the house at the university level than
getting a master's degree in school administration. How we
train principals must change in this country.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Biggert?
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Amoroso, my State of Illinois, like your State of
Minnesota, was not selected to receive funds from either the
first two rounds of Race to the Top. Can you tell us about any
reforms at your schools and others you may be aware of that
have made plans or plan to make in response to Race to the Top?
And what are your thoughts really on the effectiveness of the
program? And how will that play into our reauthorization of
ESEA?
Mr. Amoroso. Minnesota was challenged in their Race to the
Top application because we couldn't, in the state of Minnesota,
gain unity between our legislature, our governor and our
unions. And so, we did not even really move forward with that.
One of the challenges, you know, when you start looking at
Race to the Top dollars is some states, some local areas may
have more resources to be able to put grants of those nature
together. It was a very, very complicated process. And, in my
opinion, you begin to create winners and losers with that type
of a program.
And so, what I would like to have you consider is with
whatever funding you feel is appropriate to move forward with
the reauthorization, that it be more of a formula-based process
versus a grant process, whether it be Race to the Top, or
whether it be any other type of grant program. Not all of us,
whether it be a state, whether it be a particular district,
will have a level playing field in applying for those grants.
So I would prefer us to have the conversation about formula.
Mrs. Biggert. Some of my regional superintendents have
said, well, you know, it is not about the dollars and we don't
really need the dollars. But what is good about the program is
some of the ideas and innovations that Race to the Top. Now, it
is hard for us to really know because we really never had any
input or really knew prior to these schools competing for it
that what was in there. And it is kind of hard for us to see
what goes in there.
But in Illinois, some of the schools have adopted much of
Race to the Top without the dollars. Is there anybody that is
using Race to the Top? You? No?
Well, I would go back then to Dr. Amoroso. Have you used
any of the suggestions from Race to the Top in your curriculum?
I am not talking about dollars now. I am talking about what is
actually suggested, the data, the----
Mr. Amoroso. Sure. We believe, over the last 10 years, we
have done an excellent job of raising the achievement levels of
our students. And we have the data to support that. We have a
strategic vision within our school system. That is our roadmap.
And truly, we talk about serving each child. One of the
things we did was created, you know, the utilization of the
math test that I talked about earlier. We have engaged in the
process of creating professional learning communities within
our staff so that we have those conversations on a regular
basis about children and how to best serve children.
Within the state of Minnesota, the conversations are now
being held about certification of staff, about evaluation of
staff, evaluation of principals, as some of my colleagues said.
That is something that we have to look at is to make sure that
every professional that works with that child is top rate
because, as some of the Congresspersons have mentioned,
children have one opportunity.
Mrs. Biggert. Right. Okay.
Mr. Amoroso. And we need to move forward.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
And, Dr. Barresi, it seems like what we heard most about No
Child Left Behind was the fact that it was just based on pure,
basic skills, math and reading and that we really have not
really had the quality and the comprehensive curriculum that
our kids need to compete in the global world. All these other
schools, particularly math and science, our kids are way
behind. We number, what 24th or 28th in the school system,
which is really challenging for us.
And I have heard, you know, that teachers regret not--when
they have a teachable moment and they are not able to do that.
They are focusing basically on the test, which I am sure we
will change and certainly, needs to be done.
What about the curriculum? Do you see that there is going
to be a change in that? Is that being worked on?
Chairman Kline. I hate to interrupt, but the gentlelady's
time has expired.
If we could get that answer for the record.
Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we develop a consensus around some of the changes that
we should be making to the reauthorization of ESEA, I do think
that there is a growing consensus around the proposition that
ESEA should also reflect support for the importance of quality
early education. And I hope that this panel of educators join
other panels of educators who also agree that this is evidence-
based reform that should be reflected in reauthorization. So if
anybody doesn't agree with the importance of quality early
education, raise your hand. Okay, great.
I was particularly interested, Dr. Amoroso, in your own
school district because I note that you were among those
superintendents, 27, past and present superintendents in
Minnesota who signed the Minnesota challenge, or Minnesota
promise, I should say. And in that promise, there are eight
traits that characterize a world-class education system. And
one of those elements, I think, is universal Pre-K. How are you
doing in Minnesota in providing universal Pre-K opportunities
for your kids?
Mr. Amoroso. Thank you. I was honored to be one of the 27
superintendents that was actually selected to be one of the
founding writers of that document. And it was a very
challenging process, but we thought we came up with a product
that was a blueprint, possibly, to be used, not only within our
state, but throughout the nation.
In Minnesota, the conversation has been around, not only
Pre-K, but K. Do we fund all-day kindergarten? Because right
now, all-day kindergarten is not funded within our state. And
so, by example, in the Lakeville area public schools, we offer
an all-day kindergarten program, but it is at a cost of about
$3,100 to the parent.
We have an outstanding early childhood program and an early
childhood special education program. We have families that move
to the Lakeville area public schools for our early childhood
programming because we see the value and the research and data,
as you have mentioned, is very clear.
A child that walks into your system ready to learn in the
long-run is going to achieve more academic success and from a
financial perspective, will actually be a less costly child, if
that is an appropriate term. So we value that quite a bit.
Ms. Hirono. So the federal role in this, I would say, as we
look at reauthorizing ESEA, would you welcome support for
incentivizing states, for example, to move ahead with providing
quality early education such as supporting the early learning
challenge fund, which is something that the president has put
forward?
Mr. Amoroso. Governor Dayton, who is our governor in
Minnesota--one of his main points of his platform on education
is early childhood education. And so, personally I would
entertain that conversation of funding for early childhood
education. But I would need to have a better understanding of
the broader impact. Because if we have funding here, does that
mean something else within our educational arena is not funded?
And so, while I----
Ms. Hirono. Well, that is not what I am talking about. Yes,
we need to add to and not, you know, supplant.
Mr. Amoroso. That is a great conversation.
Ms. Hirono. Supplement, not supplant. So I think we are
developing a consensus here.
I did have a question for Dr. Grier because we are looking
at--I am looking at models for how to turn around low-
performing schools. And I note your Apollo 20 initiative. And I
was interested to know do you have any external community
partners in the Apollo 20 initiative. How did you get them
there? How is that working? And were there any particular
challenges in getting all these people to the table?
Mr. Grier. Yes, we have a number of partners. I have
already talked about Ed Labs at Harvard University that is
partnering with us around the implementation of these tenets.
The New Teacher Project out of New York is working with us in
terms of teacher selection, the Haberman Foundation--Dr. Martin
Haberman's work at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
We also had a lot of support from the philanthropic and
business community. We are going to raise--our goal is to raise
about $10 million from private sources over the next 3 years
because, frankly, it costs more to add an hour to the school
day and 2 weeks to the school year and to hire all these
additional tutors.
