- EDUCATION REFORMS: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

EDUCATION REFORMS: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
ACCOUNTABILITY

=======================================================================

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, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-38

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-265 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
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Duncan Hunter, California Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
David P. Roe, Tennessee Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tim Walberg, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Richard L. Hanna, New York Susan A. Davis, California
Todd Rokita, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina David Loebsack, Iowa
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
Martha Roby, Alabama
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania

Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Hearing held on September 14, 2011............................... 1

Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6

Statement of Witnesses:
Carvalho, Alberto M., superintendent, Miami-Dade County
Public Schools............................................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Hawley, A. Blaine, principal, Red Pump Elementary School, Bel
Air, MD.................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Sichel, Dr. Amy F., superintendent of schools, Abington
School District............................................ 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Skandera, Hanna, secretary-designate, New Mexico Public
Education Department....................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10

Additional Submissions:
Questions submitted for the record:
Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois:
To Ms. Hawley........................................ 62
To Dr. Sichel........................................ 64
To Ms. Skandera...................................... 83
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii, to Mr. Carvalho................... 60
Mr. Kline:
To Ms. Hawley........................................ 62
To Dr. Sichel........................................ 64
To Ms. Skandera...................................... 83
Responses to questions submitted:
Mr. Carvalho............................................. 61
Ms. Hawley............................................... 62
Dr. Sichel............................................... 65
Ms. Skandera............................................. 83

EDUCATION REFORMS:
EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN
PUBLIC SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

----------

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Education and the Workforce

Washington, DC

----------

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Biggert, Platts,
Foxx, Goodlatte, Hunter, Roe, Thompson, DesJarlais, Hanna,
Bucshon, Noem, Roby, Heck, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Scott,
Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Kucinich, Altmire, Holt, Davis,
and Hirono.
Staff Present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine
Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; James
Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator;
Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Daniela
Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Staff
Director; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Krisann
Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human
Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant;
Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel;
Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education
Policy Advisor; Daniel Brown, Minority Junior Legislative
Assistant; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; John D'Elia,
Minority Staff Assistant; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy
Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Minority Director
of Education Policy; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press
Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Melissa
Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director for Education;
Laura Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability
Advisor; Michele Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor
Policy Director; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order. Before we proceed with this morning's hearing I
would like to recognize Mr. Miller for an announcement.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Kline. I am pleased to
announce that Congressman Jason Altmire will be filling the
minority's vacancy on this committee and sitting on the Health
and the Higher Education Subcommittees. As many of you know,
Congressman Altmire was a member of the committee from 2007 to
2010 during his first two terms in Congress. He is currently
serving his third term in Congress representing Pennsylvania's
Fourth Congressional District. And I ask all my colleagues to
join me in welcoming Congressman Altmire back to the committee.
And Jason, we are glad you wanted to continue to serve on the
committee.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Welcome.
Chairman Kline. And Jason, I add my welcome. It is good to
see you back. Well, good morning, all. Welcome to our committee
hearing on public school accountability. I would like to thank
our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the
opportunity to get your perspective on the role States, local
school districts, and the Federal Government should play in
ensuring schools are held accountable for improving student
achievement.
According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans' opinion of
the U.S. public school system continues to plummet. Only 34
percent of the survey participants indicated ``quite a lot'' or
``a great deal'' of confidence in our public schools.
This should come as no surprise. We don't have to look far
to find discouraging statistics about fourth graders struggling
to read or rising high school dropout rates. Decades of
escalating Federal intervention in the Nation's classrooms has
not only failed to raise student achievement levels, it has
also created a complex web of red tape that ties the hands of
State and local education officials.
Despite its best intentions, our education system is
seriously flawed. Currently elementary and secondary education
law, No Child Left Behind, requires all students to be
proficient in reading and math by 2014, which frankly is not
going to happen. Under NCLB's accountability system, known as
Adequate Yearly Progress, all schools that fail to meet target
proficiency levels for 2 or more consecutive years are required
to undergo the same series of prescriptive Federal
interventions regardless of the unique circumstances or
challenges facing each school.
We cannot continue to rely on this one-size-fits-all
Federal accountability system to gauge the performance of our
schools and students. It is time to develop a more meaningful
way to measure whether students are learning, and we must be
willing to look beyond laws enacted in Washington, D.C. Across
the country reform-minded individuals are challenging the
education paradigm in exciting ways and children are benefiting
from their efforts.
For example, K-12 reform has been a top priority in Florida
for more than a decade. In 1999, then-Governor Jeb Bush enacted
a series of far reaching school reforms that gave parents a
greater role and significantly narrowed the achievement gap for
the State's Hispanic and black students. Moreover, these
previously underserved groups began to outscore many statewide
averages for all students. Florida's academic successes were
made possible by commonsense changes by reformers, students and
teachers all working together for a single united purpose:
student achievement.
In Indiana, State leaders in local school districts are
implementing the Indiana Growth Model, which measures a
school's success and assigns letter grades. The new system
enables a more in-depth measurement of how much students learn
over the course of a school year no matter their achievement
level, income, race or zip code. Accordingly, parents and
education officials gain a more accurate view of which teachers
are driving the biggest academic gains in the classroom, moving
away from simply assessing test scores to a model that
recognizes teachers who are moving students one and a half to
two and a half grade levels in a single school year.
Florida and Indiana are not alone. States across the
country are working to improve accountability systems, holding
schools accountable for student performance, improve classroom
instruction and offer parents more quality choices in their
children's education. Each of the witnesses here with us today
has played a fundamental role in the development and
implementation of innovative accountability systems at the
State and local levels. These bold reformers are taking matters
into their own hands, and I believe we must do everything we
can to get out of their way.
As we work to redefine accountability we must examine the
progress being made by the men and women who have an integral
understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing
America's students. I look forward to learning our witnesses'
views on the way forward for accountability and a productive
debate with my colleagues.
Before we continue with the hearing, now that we have
gathered some more of our colleagues, I again want to welcome
to the committee Jason Altmire. Jason, again, we are glad to
have you back on the committee and look forward to hearing your
views on the issues before us.
I now turn to my colleague George Miller, the senior
Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce

Good morning, and welcome to our committee hearing on public school
accountability. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
We appreciate the opportunity to get your perspective on the role
states, local school districts, and the federal government should play
in ensuring schools are held accountable for improving student
achievement.
According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans' opinion of the U.S.
public school system continues to plummet. Only 34 percent of the
survey participants indicated 'quite a lot' or 'a great deal' of
confidence in our public schools.
This should come as no surprise--we don't have to look far to find
discouraging statistics about fourth graders struggling to read or
rising high school dropout rates. Decades of escalating federal
intervention in the nation's classrooms has not only failed to raise
student achievement levels, it has also created a complex web of red
tape that ties the hands of state and local education officials.
Despite its best intentions, our education system is seriously
flawed. Current elementary and secondary education law, known as No
Child Left Behind, requires all students to be proficient in reading
and math by 2014, which, frankly, isn't going to happen. Under NCLB's
accountability system, known as Adequate Yearly Progress, all schools
that fail to meet target proficiency levels for two or more consecutive
years are required to undergo the same series of prescriptive federal
interventions, regardless of the unique circumstances or challenges
facing each school.
We cannot continue to rely on a one-size-fits-all federal
accountability system to gauge the performance of our schools and
students. It's time to develop a more meaningful way to measure whether
students are learning, and we must be willing to look beyond laws
enacted in Washington, D.C. Across the country, reform-minded
individuals are challenging the education paradigm in exciting ways,
and children are benefitting from their efforts.
For example, K-12 reform has been a top priority in Florida for
more than a decade. In 1999, then-Governor Jeb Bush enacted a series of
far-reaching school reforms that gave parents a greater role and
significantly narrowed the achievement gap for the state's Hispanic and
black students. Moreover, these previously underserved groups began to
outscore many statewide averages for all students. Florida's academic
successes were made possible by commonsense changes by reformers,
students, and teachers all working together for a single, united
purpose: student achievement.
In Indiana, state leaders and local school districts are
implementing the ``Indiana Growth Model,'' which measures schools'
successes and assigns letter grades. The new system enables a more in-
depth measurement of how much students learn over the course of a
school year--no matter their achievement level, income, race, or ZIP
code. Accordingly, parents and education officials gain a more accurate
view of which teachers are driving the biggest academic gains in the
classroom--moving away from simply assessing test scores to a model
that recognizes teachers who are moving students 1.5 to 2.5 grade
levels in a single school year.
Florida and Indiana are not alone--states across the country are
working to improve accountability systems, hold schools accountable for
student performance, improve classroom instruction, and offer parents
more quality choices in their children's education.
Each of the witnesses here with us today has played a fundamental
role in the development and implementation of innovative accountability
systems at the state and local levels. These bold reformers are taking
matters into their own hands, and I believe we must do everything we
can to get out of their way.
As we work to redefine accountability, we must examine the progress
being made by the men and women who have an integral understanding of
the challenges and opportunities facing America's students. I look
forward to learning our witness' views on the way forward for
accountability, and a productive debate with my colleagues.
Before we continue with the hearing, I welcome to the committee my
colleague from Pennsylvania's 4th district, Congressman Jason Altmire.
We're glad to have you back on the committee, and look forward to
hearing your views on the important issues before us.
______

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join you in
welcoming Jason back. And good morning to our witnesses, and
thank you for coming and sharing your time and your expertise
with us.
This morning's hearing focuses on one of the most important
issues in public school education, accountability. We have had
a number of hearings this year examining the Federal role in
education, and I think there is universal agreement that we
need to update No Child Left Behind. And the witnesses have
told us that there is in fact a need for Federal Government in
education and specifically when it comes to accountability.
In our first education hearing this year one of the
Republican witnesses said that the Federal Government needs to
put guardrails in place to ensure quality and provide support.
I believe that these guardrails must include college and career
ready standards, goals to ensure that standards are met and
aggressive but achievable annual performance targets so the
States, districts and schools know what is expected of them in
continuing to move all students forward.
Without accountability, parents, teachers and school
administrators have no way of knowing what exactly is happening
in schools and whether our students are learning and our
schools are improving. Parents shouldn't wonder if their
child's school is preparing that child to succeed in college
after graduation or in a career. And if their child isn't on
track to graduate with those skills, parents should know their
school has a responsibility to improve and meet their child's
needs.
Without accountability, it is too easy to return to a time,
prior to NCLB, when students' actual performance was masked by
averages. Accountability is at the heart of No Child Left
Behind. The law shined a bright light on how all students were
performing, including low-income students, minority students
and students with disabilities.
Ten years later there is a need for reform, and the need
for transparency and accountability and action remains critical
to any reform.
When we wrote the law, our intention was very clear. We
wanted a laser like focus on data and accountability to improve
the education of students that were falling behind. We took the
important step forward calling for communities to be
transparent about the achievement of all children, and now we
need to take the next step, which is to balance that
accountability we worked so hard to implement in No Child Left
Behind with greater flexibility at the local level, with less
prescription at the Federal level.
We need an accountability system that works and refuses to
let any student slip through the cracks. We must set high goals
for all students and provide them with a challenging and
rigorous learning environment that is tied to college and
career ready standards, not the standards that lead to remedial
classes in college but actual ability to participate in the
college curriculum.
Students need creative, effective teachers who hold them to
high goals and standards and can adjust their teaching
strategies when needed. These efforts are happening in some
schools and some States but not in enough. These high
expectations should be there for every child in every school.
The role of the Federal Government in accountability is
essential to meet these high expectations and to ensure that
all children receive a high quality education. And the Federal
Government should require that all States and each school
district use database decision making to target interventions
to improve the academic achievement of all students.
Attacking the Federal role or eliminating it won't get us
closer to being the best in the world in education. It won't
help our economic security or our global competitiveness. What
it will do is make things harder for schools and students that
need the most help. Getting the Federal role right on
accountability and in all matters is a smart way to move
forward.
Unfortunately, in this committee we have seen legislation
that would be detrimental and harmful to the neediest students.
The flexibility package we passed in July will create a slush
fund for school districts, and that is unacceptable. It will
take away money and resources from the neediest students and
let school districts forego the civil rights priorities and the
education equality promised to students under important court
cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
There is very little support for the bill in the education
community because people who know the needs of school districts
know why NCLB was signed into law, to ensure a quality
education for all students, a goal that must not be forgotten
in the next reauthorization.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about
the accountability programs that you have structured in your
districts, and I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning.
This morning's hearing focuses on one of the most important issues
in public school education: accountability.
We have had a number of hearings this year examining the federal
role in education. I think there is universal agreement we need to
update No Child Let Behind (NCLB). And witnesses have told us that
there is in fact a need for the federal government in education and
specifically, when it comes to accountability.
In our first education hearing this year, one of the Republican
witnesses said that the federal government needs to put ``guardrails in
place to ensure quality and provide support.''
These guardrails must include college and career ready standards,
goals to ensure those standards are met, and aggressive, but achievable
annual performance targets so that states, districts and schools know
what is expected of them and continue to move all students forward.
Without accountability, parents, teachers and school administrators
have no way of knowing what exactly is happening in schools and whether
our students are learning.
Parents shouldn't wonder if their child's school is preparing that
child to succeed in college after graduation.
And if their child isn't on track to graduate with those skills,
parents should know their school has a responsibility to improve and
meet their child's needs.
Without accountability it is too easy to return to a time, prior to
NCLB, when students' actual performance was masked by averages.
Accountability was at the heart of No Child Left Behind. The law
shined a bright light on how all students were performing, including
low income students, minority students and students with disabilities.
10 years later there is a need for reform. And the need for
transparency, accountability, and action remains critical to any
reform.
When we wrote the law, our intention was very clear. We wanted a
laser like focus on data and accountability to improve the education of
students who were falling behind.
We took important steps forward, calling on communities to be
transparent about the achievement of all children. And now we need to
take the next steps: balance the accountability we worked so hard to
implement in NCLB with greater flexibility at the local level and less
prescription at the federal level.
We need an accountability system that works and refuses to let any
student slip through the cracks. We must set high goals for all
students and provide them with a challenging and rigorous learning
environment that is tied to college and career ready standards.
Students need creative, effective teachers who hold them to high
goals and standards--and can adjust their teaching strategies when
needed.
These efforts are happening in some schools, in some states. But
that's not good enough. These high expectations should be there for
every student in every school.
The role of the federal government in accountability is essential
to meet these high expectations and ensure that all children receive a
high quality education. And the federal government should require that
each state and each school district use data-based decision making to
target interventions to improve the academic achievement of all
students.
Attacking the federal role or eliminating it won't get us closer to
being the best in the world in education. It won't help our economic
security or our global competitiveness. What it will do is make things
harder for the schools and students that need the most help. Getting
the federal role right on accountability and in all matters is the
smart way to move forward.
Unfortunately, in this committee, we've seen legislation that would
be detrimental and harmful to the neediest students. The flexibility
package we passed in July will create a slush fund for school
districts.
It will take away money and resources from the neediest students
and let school districts forgo the civil rights priorities and
education equality promised to students under important court cases
like Brown vs. the Board of the Education.
There is very little support for the bill in the education
community because people who know the needs of school districts know
why NCLB was signed into law--to ensure a quality education for all
students--a goal that must not be forgotten in the next
reauthorization.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
accountability in your districts. I yield back.
______

Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to
committee rule 7(c) all committee members will be permitted to
submit written statements to be included in the permanent
hearing record. 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.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses, and it is a terrific panel today. First is Ms.
Hanna Skandera, the Secretary-Designate of Education for the
New Mexico Department of Public Education.
Ms. Blaine Hawley has been in education for 26 years. She
started when she was 3, and a principal for 7. In January 2011
she became principal of Red Pump Elementary in Bel Air,
Maryland, a newly constructed school serving 620 students in
grades K-5.
Mr. Alberto Carvalho has served as superintendent of Miami-
Dade County Public Schools, a little district in the southern
part of the country, since 2008. He has served as a classroom
science teacher, a school site administrator and an advocate
for secondary school reform.
Dr. Amy Sichel has been a member of the Abington School
District in Abington, Pennsylvania, staff for 35 years. She has
served as superintendent of schools for the past 11 years.
Welcome to you all. Before I recognize you to provide your
testimony let me again explain our lighting system, our timing
system. You will have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When
you begin the light there in front of you will turn green. When
one minute is left the light will turn yellow. And when your
time is expired the light will turn red, at which point I would
ask you to move as quickly as you can to wrap up your remarks.
And after you have testified members will each have 5 minutes
to ask questions of the panel. As we mentioned to some of you
earlier, I am loathe to drop the gavel on such distinguished
witnesses, but please try to wrap up when that red light comes
on.
Okay. Ms. Skandera, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF HANNA SCANDERA, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE, NEW MEXICO
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Ms. Skandera. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thank you for having me here to testify today. It is
my privilege and honor. And I just will harken back to a couple
of comments you made, Mr. Chairman, about Indiana and Florida.
I am also vice chair of Chiefs for Change, which is a group
of reform minded chiefs across the Nation seeking to implement
research driven and data driven reform across their States. And
I also am a member of CCSSO, and I will also mention that they
have accountability principles they have mentioned and put
forward for reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Both
Chiefs for Change and CCSSO have excellent recommendations when
it comes to accountability.
Having said that, I also was former Deputy Commissioner in
Florida, so I hope to bring to the table a little bit of a
larger State's perspective, and then New Mexico, which is a
smaller State when it comes to the number of students we serve.
However, in the State of New Mexico we are a very diverse
State. We are a minority and majority State: 55 percent of our
students are Hispanic, 11 percent Native American. We have 22
different tribes, pueblos and Indian nations that are
represented in New Mexico alone. In addition, we have obviously
many other diverse groups across our State. So we are charged
and challenged with the great opportunity to close our
achievement gap.
I was struck a few minutes ago by what I think is the
conundrum in education. Often there are so many great ideas,
but at the end of the day it is our charge at the State level,
the district and the school level and certainly in looking at
the Federal role at what are those things that we know matter
most for our kids and how do we begin to have a laser focus on
a few great things to create change and reform for our students
versus a whole lot of things that might hit around the edges
but don't get to the real issue, which is every student across
this Nation can learn. And I do believe that No Child Left
Behind in principle made that statement to this Nation and to
our States, and it is our job to steward that as we go forward
in our States and also to look forward to the reauthorization
and the flexibilities that might be brought to the table.
I will mention a few things about New Mexico as well. Just
to be straightforward, we are often ranked 49th in the Nation
when it comes to student achievements. I look forward to the
day when I can tell somebody like Florida, sorry, we changed
places with you. But I also believe that there are key reforms
that must be implemented to make that happen. We in New Mexico,
as I mentioned, are 49th when it comes to fourth grade reading.
80 percent of our schools according to NAEP are not on grade
level when it comes to being able to read at the appropriate
level; 49th often when it comes to graduation rates in
comparisons across the Nation. So we have lots of room for
growth and improvement, but we are committed to that.
And I am proud to say that New Mexico has a new Governor
and she has championed education reform with the umbrella of we
put our kids first in every decision we make and we will see
New Mexico win across the board. And the basic belief that
there are five strategic key levers for change when it comes to
accountability, reform and the possibility that every one of
our students is successful, whether it is career or college.
And I would like to unpack those key strategic levers for
change.
Number one, we expect a smarter return on investments.
There is plenty of research that tells us money matters, but it
is not the driver when it comes to improved student
achievements. In New Mexico we have the ability to review every
single district and charter school's budget every year, and we
either approve it or disapprove it. And in that process we have
the opportunity and in just this last year put into
legislation, not only are we approving budgets for fiscal
solvency, et cetera, but we are asking the fundamental question
what is our return on investment. At this point in time it is
not okay just to put money into whatever reform measure it is,
it is the question, ``Is this a proven strategy for improved
student achievement?''
So today we are ranked about 37th in the Nation when it
comes to per-pupil expenditures in New Mexico. I already shared
we are ranked about 49th when it comes to student achievement.
We believe and expect when it comes to return on investment
that we can do a better job. And so as we look forward to
implementing this policy our fundamental question is not how
much are we getting, but what is our return.
When it comes to the Federal role, I would encourage
Congress to consider maintaining high expectations in terms of
outcomes linked to proven strategies of improved student
achievement while providing flexibility when those expectations
are met.
Second strategic lever: real accountability for real
results. Today in New Mexico 87 percent of our schools are
failing, according to No Child Left Behind. I would expect by
next year it will be nearly 100 percent because of our annual
measurable objectives and the expectations that continue to
increase. I will tell you that I do not believe 87 percent of
our schools are failing. I believe that we have many that are
failing. And we need to begin to create a differentiated
accountability system that gives us an opportunity to identify
those schools that are truly improving and seen success and
those that are struggling to intervene in a meaningful way.
So as we look towards what we are doing in the State of New
Mexico, this year we passed a law to provide grades to our
schools A, B, C, D or F, not pass or fail. We implemented this
because there are other States across this Nation that have
implemented this program and seen remarkable results. No longer
is it okay to say we are making it or not, we must
differentiate so that we can intervene in a meaningful way. In
our school grading system we allow the--we capture, I should
say, progress and growth, not just a static measure of
proficiency.
I mentioned the third strategic lever for change, ensuring
our students are ready for success. There are two components
for this strategic lever. Number one, the expectation that we
have rigorous college and career ready standards, we have
adopted the Common Core and we believe that as we transition
that will be a key in providing the platform and foundation for
improved student achievement, not the guarantee but the
foundation. And I would say in that I firmly believe that the
decision to adopt the Common Core is solely that of the State.
I think it is the important role of the Federal Government to
establish high expectations, but it is the State's role to
adopt those standards.
In addition to having high standards and expectations, we
also have another expectation that our students can read on
grade level. And while this sounds novel it is not. 47 percent
of our third grade students today are not reading on grade
level. So we have begun to raise the bar and are currently
pursuing a policy that says if by the end of the third grade
our students who have received interventions from kindergarten,
first, second and third grade are not able to read, it is our
job as adults to say enough is enough, draw a line in the sand
and begin to say we are not sending our students forward and
setting them up for failure.
Chairman Kline. Ms. Skandera, can I ask you to wrap up
here, please?
Ms. Skandera. Yes.
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
finally, two other strategic levers that I believe are
important are honoring and rewarding our effective teachers and
school leaders, which we have many of, and we have failed
fundamentally in our currently system to do that.
And finally, implementing effective options for parents to
provide options. And we look forward to the support of the
Federal Government in both of those endeavors. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Skandera follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hanna Skandera, Secretary-Designate,
New Mexico Public Education Department