Ms. Hirono. So is that working? I notice that you are going
to expand to other schools.
Mr. Grier. Of course, we aren't ready to declare victory
yet. But we have decreased out-of-school suspensions in these
nine secondary schools by over 30 percent. Our attendance is up
in all of these schools. Our measures of student success in
terms of formative assessment during the year has shown an
increase between 36 and 46 percentage points.
And the math tutoring--we really believe we are onto
something. We will know more when our end-of-course test
results come back. But we are very optimistic.
Ms. Hirono. Do you think yours is a model that other states
seeking to turn around low-performing schools could look to?
Mr. Grier. We are already seeing other districts around the
country. Denver has been to Houston and looked at what we are
doing there. They are starting their version of Apollo schools
there this month.
When we began looking at turning around these schools, we
did not find the model in the entire country. And we talked to
our friends in the charter world about coming and helping us
with these failing schools. They said, we don't do failing
schools. We will start from scratch.
But trying to go into a school that has been failing--some
of these were the worst performing schools in Texas and some of
the worst performing schools in the country. And now for me to
sit here really two-thirds of the way through a school year and
tell you that 100 percent of these seniors have been accepted
into a 2-or 4-year college, we think, is phenomenal.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. DesJarlais?
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you so much to our witnesses today. I really
appreciate your insight and bringing innovative, new ideas on
how to solve our education problems. It would appear to me that
after listening to all your testimonies, the biggest impediment
or roadblock to your success is the Federal Government.
And it kind of shocked me when my colleague asked you the
question on flexibility and basically offered to hand you the
checkbook, which, by Washington's standards, that would be
called being thrown a softball. I would expect you would all
have knocked that one right out of the park. Maybe you were
just stunned by the question.
Dr. Barresi, you didn't get a chance to answer that
question. I know you wanted to. I have an idea where this ball
is going.
Ms. Barresi. We would very much welcome the opportunity to
decide for ourselves how these dollar bills are spent. And I
think it would allow us to focus on the individual child
instead of focusing on funding the program or funding the
school. We have got to get back to funding the student and
having the money, follow the child into the classroom. With
that increased flexibility, we can definitely do that.
With that increased flexibility, we can focus on
professional development for teachers, something that is very
important, on reading programs that will help our students move
forward, on early childhood programs and expanding those. We
have a nationally recognized early childhood program in
Oklahoma. Definitely, the lessons we have learned from that
need to be expanded.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Amoroso, do you feel that innovative learning is
compromised by the standardized testing you were talking about?
In other words, do you feel that your teachers feel obligated
to teach to the test?
Mr. Amoroso. I can guarantee you, sir, that as we approach
our testing window in spring, anxieties go up within our
system. And it is because our teachers are so passionate about
working with their children that they want to make sure that
their children are prepared. To me, that need not be our focus.
Our focus need not be on getting our children prepared for
an assessment that will be a one snapshot in time that will
determine if a school is classified as either making or not
making AYP. So to remove that, in my opinion, would be a
positive thing. It helps change the culture of the
organization. As I mentioned earlier, I am not eliminating
accountability.
I am, you know, proposing the accountability structure that
we use where we do have assessments that identify where our
children are achieving at, identify growth targets, identify if
they have made that target. And it is real-time data that can
be used to inform instruction.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Maqubela, I liked your approach to teaching. What would
be your opinion on countries other than the United States that
seem to be outperforming us? Are their students, teachers and
systems that much better? Or do they simply work harder?
Mr. Maqubela. Again, I think it goes back to the point that
I raised about our focus being on addressing the lowest
standard as opposed to truly achieving to the highest standard.
When we look around the world, we see countries in far more
dire financial straits than ours that are having success.
I was lucky enough--we have a partnership with a school in
South Africa. And while we were there, we met a student from
Namibia who literally his family couldn't afford the $30 a year
to spend for his annual school fees. However, the love and the
thirst for education required him to walk 10 miles a day each
way to another district so that he could attend school while
living with his uncle.
That kind of passion, that kind of forward-thinking is not
something that is foreign here. It is something that was at the
foundation of this country's success many years ago. We need to
get back to that.
But part of that was driving our students, driving our
teachers and driving our classrooms to be successful, and not
just the elite, not just a small percentage, but across the
board. We demand that all of our students attain a minimum
level of success. We realize that they come with different
tools.
In order to achieve that, though, you have to have the
properly skilled adults in the building being led by the proper
administrators that truly believe in our kids' success. And
unfortunately, there are too many people that believe because
of the circumstances that so many of our kids are living in, as
dire as they are, limit their opportunity for greatness.
Mr. DesJarlais. All right. Thank you.
And just quickly, I want to again applaud your efforts here
because as we move forward reforming education, it is so
important that we hear from people like you, that we hear from
teachers. When we were on the campaign trail talking about
health care reform, some of us physicians felt like the
physicians were not heard. And I often said that reforming a
health care without asking physicians would be like reforming
education and not asking teachers. So thank you so much for
your input.
And I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
Dr. Grier, it is very nice to see you.
I think you have all mentioned one of the key ingredients,
which is a good evaluation system. And I would hope that we are
talking about not just for teachers, of course, but for
effective principals and instructional leaders as well.
The other piece of this--and I know, Dr. Grier, the data-
driven accountability system is part of the Apollo programs.
Can you be as specific as possible with this? There are
elements--and I think that you just mentioned that. I mean,
people who really believe in their kids and how that translates
to the entire culture of the school.
How does this data-driven activity help us to do this
evaluation in a way that is meaningful and that stakeholders
are involved? How can we at the federal level direct that kind
of activity? Or, you know, can we? How do you do that moving
through the states, if you will, to make that happen in such a
way that we really, in some ways, relieve the local
jurisdictions of having to direct it in a way that perhaps
finds a lot of resistance?
And anybody want to tackle that?
Ms. Barresi. In Oklahoma, as we look to expand and develop
our student data system, we don't want to just create a system
that produces some great numbers that are used. The next step
is, the most important step is, is to actually train educators,
train their principals and their superintendents on how to use
that data to drive decisions within the classroom and to make
critical decisions about policy and about resource development
within schools.
I had a superintendent just a month ago that called me and
said he is watching the culture in his district completely
change because he is focusing on working on just that element
with his educators. He said they are becoming excited by what
they are seeing. They are able to see gaps in learning and make
plans on how to fill in those gaps.
He said he feels more effective at using resources within
his district. Very excited about it.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And remembering that we have a
difficulty among all of our school districts now in terms of
resources.
Dr. Grier?
Mr. Grier. Yes, one of the biggest challenges, I think,
that faces the country in terms of education reform is this
whole issue of data management. There just simply are not
systems out there. We have 202,000 students.
And being able to do soft assessments of students' work
every 2 to 3 weeks and give teachers immediate feedback on how
the kids did, which objectives were mastered and where they
need to go back and reteach is just not out there.
And many of the companies that are developing the systems,
they know the market. But I promise you, it is not there yet.
And there is a lot of states trying to get there. But there is
a big, big gap between being able to manage that data in a
meaningful way so that teachers don't feel that you have just
piled something else extra on their plate.
Mrs. Davis. But I think we also see that that is used as a
bit of an excuse as well, that we don't have that management
system.
Mr. Grier. That is true.
Mrs. Davis. And therefore, you know, how can we possibly
get underway with the system?
Mr. Grier. Well, I know in Houston, our new principal
evaluation and our new teacher evaluation instruments, both of
those, are heavily weighted towards outcomes, student outcomes,
school performance, measures of success.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Maqubela?
Mr. Maqubela. Congresswoman Davis, the model that we have
where we are linked with a major research university speaks
just to this. In addition to being a math/science school, we
are very immersed in technology. We have instead of a one-to-
one student to computer ratio, we have a one-to-two where our
students have computers in the home as well as in the
classroom. And the primary reason for that is because we have a
program designed to effectively use data.
Unfortunately, using data to inform instruction has become
one of those catch phrases just like differentiated
instruction, where we--there. And as Dr. Grier says, there are
a lot of vendors that take advantage of that and throw----
Mrs. Davis. Can I interrupt you just really quickly? If you
could, just tell--within this federal legislation and
authorization, what would you like to see in this area?
Mr. Maqubela. Sure. What I would like to see is that we
actually come together and we look at what works. And so, as
opposed to just saying use data-driven instruction, well, look
at schools like ours that have this partnership with the
university that have the research base and the intellectual
know-how along with the practice so we are able to put forward
best practices and then develop national standards based on
those best practices.
Mr. Grier. I want to be able to use Title I funds to help
me with data collection and to develop a data collection
system. And right now, we are not able to do that.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
I am going to stress the system here. We are going to go
for two more questions, and then we will be breaking to vote.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first of all, say hello to our friend, Mary Fallon, in
Oklahoma.
And I want to commend the panel. You have been fantastic. I
have cleared a lot of focus up for me like focusing a camera.
And I have heard over and over flexibility.
Dr. Grier mentions mandates, one of the sore spots I have,
mandates with no money, which is usually how it comes, and
accountability. I have never heard a teacher that I have talked
to ever say they didn't want to be held accountable. They do.
And they want to do a good job. I have never heard that.
Our kids today now are competing, now with the county next
door or whatever. They are competing around the world. And when
I talk to them, I say, look, when you are competing here in
Carter County, Tennessee, where I--basically, where I am from,
you are not competing with kids there.
You are competing with a child in China or India. So you
have to have the skills to be able to do that. It no longer
works just having the skills to compete for a factory job down
the street that is gone. And what I have heard--the solutions--
and I guess what I heard was when you use a GPS system, it will
show you three or four ways to get where you want to go. But
you end up where you want to go.
And what I have heard today is is that you need
flexibility. Four very different school systems and four very
different ways to do things, and yet, we are--I think we are
hindering you from doing your job here. Fifty-six percent of
the funds, I think, Dr. Grier said, were encumbered. He
couldn't do anything with them. I got the message loud and
clear.
And I think I am hearing what the teachers are telling me--
is that they are swamped with paperwork, is get all that out of
the way and let us do our job.
And, Dr. Barresi, you made the point--and I make it all the
time--is that where is all this money going. Is it stopping
right here at the top? Or is it getting into classrooms of
those kids where it needs to be? That is where the money needs
to be, is not out here with the bureaucracy, but in the
classroom.
And this is why we have to change right here. And then I
have got one other question.
Recent reports in the National Association of Education
Progress show that reading and math scores in fourth and eighth
grades have stagnated since the passage of NCLB, calling into
question the reforms that states have been required to
implement under the law.
In addition, the long-term trend assessments taken in 2008
have showed the average reading scores of 17-year-olds not
significantly different from 1971 and the average mathematic
scores of 17-year-olds not significantly different from 1973.
We can't keep doing the same thing. We have to do something
different. And I think what we do is we let you guys do your
job.
And, Mr. Maqubela, in your testimony, you talked about the
importance of that flexibility provided you in your school.
Should states and school districts be provided the same
flexibility just in a traditional public school where I went to
school?
Mr. Maqubela. In short, certainly. Again, there is nobody
who knows better how to best serve the students in my building
than the adults in my building because we have shown and proven
that we know our families, our students and their needs best.
What needs to be done and the role that the Federal
Government can play and in related to the states' government is
a mandate that says, okay, we realize that every school isn't
indicative of those that are represented by the administrators
here. How do we develop a tool in order to determine what is
effective and what isn't?
Some folks are fine. They don't need any more support. Give
me the money directly. And we have already demonstrated what we
can do with it.
Can I say the same about the school next door or the school
district next door? Absolutely, not. But what we show is that
there are hundreds, and if not thousands, of public schools
throughout this country--and I know because I have visited many
of them. I have worked with principals from these schools--that
are stagnating because they are stars, but they are strapped
with the same restrictions.
A perfect example--there is a school in the Bronx, New York
that went in one of the poorest school districts in the South
Bronx but had an innovative leader who went outside of the box
and had folks onboard ready, corporations, JPMorgan, Chase, to
name a few, that were ready to invest and revamp the school. It
took him years to get out of the administrative red tape to be
able to turn that around and create a stellar school.
Mr. Roe. Well, how do we--and now, I do not have much time.
We have got to go vote. But how do we do that? I think we have
to get the money back down to the--where the boots are on the
ground to allow you all to do that. I have heard that from a
huge school system like Houston, Texas to a smaller one.
Dr. Amoroso's about the same size of the one I live in. And
I believe that is what we have to do to make this work because
what we are doing isn't working. So we have to change.
Mr. Amoroso. Right. Right. Again, for those schools and
school districts that have demonstrated over a period of time
that they can be successful, remove the burdens at the national
level so that they can be able to do their thing free of the
hindrances.
Mr. Roe. Okay.
Any other comments on that?
Ms. Barresi. Congressman Roe--and I was remiss in the
beginning. Governor Fallon asked me to send her regards to the
chairman and to the committee as well.
I am also at the unique position of being the founder of
two charter schools in the State of Oklahoma as well as being
state superintendent now. And I think it is important we take
the lessons that we have learned from charter schools and apply
that throughout the State of Oklahoma, and for that matter, the
nation.