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for having me
here to testify today. My name is Hanna Skandera and I am the
Secretary-designate for the New Mexico Public Education Department. I
also serve as the vice-chair of Chiefs for Change--a dynamic group of
state chiefs driving reform. The achievement of our students, the
quality of our teachers, and the measures we use to hold schools
accountable are at the forefront of New Mexico's education reform
efforts.
New Mexico's demographics are distinctive: 57% of the State's K--12
students are Hispanic, 29% are White, 11% are Native American, 3% are
Black, and 1% are Asian or of other backgrounds. New Mexico is ranked
36th in overall population size, has the fifth largest land mass in the
U.S. (121,665 square miles), and ranks 45th in the nation in population
density. Further, with only 6.3 people per square mile, New Mexico
faces unique challenges in educating students in rural areas. New
Mexico has been a majority-minority state since its inception with 22
distinct Indian tribes, pueblos, and nations.
Since taking office, Governor Martinez has advanced a bold
education reform agenda: Kid's First, New Mexico Wins. The need for
reform in New Mexico is now:
Only 53% of New Mexico third graders read proficiently;
33% of our students who score proficient or higher on the
11th grade English Language Arts assessment need remediation in
college;
Under AYP, 87% of our schools are failing; and
99.98% of our teachers ``meet competency'' under an
evaluation system that fails to reward excellence and link teacher
evaluations to student outcomes.
Our challenge is great, but I know New Mexico students can reach
high levels of achievement. Further, our cultural and geographic
diversity is one of our greatest strengths, and we must find a way to
leverage that great resource.
Under the Kids First, New Mexico Wins reform agenda, New Mexico has
identified 5 strategic levers for change. Each lever allows for New
Mexico to advance bold reform, while holding a high bar.

Lever 1: A Smarter Return on New Mexico's Investment
We know that money alone cannot fix education. Rather than maintain
the status quo, New Mexico is proactively shifting the way we allocate
funding to districts and schools. Through our annual budget review
process, we are partnering with districts to look in detail at where
their funds are being allocated and to ensure that expenditures are
aligned with proven instructional strategies.
As states intervene in low performing schools, implement teacher
effectiveness systems, and increase effective options for parents,
providing additional flexibility on the use of existing federal funds
will spur innovation and better meet the needs of students and schools.
I encourage Congress to consider maintaining high expectations in terms
of outcomes, while providing flexibility when those expectations are
met.

Lever 2: Real Accountability, Real Results
Under the current AYP system, 87% of New Mexico schools are
failing. I know that this is not the case. We have some schools in New
Mexico that are helping students to achieve and grow in a robust way
annually and currently we have no way to recognize those
accomplishments. On the other hand, I know we have schools that
struggle to help children reach a basic level of achievement, and with
such a large number of schools ``failing'', it is hard to accurately
and effectively differentiate interventions and resources to those that
need them most.
Earlier this year, New Mexico passed a new school accountability
system, the A-F School Grading Act. This new, differentiated
accountability system will allow us to recognize both proficiency and
growth. For the first time, we will know with confidence which schools
are our A schools and be able to use them as models for our schools
that struggle.
A grade for an elementary and middle school will be based on
proficiency, growth, as well as additional proven academic indicators.
We will also utilize a value-add model in our calculation to ensure we
are holding schools accountable for those areas they are truly
responsible for versus the ones they are not, such as a student's race
or socio-economic status.
For high schools, school grades will be based on proficiency,
growth, graduation rate, and college and career readiness indicators
such as AP coursework, PSAT and ACT scores.
While the current system includes critical components for any
accountability system--disaggregated data, standards and assessments,
interventions for low performing schools--the arbitrary bar and lack of
flexibility has made it difficult for states to advance bold
accountability agendas that serve their schools and students well.
Moving forward, New Mexico encourages Congress to pursue an
accountability framework that requires states to have a high bar and
expectations for all schools, but coupled with flexibility to allow
states and districts to determine achievement targets for schools and
differentiate interventions to meet the unique and specific needs of
low achieving schools.

Lever 3: Ready for Success
Regardless of background, all students can achieve at high levels.
Our Ready for Success initiative is related directly to preparing all
students for success in college or career. New Mexico has already taken
several important steps towards realizing this goal.
First, we are working to transition to rigorous, college and career
ready standards. Adopting the Common Core was an important first step
to ensure that our students are competitive in New Mexico and across
the nation. As we transition to these new and rigorous standards, we
are committed to engaging our teachers, school leaders and parents to
ensure successful implementation. I firmly believe that the decision to
adopt the Common Core is solely that of a state. While NCLB took an
important step in requiring states to implement rigorous standards for
all students in a state, the role of the federal government should end
there.
Second, we have placed a command focus on reading. A 2011 report by
the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Double Jeopardy, found that students who
are not proficient readers by the end of third grade are four times
more likely to drop out of high school. Screening and intervention in
the earliest grades will make our students better prepared to compete
in the 21st Century economy. Additionally, ending the all too common
practice of social promotion will provide our most at-risk students
with the opportunity they deserve to achieve at high levels.
As Congress reauthorizes ESEA, I encourage you maintain the
expectation that all students can reach college and career expectations
and have ample opportunity to do so.

Lever 4: Rewarding Effective Educators and Leaders
While there is no silver bullet in education, research has clearly
shown that one of the most important school-related factors influencing
a child's academic achievement is the quality of his or her teacher. A
recent study by Eric Hanushek found that if we give the most at-risk
students the most effective teachers, we could close the achievement
gap. Conversely, the data show that if a student is placed in a
classroom with a low performing teacher, the student will struggle to
make up learning gains lost.
The current teacher evaluation and recognition process in New
Mexico places emphasis on years of experience and credentials obtained.
In a recent 2010 sample of twenty-five percent of New Mexico's
teachers, 99.998 percent of these teachers received a rating of ``meets
competency'' on their evaluations (versus ``does not meet competency
''). Yet we are not seeing proportional success in terms of New Mexico
student achievement. This suggests a lack of alignment between the
system that measures teacher performance and the system that measures
student learning outcomes.
We are working to develop and implement a new teacher and school
leader evaluation system that includes multiple measures such as
student achievement as measured by a value-add model, objective and
uniform observations, and additional measures that will be selected by
districts. Any new system must better enable districts to address and
improve school personnel policies concerning professional development,
promotion, compensation, performance pay, and tenure. Further, the
evaluation system must identify teachers and school leaders who are
most effective at helping students succeed, provide targeted assistance
and professional development opportunities for teachers and school
leaders, inform the match between teacher assignments and student and
school needs and inform incentives for effective teachers and school
leaders.
I encourage Congress to replace the current expectations under NCLB
in regards to credentials with those that prioritize outcomes for
students.

Lever 5: Effective Options for Parents
Governor Martinez remains committed to offering parents multiple
educational opportunities for their children. However, these options
must be effective.
New Mexico is working to amend our existing process for new and
renewal charter school applications to ensure that only quality charter
schools are approved or renewed. An effective charter school has the
potential to meet the educational needs for students in rural and urban
areas who have limited choice now. In addition to increasing the number
and location of effective charter schools throughout New Mexico, we are
also pursuing effective virtual options.
Particularly in our rural districts, providing robust virtual
schooling options is a priority. Often, these districts are unable to
offer public school choice, advanced math and science classes, or AP
coursework. Virtual schools can address these issues. I encourage
Congress to consider flexibility for states in the use of federal
dollars to pursue robust virtual school offerings for students in
under-served areas.
As Congress pursues reauthorization of ESEA, I encourage you to
consider several important ideas:
First, states know best what their districts and schools
need in terms of flexibility and interventions. Allowing states to
implement accountability systems that reward effective schools and
intervene in a significant manner with the lowest achieving schools
will increase the number of high performing schools across this nation.
Second, many states are pursuing teacher effectiveness
models that are based significantly on student outcomes versus those
that are based on credentials and years of experience. This is hard
work, and states need support from Congress to accomplish it
effectively. This does not mean we need to be told what to do, but,
rather, to be supported as we pursue these changes.
Third, prioritize the use of existing federal funds on
proven programs and strategies. New money will not increase the number
of proficient readers in New Mexico, or any state. Instead, provide
flexibility to states to direct recourses to support proven programs at
the school and classroom level.
Fourth, rural states face unique challenges. New Mexico
has districts with as few as 43 students. The interventions and
supports that may be effective in Albuquerque are very different than
those that will be effective in Mosquero. As you work to reauthorize
ESEA, I challenge you to think critically and strategically about how
these schools' needs can be met.
Fifth, academic standards are the business of states.
Simply stated, all states should be required to implement rigorous
standards for all students in a state, but the role of the federal
government ends there.
As you prepare to reauthorize ESEA, I encourage you to visit the
Chiefs for Change website and look closely at the ESEA reauthorization
principals outlined. Thank you again for the opportunity to share my
ideas on the federal role in school accountability and how Congress can
maintain high expectations while expanding flexibility.
______

Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF BLAINE HAWLEY, PRINCIPAL,
RED PUMP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Ms. Hawley. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
Miller and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify this morning to provide the perspective of school
principals on accountability in our Nation's public schools as
the committee considers the renewal of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, ESEA, most recently reauthorized as No
Child Left Behind Act.
My name is Blaine Hawley. And as you heard, I am the
principal of Red Pump Elementary School in Bel Air, Maryland in
Harford County school district. Throughout my career the last 7
years has been spent as principal in two different schools.
Prior to that I was a teacher, school counselor and assistant
principal. I am very fortunate to be at Red Pump Elementary
School, the first new school in the district in 10 years.
Red Pump opened earlier this month and welcomed students
from the neighboring elementary schools for an inaugural
journey into the new school year. As the school principal I
devoted significant time working with all of the stakeholders
in the learning community to be clear about Red Pump's vision
for excellence and laying the foundation for a culture that
expects nothing less than excellence in teaching and learning.
In both schools that I have led as principal we have
understood the importance of the role that the teacher plays in
the classroom with data driven instruction and ongoing
assessment of student progress. Our teachers work together as
teams utilizing a protocol for examining student work, as well
as formative and summative assessments.
Through this process with their grade level team and
building specialists, they make collaborative decisions that
inform instruction. Teachers know and understand their students
and provide a differentiated program for student success.
Decisions about individual student remediation, enrichment and
intervention are all part of this process. Reflection is also
an important aspect of this protocol, bringing teachers back
together to evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction to
ensure all students are moving forward.
School leaders like me take on a myriad of tasks and
responsibilities each day that require expertise as an
organizational manager and an instructional leader to meet
effective leadership standards. The standards of effective
school leadership that principals must demonstrate are fully
substantiated by the latest research. One area relies on the
ability of principals to create professional learning
environments where all adults are constantly improving their
skills and knowledge and challenging one another to serve the
learning and developmental needs of every student. This is also
well established by the research which proves what educators
inherently have known; second only to a great teacher in the
classroom a quality principal will improve student academic
achievement. Principals are and always have been highly
accountable for what teachers teach and what students learn.
The policies of the No Child Left Behind Act have done much
good for helping States set high standards and helping us learn
more about our unique populations of students through
desegregation of data to make better instructional decisions.
However, our Nation's all or nothing yardstick for measuring
school and student performance is simply flawed. As a result,
we are now facing the unintended consequence of a
misidentification of failing schools and punitive labels
acquired from a Federal mandate that inaccurately measures
student performance from an across the board single snapshot in
time.
Principals live firsthand with this problem, which we hope
the committee will address comprehensively in the
reauthorization process. Principals support reasonable
solutions that will effectively put more balance, fairness and
accurate measures of student and school performance into our
accountability system.
As the committee considers adjustments and solutions to
correct our current blunt instrument accountability measures
mandated from Washington, I would like to leave you with the
following parting thoughts from the principal's perspective.
The appropriate Federal role in education is to promote equity
and provide targeted resources to assist States and local
districts. Federal policy should ask us to set high
expectations, but also must support State and locally developed
accountability systems, curriculum and instruction to best meet
the needs of the students in the local school context.
Principals support assessments so that we can measure the
progress of our students, but Federal policy must encourage and
support State and local assessments that include growth models
and multiple measures of student performance, both formative
and summative, to accurately gauge social and emotional
development, language fluency and comprehension, creativity,
adaptability, critical thinking and problem solving skills.
Assessment data should be used to inform instruction, be fair,
flexible, authentic and reflect a student's progress toward
academic proficiency.
Standards, curriculum and assessment must be closely
aligned to be effective, and any assessment data must be
available in a timely manner for practical or instructional
use. Standardized assessment scores must never be used as a
sole or primary criterion to measure student performance to
grade or rank principal, teacher or school effectiveness, to
allocate funds or to take punitive measures against schools
and/or school personnel.
State and local systems know there are a variety of ways in
which children succeed and their achievements must be measured
in multiple ways to accurately capture their emotional and
social development, language fluency and comprehension,
creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and problem solving
skills in addition to proficiency in the core academic content
areas.
Measuring these factors and the many others that contribute
to improved student outcomes must provide a complete picture
not by an up or down, pass-fail standardized test score that is
designed at the Federal level and that has no regard for the
multitude of ways students progress. Assessment using a single
metric produces a one-dimensional view of the child, the
teacher, the principal and the school.
Simply put, those of us in the field who are working every
day in our educational system want the Federal Government to
give us the opportunity to have more input into the development
and implementation of the accountability mechanisms.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Hawley follows:]

Prepared Statement of A. Blaine Hawley, Principal,
Red Pump Elementary School, Bel Air, MD

Good morning Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning to
provide the perspective of school principals on accountability in our
nation's public schools as the Committee considers the renewal of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently
reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is Blaine Hawley
and I am the principal of Red Pump Elementary School in Bel Air, MD,
which serves over 600 students in grades kindergarten through five in
the Harford County school district. I have been an educator for the
past twenty seven years; a principal for the past seven years and prior
to that, a teacher, school counselor, and assistant principal.
I am very fortunate to be at Red Pump Elementary School, the first
new school in the district in ten years. Red Pump opened earlier this
month and welcomed students from the neighboring elementary schools for
an inaugural journey into the new school year. Being a part of the
planning and development process for Red Pump Elementary School before
the walls were built has been an incredible experience. I devoted a
great deal of my time over the past eight months designing the physical
space to meet the needs of 21st Century students conducive to learning
experiences appropriate for each age level.
In addition, it has been important to make connections with
families and provide outreach so that students new to the school would
be comfortable and able to understand the school's operations and
procedures, and most importantly, making sure that parents could assist
us getting children ready and eager to learn.
I have spent even more time working with all of the stakeholders in
the learning community--teachers (including special area teachers in
music, the arts and physical education), curriculum specialists,
reading specialists, librarians, and even Central Office to be clear
about Red Pump's vision for excellence--and laying the foundation for a
culture that expects nothing less than excellence in teaching and
learning. Now, we are focusing all of our attention to the teaching and
learning inside the new classroom walls.
A school vision and mission are essential in laying the groundwork
for an ongoing, long lasting quality educational program. Developing
shared beliefs among all in our school community is essential to the
success of our students. We are engaged in the process of creating the
written vision and mission that will reflect what we believe and live
at Red Pump about student achievement and learning with a focus on
excellence through purposeful instruction in the classroom.
In both schools that I have led as Principal, we have understood
the importance of the role the teacher plays in the classroom with data
driven instruction and ongoing assessment of student progress. Our
teachers work together as teams utilizing a protocol for examining
student work as well as formative and summative assessments.
Through this process with their grade level team and building
specialists, they make collaborative decisions that inform instruction.
Teachers know and understand their students and provide a
differentiated program for student success. Decisions about individual
student remediation, enrichment, and intervention are part of this
process. Reflection is also an important aspect of this protocol
bringing teachers back together to evaluate the effectiveness of their
instruction to ensure all students are moving forward. As a school, our
School Improvement Team develops an annual plan to keep our focus on
what is crucial for the students we serve in our school. Additionally,
one of the charges of this team is to find the time necessary, often in
creative ways utilizing all staff members, to allow critical time for
teachers to meet together. We provide this time for teachers to
purposefully study student work instead of faculty meetings before or
after the school day as well as carving out other times during the day.
This process includes a cycle of analysis, knowledge of research based
practices, instruction, varied assessments and reflection.
School leaders like me take on a myriad of tasks and
responsibilities that require expertise as an organizational manager
and an instructional leader to meet effective leadership standards that
include:
The articulation of a clear vision of high expectations
and how the learning community can achieve the vision;
The creation of working conditions that minimize
disruptions and expect teachers to work collaboratively to address
student learning needs;
The recruitment of effective teachers and support
personnel to realize the staffing goals of the school;
The design of systems to monitor individual student,
grade, and school-level data to make instructional decisions;
The alignment of resources to support and accelerate the
school's vision; and
Coordination of active engagement with families and
community organizations to positively impact student outcomes--both in
and out of the school building.
Principals are confronted with a variety of complex tasks that
require diverse skills, technical capabilities, high cognitive
functioning and emotional intelligence. We must function under
demanding circumstances, have strong coping skills, and a thorough
understanding of the complex nature of the job. Principals are no
longer just the single-faceted building managers of thirty years ago--
we must create professional learning environments where all adults are
constantly improving their skills and knowledge, and challenging one
another to serve the learning and developmental needs of every student.
A well-established body of knowledge spanning the past thirty years
proves what educators inherently have known--second only to a great
teacher in the classroom, a quality principal will improve student
academic achievement.
The most recent decade of research focused on the 21st Century
challenges facing our education system and further confirmed the direct
correlation between effective school leadership and student
performance, as well as the increasingly complex nature of a
principal's job to meet the developmental and cognitive needs of our
nation's diverse student populations. The same research substantiates a
glaring need to do a better job of preparing principals and other
school leaders to meet the needs of teachers and students. There must
be greater investment in programs that develop and support all
principals in the profession in setting and fostering a vision that
puts student learning at the center of school's culture.
Principals must be committed professionals with the ability to
handle any number of challenges in a short period of time during the
day--a recent study revealed what those in the profession already
know--that principals typically engage in over forty different tasks in
single day, likening the principals' school day to that of a Member of
Congress on Capitol Hill running from hearing to hearing, and jumping
from issue to issue. But just as you must be accountable to the
constituents you represent at the end of the day, principals are
accountable for all students--no matter the circumstances of the child
and whether or not they come to school prepared, eager, and ready to
learn.
My fellow colleagues and I who serve as principals know that being
held accountable for student achievement is an important part of our
job, but measures of student achievement must be comprehensive and
accurately reflect the local context in all dimensions of student
learning.
Many see our work as a calling. We are not finger-pointers,
disgruntled complainers, or spotlight-seekers. And we don't pass the
buck. The fact of the matter is clear-cut: We are, always have been,
and will be highly accountable for what teachers teach, what students
learn, and how schools perform.
Principals accept the responsibilities for making sure our nation's
schools provide a safe, healthy and high quality education for every
child--and showing the results to prove it. Principals have and do face
continuous school-based challenges to overcome that promise to be
equally-significant in the coming decade and beyond.
Add to this, the pressure on principals that has never been more
intense:
We are expected to ensure that schools perform at ever-
higher levels with ever-shrinking budgets which all of you know far too
well;
We are committed to preparing students to succeed in a
world adults can scarcely imagine, especially now, as all of us try to
keep up with the latest technological advances, for better or worse;
We must juggle and adhere to often conflicting state
guidelines, priorities, and federal mandates;
And, most importantly, we are required to operate--day in
and day out--in today's one-size-fits-all federal approach to
accountability with little room for state and local input into such
systems.
Although, this one-dimensional snapshot of student and school
success is seriously flawed, we have been doing our best over the past
decade to measure up. However, we are now experiencing the true
consequences of misguided federal-level policies with reports that over
85% of our nation's schools are on the verge of failing. Principals
know and common sense suggests this is simply not the case.
The debate no longer persists and the question has been answered.
From the principals' perspective, our current AYP system is too
prescriptive, sanctions incorrectly categorize schools and have put
into place what we believe are unintended consequences: an over
misidentification of failing schools.
While the policies of the No Child Left Behind Act have done much
good for helping states set high standards and helping us learn more
about our unique populations of students through disaggregation of data
to make better instructional decisions, our nation's all-or-nothing
yardstick for measuring school and student performance is simply
flawed. As a result, we are now facing the unintended consequence of a
misidentification of failing schools, and punitive labels acquired from
a federal mandate that inaccurately measures student performance from
an across-the-board, single snapshot in time.
Principals live firsthand with this problem, which we hope the
Committee will address comprehensively in the reauthorization process.
Principals support reasonable solutions that will effectively put more
balance, fairness, and accurate measures of student and school
performance into our accountability system.
As the Committee considers adjustments to correct our current blunt
instrument accountability measures mandated from Washington, principals
encourage you to take into account that:
The appropriate federal role in education is to promote
equity and provide targeted resources to assist states and local
districts. Federal policies should ask us to set high expectations, but
also must support state- and locally-developed accountability systems,
curriculum and instruction to best meet the needs of the students in
the local school context.
Principals support assessments so that we can measure the
progress of our students. But, federal policy must encourage and
support state and local assessments that include growth models and
multiple measures of student performance (both formative and summative)
to accurately gauge social and emotional development, language fluency
and comprehension, creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and
problem-solving skills.
Assessment data should be used to inform instruction, be
fair, flexible, authentic, and reflect students' progress toward
academic proficiency.
Standards, curriculum and assessments must be closely
aligned to be effective, and any assessment data must be available in a
timely manner for practical or instructional use.
Standardized assessment scores must never be used as the
sole or primary criterion to measure student performance; to rate,
grade or rank principal, teacher, or school effectiveness; to allocate
funds; or to take punitive measures against schools and/or school
personnel.
State and local systems know there are a variety of ways
in which children succeed and their achievements must be measured in
multiple ways to accurately capture their emotional and social
development, language fluency and comprehension, creativity,
adaptability, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, in addition
to proficiency in the core academic content areas.
Measuring these factors and the many others that
contribute to improved student outcomes must provide a complete
picture, not by an up or down, pass-fail, standardized test score that
is designed at the federal level and that has no regard for the
multitude of ways students progress. Assessment using a single metric
produces a one-dimensional view of the child, the teacher, the
principal, and the school.
Simply put, those of us in the field who are working every day in
our educational system want the federal government to give us the
opportunity to have more input into the development and implementation
of the accountability mechanisms.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I look
forward to answering your questions.
______

Chairman Kline. Thank you, Ms. Hawley. Mr. Carvalho, you
are recognized.

STATEMENT OF ALBERTO M. CARVALHO, SUPERINTENDENT, MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. Carvalho. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
Miller and members of the committee. I am honored to have the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I would like to begin by actually offering an early
contract to Ms. Hawley. Obviously she is an outstanding
principal. In Miami you have beach privileges and sunshine
around the year. Not a bad deal.
My name is--she said she will consider it. My name is
Alberto Carvalho, and I have the privilege of serving as
superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the fourth
largest school system in the Nation serving approximately
400,000 students from every conceivable ethnic and economic
background. I stand proudly before you today as a
superintendent that has led this district into one of the
highest performing urban districts in America, total population
250,000 and higher, that is community population not student
population, on the basis of two criteria: Number one, that the
only national assessment of reading and math and science
proficiency is NAEP, and as one of four districts out of 15,000
nationally that is a finalist for the Nobel Prize of Education,
the Broad Prize, which will be announced at the Library of
Congress next week. Also a district that has been able to
negotiate a landmark deal with teachers that provides for a
tying of student performance to a teacher evaluation in
addition to handsome financial incentives based on performance,
as much as $28,000 on top of a teacher's base salary for
outstanding performance. Also a superintendent that has
negotiated different provisions for principals and leaders in
my school systems that has promoted some and, unfortunately on
the basis of performance, terminated others and demoted many
more.
You see, in Miami-Dade the use of data to analyze student
performance, resource allocation, instructional interventions
and human capital development has become the hallmark of my
administration. Our success has drawn national attention
because we have been able to move the bar on student
achievement across the board, close the achievement gap for
minorities and those in poverty, and continue to innovate even
in the face of significant economic constraints. In fact, over
the past 3 years, notwithstanding economic pressures attached
to our recession, we have not terminated a single teacher for
economic reasons. That is not to say that we simultaneously did
not rehire about 2,000 teachers on the basis of performance.
That being said, there are schools within my district that
have made astounding improvements, have been recognized for
remarkable gains in student achievement and yet because of
accountability requirements face significant sanctions just
months ago. I do not believe that it is this kind of
dichotomous system that this learned body envisions for our
Nation's schools. I believe that the Federal Government is
perfectly positioned to address the inconsistencies which exist
in the American system of education, which the Chairman alluded
to initially, as far as its education accountability and to
refine it in such a way that would be a tool for improvement,
one that could be used to identify best practices and to
encourage the replication of successful instructional models
rather than simply imposing caustic sanctions.
As a Nation I believe we have embarked on the State led
Common Core standards movement. Assessments have become the
barometer by which we measure progress, as they should be. We
have placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of qualified
and effective teachers and leaders, and of course we have
introduced new and stricter levels of accountability into the
field of education, and investment of Federal resources should
rightly come with some degree of requirements for
accountability for performance.
But such accountability must not be a one-size-fits-all
model. It must carry with it a degree of flexibility, not
simply tying progress to lockstep requirements that compare
different cohorts of students, as is the case with the current
Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, designation. Instead, progress
should be determined by measuring academic and developmental
growth of individual students from year to year using growth
targets rather than simply arbitrary proficiency targets.
Further, there should be recognition afforded to those
States, such as my own State of Florida, that have robust,
logical, high quality accountability systems in place, and not
require the overlay of a discordant system which often
convolutes the overarching goal of accountability and serves
often to confuse the public it serves. The manner in which we
chose to address the Federal accountability requirements was to
develop a highly sophisticated method of using data to drive
our reform conversations and ultimately our decision making.
The need to closely scrutinize student performance data and
effectively allocate resources in a timely fashion led to the
development of our DATA/Com process. As part of DATA/Com, the
principal and leaders of struggling schools have the
opportunity to meet with me personally, and I do have 450
principals, with me and my cabinet to review the latest student
performance data. Much like a physician reviews an x-ray or lab
results, we discuss the symptoms and prescribe an antidote in
realtime. Through the use of data schools get what they need on
the fly as they should, whether it is an additional reading
interventionist, whether it is additional instructional
materials or to acquire money to run an after school program or
simply remove a teacher who is highly ineffective.
Without question, the advent of educational accountability
has not been without challenges. Few I believe will argue that
there is not room for improvement to the current No Child Left
Behind legislation, such as, and I offer but a few
recommendations: A need to move from proficiency targets to
growth targets that follow the same cohorts of students over
time. A litany of annually escalating sanctions that force
improving schools to change strategies before anything has time
to work is unreasonable and contrary to what the research
indicates. A failure to differentiate between historically low
performing schools and those that need minor adjustments on
tweaks based on stringent AYP proficiency standards confuses
stakeholders. An incomplete set of indicators that can gauge
the health of a high school more accurately, such as graduation
rates, dual enrollment participation success, industry
certification, college and career readiness. And finally, this
issue where large amounts of funding are being diverted to set
aside services that have failed to date to yield more than
limited effects on student achievement.
Despite these nuances No Child Left Behind and the Federal
Government through increased accountability measures have
forced us to address the glaring achievement gaps that have
plagued many communities across our country and have forced the
Nation to address historic equity issues. In Miami-Dade we have
long embraced accountability as a tool to improve, and we
recognize that this law certainly began a conversation around
the growth and learning gains made by individual subgroups,
schools as a whole and entire districts. It forced the
recognition, most importantly, of pockets of under-performing
kids often hidden behind the curtain of performing schools and
districts.
In closing, I submit to you that the Federal Government
should adopt a differentiated model of accountability which
provides flexibility and loosened sanctions for high performing
districts while increasing oversight in districts and States
that fail to make progress. How you proceed in structuring
accountability policy is critical. In my opinion those nations
who are currently outperforming the U.S. on international
assessments, such as the PEZA or TEMS, are not debating
educational structures or sanctions. Rather they are engaged in
conversations about teacher and leader quality, about
conversations regarding the economic viability of their work
forces. These are the issues we must engage in if we are to
live up to the promise of a quality public education for all
and ensure our position as a global leader.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Carvalho follows:]