And that is that when the requirements and the bureaucracy
are lifted off from the front end and you are allowed to
innovate, that the accountability is very strong on the back
end. In other words, if a charter school doesn't perform, they
are out of business. That drives decision making in a most
profound way.
That drives decision making on budgeting. The money does
get to the child within the classroom. And I think that is
exactly what you are talking about.
Mr. Roe. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mr. Roe. I yield back. Great panel.
Chairman Kline. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Dr. Maqubela, in your school, the percentage of
sub-groups, say the disabilities sub-group or the ELL sub-
group, how do they parallel the percentage of the numbers in
those sub-groups in your general service area? In other words,
are you attracting members of that sub-group in a sufficient
number comparable to the general area?
Mr. Maqubela. Certainly. One of the things that we as a
charter school is we are mandated to be non-selective. So all
of our students come to us via lottery. And there is a great
deal of legislation that--and rules in place to mandate that we
publicly advertise and that we are reaching out to all the
communities where students are that we serve. And so, what we
find is that our kids come to us across the board.
That percentage changes every year because we are non-
selective. One year we may have a special education population
that is 20 percent. And it may vary.
But what we do see is a representation, which is similar to
that which the public school district that we are in also
serves. So we have a nearly equally high number of students
that are from households below the poverty line as well as
those that--in addition to being socially and economically
disadvantaged, are students with various disabilities that we
have to serve as well.
Mr. Kildee. In 2010, you had 0 ELL students and 11 students
with disabilities. Is that pretty well what you would find in
the general service area around your----
Mr. Maqubela. Well, what we find is that within our service
area, particularly with the ELL students, they are particular
to specific neighborhoods. So when we look at our neighborhood
where our school is located, that is very indicative.
The other thing that we have is that our immigrant
population and the students that we are serving in that
population are changing from year to year. So we are getting
less first generation and more second generation. So these are
individuals that are coming from households where the parents
are non-English speaking, but the students themselves are
English speaking.
Mr. Kildee. I may pursue this with you by letter to get how
it is done over, say, a period of 5 years, how you do attract
those sub-groups.
Mr. Maqubela. Yes, definitely.
Mr. Kildee. There are certain schools--I am not saying
yours--where there is a certain deficiency in number of those
sub-groups.
Mr. Maqubela. Yes. And that is one of the things that we
look at. Another area in which comes up with that is--that
charter schools take a hit--is as far as student retention. And
one of the things that we are very proud of--again, even though
we have over two-thirds of our students that are coming to us
woefully below grade level, we are not looking 3 years later to
eighth grade and out of 100-student class or 120-student class
only seeing 50 students there.
We have very, very little student attrition. So we are
showing that those high numbers we are seeing in the eighth
grade are with the same students that came to us with such low-
performing numbers in the sixth grade.
Mr. Kildee. And, Chairman--(Off mike.).
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. And he draws
attention to the fact that the clock is indeed winding down. We
are going to go vote. We will be back after what I believe is a
series of three votes. The committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Kline. The committee will reconvene. I have got to
make a short clarifying statement here.
It is amazing how these things occur. Before we had even
walked off the floor, there was a press report that I had
indicated we were going to reauthorize No Child Left Behind
immediately after the Easter break. What I thought that I had
indicated was that we hope to take up the first in what will be
a series of pieces of legislation next month to start to
address these very issues that we are talking about here.
While members are coming back, I would like to resume
questioning at this time with Mr. Scott.
You are recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all the witnesses for your testimony. One of the
problems with flexibility is, as the witnesses have indicated,
a lot of school divisions can do a lot better if they had the
flexibility and none of the national standards. The problem is
a lot will do worse.
Detroit was debating--I don't think they are going to
actually do it. But they were debating having class sizes of
60. You know, you would want a national standard on that. That
may or may not be a good idea for everybody. But without the
national standard, some will do a lot worse.
Now, Mrs. Barresi, you indicated that the elimination of
AYP as a standard--how would we know if schools are actually
functioning if you don't have a measure that they have to come
up to?
Ms. Barresi. AYP just recognizes a certain performance
level. And it also penalizes a school if one sub-group fails in
that mark. What we have to do as a country, what research has
shown us and what the new knowledge economy has shown us is
that we have to focus more on competencies in career-ready and
college-ready requirements.
And so, that is a focus more on those skills that students
need to be successful: inquiry skills, writing skills,
synthesis, analysis. So where AYP focuses more on an
examination of content, we must also then pivot to include that
into an evaluation of these core competencies for success.
Mr. Scott. Well, what I am hearing is we need to better
establish what AYP means, not eliminate the idea that people
have to come up to a minimum standard.
Ms. Barresi. Certainly, there needs to be accountability.
There needs to be marks that these students meet. But what is
measured is tested and is taught. So those measurements must
reflect what we need for a child to be competent.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
And, Mr. Amoroso, you talked about high-stakes test. One of
the problems that you have is that you can get misleading
results if a student does well this time today and not well
tomorrow. Depending on which day he took the test, those
results may vary. And it would be unfair to stick him with the
results of just one high-stakes test. Can you say a word about
whether or not tests are actually valid--using tests for a
purpose for which they are not validated?
Mr. Amoroso. For which they are not validated?
Mr. Scott. I mean, you can have tests that are validated
for one purpose, for example, for whether the school is
teaching the material that the state says needs to be taught.
Mr. Amoroso. Sure.
Mr. Scott. And if it is not being taught, all the students
will fail.
Mr. Amoroso. Sure.
Mr. Scott. To assign that score to the students wouldn't
make any sense.
Mr. Amoroso. Sure.
Mr. Scott. But it is valid for the purpose of determining
whether the school is doing well, but not valid for the purpose
for which for the student.
Mr. Amoroso. High-stakes tests I have a problem with just
in general simply because of the fact that it is a snapshot in
time. It is as you said very well. It shows you what that
person's performance was on that day. It doesn't take into
account what was going on in that child's world, potentially,
on that day that could have impacted it.
Any test that we give, whether it be a high-stakes test or,
in our case, the measurement of academic progress or something
that one of our teachers does within his or her classroom,
there needs to be validity to that measure that it truly is
measuring what we intend it to measure. And if it is to measure
what children are learning, so be it. But if it is to measure
how a system is doing, that might be a different conversation
then.
Mr. Scott. And you have also indicated that you want the
tests timely so that you can use the results for instructional
purposes.
Mr. Amoroso. Correct.
Mr. Scott. Not just to get the bad news and do nothing
about it.
Mr. Amoroso. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. All right.