Prepared Statement of Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent,
Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Thank you very much Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to
testify before you this morning regarding the federal role in public
school accountability.
My name is Alberto Carvalho and I have the privilege of serving as
Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the nation's fourth
largest school district. Miami-Dade is arguably one of the most diverse
urban districts in our nation, serving over 400,000 students, from
every conceivable ethnic and economic background, and at every level of
educational preparedness and capacity.
The use of data to analyze student performance, resource
allocation, instructional interventions, and human capital deployment,
has become the hallmark of our district operation. Our success has
drawn national attention because we have been able to move the bar on
student achievement across the board, close the gap for minorities and
those in poverty, and continue to innovate even in the face of
significant economic constraints. That being said, there are schools
within my district that have made astounding improvements, have been
recognized for the remarkable gains in student achievement and yet,
because of the manner in which we implement accountability, faced
significant sanctions just months ago. I do not believe this is the
kind of dichotomous system that this learned body envisions for our
nation's schools.
I believe that the federal government is perfectly positioned to
address the inconsistencies which exist in the American system of
education accountability and to refine it in such a way that it would
be a tool for improvement; one that could be used to identify best
practices and to encourage the replication of successful instructional
models, rather than simply imposing sanctions.
As a nation, we have embarked on the state-led common core
standards movement. Assessments have become the barometer by which we
measure progress. We have placed a renewed emphasis on the importance
of qualified and effective teachers. And, of course, we have introduced
new and stricter levels of accountability into the field of education.
An investment of federal resources should rightly come with
requirements for accountability for performance, but such
accountability must not be a one-size fits all model. It must carry
with it a degree of flexibility, not simply tying progress to lock-step
requirements that compare different cohorts of students, as is the case
with the current Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) designation. Instead,
progress should be determined by measuring academic and developmental
growth of individual students from year to year using growth targets
rather than arbitrary proficiency targets. Further, there should be
recognition by the federal administration of those states, such as
Florida, that have robust, high quality, accountability systems in
place, and not require the overlay of a discordant federal system,
which often convolutes the overarching goal of accountability and
confuses the public.
In Miami-Dade, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has served as the
catalyst for our school system to take a more laser-like approach to
school reform efforts and to be more strategic in the allocation of our
resources.
The manner in which we chose to address the federal accountability
requirements was to develop a highly sophisticated method of using data
to drive our reform conversations and ultimately our decision making.
We are targeting our efforts to ensure that when students graduate they
are career or college ready. We have made decisions that have not
always been popular, but we have been able to do so by informing our
communities and having heart-to-heart conversations--around data--as to
why students in certain communities, predominantly high poverty, high
minority neighborhoods, are not achieving at the same rate as their
more affluent, less diverse peers.
The need to closely scrutinize student performance data and
effectively allocate resources in a timely fashion led to the
development of our DATA/Com process. As part of DATA/Com, the principal
of a struggling school has the opportunity to meet with me and my
entire Cabinet to review the latest student performance data, much like
a physician reviews an x-ray or lab results. We discuss the symptoms
and prescribe an antidote in real-time. Through the use of data,
schools get what they need ``on the fly,'' whether it is an additional
reading interventionist, instructional materials, or money to run an
afterschool tutoring program. This is one example of how federal
accountability has resulted in the implementation of a practice which
has spurred success, but is only effective if the flexibility to
allocate resources remains at the local level.
Without question, the advent of educational accountability has not
been without challenges, and we have learned a great deal. However, few
will argue that there is room for improvement to the current NCLB
legislation such as:
A need to move away from proficiency targets to growth
targets that follow the same cohort of students;
A litany of annually escalating sanctions that force
improving schools to change strategies before anything has time to
work;
A failure to differentiate between historically low-
performing schools and those that need minor adjustments based on
stringent AYP proficiency standards;
Inclusion of other subjects such as writing and science;
A lack of comprehensive indicators that can gauge the
health of a high school more accurately such as graduation rates, dual
enrollment, industry certification, college and career readiness; and
Large amounts of money diverted into supplemental services
that have failed, to date, to yield more than limited effects on
student achievement.
Despite these nuances, NCLB and the federal government, through
increased accountability measures, has forced us to address the glaring
achievement gaps that plague many communities across this land and has
forced us to address historic equity issues that were prevalent in our
schools. In Miami-Dade we have long embraced accountability as a tool
to improve, and we recognize that NCLB certainly began the conversation
around the growth and learning gains made by individual subgroups of
students within traditionally high performing schools, as well as shone
a spotlight on chronically low performing schools.
I submit to you that the federal government should adopt a
differentiated model of accountability which provides flexibility and
loosens sanctions for high performing districts, while increasing
oversight in districts and states that fail to make progress. How you
proceed in structuring accountability policy is critical. Those nations
who are currently outperforming the U.S. on international assessments
such as the PISA or TIMMS are not debating educational structures or
sanctions; rather they are engaged in conversations about teacher and
leader quality. These are the issues we must engage in if we are to
live up to the promise of a quality public education for all and ensure
our position as a global leader.
In Miami-Dade, we have taken a differentiated approach to school
reform and launched the Education Transformation Office (ETO) with
School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding. We tier schools by degree of
need based on current and historic data and create support and
monitoring processes reflective of each school's academic standing.
Additionally, SIG requirements have allowed us to replace ineffective
administrators and teachers while recruiting those with a proven record
of success, to launch an array of wraparound services to target at-risk
students, and to upgrade the technological infrastructure to ensure
that students are learning in 21st century classrooms. Through our use
of the SIG funds and the implementation of our ETO program, we aren't
simply focused on turnaround; our goal is to accelerate and sustain
improvements into the future. Our ETO processes have been recognized by
the USDOE, the FLDOE and districts throughout the country, and we have
seen real improvement in these schools and the students who attend
them.
Last year, the ETO in Miami-Dade was assigned 19 ``persistently
lowest-achieving schools.'' Of the 19, 13 are now either B or C and
none are rated F. This year, the ETO oversees 26 schools through SIG II
with our district curriculum and instruction team supporting and
monitoring another 35 schools that are dangerously close to being
identified as persistently low performing. This method of tiering
schools in need of improvement has allowed us to be more strategic in
resource deployment and insures us from a revolving door approach to
school improvement. Schools are provided the attention they need and,
much like our teacher coaching model, they are weaned from district
oversight as they begin sustaining their own improvements
independently. This is the national accountability approach that I
proffer to you today.
In concert with the improvement of our struggling schools, our
district has distinguished itself among other large urban districts
throughout the country. M-DCPS leads urban schools in reading and
mathematics at the fourth and eighth grade levels on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As a Broad Finalist, our
innovative systems and student performance in narrowing the achievement
gap have been recognized nationally.
Surely, these outcomes should be rewarded by the loosening of
sanctions and the practices that have led to them being replicated in
other districts nationally. Instead, while school grades have increased
(despite ever-increasing state standards of proficiency), our
graduation rates improved at a faster rate than the rate of growth for
the State itself, and our outcomes on the NAEP Trial Urban District
Assessment rank among the highest in the nation, the number of schools
that are considered in need of improvement under the NCLB Federal
guidelines has continued to increase. Only 11% of all schools in
Florida are deemed to have made AYP this past year while 58 percent of
them are rated ``A.'' This paradox is inconceivable to educators and
difficult to explain to communities who have witnessed the performance
of their neighborhood schools rise to unprecedented levels. At its root
is the struggle between competing accountability systems--the one
mandated under NCLB and Florida's own A+ Plan--Differentiated
Accountability Model. Both models are rigorous, demand performance
accountability, and require the public to be informed regarding the
quality of the instruction being delivered. They are, however,
discordant in the definition of progress, the sanctioning of schools
and the general interpretation of the law.
We have rekindled the beacons of hope in communities that have, for
too long, suffered from the stigma of being labeled a failing school,
yet threatened them with sanctions and the threat of closure right when
they have begun to demonstrate significant progress and posted dramatic
numbers in terms of student achievement outcomes. Two examples I can
offer you are Miami Edison and Miami Central Senior High Schools. Both
schools are located in two of the poorest communities in our district.
For years, the two schools had been rightly labeled as ``in need of
improvement'' and rated F by the State. Last year, both schools earned
a grade of ``C'' and posted their highest graduation rates since the
advent of accountability. In fact, Miami Edison increased its
graduation rate--in one school year--a remarkable twenty percentage
points. Yet, despite these undeniable improvements, both schools were
threatened with closure by the State in both 2010 and 2011 due to
prescriptive and escalating sanctions deemed necessary by the state in
its interpretation of NCLB. Certainly this is an unintended consequence
of federal and state laws that do not work in concert with one another.
In fact, we now know that a school can be in full compliance with
NCLB and not be raising student achievement, while it is possible to
raise student achievement substantially and not be in compliance with
the law's current requirements. These nuances will surely need to be
ironed out with the reauthorization of ESEA.
Our district has been forced to reduce its budget by over $1.6
Billion in recent years, yet we have never waivered or lost focus on
the true measure of our success: our return on investment, which is
reflected in individual student achievement, school performance,
graduation rates, and the closing of the achievement gap for minority
students and those living in poverty. We have but one strategic goal in
our district and that is Student Achievement. Everything we do, every
resource we invest, must be aligned to that goal or we don't do it.
Through innovation, careful planning and, yes, a measured degree of
sacrifice, we have been able to protect our classrooms, maintain a high
quality workforce without laying off a single full time teacher for
economic reasons, and establish a healthy reserve, ensuring the
District's financial position remains stable and sustainable going
forward. We would not have been able to do so without the injection of
dollars made available to us by the federal government. Monies from
Race to the Top, School Improvement Grant (SIG) and Title I have
allowed us to continue to provide a high quality education for all of
our students while investing in human capital and attracting the best
and the brightest in their field to teach in our persistently low
performing schools. This month, we will distribute the first round of
bonuses, based on student achievement outcomes, to thousands of
teachers in our district. While our state has made less and less of an
investment in education, our nation has recognized that without a
learned populace our position in the global marketplace as a world
leader in innovation and invention is in peril. Our federal government
has recognized that if these challenges are not adequately addressed,
inequities in wealth and opportunity will limit our nation's economic
potential and threaten our democratic ideals.
My testimony today would be incomplete without a nod to my heritage
and my own personal experience. You see, today, I stand before members
of Congress in the greatest nation in the world, representing a $3.6B
enterprise. An enterprise that creates great Americans, that develops
the mind of future scientists, teachers, and entrepreneurs, but I too
am a product of the promise that is America. For I came to this country
when I was just 17 years old; unable to speak the language, one of 6
siblings living in a two-room apartment in my native Portugal. Were it
not for our core belief that all children can learn and that all
students deserve a quality public education, I would not have broken
out of my own cycle of poverty.
In closing, Congress should, and is, as evidenced by holding this
very hearing today, reevaluate its role in public school
accountability. Clearly, in order for us as a people to maintain our
economic and democratic prosperity, we must reflect on the lessons
learned from NCLB and achieve a balance between accountability and
flexibility to state and local school districts. The federal government
should support the state-led common core standards movement and
continue to incentivize states to join the movement as well as develop
and participate in assessments that evaluate mastery of said standards.
It should reorient legislation away from annually escalating sanctions
to a more differentiated, longer intervention period of improvement in
order to allow strategies to gain traction at historically low
performing schools. It should continue to invest, through programs such
as Race to the Top and the SIG which assist states and districts in the
development of data systems that can effectively link student
achievement and teachers. Finally, as our demographic landscape
continues to become more and more diverse, it should extend the window
for English language acquisition from one to three years; allowing
these learners a more adequate period of time before they are expected
to be at-par with their native peers.
Our educational systems have evolved dramatically in the past nine
years, no doubt due to the influence of legislation at both the federal
and state level. It is now time for us to evolve into the next stage of
standards-based, data-driven reform; shifting from the current focus on
prescriptive compliance requirements that have proven to be less than
effective to a more meaningful and impactful accountability model that
focuses on what surely is the most important schooling outcome of all:
college and career readiness, as prerequisites of graduation. We must
embrace an accountability model which incentivizes innovation; one that
focuses on building state and local capacity to improve learning
opportunities for all students, one that invests in research,
evaluation, and technical assistance, and intervenes in consistently
low-performing districts and schools, but allows enough time for
reforms to take hold before insisting that further sanctions be
applied. We must focus on collaboration and the dissemination of best
practices which can inform state and local efforts to improve student
achievement and close achievement gaps; in effect, to move the
discourse from crisis rhetoric to one about solutions partnerships. To
achieve this, it is going to take federal, state, and local
cooperation.

Recommended changes proposed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left
Behind)
Reauthorize and modify the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(No Child Left Behind Act 2001) to:
Recognize student progress in lieu of the current all-or-
nothing approach and recognize degrees of progress for schools;
Eliminate sanctions associated with not meeting adequate
year progress;
Support uniform national assessments aligned with national
standards to allow for valuable comparison of student achievement among
states;
Ensure fair accountability by providing flexibility for
special education and English Language Learners (ELL's) and other
formula adjustments, and by requiring identical tests for Title I and
Title III students in non-public schools;
Include other indicators for accountability such as dual
enrollment industry certification, AP, graduation rates, dropout
attendance suspensions in determining AYP and align accountability
standards with those in the School Improvement grant;
Reward and retain quality teachers by supporting measures
that raise pay for teachers in fields with shortages and in high-needs
communities; that create career ladder paths; and that assist with
rising housing costs;
Establish new qualification requirements for teachers and
paraprofessionals to ensure that teachers are highly skilled in content
areas, as well as pedagogy;
Allow districts to use Supplemental Education Services
(SES) funds to provide tutoring to eligible students as well as pay for
monitoring and other implementation costs of the out of the required
20% set-aside and ensure that public schools are not unfairly prevented
from providing remedial services to students;
Require that funding to SES private providers be
contingent on outcomes on norm-referenced assessments developed and
administered by the states and/or the district; and
Allocate immigrant funds under Title III based on the
number of recently arrived foreign-born students.
______

Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir. Dr. Sichel.

STATEMENT OF DR. AMY F. SICHEL, SUPERINTENDENT, ABINGTON SCHOOL
DISTRICT

Dr. Sichel. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
Miller and members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be
here with you this morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today regarding the reauthorization of ESEA and
specifically how No Child Left Behind Federal regulations
impact public schools. I am Amy Sichel. I am superintendent of
the Abington School District. I am the President of the
Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and elected
member to the governing board of the American Association of
School Administrators. So it is my pleasure to represent my
fellow superintendents.
Abington School District is a suburban Philadelphia
district with 7,500 children, and we are both racially and
economically diverse. I have 35 years of experience in one
school district, Abington, with 11 years as a school
superintendent. Although we have always believed in the
importance of academic standards and common assessments to
drive accountability, some aspects of NCLB have been extremely
positive and had a very positive impact in the Abington School
District. Since the early 1990s Abington has had a goal setting
approach with a model of continuous improvement. NCLB required
us to dig deeper by looking at the results of the disaggregated
groups, as well as the all student group, and it has improved
our practice of analyzing test results, strengthening teaching
and learning, and produced incredible results for the Abington
School District.
However, the present NCLB model as a myriad of weaknesses.
To begin with, a goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014 is
unrealistic. Public schools educate the best and the brightest,
as well as the students with the greatest educational needs and
those with the severest of disabilities. For all students the
approach should be based on growth, academic and developmental,
tied to academic proficiency and standards. Good teaching and
learning require a standards-based curriculum with benchmarks
in accountability based on multiple measures. A system based on
passing or failing a single target leads to failure, failure of
students, of schools and districts. It creates a lack of
credibility to educators by parents and guardians and promotes
an agenda that is not in the best interest of American
children.
The system of continuous improvement that is needed
requires multiple assessment measures that are reliable and
valid with attainable goals and the capability to document
individual student and school growth.
Let me share with you a quick review of what works in the
Abington School District. In reviewing our disaggregated data
for NCLB, it was revealed that two distinct achievement gaps
existed for African American children and for children with
IEPs, special education children. In response to this
information we developed a novel initiative called
Opportunities to Learn, OTL. Under OTL the district tracked the
secondary program for grades 7 through 12 and included to the
maximum extent possible students with IEPs and all students in
mainstream classes, as well as organizing the school day to
provide academic supports during the day and not at the expense
of the arts. The plan resulted in each core subject offering
only two levels of a rigorous college preparatory curriculum, a
college preparatory course or an honors or AP course. Formative
assessments were used to identify student's needs so that those
who were not proficient on the Pennsylvania system of
assessment received individualized support.
Since the implementation of OTL the disparity between the
performance of the district's all student group and the
district's African American and IEP groups has narrowed
significantly. Along with this our percent of students going on
to postsecondary education has increased from 80 to 90 percent.
Our data is in my written testimony.
In addition to all schools attaining adequate earlier
progress for the last 3 years, our elementary schools have
attained it since 2002. The opportunities to learn initiative
with the focus on data driven strategies address the challenges
and attain positive results. These successes and documented
achievement levels should be a part of the reauthorization of
ESEA with the following provisions:
One, invest in and support a standards-based assessment
academic model driven by assessment and accountability.
Two, support a growth model for student achievement that
focuses on individual student performance with multiple
measures.
Three, allow States and districts to support different
growth rates based on the individual needs of students.
Four, base ESEA on attainable goals for all students and
subgroups congruent with State standards.
Five, encourage the use of research-based approaches based
on, quote, what works to make instructional and organizational
decisions.
Six, feature school districts that demonstrate that we can
produce proficient students and encourage others to replicate
those successful models.
Seven, and most importantly, place the locus of control for
accountability at the State level with local districts
developing assessment models based upon individual student
growth. Local school districts, such as Abington, are moving in
ways that improve academic outcomes for all children.
Please stop focusing on punitive accountability measures
prescribed by NCLB. This disheartens students, parents,
teachers and administrators and undermines the success of
public education in this country.
Thank you for your time this morning.
[The statement of Ms. Sichel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Amy F. Sichel, Superintendent of Schools,
Abington School District

Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
and specifically how the No Child Left Behind federal regulations
impact public schools throughout the nation, in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and specifically in the Abington School District. My
testimony is from the perspective of a public school educator, with a
breadth of educational knowledge and experience.
I am Amy Sichel, the Superintendent of Schools for the Abington
School District in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania as well as an
Adjunct Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Education,
University of Pennsylvania. I serve as the President of the
Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and am an elected
representative of the Governing Board for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to the American Association of School Administrators.
Abington School District is a suburban Philadelphia district with 7500
students and is both racially and socioeconomically diverse. I have
over 35 years of experience as an educator, which includes 11 years as
a school Superintendent, all within the Abington School District.
I am here to comment about the impact of the NCLB federal
regulations and reporting requirements on school districts and will
provide examples from our experiences in the Abington School District.
Please know that the Abington School District complies with all federal
regulations, those of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that of our
local school board.
It is important to begin by stating that some aspects of NCLB have
had a positive impact on the schools throughout the nation and
specifically the Abington School District. In Abington we have always
believed in the importance of having academic standards and common
assessments to drive accountability. Since the early 1990s, the
Abington Schools have used a goal-setting approach based on a model of
continuous improvement for all students. Beginning in 2002,
Pennsylvania's compliance with NCLB reinforced our long practice of
accountability. In fact, the NCLB requirement to ``dig deeper'' by
looking at the results for disaggregated groups as well as at the
results for all students has improved our practice, strengthened
teaching and learning, and produced incredible achievement results in
Abington.
However, it is important to note that the present NCLB model has a
myriad of weaknesses. To begin, the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 is
unrealistic. This is equivalent to a ``one size fits all'' model. As
you know, public education in the United States is offered to everyone
regardless of race, creed, economic status, etc. Public schools educate
the best and the brightest as well as the students with the greatest
educational needs and with the severest disabilities. For all students,
the approach should be based on growth and tied to academic proficiency
and standards. One test, at one snapshot in time with a goal of all
students achieving proficiency, continues to reinforce a Pass/Fail
model and does not promote improved growth in student achievement. An
accountability matrix based on 45 cells of All Students with
disaggregated groups to define Adequate Yearly Progress is unrealistic
and archaic. Good teaching and learning require a standards-based
curriculum, with benchmarks and accountability based upon multiple
measures. A system based upon Passing or Failing a single target just
leads to failure--failure of students, of schools, and of districts;
creates a lack of credibility of educators by parents/guardians; and
promotes an agenda that is not in the best interest of the American
children.
A system of continuous improvement for all students is needed. It
must include multiple assessment measures that are reliable and valid
with attainable goals and the capability to document individual student
and school growth. Let me share with you a quick review of what works
in the Abington School District where the success for each student is
expected, monitored, and being accomplished.
As I already mentioned, since the early 1990's, Abington School
District has used a continuous improvement model to establish academic
goals for each school. Prior to NCLB, Abington's principals and
teachers were given annual goals, which were based upon the expectation
that, when compared to the previous school year, at least 5% more
students would be proficient as demonstrated by state-driven and local
measures. All schools had improvement teams where administrators,
teachers, and parents developed research-based strategies to foster
student achievement. Abington School District's overall performance on
standardized and state-required achievement tests has been
significantly above state and national averages. With the enactment of
NCLB, annual goals have been based upon the percents of students
demonstrating proficiency as required by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. In cases where a school has met or exceeded the state
requirement, we have raised the bar for that school.
In reviewing disaggregated data for NCLB in 2005, it was revealed
that two distinct achievement gaps existed: the achievement levels of
African-American students and the achievement levels of Special
Education students.
In response to this information, I developed a novel initiative
called Opportunities to Learn (OTL), presented it to the board of
school directors and, with their approval, began our work toward
providing a rigorous academic curriculum for all students. OTL began
with a district-wide committee consisting of more than 100 teachers,
administrators, students, parents, school board members, and community
representatives. The committee focused on issues related to
identifying, collecting, and using student data to improve instruction
and achievement; student placement in academic courses; support systems
to help students achieve; and parental involvement. Under this
initiative, the district developed and implemented a plan to ``de-
track'' the secondary school program (grades 7 through 12); to include,
to the maximum extent possible, students with IEPs in mainstreamed
classes; and to organize the school day schedule to provide academic
support opportunities, where needed, during the school day and not at
the expense of the Arts.
The plan resulted in each core subject area offering only two
levels of rigorous college preparatory instruction: a college
preparatory course and an Honors/Advanced Placement course. This
approach was based on the research approach of Dr. Jeannie Oakes of the
Ford Foundation and formerly a professor at UCLA and the model endorsed
by Mr. Jay Mathews, education columnist for The Washington Post.
Students were given increased opportunities to apply to take Honors/
Advanced Placement courses. Courses in mathematics and science were
strengthened, and expectations were raised so that all students would
complete both Algebra I and biology in one academic year rather than
over two years. Formative assessments for benchmarking were used to
identify students' needs so that all students who were not proficient
on the previous administration of the Pennsylvania State System of
Assessment (PSSA) received individualized support. These interventions
included remedial courses during the school day in English/social
studies and in mathematics/science, which complemented the college
preparatory program and were included in students' schedules. Local
assessments were used to monitor progress. Planned courses of study
were revised to emphasize Pennsylvania's Academic Standards.
Essentially, the goal of academic proficiency became the priority by
providing rigorous college and career preparatory instruction to all.
Since the implementation of Opportunities to Learn, the disparity
between the performance of the district's All Student group and the
district's African-American and IEP disaggregated groups has been
narrowed significantly. In particular, at the secondary level the
disparity between the percentages of the All Student group and those of
the disaggregated groups achieving advanced/proficient scores on the PA
assessment in reading and mathematics has been reduced by anywhere from
7 to 36 percentage points. In mathematics the African-American group
has increased from 54% to 60% proficient and the IEP group from 28% to
61% proficient in five years. The African-American group has risen from
63% to 68% proficient in reading, and the IEP group from 34% to 66%
proficient in reading. This has all been accomplished with the percent
of the All Student group achieving proficiency being far greater than
the average percents of students who are proficient at both the state
and national level.
In addition, cohort data for students with IEPs provide evidence
that, as students moved from grade 8 to grade 11, the percentage of
those who are advanced/proficient on the state assessment and on other
measures increased as did the percentage of students passing courses.
Most importantly, all Abington School District schools attained
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the last three years and the
elementary schools since 2002. The Opportunities to Learn initiative,
with the focus on data-driven strategies, addressed the challenges and
achieved these positive results. Also, we realized some unexpected
positive results, for over the five-year period of the initiative, the
percent of students graduating and continuing on to higher education
increased from 80% to 90% with over $4 million in scholarships awarded
to the graduating class in June of 2011. The College Board recognized
the Abington School District with an AP Honor Roll designation. This
recognition reflects the district's increased enrollment in AP courses
and continuing to maintain high results on the AP tests. There is no
doubt that the disaggregated groups, as well as the All Student group,
benefited greatly.
All involved have taken time to reflect about this initiative and
its results, because it has not only benefited the students but has
also increased our knowledge with respect to focused, carefully
crafted, goal-oriented results based upon academic standards and
multiple assessments as well as with respect to the role of leadership
as in affecting system change. The staff, community, and the entire
district administration rolled up their sleeves and demonstrated a
commitment to the common goal of ``Excellence is our Standard and
Achievement is the Result!''
These successes and documented increases in student achievement
lead me to ask you to reauthorize ESEA with the following provisions:
1. Invest in and support a standards-based academic model driven by
assessment and leading to accountability.
2. In ESEA, support a growth model which focuses on individual
student performance with multiple measures and approaches to promote
and document student achievement. Use of standardized measures,
formative assessments, etc., which are reliable and valid with multiple
pathways to document student growth are required.
3. Allow states and districts to recognize and support different
growth rates based upon the individual abilities and needs of students.
4. Base ESEA on believable and attainable goals and expectations
for all students and subgroups congruent with state academic standards.
5. Encourage the use of research-based approaches based on ``what
works'' to make instructional and organizational decisions.
6. Investigate and research school districts throughout the country
that demonstrate that we can produce proficient students. Feature these
districts and schools nationally and help others to replicate these
successful models, demonstrating ``what works.''
7. Most importantly, place the locus of control for accountability
at the state level with local districts developing assessment models
based upon individual student needs for growth.
Local school districts, such as Abington, are moving in ways that
improve academic outcomes for all children for we are accountable to
our students, our parents, our community, our local school board, and
our state. All too often successful models rarely receive attention and
recognition. Please give us the benefit of the doubt and stop focusing
on the punitive accountability measures prescribed by NCLB. This
disheartens students, parents, teachers, and administrators and
undermines the success of public education in this country.
Thank you for your time this morning.
______

Chairman Kline. Thank you, Dr. Sichel. Thank you to all the
witnesses for terrific testimony and for participating with us
today as we grapple with a pretty, pretty tough objective here.
I think Mr. Miller and I talked many times, and there are times
when we are in total agreement. And usually that total
agreement centers around much of what you talked about; that
is, you have to have data, you have to have information, you
have to have it disaggregated. I think all of you mentioned
that at one point or another. And it is clear that that is an
outgrowth of the No Child Left Behind law. And I find a
widespread acceptance of that notion that you need this data,
and it needs to be broken out and disaggregated.
And then we start disagreeing on about what ought to be
next and we continue to grapple. So it is very important to us
to have you here today and listen to what you are doing to make
sure that you have got a good accountability and assessment
system.
Ms. Skandera, you talked about the A to F system, which
sort of grew out of Florida. Can you talk about how you
implement that and how that works and how that helps you in
assessing and ensuring that there is accountability?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, with
the A through F system it allows us, as I mentioned earlier, to
differentiate between our schools in a more effective manner.
Today, according to No Child Left Behind, 87 percent of our
schools are failing. This will allow us to go beyond that pass-
fail measurement.
In the school grade calculation for elementary and middle
schools we have an expectation to measure 50 percent based on
our students on grade level, so capturing some of those things
that we already captured through No Child Left Behind and AYP.
But in addition, we are measuring 50 percent based on growth
and progress of our students. And we are looking at that
through a valued-added model. And in addition, we are looking
at other academic indicators for a small percentage of the
school grade that are proven and linked to improved student
achievement.
So at the elementary and middle school level those are the
things that we are focusing on with a double emphasis on our
lowest 25 percent of performing students.
At the high school level we are looking at cohort growth,
graduation rates and graduation rate growth, as well as other
college and career readiness indicators, such as ACT, PSAT,
vocational education programs certified nationally and linked
to graduation.
Chairman Kline. Who assigns the grade?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the
State assigns the grade based on student achievement data
provided by districts and schools. We do the calculation and
then provide that back to our schools so that they do provide
the data, our schools and districts.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, where did the name
Red Pump School come from? That was the subject of some
discussion up here and I drew the straw. I have to ask.
Ms. Hawley. It is the chosen footwear. No.
Chairman Kline. I asked for that, okay.
Ms. Hawley. It is the name of the road. It is very
creative.
Chairman Kline. Okay. Mystery solved. I drew the short
straw back here and we had to know, so thank you.
You indicated in your testimony that there were overly
prescriptive Federal rules on schools, and I think we have
heard that theme often, and that sometimes those rules
involving the AYP system actually hurt your ability to improve
instruction. Did I hear that right? And if that is so, can you
give me some example of that?
Ms. Hawley. Yes. Because currently the program is set up
that, AYP is set up that it is a one-size-fits-all. And what
hurts us is the tamping down onto the school systems, local
school systems of specific standards and regulations, while we
at the local level are trying to help individual students
progress, but there is a disconnect between Federal standards
and what we are doing, which is really looking at individual
student progress as opposed to one standard that we hope all
children will reach.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. I am going to try to keep myself
to the rule here. I have got about 20 seconds left. So what I
would like to do is yield to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. And I really welcome all
of your testimony. To me it is an indicator of how far we have
moved from the original consideration of No Child Left Behind.
At that time, if we had talked about Common Core standards we
probably would have been lynched, but now the governors have
taken on that decision and they have decided that they want
this for their States, and I think they see it as part of the
economic competitive model, either you are going to have these
standards and students performing at these standards or you are
not.
The question comes, if that is the North Star, if those are
the standards, then a lot of things can flow from that in terms
of flexibility, a growth model can flow from that. I remember
my State of California wanted a growth model about 7 or 8 years
ago and when they published it, a good day would be when you
grew to nowhere, a bad day would be when you could get credit
for growth and yet the student was farther behind. So that kind
of was a bad data system. That was something I didn't want to
invest in.
So the question really is, that if you assume Common Core
standards and the assessment process that is being developed
again with competing forms of the groups of States that are
working on this, then at that point you really then have the
ability to talk about the information you would receive out of
the assessments, both for teacher evaluation, for student
evaluation and for school evaluation. And then comes the
question of multiple measures. You cited a series of multiple
measures that look into schools, really most of which were
related to academic performance, but because students are
taking AP courses or they are taking national courses or ACT,
what have you, on graduation. But every time you start this
discussion, because people want to come in and talk about the
football team, about the spirit of the school, is it clean, has
it been painted, all important, but I don't think it tells you
what you want to know about whether or not you are getting a
return on investment.
I started a discussion on No Child Left Behind by saying
that in my district I didn't believe that a huge number of my
parents were getting any return on their investment because
their kids were hidden in this process and that is history.
So I would just like you to address this question because
the extent to which we have confidence in the Common Core
standards that the governors have developed, a lot of
flexibility, a lot of things flow from that. And I would just
like to know how you think that plays itself out across
students, schools and teachers.
Ms. Skandera, you get to go first.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I do
think the fundamental question is are we measuring inputs or
outputs. When it comes to our expectations for our kids in the
State of New Mexico, and I believe when we look across this
Nation, we want to ask the question are we seeing improved
student achievement. So when it comes to the query around
multiple measures I think the fundamental question is are the
things that we are using to measure, are they measuring student
achievement and are they linked to improved student achievement
via research. And so at the end of the day I also have heard a
lot of conversation even within our State around those inputs,
extracurricular activities, et cetera. And I would say we need
to hold a high bar when it comes to improved student
achievement and our expectations around accountability.
Ms. Hawley. Looking from the school level, what we need to
look at in terms of multiple assessments is more ongoing
assessments so that we can monitor the progress of the student,
and it needs to come from the local level; that is, specific to
the needs of that local school system, and need to be a variety
of assessments that are both formative and summative so that we
can look at total progress, not just one snapshot of a child,
which I think we all--it sounds like we agree to that. But the
benchmarks looking at ongoing progress so that we can then
individualize where we need to really build up students and
their achievement as we go along as opposed to waiting until
that standardized test and then getting the results a couple of
months later and then saying, oh, you know, we could have, so
this way we can be more prescriptive and diagnostic as we move
along to truly help build student achievement.
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, members of the
committee, I think the reasonable approach to district
accountability, school accountability is one that brings about
the hybrid model that takes into account both specific
proficiency targets but values and credits, growth and learning
gains towards those goals. That is what the Florida system is
based on. There is incredible credit given to, for example, the
lowest quartile of children, which are in many ways
representative of the subgroups, the aggregates of the
subgroups envisioned under No Child Left Behind.
A model that recognizes both where we need to go, where we
are and the growth towards that target is a reasonable model.
It does not discourage communities; it does not confuse
communities and gives credit for good teaching.
I will give you an example. After the devastating
earthquake that took place in Port au Prince in Haiti a couple
of years ago. We in Miami-Dade received close to 2,000
children. We received children who were 15, 16 years of age
that were functionally illiterate in both languages, in Haitian
Creole and English. Actually didn't speak any English and they
couldn't write their own language. Yet by age they were placed
in a high school.
The question here is, is there enough time afforded to them
to reach that proficiency target within a reasonable timeline
without disparaging the effort that the teachers and the
leaders in the schools that they led put into that effort.
So I think that growth from that perspective is something
that needs to be acknowledged. I will agree also with the
premise that has been already explained, one that in fact
values student outcomes above adult inputs. The day of just
simply hugging and loving a kid and hoping that he or she will
learn as a function of that is not sufficient, and if you
cannot measure it I am really not certain what I will be able
to tell the parent or a future employer as far as the skill set
that this child will provide.
This is no longer a skill set conversation, it is a will
set. We know exactly what it will take to teach America's
children. Whether or not we have the resolve to do it within
the timeline that is required of us so we do not lose our
strategic position economically speaking in the world, that is
the big question to be answered. But I think a hybrid model
that takes into account, again, proficiency targets as goals,
but recognizes and rewards, gives credit for the learning gains
made in a process is one idea whose time has come.
Ms. Sichel. Thank you for the opportunity. There is no
question that we need a vast accountability model. And the
accountability model in Pennsylvania in the case of the
Abington School District is extremely successful. It uses a
system called e-metrics which incorporates all the AYP
information, but most importantly there is a second system
called the Pennsylvania Value Added System. And in this system
you have every student's data. You can look at their growth
month to month, year to year and over time. By doing this we
can see if an individual child, a classroom, an entire third
grade or an entire school is making growth.
To this data we can add what is called the Pennsylvania
Getting Results Plan. That plan was developed for schools that
did not meet adequate yearly progress. In the Abington School
District we require, specifically me, every single principal
with their teachers to complete a Getting Results Plan
regardless of their status because all of our schools have made
AYP. In that plan we look at the root causes, we look at the
strengths in each classroom, we look at the needs. That
includes those children that are advanced, whether they need to
continue in their advancement, as well as those that are basic
and below basic, and from there we create individual plans that
are the basis for our remediation and our intervention.
This has to be the basis to any school's plan. And frankly
the days of focusing on football are over.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Petri, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Petri. Thank you all. Thank you for your commitment to
education and for your testimony here today. I just want to ask
your reaction to--in our State we, the State, has not gotten
permission from the Federal Department of Education, but it
still finds it very valuable and uses as part of its
assessment, and we were doing every 3-year assessment of kids
long before No Child Left Behind, something called adaptive
testing. It is computer based. If a student isn't answering the
questions it asks simpler and simpler questions. Or someone can
even assist the student in operating the computer. So the full
range of students can be--and if a kid is acing it, it asks
higher and higher. So it assesses above and below grade and is
an instant feedback practically. And so it is a good tool for
the administrators and for the teacher and for the parents. And
you can then have a growth model built on that. It has not been
allowed, although they are starting to soften on it because
they have been arguing it in Washington, students should only
be asked to that grade level, which I don't quite understand,
and that all kids should take the same test. And it is the same
test, but questions may be asked differently as the child goes
forward. So they say that is not the same test for everyone,
which it is the same computer program.
Anyway, could you react to that at all? Is that the type of
thing that we should be using or that you are already using in
Pennsylvania or in Florida or planning to use in New Mexico or
in our area?
Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that. One of our
intervention approaches that we use when we analyze our data is
called the Compass Learning System, and we have a second one
called Study Island. They are both computer based, they have an
adaptive system. The student can spend some time on these
systems, both in the school and at home if they have access.
And we also have created access in our public libraries. They
go in at their grade level because we want everyone to be
dealing at the rigorous grade level. However, if the student
does not reach proficiency on some of the assessment items in
there, it brings them back, it reteaches. And for the younger
kids it has all kinds of built-in rewards with whistles and
bells and scorekeeping.
I can give you a very specific example of a child who is
not proficient on the 11th grade PSSA. When we do that, when a
child is not proficient they are required to take remedial
classes. This student was very interested in taking an advanced
level science class. He committed to his principal that he
would get on at that time the Study Island program a minimum of
20 minutes a day, and that by the time the next Pennsylvania
system of assessing would come around he would be proficient.
That student did it, we logged his time, he took the test in
December. He not only moved from basic to proficient, he ended
up being advanced.
So with motivated students this is a good system, but it
has to be monitored by staff and we have to encourage children
to use it.
Thank you.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if I
might just add, I do think you will see across States the
sophistication of assessments is every year we are seeing
greater and greater degrees of sophistication so we are able to
measure at different points in time growth, et cetera. And I
would think that is absolutely taking place. But I think the
fundamental key in the assessment system is that we continue to
have high expectations so when it comes to the Federal
Government and its role with States that we still hold a high
bar and that we have an expectation of an outcome.
I recognize that with No Child Left Behind the 2014
deadline is something that we will be passing soon. But I also
think to lose sight of the expectation that all our students
can learn that we should be closing the achievement gap and
that even on a growth trajectory we should expect proficiency
as an important part of the process.
Mr. Petri. My time is getting short. I just want to switch
really briefly to one other area, and that is when we talk
about accountability. This is the Federal Government so it
tends to drive accountability toward some sort of Federal
standard. What are the strategies that you are using for
accountability to parents, because obviously it helps a lot if
they partner in the process, if they value the process, if they
support their children, if there is a lot of feedback and
communication back and forth? I know in districts now with
everyone getting more or less on line teachers are able to have
websites and posts and basically communicate--Johnny didn't, or
Juan or whatever, didn't bring his homework to school today,
was there a problem at home or whatever, rather than waiting
until the test, and then why did the kid fail. Is this an
important part of what you are doing, Mr. Carvalho?
Chairman Kline. If I may interrupt, I am sorry. I see the
heads nodding. I think that was an answer. And the gentleman's
time is expired. The extra time that I give the ranking member
doesn't apply to the rest of you.
Mr. Kildee, you are recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been teaching
since 1954. I have always believed that education is a local
function, a State responsibility, and finally a Federal
concern.
Is the Federal Government taking on a larger role than we
should? What are we doing well and what are we doing poorly?
[Question partially inaudible due to microphone malfunction.]
Mr. Carvalho. I think there has got to be a balance and
respect for, number one, the local and State responsibility for
a high-performing educational system that benefits all students
at all levels. But, also, that balance needs to take into
account what I believe is an important aspect of student
accountability, which is districts' ability, educated parents
ability, business leaders, consumers of public education
products' ability to gauge their own effectiveness compared to
49 other States in the country and, perhaps more importantly,
their own States in America's competitiveness, vis-a-vis the
rest of the world. And without having some degree of
comparative ability to determine where we are among the Nation
and where our Nation as a whole is vis-a-vis their competitors,
whether it is western Europe, the emerging nations of Asia,
central South America, then I think we are shortchanging
ourselves and our ability to make rapid improvements with this
stimulus and catalyst that is this concern for economic
development and skill set building on the part of our
workforce.
So, for me, this balance between the rights of States and
districts that own the responsibility of providing a high-
quality educational program, juxtaposed with this concern of
mine to know where my children, from pre-K, kindergarten all
the way through the adult system, are vis-a-vis 49 other
States. But I am also concerned with our own performance
compared to children in India, in Singapore, in Brazil, and in
Finland; and without some degree of measure, some degree of
accountability that provides an umbrella for that comparison it
becomes incredibly difficult.
Mr. Kildee. Ms. Hawley?
Ms. Hawley. Yes, I do agree there needs to be a balance and
there needs to be some Federal role in providing support and
guidelines and, to some extent, standards, but there should be
some ability at the local level--local and State level to set
up the specifics of the accountability system. Because each
area of the country is very different, and we need to be able
to understand our local system as well as what is important in
our State and make those decisions specific to those particular
needs.
I had another thought----
Mr. Kildee. [Question inaudible due to microphone
malfunction.]
Chairman Kline. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time has
expired. Too bad, because I would like to hear the answer to
that.
Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman, thank you all. So is all education--
[Question inaudible due to microphone malfunction.]
Chairman Kline. Excuse me. Dr. Roe, I don't think your mic
is working. You may just have to speak up.
Mr. Roe. You mean my outside voice?
Chairman Kline. There you go. Thank you. And staff is going
to work on this problem. Thank you.
Mr. Roe. [Question partially inaudible due to microphone
malfunction.] I came here, the most frustrating group of people
were doctors. Now it is teachers. You all four say I absolutely
believe the most important person in the education is teacher,
great quality teacher, a great [Inaudible]. We saw a local
school, I live in Tennessee, east Tennessee, mountain
Appalachia, and in one of our schools we changed one person--
the principal--and it became one of the top 10 performing
schools in our State. I think you see that.
Question number one, how do we attract the best and
brightest in the classroom and stay there, because if you look
at the data as we all have,our young teachers, frustrated and
not next [Inaudible] elementary school 90 percent. And they
have a higher approval rating.
Let me stop at that question and get that answered.
Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that.
What is important to address, the best and the brightest,
is to make sure that teachers, principals, as well as members
of the superintendent's cabinet and superintendent has input
into what is going to happen in each and every one of those
schools and for the responsibility of the children. There has
got to be plans that are collaboratively based with parents
involved, and people have to feel that there is a return in
their investment to come to school every day.
So, first, there is the intrinsic desire of teachers to
want to be good teachers.
Secondly, let's get realistic. Teachers have to be paid at
a rate to which they can afford to live and work well. We have
made some progress in that area, but in the areas where you
can't retain staff you have to look at what is going on in
terms of the salary levels.
Fortunately, I come from a suburban Philadelphia school
district that has a salary plan that is moderate compared to
the county. That moderate ability allows us to attract terrific
teachers; and because they have input into their future with
goal setting and the materials that they need to get the job
done, they don't leave.
Mr. Roe. And I agree with you on that. We were able to, as
a city where I live, to pay more than the county teachers did,
and I think we had a chance to do that.
Let me give you a brief example of why I think the AYP is
flawed, and you can step right in.
One of my good friends and former patients is a teacher in
an elementary school. I go every year and read in her second
grade class. We did that this year, and I was talking about
some of her students. She said, this young boy will be back
with me next year. I said, why is he going to come back? Is he
not able to read? No, he has missed 60 days of school this
year. Why did he miss 60 days of school? Because his mother
wouldn't get up and get him out of bed to get him to the corner
to get to the bus to get the school.
So now my friend, who is an excellent teacher, because he
is not making adequate yearly progress, is a bad teacher.
That is a flawed system. How do we do something about that?
I heard all four of you say the current system is flawed, and I
totally agree with that.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I think the
distinction I would say is a shift from a focus on
credentialing and years of experience when we look at the
effectiveness of teachers to effectiveness linked to improved
student achievements. And I think you look across the Nation
and you will see States are consistently looking to create that
link and say we have an expectation; and when we meet that
expectation, we want to reward, honor our teachers and our
school leaders in a meaningful way when it comes to pay and
those things that are most important to our teachers.
But shifting the conversation from how many years have I
been teaching and what degree do I have to what is happening
for my students today and are they learning is a fundamental
shift that I think needs to take place if we want to see the
honor that you are talking about. I do think the Federal role
in that is to acknowledge that important shift that States are
making and give them the flexibility to emphasize those things
that matter most when it comes to our kids.
Mr. Roe. And how do you answer this question? I told you I
have been talking to a lot of teachers. They have a tremendous
frustration in our State of Tennessee about we are just
teaching to the test. And after the achievement tests are over,
the kids are staring out the door because they know that they
have had the achievement. How do you answer that? Because they
are frustrated by, hey, I am just teaching to a test.
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, if I may address that and to go
back to your initial question, because I think one thing that
is lost in this argument or this question about what would it
take to get the right people in front of our kids, we usually
reserve that conversation for superintendents, for principals,
and for teachers themselves. We completely discount this issue
of teacher preparation formation.
Somehow we are dependent on the output of colleges and