Mr. Amoroso. The assessments need to be a tool that will
provide data that will help us to get a handle on where the
child's achievement level is and can help guide us to how we
can improve that child's achievement level.
Mr. Scott. And, Dr. Grier, you have talked about response
to failing schools. And one of which is to fire all the
teachers in one school. Have you had any response from
teachers?
Because if you elect to be at a failing school, you stand
the chance of getting fired. If you move to a good school, you
can be a bad teacher at a good school, and you have job
security. You can be a good teacher at a bad school and have
your job in jeopardy, particularly when, I understand, the
assessments are not all that accurate.
Mr. Grier. There is no safe place in Houston, Texas if you
are a bad teacher. Bad teachers influence children's lives
forever, particularly if you have a bad teacher, 2, 3, 4 years
in a row, which many students, particularly in poor inner city
schools have. And we have offered incentives for teachers to
teach in our low-performing schools.
We have had a grant from the Gates Foundation, and you can
receive up to $10,000 a year to teach in one of our low-
performing schools if you have high-value added test scores in
other schools where you have worked. So I understand your
question. But I do think there are things that school districts
can and should do. It is many times an issue of having the
political will and courage to address those issues.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg?
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, all of the panel members, for being here.
And I apologize for not being here for the entire time. So I
hope that I don't ask questions that have already been asked.
But, hey, I need to know the answers, too.
And I am thrilled--and I just came from homeland security
hearing, where we were talking about issues that relate very
much to what you have said, that there is no safe place in
Houston for a bad teacher. What a wonderful statement.
Being a parent, having been a teacher, interested in what
goes on, that is a wonderful statement. But sadly, there are
some bad teachers. And I am not talking about in the K-12
system that are doing this, but that are teaching people to do
things that we are concerned with in homeland security that are
wrong. And we don't want to have activity that does not teach
our students, that we have stewardship for, teach them well.
Mr. Maqubela, I was caught with your statement--and I
probably paraphrase it--where you said, all of the adults, the
adults in our students' lives and in our school know what is
good and what is best for our students. I think that is a
telling statement about the primacy on the student. And that is
the outcome that we want to see here.
So let me ask you this question. And it is fairly open-
ended. And I hope you take opportunity to answer it strongly as
well. You discuss annual yearly progress and your school in
your testimony. How do you feel that AYP standard affects your
school? And how do you think the AYP measurement could be
changed and/or what should be used in place of it?
Mr. Maqubela. Like so many of my colleagues, we realize
that we are seriously hampered by this, not only one test, but
one measurement to make a huge determination. As Dr. Amoroso
has noted, we do multiple assessments throughout the year
leading up to, for us, which is our assessment, state
assessments, which is the D.C. CAS. And looking at those
results, you will see a same student over those four
assessments--one day, they may perform basic. Three months
later, they may perform advanced.
What it is is a factor of what goes on in that particular
day. So even moving beyond just this one year-end assessment,
what we would like to see is a move towards, which has been
discussed, a growth model. What are we doing with that child
when they come into our door to the time that they leave our
door?
One of the things that we are very proud of and we
mentioned earlier is that even though we have a high student
poverty ratio at our school, we are not one of those schools
that pawns these kids off. Our kids that come into the
program--overwhelmingly we have a very low student attrition
rate. So we are taking those kids that are performing
incredibly below grade level and following them over 3 years.
Coming to us in the sixth grade, if a student is reading
literally as a beginning reader, how realistic is it to think
that when they enter our school in September to when they are
tested in April that in just those 7 months, we are going to go
from--forget below basic--to elementary level, beginning
elementary level to secondary school? It is not realistic.
But when you look at that program over a course of time, we
see that those gains are possible if you stick with the
program. So for us, first and foremost, we would like to see a
move towards a growth model and not just looking at something
in this one point in time.
Another example of that is that there are specialty schools
out there that service a particular population, maybe those
with special needs, those kids transitioning from the criminal
justice system.
Again, many of the advantages that are available in other
schools were not present in these students' lives. So to hold
those schools to the same standard of what success is when they
have transformed kids' lives around, isn't the same.
The other piece--and I would end it on this--is for us,
even going beyond the growth model, even for those schools if
we move to a growth model, that requires some form of regular
annual testing. These are administratively burdensome and
costly. You have to pause out of your program from the great
instruction we are doing--we talk about the stem activity that
we have, where we have been able to attract the interest of a
company like Google to invest in us. This is valuable time that
we have to put on hold during this.
What I would like to see is somewhere an allowance in the
legislation that allows schools over an adequate period of time
to show and prove that they are high-performing schools and
then get an exception to say that you have proven to us that
you can meet the measure. Now, we are not going to hold you to
the same standard of dragging you through this process year
after year after year just to validate what you have already
proven to us.
So I think there definitely needs to be some room in the
legislation to allow a carefully thought out but very important
scripted measure to allow schools and high-performing school
districts to have some form of exemption based on their
performance.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Thank you.
I thank the chair.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the witnesses on that. You know, I was sort
of amused when I was listening to Mr. McKeon talk, as we have
had this discussion before, about the notion that, you know,
the Federal Government ought to get out of the way. And I think
last fall we heard a lot of that.
It is, you know, an entity that spends less than 10 percent
of the money on elementary and secondary education has got 100
percent of the problems attributed to it. So let me ask this.
Are any of you contending that there was a day when the Federal
Government was out of education?
It was called the pre-1960s and 1970s before the decisions
by the courts that every child deserved an education and we put
in money for Title I and IDEA. Any of you contend you want to
go back to that day where the federal funding just comes out
and you believe that every state and local community will put
up the money necessary, raise the taxes to do it and educate
every child, including disadvantaged children and children with
disabilities? Anybody making that case?
Mr. Grier. No, and I am not that old. But I was in
education back in those days. And I can remember being in
school when there were no special education students in school.
There were special education students in my neighborhood, and
parents kept them at home.
I think that there is--as I said earlier, there has to be a
balance between federal accountability and flexibility. I want
to make sure that all children get the education that they
deserve.
Mr. Tierney. And I think that is exactly what we are
talking about here.
Mr. Grier. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. But I wanted to make that point because we
just heard so much about it last time as the only--if you want
the Federal Government out, then they surely can get out. But
then you have got the issue of dealing with it yourself and
understanding that everybody has got to raise the taxes and do
the job necessary. And we haven't seen that history.
But that brings me to another point on that.
Dr. Barresi, you mentioned the federal restrictions with
supplement, not supplant. And you said that they have prevented
you from pursuing state initiatives. Can you tell me a little
bit more about how your initiatives have been prevented with
that notion?