universities, colleges of education. Let me submit to you that
I agree with my colleague that we value extremely individuals
with Master's Degrees and EdDs, and we focus little attention
on student outcomes and the ability of these folks to deliver
on student outcomes.
So tough questions must be asked about the Nation's and
States' willingness to push this envelope of teacher
preparation formation, what it takes to become a teacher. If
you look at the highest performing nation in the world right
now, Finland, Finland recruits from the very top 10 percent of
their graduates to be eligible to teach kids. And, yes, it was,
as was said previously, in the compensation system for teachers
it is not that divergent from that of an attorney or doctor.
Let the market forces decide that.
But I do think that once you have a strong teacher
preparation formation, then you need to have a system that
incentivizes great performance and particularly incentivizes
teachers to go into the toughest, to teach schools perhaps with
up-front bonuses, if those recognize already performance
demonstrated elsewhere. And when there is recognition specific
to student outcomes that results, as I said, in incentives and
bonuses for great performance for teachers. I believe that is
how you move the needle.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member
Miller.
While No Child Left Behind has a flawed accountability
system that needs to be improved, the Federal Government, in my
opinion, must ensure that States and local school systems work
to prepare all students to be college and career ready.
My first question is addressed to Superintendent Alberto
Carvalho.
I have read that you have a very impressive track record
making significant strides in improving student achievement and
graduation rates in your school district. There is a bill, the
Graduation Promise Act, H.R. 778, which I reintroduced in this
112th Congress. Its supports a State-led system for identifying
the lowest-performing high schools and implementing
interventions based on their unique challenges.
In your opinion, how do we create an accountability and
school improvement system that makes sense, one that leads to
effective school reform, especially for our Nation's lowest-
performing secondary schools?
Mr. Carvalho. To the chair, thank you for the question,
sir.
I think to a certain extent some of those systems in some
States already exist. Certainly in Florida I believe that
Florida's accountability system already puts an adequate amount
of pressure on districts to ensure that high schools move
swiftly from potential dropout factories in America to beacons
of hope for communities that produce a highly qualified
workforce that is ready to compete.
And the way to do that, number one, is by addressing not
just academic adequacies. It is by simultaneously addressing
workforce, workplace adequacies alongside personal and civic
adequacies. And those last two, for whatever reason, have in
many instances departed our public school systems. They are
important, personal, civic, workplace, and academic adequacies
for all kids.
Second, the way you reach that state of high performing
high schools is by not compromising in any way on teacher and
leader quality. And this addresses the comments of the
representative a little while ago.
You need to recruit the very best principal, the leader who
is empowered with making decisions that allow him to select the
very best teachers that have the right balance of skill and
will set. Meaning they understand instructional strategy, they
understand data analysis and use data to drive instruction and
then have the will for the job. They understand the communities
they serve.
Three, they have the backbone and the support of a system
that understands the predicaments of schools in a Miami-Dade.
DATA/Com serves that. I am directly involved in supporting high
school performance and principals.
Let me close by saying this, and I think this addresses
part of your question. We have been dealing with this issue and
I think it is prevalent in every one of your comments and
certainly our own: rights of States and local systems versus
the Federal Government. Here is the way I see it.
States build the road of student achievement and
accountability. It is up to the Federal Government to install
the guardrail to make sure nobody falls off. The road is
ultimately the responsibility of our States. And I think this
perfect balance between both accountability systems will lead
to a more educated workforce at some point in the near future.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for your response. I am very
interested in listening to how your district addressed the
needs of the English language learners and students with
disabilities and minority students.
Mr. Carvalho. To the chair, that is the beauty of public
education is that all means all. Under the eyes of God, we have
the responsibility to teach all kids, not being selective on
the basis of their own disability or their ability to speak the
language but being absolutely concerned with the full potential
they have before them.
So in our district we have a history of developing the very
best in the Nation, the ability to teach children who either
immigrate into this country or who are born to first-generation
parents. Not using poverty or language as excuses for their
achievement deficit but using what research provides is the
best way of catching them up. Putting the very best teachers in
front of them. In some cases, providing them with double dosing
of language and math; and, yes, in some instances, using the
very best strategies to pick them up where they are and taking
them to where they need to be. Offering them before and after
school tutorial programs. Enforcing almost a mandatory Saturday
school program called the Success Academy to bring these
students into school using, in many instances, Federal
resources such as Title I and Title III dollars.
I think those are just some of the strategies we have
employed to, in just a few years, dramatically increase
graduation rates.
I have one high school, Edison Senior High School, it was
an F just a few years ago. When I became superintendent, we had
nine schools and the threat of the State of being shut down for
performance. Every one of those schools was high poverty and
high minority demographic composition. We didn't accept poverty
or disability or a minority composition as excuses. We
leveraged great teachers, in some cases moving out, replacing
80 percent of the teachers. Yes, in many cases, in this case,
firing all nine principals and replacing them with the most
effective people I could find, regardless of whether or not
they looked like the communities they served. Because it is
time to appoint the very best people to the most challenging
conditions. And that has made a world difference.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for your response.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Heck, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you all for
the truly outstanding testimony that you provided here this
morning.
I represent the Clark County school district in southern
Nevada, the fifth-largest school district in the country, over
300,000 students, large homeless, ESL, transient student
population, with urban, suburban, and rural schools spread
across 8,000 square miles. So to say that we have some
interesting challenges is really an understatement.
In preparing for this committee meeting, I met with my K-12
advisory group while we were back home in August, and so the
questions I have today are issues that they have raised.
First, we heard a lot the of talk about the AYP process and
how it has failed schools. I heard from two teachers. One, Ms.
Donadio, who is the principal at the Foothills High School,
talked about how their school failed to make AYP because five
students out of the entire student body failed to show
proficiency in math.
Another teacher, Mr. Hale, who is a teacher at one of our
magnet programs, the Aviation Academy at Rancho High School,
talked about how 36 of his students scored perfect scores on
calculus but yet their school was labeled as needs improvement.
Their issue revolved about the end count. And the fact that
while we try to look for new accountability measures, while
giving flexibility to the States, it seems that subgroup
numbers and how people are subgrouped differ from State to
State.
So how do we achieve consistency in the end count while
allowing flexibility across States.
Ms. Sichel. I would be happy to address that, Chairman. I
think what is important here is that we instead of focusing on
just AYP, we focus on growth. If you focus on growth of each
child and make sure that each child continues to improve, you
won't have five students keeping you from making AYP or the 36
children who had excellent scores still having that school
being on an AYP list. The key is that if schools make growth
and if children make growth, there should be targets that show
that that demonstrated growth makes a difference and that is
what creates a school that is successful or not. Lack of growth
should be what is it is all about, not one single target one
point in time.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with my
colleague more. I would just emphasize two things though. We
talked a lot about what is wrong with No Child Left Behind and
the things that need to be fixed. There are two things that I
think are really important that we don't lose--maybe more than
two, but I will highlight two.
One is that every child's expectation of growth, one of
things No Child Left Behind does is look at subgroups. We need
to ensure that we continue to hold ourselves accountable for
every child and their progress and growth.
Secondly, the emphasis on reading, a minute ago we talked a
little bit about the importance of graduation rates, et cetera.
Annie Casey Foundation just put out a study this year that said
third grade reading, if a student can read at third grade they
are four times more likely to graduate. I think it is important
we don't lose sight of the core, the basics that No Child Left
Behind holds us accountable for.
Mr. Heck. The other issued they raised had to do with SES
and the Title I set-aside. And they felt that it really
impacted few students for the amount of money expended and
there was a lack of vendor accountability. I would wonder if
you share that opinion of SES, and if so, what types of
measures can we look at putting in place to make sure that
there is value added to the program?
Mr. Carvalho. I will take that, Mr. Chairman, at the
expense of upsetting the lobbying core attached to SES
providers. Look, Miami Dade is--I apologize, I am a plain
speaking person. Miami-Dade is the fourth largest in the
Nation, Clark County is fifth largest, and I have had terrific
conversations with your superintendent, who is sending a team
of individuals to our district to look at some of the
improvements we have made.
By the way, keep trying to keep up to number 4. At one
point I thought you would grow into number 4 in the Nation.
The interesting thing about SES is, number one, if done
right with the appropriate individuals, providing tutorial
services, bring value added based on best in class teaching
strategies, it makes a great deal of sense. But there is a set-
aside that in Miami-Dade results in $26 million invested or
provided with very little say on my part, very little oversight
or accountability attached to 400 different providers, 400
different providers. In the State of Florida, the entire State
of Florida, there are 600 approved providers, 400 of them are
doing business in Miami-Dade with very little accountability
and a great deal of money.
Those are two ingredients that spell out disaster. I can
tell you that we are unfortunately stuck with third party
entities, and consume a great deal of time investigating
fraudulent activity. And if you look at the research because
there is little accountability and very, very little uniform
accountability for performance attached to the value added
results at the intervention of these providers, it is very hard
for us to know what is going on and incredibly difficult for us
to opine to parents as to what is best for their kids.
So I will give you a couple of ideas. Number one, we have
been able to, get through recent State legislation that we
advocated for in Tallahassee, the adoption of a single
instrument for assessment, establish a pre and post test for
SES providers, so that every single kid, regardless of who
tutors them, has to take the pre and post assessment. So at
least there is uniformity of results that parents then can use
as wise consumers of the products.
Two, I do think that school systems and our system via
waiver is a provider itself, but school systems need to be
empowered with more ability to utilize those dollars in a more
strategic way that compliments thecomplements good practices
their system is already employing to begin with.
Mr. Heck. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Ms. McCarthy.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses. This has been terrific testimony from all of you.
And I happen to agree with you that every child can learn to
the best of their ability if they have the tools also.
And to Mr. Carvalho, one of the things that I have felt,
New York State right now is in the process of changing how our
teaching colleges are teaching their teachers to be able to
reform the school. This has been an ongoing issue since I first
came onto this committee 15 years ago. When I graduated from
nursing school, we put on our white uniform and we had to know
everything when we got on that floor, and I think that is from
the training that we had. And that has to be into our teaching
colleges mainly. In my opinion, today the world is a different
place, and we have to send more experienced teachers,
especially into the early grades.
One of the things I wanted to ask you, no one talked about,
and I think this is one of the biggest problems we have seen
when I go into my schools, the kids start to do really, really
well in the lower grades, then we get to the middle school and
we start to see a great deal of loss of educating and the kids
start to drop out.
So what have you been able to do to be able to look at that
and how have you been able to hopefully prevent it?
When you talk about flexibility, I would also like to see a
little more examples. Everyone throws that word out,
flexibility, flexibility. We understand that schools and the
States need some flexibility, but what you are exactly looking
for as we go forward?
And again, I think--you have talked about a lot, especially
for the superintendents on what they have been able to do. The
schools are the front line of student learning, but they cannot
meet high expectations without support and involvement from
their districts and the States. As both of you as district
superintendents can you talk about the importance of involving
districts, including things that districts can do to help
schools in raising achievement and closing gaps? And some of
you talked about that already. What are the consequences
accountability measures should in your opinion exists for
districts that fail to raise achievements or close gaps. We
can't just keep closing schools. We have to have answers for
those students.
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, well at the risk of maybe
sounding a bit disagreeable, I do think that sometimes closing
a school is legitimate. I moved to close about five schools
this year because I thought they were dropout factories. Some
of them were alternative education centers, where in my opinion
the kids got a one-way ticket.
Mrs. McCarthy. When you say you closed the school, did you
reopen it with a whole new fresh--I am not talking the building
itself.
Mr. Carvalho. I understand. In some cases I did and some
cases I didn't. In some cases I actually closed the school and
I made the school available for an independent board to come in
and provide a charter option. In other instances I closed the
school and created a center for middle schools to catch up,
kids who were over aged, and in others the building sits empty.
So I think there's room for everything.
Let me go back to your initial question because I think it
is fundamentally important. If we want to address the issue of
dropouts and increased graduation rates across America, we make
a more robust investment in early childhood education.
What you described as this negative progression from high
proficiency, high result at the elementary levels, and then see
a decrease going to middle school and then a significant
decrease going to senior high school, I believe in all the
research, all of the peer-reviewed research, not just the think
tank and foundation driven research, indicates that it is
rooted on early childhood education.
Sometimes you pass the tipping point and don't recognize it
until the child is in middle school. So this goes back to the
point of, and there is a second tactic. I do think we prepare
better, across the board better elementary school teachers in
many instances than we do core subject area, secondary
teachers.
And this goes to the issue I addressed earlier, the issue
of teacher preparation formation. In many States to teach sixth
grade math and science you need only a Bachelor's degree with
one single course during your 4 years of college in math or
science. That does not give you the skill set necessary to be
able to teach effectively math or science.
So it is a combination of early strategic investment in
early childhood education, a clear idea how to discern the
data, analyze the data, make instructional decisions based on
the data that provides for differentiated instruction, reading
coaches, interventionists early on, in addition to a serious
conversation about teacher preparation formation, particularly
for the secondary course levels.
Chairman Kline. I am sorry, the gentlelady's time has
expired.
Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the panel
for being here and for your expertise and your leadership in
your respective areas.
The administration's ESEA blueprint and the Common Core
standards intend all students to be college and career ready.
How do you believe Congress should define career readiness? And
would this require more than evaluation of math and science
skills, but also looking at a variety of workplace skills?
Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of college and career ready, it is imperative that
every child graduate from high schools across this country
being prepared to go on to college and/or taking a career. At
this point most of the careers require the kinds of skill bases
that freshmen and sophomores should be able to accomplish in
school. So every student has to be proficient in high level
mathematics, to be able to deal with upper level science, to be
able to do the problem solving and analytical thinking that
relates to good reading and writing.
Think about what goes on when your car is repaired. It is
no longer the days of just changing the oil. They need to know
how to deal with computer programs, they need to know how to do
diagnostic and intervention. These are higher level thinking
skills. So it is imperative that we raise the bar for everyone.
You have an educational columnist here in Washington, Jay
Mathews from the Washington Post. He talks about the fact that
for students to be successful today every child needs to have
the opportunity to be involved in rigorous, relevant high level
academic classes. So it is important that we open the doors for
everyone to be able to attain those goals.
Mr. Carvalho. To the chairman, I would simply add to that.
My colleagues spoke to the issue of academic adequacies
focusing on reading, math, and science proficiencies. And those
are important I believe every single child graduating high
school needs to demonstrate proficiency in those.
But in addition to that, there is a value to putting some
focus on workplace adequacies, those skills, the set of skills
that future employers will be looking for. We have achieved
that by expanding aggressively parental choices in senior high
schools, offering thematic instruction through career
academies, through thematic instruction providing within the
public school system a wider variety of choice for parents.
About 41 percent of children in Miami are in nontraditional
programs. And in our career academy, specifically in high
school it is biomedicine, robotics, engineering, STEM driven
academies. Children both learn and develop proficiency in the
core subject areas of reading, math, science and writing. But
they also begin to master industry specific adequacies that I
believe are important in developing their future workplace
proficiency and adequacy.
Mr. Miller. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Sure.
Mr. Miller. I don't want his question to slip away. He was
asking whether or not this is the responsibility of the Federal
Government or the States to set these high standards. I think
that is an important distinction for the discussion in this
committee. Most of you testified about support for the Common
Core, which was not--that is not our work product. If you could
just tell us what you think there.
Mr. Thompson. Just reclaiming my time, specifically and I
appreciate your responses as co-chair of the Career and
Technical Education Caucus, congratulations on the program that
you are doing. The question was specifically should Congress
define career readiness or how should Congress define career
readiness?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair, no one wants to touch that one. I
would simply say that all States should be required to
implement, but it should be a State decision. The expectations
of high standards and rigors should be established and expected
of all but States should have the opportunity to choose their
standards, measured to a high bar. And to that end what it
comes to is, is it an either/or or both/and. I think it is a
both/and when it comes to reading and math because, as my
colleagues stated, those are our fundamentals. That is a given
expectation. Those are the skills that we want to build on for
our workforce readiness.
Mr. Thompson. I think a comment, one of the flaws I see of
No Child Left Behind, it appears to have been built under the
premise that every child should go on to a 4-year college. That
is just not true. In fact, it is not fair and fails to
recognize there are many different pathways to success.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair, just a quick follow-up on that. I
do believe when we talk about reauthorization and the
opportunity to acknowledge differentiated accountability, I
will tell you as we look at our school grading in the State of
New Mexico we are looking at nationally recognized vocational
education and acknowledging that as it links to graduation as
an important component as well.
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, that is why in the State of
Florida there is credit given to industry certification
alongside graduation rates and proficiency rates, because I
think America has done a great job at convincing every kid that
preparation for college is critical and I believe in that. I
think we ought to prepare every kid to succeed in college, but
not at the expense of demonizing the value of career technical
education.
There is a reason why apprenticeship programs in Germany
are high paying and high demand. And America has allowed that
to go to waste shamefully. And to a certain extent I believe we
have lied to kids.
I go into my senior high schools, I ask kids questions,
what are you going to do after the last day of high school, and
a percentage of them tell me that they will go to college to be
a doctor and an attorney, and the other percentage tell me they
are going to play ball. And between those two extreme realities
there is a chasm, and we need to readdress this issue of career
technical education in our Nation if we are to ensure economic
viability.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carvalho, you have
talked about the importance of having highly qualified math
teachers. Why do you hire math teachers who are not qualified
in math when there is--instead of all of those who have applied
that majored in math?
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question
correctly, I try not to if they do not meet the qualifications,
but understand in most of our States, including Florida, the
State certifies teachers. So there is law that basically
declares the certification for a teacher. Certainly----
Mr. Scott. Do you have highly qualified math teachers
applying for the jobs that you are ignoring?
Mr. Carvalho. Therein lies the issue. The designation of
highly qualified in my opinion does not necessarily reflect
high quality for teaching in a subject area. It is pursuant to
a State statute that declares those individuals highly
qualified if they met the criteria required for such.
Mr. Scott. Is the problem that we need to instruct the
superintendents to hire people who are qualified and taken the
math courses instead of the ones that have not taken the math
courses? It would seem to me if you have people in line for the
jobs you would have hired them.
Mr. Carvalho. Through--Mr. Chairman, I agree with you.
There is an issue of scarcity of talent in a highly competitive
environment. So the idea that there are a lot of individuals
out there, and I think this is a concern of the Nation, ready
to teach math--particularly math and science at the higher
levels, is very scarce. And certainly it is our responsibility
to go through the resumes of these individuals in very
aggressive interviews to determine that notwithstanding those
who meet and fulfill the State certification requirements we
are looking for their effectiveness.
Mr. Scott. One of the challenges we have is when we just
mandate that you hire people who have taken a lot of math
courses, that is kind of meaningless if none have applied. I
think you mentioned salaries. If we are not paying enough, it
is not going to get people who have taken a lot of courses.
One of the things that some of us are trying to do is
improve the community that the young people are in to make it
more conducive to learning, to make sure the young people have
early childhood education, after school programs, mentors so
that when they get to school they have the support of the
community.
Can you comment on the promise neighborhoods investments
and how they would help you do your job?
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, I will start, our best answer
to that was development of the Parent Academy. It is an academy
for parents based on three specific pillars: Number one, a host
of courses, about 200 different courses and a course core
directory offered in 80 plus locations throughout the district,
not necessarily in schools. We offer these courses wherever
parents are, specifically targeting high poverty areas and high
minority areas.
The three pillars of Parent Academy are as follows: Number
one, helping parents negotiate and navigate the school system
on behalf of their kids. Said in a different way is inspiring
parents to demand more of their school systems, know what their
options are, what their rights are, and availing themselves of
them.
Second pillar of the Parent Academy is helping parents
negotiate their own personal development from an academic
perspective, adult literacy skills, helping them become more
literate so they can become a second teacher, an echo to the
teaching that takes place in the school at home.
And the third pillar is helping parents negotiate civic
life in America. So this issue of understanding of the
Constitution and understanding of the laws of the State of
Florida, so they can also provide an echo for their kids. It
has been one of the most remarkable and research documented
investment, and I am proud to say this does not invoke
taxpayers dollars. I went to the business community with this
proposition and the business community has invested in this
Parent Academy. So questions on financial literacy are provided
by Citibank, courses on workforce development specific to key
industries are provided by Braman Automotive Group and the
like.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. One of the challenges that we have is
what to do when a school is failing. We have a cookie cutter,
one-size-fits-all response; that is, you get tutorial services
for everybody, everybody can go sneak out and try to get to
another school choice. But if it is only one subgroup that has
failed, that caused a failure, it seems it me that the response
ought to be addressed to the cause.
Can you comment on how we should respond to a subgroup
failure?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
would say that the choice and SES provisions in No Child Left
Behind today are excellent, but we need additional proven
strategies and options when a school is struggling. To your
point about one subgroup, I do think if we----
Mr. Scott. Should the resources be addressed to the
subgroup that failed?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
yes. And I believe as we capture individual growth, which is
something we talked quite a bit about, we will begin to be able
to target our resources to those most in need. We see that even
if we differentiate accountability from a school standpoint,
right now that is difficult to do because we have this pass-
fail system. As we begin to differentiate at the school level,
and then all the way down to the student level, we are going to
begin to be able to use resources in a more meaningful way. But
I do believe there is a place for more flexibility with
resources as long as they are linked to proven strategies and
there is accountability in place for those resources.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Biggert, you are recognized.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. My question, I will start with Dr.
Sichel, I believe. I am somebody that really is concerned and
working in the STEM community and I think the administration
really is into this, too. But I think that science scores
should be given strong consideration as Congress reforms our K
through 12 accountability system. Right now supposedly the
schools are moving into science as being included for this past
year, year and a half.
In what ways have the accountability provisions of the
current law affected the way that science is taught in your
school?
Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Science is
an integral component to what needs to be measured and to be
accountable. There is no question that the majority of school
districts have focused on mathematics and reading and writing
skills, but science in the last 3 to 5 years has really taken a
forefront. This is probably the harder nut with which to
improve because it is very content laden and it is extremely
difficult to obtain both quality teachers that can excite the
students to have the content happen.
However, we have seen that when you have a hands-on
approach, when you use realistic applications that the students
understand, such as physics principles and understanding how
physics is used as a great adventure, there is often a lot of
excitement that goes along with that. So it is a way to have
the standard become realistic with students and make sure that
you have quality people in the room and then to measure it. I
think science is an area that has been grossly overlooked and
that we need to get on top of that.
Mrs. Biggert. So science should really be part of a new
accountability?
Ms. Sichel. Yes, it should.
Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Hawley, I was happy to see in your
written testimony you did mention that you support the growth
models and, moreover, that these models should be used to gauge
the social and emotional development which lays a foundation
for short and long-term academic and personal success. What are
some of the ways that assessments, both formative and
summative, can be used to measure social and emotional
learning?
Ms. Hawley. Well, the social and emotional learning really
comes from the program and the environment that you provide to
the students and the quality teachers and the quality
instruction. When a child feels the basics--when a child feels
safe and secure in an environment, then they are ready for
learning. So in terms of assessments, both formative and
summative, we are going to find that students will perform
better if there is an environment that is conducive to
learning.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that teachers and principals are
familiar enough with the positive aspects of this type of
learning?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Certainly not everywhere, but in my
experience, especially at the elementary level, a lot of what
we are doing is school-ready at the beginning, in early
childhood years. It is getting students ready for learning and
ready for school. And in my experience I understand the
importance of the whole child and making sure that what we are
providing is an experience that would promote learning.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that there is any legislation
necessary in this area?
Ms. Hawley. I think if we look at measured progress and
progress along the way, ongoing progress, ongoing assessments
is really what I mean, I believe that that will address that.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I have got one more question. I
have heard from some of the educators who regret that they have
missed out on what they call a teachable moment and because it
often requires risking a loss of ``instructional time,'' and
the rigid focus, which has been talked about, of teaching to
the test and afraid that then their scores will be lower. I
think this all will change hopefully, but what suggestions do
you have for broadening the scope of subject matter while
maintaining accountability?
Chairman Kline. Excuse me, unfortunately as much as I would
like to hear the answer to that question, the gentlelady's time
has expired.
Mrs. Biggert. If I might submit that for the record.
Chairman Kline. You may. I would love that. The trouble is
we really want these answers, we are just out of time and got a
lot of members who need to ask questions. So they will throw
daggers at me later.
Ms. Hirono, you are recognized.
Mr. Hirono. Thank you very much. This committee has had
many hearings over the years on appropriate changes to No Child
Left Behind and I think that--because there is consensus around
allowing States to use the growth model and that is also
verified by all of you. If there was one other priority part of
No Child Left Behind that you would want to change, what would
that be?
I ask that of all of you very briefly.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I
would say that I think it is the differentiated accountability,
the ability to differentiate between a pass-fail model that we
currently have and capture a more nuanced approach to what is
happening when it comes to growth and progress in our
classrooms so that intervention and resources can be targeted
and most effective in a meaningful way.
Ms. Sichel. I would share with that, that one of the most
important things that needs to be considered in the
reauthorization is the accountability measures for growth for
special needs children, special education children. They need
to be measured according to their individual educational
program, not according to some arbitrary measures that are
placed upon either the school, the district or the State or the
Federal level dollars.
Mr. Hirono. Let me just clarify. I wanted to know whether
there was something else besides allowing the use of growth
models because there is consensus that we ought to make those
appropriate changes. So anything besides?
Mr. Carvalho. Chairman, I will give you three. Number one,
I think it is time to ensure fair accountability by providing
flexibility for special needs students, special education
children, and English language learners, and out of formula
adjustments by requiring identical tests for Title I and Title
III students in nonpublic schools. I think if we are going to
have an accountability system it ought to be for all.
Two, I think the time has come to establish new
qualification requirements, and I spoke about this issue of
teacher quality, nothing more important. Establishing new
qualification requirements for teachers and paraprofessionals
to ensure that teachers are highly skilled in content areas as
well as pedagogy.
And last but not least, it is embedded in the formula,
recognizing great variance in the distribution of immigrant
funds in Title III based on a formula that often ignores the
total number of recently arrived foreign born children. It is
complex to arrive at that formula. I think a more targeted look
at specific nuances by regions needs to be considered.
Ms. Hawley. One issue that would be helpful, which makes it
flawed, is the focus, the over focus on certain groups so that
that is at the detriment of other groups that we need to focus
on.
Mr. Hirono. Thank you. There is recognition as 2014 comes
around the corner that so many schools, in fact a lot of
schools, the majority of the schools in our country will not
meet AYP. So Secretary of Education has established a waiver
process. Are all of your States going to apply for that waiver?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I will say New Mexico will be
applying for the waiver. I would emphasize two or three things
in that waiver application I think is very important. Number
one that a high bar be maintained when it comes to
accountability. Number two, that differentiated accountability
and growth be absolutely prioritized. And also to my
colleague's point about effective teaching and school leading,
that we begin to provide flexibility and encourage States as
they seek to honor and acknowledge effective teaching linked to
improve student achievement.
Mr. Carvalho. Chairman, I certainly have had conversations
with the Commissioner about the necessity of applying for the
waiver and we are in conversations regarding that matter. I do
believe that Florida will be submitting a waiver.
Mr. Hirono. What about the other two?
Ms. Sichel. Pennsylvania is still wrangling on whether they
will be submitting a waiver or not. So I cannot speak about the
direction they will take. Thank you.
Ms. Hawley. And I don't know whether Maryland is.
Mr. Hirono. My next question on the Early Learning
Challenge Fund, are your States applying for those grants, $500
million in grants.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, yes. New Mexico is applying for
that with an emphasis on the importance of reading and aligning
our standards from pre-K through third grade.
Mr. Hirono. Yes to all of you? Thank you.
I only have a little bit of time. I was very excited to
hear about the Parent Academy, because we know what the factors
are that go into a successful school, great teachers,
principal, leaders and parental involvement. We have been
wrestling with how do we get parents more involved.
I would like to get a little more information from you, Mr.
Carvalho, as to how that works in your statement. I have run
out of time. I will follow up with you.
Chairman Kline. We really would like answers for the record
here. Staff will be working with you. The Parent Academy and
background discussion here would like more information on that.
The gentlelady is right, her time has expired and, Mr. Hunter,
you are recognized.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question is
this: Doctor, you talked about your district building systems
to collect and analyze data to improve instruction. Ms. Hawley,
in your testimony you talk about the importance of using
assessment data to inform instruction. The question is this:
Are your metrics and evaluations specific enough and advanced
enough to be able to say it is the principal's fault, it is the
teacher's fault, it's a lazy kid, it's parents' fault? Can you
break it down? How do you know whose fault it is, one. And two,
is there any room for Federal involvement in analyzing your
data for your growth model that is specific to you?
That is my first question for all of you. My second
question is this, since the growth model is specific to a
subgroup or is specific to an individual child over time, I
guess you could have relevant growth models that you can
compare and contrast between different subgroups if they have
the same type of background, but can you have a standardized
growth model that the Federal Government can use or impose upon
you to say, hey, this is the growth model you are going to use
and it is kind of--I guess the question is this, is there such
as thing as a one-size-fits-all growth model?
Those are my two questions.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, no, I
do not believe there is such thing as one-size-fits-all. And
when it comes to kind of getting back to the core question
today about what is the role of the Federal Government, I do
believe it is to have high expectations and hold our States
accountable for the resources and investment but to allow
States, because they know best what will serve their students
and schools and districts, to allow them to establish the next
layer of how do you measure, et cetera. So have a high bar,
make sure we are getting a good return on investment and
improving programs, but don't prescribe how we get there.
Mr. Carvalho. I agree with my colleague. So I won't repeat
what she said. The only thing I will add is the value of the
growth model is not to be able to compare one subgroup to
another. The value of the growth model is to actually compare
that group to itself, to compare the child to itself over time.
If you don't do that, you are comparing two different groups of
student cohorts over time, and that really in many instances
does not make sense. This year's group of ninth graders may not
necessarily be equivalent in terms of their preparation leaving
middle school as last year's group of ninth graders. And when
you do not use a growth model comparison, you are really
comparing one group of students to a very different group of
students.
The beauty of a growth model, if arrived at in a very
legitimate way, it actually allows for a clear examination,
data driven examination, of the same cohort of children down to
a single kid over a period of time. That is exactly what you
want to see. That is what we do in the private sector. Once you
hire somebody over time are they producing and meeting their
goals? How do they produce year one up to year two. And I think
there is a great deal of merit to actually reflecting that same
philosophy in a public sector, in public schools.
Ms. Sichel. I couldn't concur with my colleague more. A
growth model that is based upon data that is multi-dimensional,
standardized test scores, formative assessment, local driven
assessments, common assessments, grade levels and curriculum
that brings it down to the individual level, the class level,
you could see growth over time, and I think that is what is
most important. And in Pennsylvania we have a very successful
growth model that should be the basis of what we are doing and
it should be State driven.
In terms of your first question was--you use the term
looking at fault. I think here what is more important is to
look at root causes. If we can identify what is needed in that
classroom for those children and then go in and intervene, we
will make a mountain of difference with children.
Mr. Hunter. Can you do that? That was my question.
Ms. Sichel. We can do that with a quality growth model that
pulls all the data together, and we have to give teachers and
principals the time to analyze their data and get in there and
intervene and then there has got to be consistency over time.
You don't change the focus, change the intervention. It has got
to be clear, driven goals that go on over time for a long
period of time.
Mr. Hunter. I am running out of time, so let me drill down
on the growth model really quick then. Is it even possible for
the Federal Government to, let's say, reward success or punish
bad behavior then State by State based on a growth model? If
you are comparing a student to him or herself over a period of
time, how would you compare a school to another school or a
school district to another school district or a State to
another State when the growth model is only specific to another
individual or even a subgroup to itself over time?
Ms. Sichel. With a growth model you can roll it up from the
individual to the classroom to the grade level to the school to
the entire district. That data is available and there are ways
to look at it, but it is progress over time. It is not this
year's ninth grade to last year's ninth grade. It is how this
year's ninth grade did and did they improve more than a year in
1 year, because every year a child is in school there should be
at least 1 year of academic growth if not more.
Chairman Kline. And the gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for good testimony. I had to leave the room during some of the
questioning and so let me talk about some things and ask you to
talk about some things that might be repetitious, but even if
they are, they are important enough. I think it warrants it.
Science education. I know Ms. Biggert touched on that and
talked about the resolution we have that says in any
reauthorization or other actions, strong consideration should
be given to science education in accountability, in any
accountability measurements. And I am sure it has been said but
it is worth saying, you know, science is not just another
subject, whether we are talking about jobs that will await
students, the technological innovation this country needs, the
global competitiveness or whether we are talking about the fact
that students like science unless they are told that they
don't. And students who do well in science, especially those
who are not planning to become scientists, tend to be students
who do well in other subjects. And there is some evidence that
there's some causality there, that the science actually helps
them.
And I think it is a route, and for many students the best
route, for critical thinking, understanding the value of data
and observation and experiment and so forth. The question is
will it work. Can we, now that we are collecting, we are
testing and collecting data on science, can it be included
reasonably in an accountability system.
Let me start in reverse order with Dr. Sichel here, if you
have thoughts on that.
Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it absolutely can
be included in the system of accountability. There are national
and State science standards that we believe all students should
be graduated from our high schools with the ability to master,
whether it is Earth science and biology and chemistry and
physics. There are components of all of those subject areas
that are crucial to be good citizens, career, lifelong
learners, higher education, et cetera. So it needs to have just
as important a place as reading, writing and mathematics does.
Mr. Carvalho. To the extent that you assign importance to
reading and math, and those are the two key criteria on No
Child Left Behind, I do believe that assigning importance to
science and writing is equally important. There is a reason why
American children are performing comparatively better in
reading and math than their international counterparts than
they are in science. It is because what you don't measure sort
of denotes you don't value it. So there is a lot to be said.
Take it from a former physics teacher.
Mr. Holt. I know that you were, and I was pleased to see
that, I must say.
Mr. Carvalho. A physics teacher and chemistry teacher both
at the high school and college level courses. If you value it,
you need to engage in the degree of data collection and
measurement across the country. You are not going to be able to
reach the 25th in the world performance in science unless you
do so. Nobody in Finland cares about how people in Georgia are
doing or California or Florida. They are all betting that we
don't reach the 25th in the world ranking as a Nation because
they keep on improving.
So I do think that, beyond Sputnik I think we lost some
momentum and it is time to regain it. And to a previous
question is it possible, in part of an earlier question is it
possible to do, of course it is possible. The Nation that put
the first man on the Moon can absolutely do this. This is not a
skill set problem.
Mr. Holt. We know how to teach science. Students want to
learn it. The question is can we make it part of the
accountability system?
Ms. Hawley.
Ms. Hawley. I agree that we can. I think that we need to be
careful on how we assess that, because often in the assessment
you are not always assessing just the knowledge base. It comes
back to math and reading--well, reading and writing and things
like that. So I think that we need to approach it from the
angle that we need to look at what exactly are we assessing.
But absolutely.
Mr. Holt. I was alluding to the fact that I would like to
see it assessed in a way that particularly looks at its value
for the nonscience students.
Ms. Skandera.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired, I would
love to have your answer in writing if we could, please.
Dr. DesJarlais.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
witnesses. The first question is going to go to Dr. Sichel and
Ms. Skandera. We have seen graphs showing that over the past 30
years, despite increased Federal spending, we have not seen
great improvement in NAEP scores compared to other
industrialized nations.
How can the Federal Government, and feel free to be very
candid, best ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and
the parents have options to escape struggling schools?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier, one, I
believe there are strategic levers for change, and one is
asking the big question what is the best return on our
investment. When it comes to the Federal Government I believe
they can provide us flexibility when it comes to funding but
hold us accountable for the investment to be made in proven
strategies. So we have got plenty of research out there today
that tells us things that work and things that don't. It is no
longer to me appropriate to send down hundreds of millions of
dollars to States today without the expectation that there is a
link to proven strategies for improved student achievements.
That is our expectation of the State and I believe that is also
good taxpayer accountability as well when it comes to funding.
So my ask and request as we look at reauthorization is that
as monies flow through that States also would have the ability
when we are failing in our schools to hold our schools and
districts accountable in that failure for investing in proven
strategies.
Dr. DesJarlais. Dr. Sichel.
Ms. Sichel. What I would like to add to that, because I
think the response really addresses many of the things that
need to be done, is it has got to be State driven with
flexibility, but what also has to happen is transparency. Every
school district across this country has an obligation to post,
to have a community meeting, to have a school meeting, both
school and district related report cards, if you would call it,
much as Florida does or New Mexico is talking about, where we
rate and rank how our schools are doing, where we talk about
our successes, where we talk about our targeted needs, where we
invite parents and community members to be a part of our
collaborative effort to make a difference.
Transparency is really important. You need to put out you
are good, you are bad and you are ugly and deal with it.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. Ms. Hawley, through the school
improvement grants program the Department has mandated that