Ms. Barresi. Well, we are running into that requirement
quite a bit, particularly as our state faces some overwhelming
financial challenges within our state. And if that were lifted,
if we were allowed increased opportunities to further programs
that are losing funding because of lack of state dollars to be
able to use federal dollars, particularly in Title I money,
more flexibility in that area, that could allow us to be quite
more----
Mr. Tierney. That puzzles me enormously. So you would
expect the people at the federal level, all right, to tell
their taxpayers that they are going to put money down because
the people at your local level just don't want to tax people to
pay for what you think is essential?
And so, I told you--and, Dr. Grier, you mentioned that, in
your statement, that the education stabilization fund, which
had few federal requirements attributed to anything, led to a
number of states cutting their own state funding even further
than necessary and simply replacing it with federal money.
Isn't that a path down to eventually hurting us in terms of
accomplishing what we want to do and raising all the standards
and the quality on that?
Mr. Grier. We think so.
Mr. Tierney. Yes.
I mean, I just don't get it, Dr. Barresi, about how--I
mean, it is nice to not have to take responsibility. And it is
nice to have somebody else pick up the tab. But what you
really, we suspect, want to do is get your local people to keep
partnering with the Federal Government and everybody take the
responsibility and assess priorities and determine what is
important in your community.
Ms. Barresi. I think what we are talking about is the
opportunity to have more flexibility to target those dollar
bills at areas where they can be most effective for students
such as innovative learning----
Mr. Tierney. Well, I am not sure that is what you said. I
mean, supplement, not supplant is not a question of
inflexibility. It is a question of taking the federal money and
running away with the state money on that.
And the other thing on that, under the current law, we have
a considerable amount of transferability that is allowed on
that. And in the law, I see that of the 14,000 total education
agencies, only 1,700 use the right to transfer funds. So it
seems to me that a lot of LEAs aren't even using the
flexibility process that is already in the statute.
Ms. Barresi. That question was raised for Secretary Duncan
last week at our meeting for the Council of Chief State School
Officers and whether it is clear intentioned and desire on his
part and at the upper tiers at the U.S. Department of
Education. What happens is that when you get into program
auditing and the requirements of programs, much of that
flexibility is gone away. He has great intention on doing that,
but what has actually come out in practice is somewhat
restricted.
Mr. Tierney. Okay.
Dr. Grier, you mentioned that you envision a system of
uniform professional development. I would like you to talk a
little bit about more on that, if you would.
Mr. Grier. The professional development that we believe
needs to be delivered at the school level--and it doesn't need
to be a one-size-fits-all. We have teachers in all of our
schools in Houston who have different ability levels and versus
coming in and requiring all teachers in a school to sit through
the same staff development. Or the same training when you have
a teacher sitting there, quite frankly, who could be conducting
the training makes no sense to us.
But it needs to be a system of training. I happen to
believe that we need to have more training that is 35 to 45
hours in length where you train the teacher. They then can go
practice what they were taught. You give them feedback, then
you do training, practice, feedback. It is more of a business,
more of a military model of staff development than what we have
traditionally done in education where we have had drive-
throughs and half-day training sessions or one-day training
sessions.
I don't believe you can change adult behavior. I know my
golf game doesn't get much better when I just go out and hit a
few practice balls, I can tell you that.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I was going to say--I thank the gentleman.
My golf game doesn't get any better whether it is 3 hours
or 3 weeks.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do appreciate you all being here. And this is a
difficult thing because I come from the private sector, private
business. And I always like to think you can only spend a
dollar once. Once it is gone, it is gone. And right now, we are
facing just unsustainable amounts of money that we are
spending. And we are trying to figure out what is the best
return on our investment.
Because whether we want to address it as a business or not,
education is a business. And so, certainly, if we were to look
what we are spending per student, we should have absolutely
scores that go off the chart. And we don't.
In my business, we have what they call 20 groups, where 20
dealers get together. They share each other's financial
information. They use common data on common forms to come up
with solutions to common problems.
So I would wonder from each of you because the sense that I
get is that too often you have got a government who gets
involved and tells you what it is that you have to do and makes
it so rigid that to get there, to get through--jump through all
those hoops and dot all the i's and cross all the t's, at the
end of the day, you say, you know what, it costs me too much to
do that for the little bit I am getting.
And then the other part, of course, is if you have never
done it, how do you tell people how to do it. So I would like
to know do you have the ability to actually talk with each
other, share common data and do the common analysis and come up
with best practices that fit your school, based on what you see
from around the country or from other districts.
Ms. Barresi. Certainly, I see the national conversation
very much so going in that direction. As our data systems
continue to mature and improve, it is very important that we
have the ability to, not just show results, but show that in
relationship to the dollar bills that are spent for a
particular program.
So would $500 a student for a reading program be more
effective or less effective than $2,000 per student spent on a
program? We have to be able to equate then the results that we
get for the dollar bills that are expended and then share those
best practices, not only in our state, but across the country.
I agree with you that data is very important and that we become
more sophisticated in how we use that.
Mr. Amoroso. We are beginning to see more conversations
regionally about the very topic that you bring up. I think in
the past, districts were fairly isolated and you worried about
what you were doing because that was all the time you had, you
know, to do those types of things.
But now we are seeing consortiums that are starting to get
together, look at best practice and instead of one district
trying to do an innovation, which could be viewed within their
community as taking a risk with their children, you are seeing
consortiums of districts getting together and each group taking
a different aspect of an innovation, working it through. But
then it is more of a collaborative effort.
And then you bring the data together to see what is really
working. And then you determine can you take that innovation or
that process and begin to expand it outward so that it is not
one district being viewed as experimenting with children,
which, quite frankly, our parents would not like if they felt
we were experimenting with their children. But it is taking
best practice. It is taking the latest research and trying to
improve upon the educational experience of their children.
Mr. Maqubela. Congressman, I believe in taking it one step
even further. You know? We note that in the global world that
we live in, our kids are not just competing with their next-
door neighbors or even their peer group across the country. We
are competing internationally and globally. So we follow that.
Best practices, of course. It is common sense. It works in
all businesses, and it has worked for years.
Two weeks ago, we were visited by Michael Gove, who is the
state secretary of education for the United Kingdom. He came to
our school, spent about half the day with us. And it wasn't
just a show and tell. It was a true sharing and exchanging of
ideas of what works here, what works there, what are the things
that we can incorporate that he is including, not just in
England, but throughout the Caribbean and other areas where his
reach touches.
Additionally, we are involved in partnerships, and we take
advantage--you know, one of the areas we talk about savings,
there are so many ways we can use modern technology to hit on
just this very thing. Our school is part of an international
consortium of schools that started with Phillips Academy in
Andover, Massachusetts with two schools from Shanghai, a school
from Beijing, two schools from South Africa and a couple
schools from Ghana to work together along this same line.
When we have a--our first conference is next month. But
when we go home to our respective countries, all we have to do
is sit at our computer and Skype each other. We have an
international learning community that we are able to build upon
because those are the people that our kids are truly competing
with.
Mr. Grier. I want to take just a little different view of
this than my colleagues. I don't think it happens in education
much. And in many cases, I don't think it happens at all. I
think it is a good model that perhaps business has done better
than we and maybe even charters.
But I know even in my own school district, we do not have
enough of sharing of best practices. That is something we have
worked very hard on this year, but we are a long way from being
where I think you are in terms of what you described.
And I would say to you I think that is the same thing in
public education across the country. We go to maybe one or two
national conferences where some best practices are shared. But
with the limited budgets, we don't have a lot of people
traveling. And we have got to do a better job with that in
public education.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
The gentleman's time is expired.
Dr. Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Getting the Federal Government out of the way, in my view,
means allowing local school districts to utilize their federal
dollars in the best way they determine that will effectively
educate their students in their community and not have a one-
size-fits-all--excuse me--government approach, which is very
restrictive and which stovepipes federal funding into
categories that allow inflexibility in the utilization of
federal funds.
And so, from my viewpoint, that is what we mean by getting
the Federal Government out of the way. I think most people
would not argue completely removing the Federal Government's
role, but certainly, lessening it and allowing more
flexibility.
I have four children. And one of the things that I feel
fortunate to have is the ability to, as a parent, to, not only
promote education in this committee, but to understand that, in
my view, one of the biggest problems we have in America is with
children who don't have parents like myself, or maybe you all,
that think education is important.
And the ones that do that are stuck in situations where
their opportunities for their children may be more limited than
my children have in our community, I believe that we need to
have viable options for parents to make the decision to educate
their children, giving them the best opportunity to succeed as
possible.
In that vein, I want to talk briefly about Florida's McKay
scholarship program related to disabled students in Florida
having access to a voucher program that allows them to attend
whatever schools that their parents think would best benefit
them, and to point out that this study is the first really
empirical evaluation of the impact exposure of a voucher
program on the public schools that surround that community.
And what this study shows is actually the students who
remain in public school with the same disability criteria as
those that left to go to the surrounding private schools
actually improved also in their educational testing standards
and that those are with the mild disabilities.
Those with severe disabilities there was actually no change
at all between the students remaining in public school and
remaining--and going to the private school. So this has been
one of the biggest--one of the biggest debates over the last 20
years about the effect of allowing parental choice for students
in disadvantaged environments to make the choice to improve the
quality of life of their child by allowing them another
opportunity.
So what I would like to hear comments, first from Dr.
Barresi--and good to see you again--about your views on
parental--what I would call parental choice programs such as
the McKay scholarship program. And do we feel, actually, there
is any data to support the fact that this will limit the
functioning of the public school system in our country, which,
by the way, is the foundation of why we have such a great
country, the establishment of a solid public school system?
Thank you.
Ms. Barresi. Appreciate your question. As you may or may
not know, I am the founder of two charter schools in the State
of Oklahoma. So obviously, I am a big believer that parents
should determine--they should have the first choice on where
their child attends school.
And to that fact, I am proud of the fact that we are
expanding opportunities for students in education choice within
the state, not only in charter schools. But I am proud to say
our legislature passed a bill in its last session to provide
what is called--it is called the Lindsey Nicole Henry bill. And
this is an opportunity scholarship for handicapped children to
where their parents can get up to 95 percent of the state
dollars and utilize those in a private school setting for their
child.
Now, my colleagues may disagree with me or not. And because
public school, traditional public school advocates say this is
diluting dollars for children. In my estimation, this is the
dollars following the child to the classroom, whether that
classroom is in a private setting or in a traditional public
school setting or in a charter school or any other setting that
a particular state has.
I think it is important that we allow that to continue to
happen. I think it does incentivize innovation within the
general population. There is nothing like competition and
accountability to move that forward.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
I would just like consent to submit the McKay scholarship
program study into the record.
[The information follows:]
------
Chairman Kline. Without objection.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I think all members have had a chance to
ask questions.
I will yield now to my colleague, Mr. Miller, for any
further questions or closing comments he may have.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Just to follow up on the last point you made, Ms. Barresi,
so you would favor federal funds, which are for the most part,
let us just keep the big categories, IDEA and Title I, those
funds following the student and be a per capita--and they would
follow the student?
Ms. Barresi. I think these are taxpayer dollars. These are
dollars that taxpayers have paid for their children's
education. I think those dollars need to be following the child
to the classroom, yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. No, I understand. I understand why you are
saying that. But let me then just input. Obviously, when you
follow Title I dollars and IDEA dollars, there is a lot of
leakage between what would be a per capita allocation per child
and what districts do with those monies.
Ms. Barresi. Correct.
Mr. Miller. In some areas, IDEA funds are used for
essentially property tax relief. In other areas, we know the
leakage that goes on between Title I and the payment of
teachers in non-qualified--you know, eligible schools, if you
will. But that is to show you--I am not being opposed to this.
I am just trying--we have had a lot of discussions about this,
and I am just trying to sort it out. You run, you know, a large
operation. I am just trying----
Ms. Barresi. And that flexibility is important, I believe.
I believe we have to put in a lot more flexibility in how we
actually do seed our dollars.
Mr. Miller. But understand something. If you want the money
to follow the child, the purpose of this money for that child
who is Title I eligible is a national purpose based upon the
civil rights decisions in this country. The money following the
child with IDEA--and I don't disagree with any of this--is
there because of the Supreme Court of the United States, not
because we decided one day to wake up and help educate the
children with disabilities.
We did that because local districts found themselves at the
end of a Supreme Court decision that they didn't believe that
they could handle on their own. So I am just trying to sort
this out because I think it is a crucial question. I think it
is a very crucial question.
Ms. Barresi. Well, I know in Oklahoma, that with our
Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship opportunity, those federal--
pardon me--those federal IDEA dollars do not follow the child
into that private school. And I think it is something that
should be considered in terms of an opportunity for those
children.
Mr. Miller. I don't disagree with you. I am not here--I am
not playing an adversarial role here. I am just trying to sort
this out. I have been trying to explore this for a number of
years about how you get the resources on behalf of those
students to the place where they have the best opportunity to
succeed. And I think in the--okay, we will continue that
conversation.
I think the question, as we transition, you know, to a
growth model, and I think there is general agreement that that
is the direction we will go--the first time my state tried it,
it was sort of growth to nowhere. Then they got it right, and
they have pretty good--very good standards at this point.
And I think that that is important because I think you
can--I appreciate people dismissing AYP. But when a school has
7 percent of its children reading at fourth grade level, that
isn't the federal problem. There is something else going on
here. And when you have 13 percent of your eighth graders at
the eighth grade level, you have got a problem.
So you can dismiss it. And we know it is a snapshot in
time. You are comparing this fourth grade against that fourth
grade. Also it is telling you something about this school. And
so, as we move to a growth model, you can't have children
languish in that system.
You know, you talk about you are a middle school, you are a
charter school. So you bring kids with all these problems. But
we see other middle schools, charter schools that take those
kids and get them up to speed, because otherwise, on your
suggestion, you would be graduating kids that would be in need
of dramatic remedial education to go onto a 2-or 4-year
college.
Mr. Maqubela. Right.
Mr. Miller. Right?
Mr. Maqubela. Congressman, what I was speaking to is that
we see that only in our first year. But by the time they leave
us in the eighth grade year, we have done just that. And our
numbers show that overwhelmingly, our students not only leave
at grade level, but actually above grade level. But determining
whether or not we are a failing school is judged in that first
year.
Mr. Miller. No, I understand that. I understand that. And
that is why we are moving. But I just want to make sure that we
are talking about career or college-ready standards at the end
of the traditional place at twelfth grade.
Mr. Maqubela. Right.
Mr. Miller. You should be career or college-ready.
Mr. Maqubela. Absolutely. And that is what we are saying.
Mr. Miller. And that has got to be the growth. Now, with
the advent of common core standards, if states, in fact, do end
up embracing this and participating in this, then you have
what, in theory, on those subjects you have agreed to those
where the growth should go to those standards.
Because remember, when we did No Child Left Behind, there
was no way in hell the Federal Government was going to tell
states what their assessments were going to be. That would have
been a non-starter, just politically. It was not going to
happen.
So we took the states as we found them. A lot of states
don't like their tests. There are no federal assessments. There
are no federal assessments. So the states--you know, you kind
of argued it both ways.
So as we transition, it just has to be clear about one of
the points, Mr. Chairman, the civil rights aspect of this
legislation, the accountability sections of this legislation. I
think both of those allow dramatic improvements in flexibility.
But you lose those, then you are back to general assistance on
education. Why would I raise the taxes of my constituents to
pay for the education if there wasn't a national purpose?
You could say, well, it is the economy. That is another
discussion. I don't think you want to have that in this
Congress, but it would be interesting. It would be an
interesting discussion.
So I think there is a serious rationale because these are
the children most likely not to get that full educational
opportunity. And that is why we make these decisions. I think
this panel--if any one of you want to comment, the light is on,
so I can take a quick comment. I don't----
Chairman Kline. It is that ranking member privilege.
Mr. Miller. Any comments on this? Or nod if you are in
agreement.
Mr. Amoroso. I think you have made a lot of good points. I
mean, I don't think there is a lot of argument against that.
Mr. Miller. You get an A. Let us see how we are going to
grade your school, Mr. Amoroso. [Laughter.]
Ms. Barresi. One thing we want to look at also, besides
just that growth model, is to look at other indicators of
success: how many students within that school are taking A.P.
courses in their high schools; how many have concurrent
enrollment; how many students are--let us take a group of
students. How well are they bringing up the lowest quartile of
their performing students?
I think what is appropriate is to get an overall view of
the professional effort of that school, take a look at the
professional development of their teachers, parent involvement
as well, possibly even a small percentage for parent evaluation
of the performance of their school.
Mr. Miller. I wouldn't disagree with you on that. Or I want
to make sure that it is real and it is measurable. When we
opened it up, I started the discussion on multiple indicators
around here 4 years ago, as Mr. McKeon was pointing out, and
all hell broke loose.
But let me tell you, there were more suggestions for
indicators than you could shake a stick at. Do the students
feel good about the school? Are the students happy? Are the
students--that is all interesting. But at the end of the day,
are they college and career-ready? And there were no shortage--
there was no shortage of people who had indicators of--you
know, does the sun come in from the South in the morning?
So I agree with the multiple indicators. But I think they
have to be real, and they have to be measurable. And I think
that is important.
The final thing I just would say on this question of an
exemption, if you are doing well, you get an exemption, I have
watched wonderful turnaround schools implode out of the
complete surprise of everyone. That is not an indictment. I
just think you have to keep the accountability in place. And I
think we can construct a flexible system that that won't be as
important as it might be today under the regime that we are
operating under.
Mr. Maqubela. And what I would say to that is it is not the
suggestion that any oversight body, whether it be the Federal
Government or some other entity, walk away completely because
the school have shown, but that those schools be allowed to
build upon the success that they have shown. So we are not
saying that there is no measurement, but as opposed to every
year or every 2 years that there is some break in that
assessment so that those schools can do more of what they are
doing great.
And again, just that we are not treating everybody the same
way. And if we give the opportunity for those schools that have
demonstrated what they can do to do more of that with less
burdensome guidelines, I think what they will do is benefit
more of those----
Mr. Miller. I am not treating everybody the same way. In
fact, what I am seeking is a system that you will be
accountable for and then your parents and the communities and
whoever else can make a decision based upon the transparency
and the real nature of the data whether or not they want to
send their children.
We have people in California now making decisions that they
don't want to send their children to school. As a matter of
fact, they want to change this school. I think parents and
community, with good data that is transparent, will have a--can
create a better accountability system than what we are trying
to do from 2,000 miles away, pulling a lot of levers.
I am done.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. I have----
Chairman Kline. I think I agreed with everything that he
just closed with, at least. Obviously, as we go forward in this
reauthorization process--and it will be a process of probably
several pieces of legislation, we are going to absolutely have
to address the fundamental question that Mr. Miller just
raised--is in accountability, it will be accountability to
whom, for what. And so, that data and that transparency is
going to be part of this discussion.
And the to whom, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Miller
that the people where you are, those parents and those school
boards and those communities, are going to be the people who
will be most accountable to and not necessarily the man or
woman down the street. So your testimony is very, very valuable
here.
And the concerns about flexibility, which every one of you
spoke to, where money is sequestered or set aside or in the
wrong silo, in the wrong tube and you need to move it from this
tube to that tube is something that we are hearing more and
more of. And we intend absolutely to move to address those
concerns.
So thank each of you.
Dr. Grier, give my best to my former, once upon a time home
town for 4 years of Houston, Texas while I was a--while I was a
student there.
Mr. Maqubela, congratulations on MS-2. What a wonderful,
wonderful story that you have to tell here.
Dr. Amoroso, give my best to my neighbors when you get back
there.
And, Dr. Barresi, please give our highest regards to our
former colleague and your governor, Governor Fallon.
Thank you all. And with no further business, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]