States and school districts receiving those funds use one of
the four turnaround models. What are the downsides to mandating
one-size-fits-all Federal requirements for improving low
performing schools?
And I would just add that I represent a very rural district
area in Tennessee's Fourth District. And as we were talking
earlier, sometimes a good applicant pool isn't available and a
lot of these turnaround programs eventually require replacement
of teachers, principals and administrators.
Ms. Hawley. Well, first of all, I would like to address the
aspect of the turnaround model where the automatic firing of
principals. My belief is that schools should be given--you
know, if a school is struggling, failing, schools should be
given the authority, autonomy, time to identify what the needs
are so that they can address what those specific needs are. I
think we need to look at the whole turnaround model as a whole
and look at specifically what each school needs and make sure
that schools are provided with the tools they need in order to
pinpoint what their specific issues are so they can succeed and
progress.
Mr. DesJarlais. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
time.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Woolsey, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear, and we
all know this, that when a youngster enters the classroom if
that youngster is ready to learn that it makes a big difference
in the results of that school day, that school year, and it
really makes a big difference in how the teacher is evaluated
because all public schools teach all kids and they come from
many economic backgrounds, they come from all kinds of
situations and many home situations that make it impossible for
them to enter the classroom feeling safe, having had a meal
sometimes, feeling--being healthy physically or mentally and
feeling at all secure before and after school.
So, Mr. Carvalho, you in your written testimony talk about
wraparound services and about bringing services to some of your
schools. And I would like to know if any of the rest of you, I
don't know if you call them wraparound services, I call them
coordinated services, it is bringing the services to the school
site that these particular communities would benefit from
having the student and absolutely affecting the outcome and
affecting the scoring for some teachers. So would you start
with what you do?
Ms. Sichel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to
address that. I am going to specifically focus on one of our
elementary schools that has the highest rate of poverty, the
most socioeconomically disadvantaged children, so it really
does address what you are talking about.
What is important is the first thing is a no excuses
approach. We are not going to change their home situation, we
are not going to change their socioeconomic level, but they are
our children and we need to help them become ready to learn. So
as soon as they have crossed our doorsteps we need to use a
variety of assessment measures to find out where they are. And
if they are not ready for the full day kindergarten program
that we offer, then we have got to move in with a whole bunch
of remedial sources and attempt to get them up to stuff as soon
as possible. Included in that procedure is to engage their
parents right away, to try to, quote, contract with their
parents to be reading with them at home at night, to be doing
their homework, to be making sure that meals are provided, to
using our local community to provide medical services when
needed, getting glasses and things like that. You have to be
resourceful and you have to turn around and say we are going to
get in there, roll up our sleeves and do whatever it is we can
to make our children ready to learn.
In the school that I am thinking about we had that kind of
situation. And we really spent the last 2 years dealing with
the staff. They are saying what do you need, what is going to
happen, what is going to make a difference, but we are going to
hold you accountable. And I am real pleased to say that over a
2-year period one of our lowest functioning schools is now
beginning to catch up with some of our more affluent schools
that didn't have to do the work as difficult as this building
did. It can be done.
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, I will offer about four of the
examples of the wraparound services that we provide. This is
one of those things that one plus one is more than two, the
value of partnerships, community partnerships. So number one,
you know, I never met a broken kid but I have met a lot of--I
have come across a lot of broken systems and broken systems
usually allow for broken kids to come into our system. So
important factors in a wraparound service are those first and
foremost dealing with school health. So we partner through our
school Health Connect partnership with the University of Miami
and other entities that provide early screening even before
kids come to our schools and provide school clinics in schools
to make sure our kids don't have to leave school and be absent
to get critical care. We have gone actually and put an RFP on
the street to open our own health care clinics, not only for
our workforce, but for parents of those kids, managed privately
but in our schools.
Second, the value of social work as a school psychologist,
privately funded, as well as publicly funded, provides an
essential component of the wraparound model.
I spoke about the value of the Parent Academy in providing
educational services to the parent community in the three
different pillars so that parents understand the school system
that they send their child to and make wise choices that lead
to demand driven reform in our public schools.
And last but not least, you know, we are a county-wide
system spanning over 34 different municipalities. So as
superintendent I have negotiated about 14 different municipal
compacts with mayors, to in a very regional almost zip code
driven way arrive at negotiations that bring value added to the
lives of kids and parents. So cities make actual investments in
social issues in our schools. If a community decides to have an
international baccalaureate guarantee for all the schools, you
know, help me get there, let's pony up money to afford the
professional development for the IB program for teachers. That
is the case for the City of Miami Beach.
So that is sort of just the flavor for the wraparound
services we have in our school system.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question to be
answered in writing?
Chairman Kline. You may, if it is a short question.
Ms. Woolsey. It is a very short question. I would love it
if each one of you would answer. Should the waivers be--should
wraparound services be evaluated in part of the decision on
whether a district or a State should receive waivers?
Chairman Kline. We will take those for the record. Mr.
Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing and for bringing us four excellent witnesses that
have been very responsive and really cleared up a lot of
issues. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Dr. Sichel, did I pronounce your name correctly, Sichel.
Ms. Sichel. Sichel.
Mr. Andrews. Dr. Sichel, I think you have accentuated a
point the committee takes very seriously, that there has been
more closure in the gap between minority students and white
students in the 10 years since No Child Left Behind than there
was in all the other years put together since 1965, and it has
accelerated I think because of No Child Left Behind. And I
think we need to be very careful not to lose sight of that
fact.
Is there anything--and you cite the remarkable progress
that you are making with African American children in your
district and young people. Is there anything in No Child Left
Behind as it is presently written that impedes your ability to
continue that progress?
Ms. Sichel. In thinking about how to respond to that I want
to balance the positive impact that No Child Left Behind has
made, but I also must share with you that we have had a
problem--we have had a process, excuse me, of data driven
decision making since 1990. It is not new to the Abington
School District. If you have data, you need to manage it. And
we have been managing it for well over 20 years.
So that needs to be the forefront of any single program
that goes on. Now, what No Child Left Behind did for us is
opened our eyes to the fact that the old group wasn't the only
data that we should manage, that we should be looking at it
from a desegregated point of view.
Now, what gets in the way is this whole issue of one-size-
fits-all, and let me give you an example of Abington Senior
High School, where presently over 80 percent of our children
are proficient in reading and mathematics, where our
economically disadvantaged and our African American children
are approaching 70 percent in many cases. What is happening is
with our special education students, they are at best 40 to 50
percent proficient, though when we started this process they
were 20 percent proficient. So they have made remarkable
results.
I think we have to be flexible. We have to look at
attainable goals.
Mr. Andrews. Are you saying that there are resources that
you are taking to address the demands on the special ed side
that are degrading the quality of what you are trying to do for
nonspecial ed kids? What is the impediment?
I think you have accurately described a problem with the
way we measure AYP for special ed kids. I agree with you. The
question I asked was what is there in the law that is impeding
you from continuing the progress that you are making.
Ms. Sichel. Well, there is nothing in the law that is
continuing from impeding the progress. But what will happen if
this continues is this high school will be considered a failing
high school when it is one of the premier high schools in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Andrews. Let me come to this point. I know it. I live
in Haddon Heights, New Jersey.
Ms. Sichel. There you go, so you know.
Mr. Andrews. And Abington has a great reputation, richly
deserved.
I will ask any or all of the four of you this. I think I
heard a consensus that a growth model should replace the
present static model. I agree with that. And Mr. Hunter asked a
question I want to follow up on, which is the ideal growth
model is one that drills down to the level of the individual
student. I think we should head in that direction. But given
that aspiration to get down to one student at a time, what
parameters should we put around acceptable or unacceptable
growth?
And I realize that there should be a different answer for
every child. But let me phrase the question this way. What do
you think the mean or median progress should be in any given
year for a child to have achieved success under a growth model?
How much is enough?
And again, I understand it is going to be a wildly
different answer given the child's situation coming in. But
looking at the middle, the bell curve, the 50th percentile kid,
what do you think is enough progress under a growth model?
Mr. Carvalho. Mr. Chairman, how about one year's growth
during one year's time. One year's worth of teaching results in
one year's worth of growth.
Mr. Andrews. Anybody disagree with that?
Ms. Sichel. No, I don't. And Pennsylvania's model is based
on that. We have schools that are considered in the green and
they do more than one year's growth, we have schools that are
in the yellow which are one year's growth, exactly what it
should be.
Mr. Andrews. I completely agree with that proposition. I
think that is very fair. And I think there should be standard
deviations.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrews. I am not the chairman.
Ms. Skandera. And members of the committee.
Mr. Andrews. Am I Mr. Kline?
Mr. Miller. Apparently. You are using her time.
Ms. Skandera. Absolutely the expectation of one year's
worth of growth in one year's time. But I would add an
additional component. When we begin--and you asked previously
what is impeding us, and I mentioned multiple times the
importance of having the freedom and flexibility to acknowledge
effective teaching linked to improved student achievement, and
here is why. Because we have students that are coming in so far
behind that one year's worth of progress in one year's time is
not going to get to closing the achievement gap in a meaningful
way. At some point we have got to acknowledge, do you know
what, an effective teacher, and there is plenty of research
that tells us this, can close more than one year's progress in
one year's time. And we need to acknowledge and reward that in
a way that is meaningful because we must do it.
Mr. Andrews. I thank the witnesses for excellent
presentations today. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
you. I am going to follow up, Ms. Skandera. You just mentioned,
and this is really my question, about effective teaching. As I
have sat here, and I missed some of the discussion, I haven't
heard much discussion of teacher and principal evaluations. I
would like to know where you see that fitting in. What is the
Federal role in either incentivizing, in using a carrot and
stick approach?
Obviously all the schools that receive funding from the
Federal Government should have a system in place. That should
be a local decision, a statewide decision. I served on the
school board in a major city, so I understand how important
this is to have this buy-in at the local level. But what role
does it play in that? What would you like to see? If there is
language in the reauthorization, how should it motivate,
incentivize, have accountable school systems that do this in a
way that creates a widely acknowledged and accepted system for
doing that which actually moves toward better achievement of
kids, not just in and of itself?
Ms. Skandera. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as we
were talking about earlier, I believe the role of the Federal
Government is to encourage States and provide the freedom for
them to pursue these different evaluation systems that begin to
acknowledge improved student achievement. Today the law
emphasis is the highly qualified status, which is more linked
to years of experience and credentialing. We need to make that
shift and encourage that shift in our States.
Mr. Carvalho. I would add to that that we encourage,
incentivize, financially incentivize. And I think it is fair to
even push as hard as the establishment of new qualification
requirements for teachers and leaders across the board that
result in pay consideration for teachers in fields in which
there are shortages in high need communities, create career
ladders. Because right now if a teacher wants to move on, move
up, usually the only option is to leave the teaching profession
and become an administrator. There has to be career ladder
options for teachers that recognize great talent.
And last, perhaps even envisioning assistance with housing,
particularly in areas where housing costs are extremely high,
to incentivize great teachers and reward them with housing
assistance.
Ms. Sichel. Mr. Chairman and the committee, I would share
with you that school districts that are making a difference do
have very fine-tuned teacher and principal evaluation systems
that do have components of student accountability built in.
Pennsylvania is very much moving in a direction to require that
statewide. I think there has to be some ability for the school
district and the State to negotiate what that should look like
based upon the needs of the school and where you are at. Some
of us are ready to do that, some of us are not ready to do
that. But it is important that we are product-driven when it
comes to children, we need to be product driven when it comes
to professionals as well.
Mrs. Davis. Is there a reasonable amount of time that one
could ask of a system, I assume this would be at the State
level initially, to develop that? I mean, you have seen--you
have a strong data system.
Ms. Sichel. Yes.
Mrs. Davis. Performance-based data system, as I understand
it, and that is great. But absent that, I mean, if you don't
have that in your district and yet you want to use performance,
but you don't want to use it entirely based on data, I think
the industrial skills that we are talking about is also a
measure of success for students and something that should be
built in. How do you do that? What does that take on your--and
where does that buy in? How do you do that?
Mr. Carvalho. Well, Mr. Chairman, to the chair, in Florida
there is legislation that requires that every district by a
certain timeline develop and negotiate in many cases a
performance system for evaluation of teachers, and in my
position for leaders as well, that incorporates student
outcomes as part of that measure, usually along the lines of 50
percent. It is actually objectively driven by the State's
accountability exam, the FCAT, the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test. And 50 percent of that evaluation is relegated
to the local districts to develop, some of which can
incorporate objective local data as well, and we do. The same
thing applies to the leaders, to principals and assistant
principals. And what we have gone as far as doing this year,
and the ratification vote took place 2 weeks ago and benefited
from an 84 percent ratification vote on the part of the
teachers, is that we arrived at that model 3 years earlier than
some of the requirements that take full advantage of a race to
the top Federal investment. We arrived at that model, we
developed a contract and a performance evaluation system that
incorporated objective measures, and many of those tied to
student performance data.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. I would
like to recognize Mr. Miller for any closing remarks.
Mr. Miller. Well, thank you very much. And first of all,
Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for assembling this panel. I
think it has been a remarkable morning. And I think given their
very backgrounds in the districts and the levels of which they
operate in our educational system, they have really described
where I think we would like to end up in the reauthorization of
No Child Left Behind and where I think new teachers would like
to go to work. Because the districts that you are
administering, the schools that you are administering, start to
begin to sound like the modern workplaces that their friends go
to work in and not something that is stuck in the past, a
workplace that is stuck in the past.
I think it also recognizes that school districts are a very
different place than they were 10 years ago when we did No
Child Left Behind and they were a very different place when we
did No Child Left Behind for whatever preceded it on ESEA.
And what I also think I am hearing from this panel, and you
can respond to that in writing if I didn't hear it right, but
is the idea that the stakeholders are greater than we
traditionally thought about in schools. It is no longer just
the principal or the teacher, it is no longer just the school
board.
Dr. Sichel, you mentioned in your opening statement about a
collaborative process that goes through with these
stakeholders. And a number of you have mentioned the question
of the involvement in the community, whether it is the academy
or it is the process of meeting with the community, is getting
a lot of attention, because I think a lot of people are asking
the same question, what return am I getting for sending my kid
to this school and paying my taxes to support this school.
I think the most dramatic example of that is in California,
and I think being adopted in some other States. I don't think
it is the best necessarily, but I think it is indicative of how
we have to pay attention, and that is the parent trigger. That
there are parents who just say, wait a minute, this school has
been failing for year after year after year after year, I
happen to live here, I need to live here, I want a better
school and I am not going to--you know. And that is viewed as--
some people believe that is a warning shot in combat. No, it is
not, it is a cry for help, and hopefully a cry to be involved
in how that is designed.
Ms. Woolsey raised a question about wraparound services.
Many of the members certainly on this side of the aisle are
very concerned about that. And when I look at districts now,
and Mr. Carvalho, you sort of suggested this, but in my
discussions with Oakland School District in California with
Tony Smith, the partnerships that you have to create to keep
this district viable and responsive to your constituents, the
students, are numerous. And what we are working our way through
is to try to figure out how you can look, you know, again, I
want this money spent on the poor children. But we understand
in many instances Title I becomes a block grant with the high
proportion of students in that school. But the idea of being
able to repurpose the spending of Title II money and Title III
money, as you pointed out with the English learners, to think
about how do we repurpose the SES money, what can schools do
with that. It starts to give you the opportunity to really
think about working within existing resources. And I say that
simply because those are the economic conditions that we are in
at this time, but I can't--you know, I am not going to
sacrifice, I am not going to be part of the first generation to
sacrifice our children to a recession. So we have to rethink
about how to do this so you can use your best judgment on how
to cobble that.
But my sense of flexibility is based upon the idea that we
do have these high standards and that we maintain this high
bar, Ms. Skandera, that you kept talking about. That you know
we went through--out of the last 10 years we have gone through
about 8 years where people just pounded on it and said but for
that one kid with disabilities or but for those English
learners we would be an all-star school. I got news for you,
they weren't before and there wasn't a lot of likelihood. There
are some specific cases, but this has become almost urban
legend. And while we are saying we don't want to accept one-
size-fits-all, we don't want to give up on one-expectation-for-
all. And you know playground English isn't good enough if you
really want those English learners to participate in this
democracy and this economy. And we can't lose sight of that.
And we have struggled, and I mean struggled, because we
know the problems presented by students with disabilities. We
also know we see again school districts that are doing
remarkable work with those students. We see the fastest
acceleration in Massachusetts is among students with
disabilities on a very rigorous exam. They are not all going to
get there, but we can't trade that in. And I really appreciate
you talking about maintaining that high bar and that access to
that opportunity at that high bar, because if that is there
then the options for us are greatly expanded in terms of really
having you administer the outcomes.
So thank you very, very much for your spending this time
with us this morning.
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I want to extend my
thanks again to the panel. We have a lot of excellent panels
here with really, really good witnesses. You are at the top of
the list. Absolutely fantastic. The work that you are doing,
the innovation that you are bringing, the challenges, your
participation here today, you have been fantastic. But you can
see how we are grappling. It is sometimes easy, and I don't
mean to be pejorative or anything here, but it is fairly easy
to say to us that the Federal Government should, quote,
encourage, it is a lot harder for us to figure out what exactly
does that encourage mean. And it is, again, fairly easy to say,
well, you should set a high bar and then leave it to us to
decide how to achieve that. Well, what is that high bar, how do
we define that? Is it do we mandate a Common Core, do we
mandate a common assessment and then it makes it high? I don't
think so. But those are the things that we are grappling with.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that Mr. Miller and I
often agree on a great deal of what the problem is and we agree
almost exactly on what part of the solution is. It doesn't mean
that we have yet agreed on what this piece of legislation
should look like. And so your input today and the input we are
going to get from other panels, people who are addressing the
problems of how do we get our kids to achieve what we know they
can, all of the kids, to the point that Mr. Miller made
earlier, we don't want to start leaving any children behind,
those are problems that you are grappling with and have made
remarkable, remarkable progress. So at the very minimum I want
to make doggone sure that as we move forward we don't do
anything that impedes, to the question that was asked by a
number of my colleagues, what you are trying to do.
So again, thank you very, very much for your great work,
and thank you for being here today. There being no further
business, the committee stands adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]

U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
Mr. Alberto Carvalho,
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 912,
Miami, FL 33132.
Dear Mr. Carvalho: Thank you for testifying before the Committee
on Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
Committee.
Sincerely,
John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
representative mazie hirono (d-hi)
1. Mr. Carvalho, could you please provide me with a little more
information about how the Parent Academy works in your state?
______

U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
Ms. A. Blaine Hawley,
Red Pump Elementary, 600 Red Pump Road, Bel Air, MD 21014.
Dear Ms. Hawley: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
Committee.
Sincerely,
John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

1. Effectively using assessment data is an important part of
quality classroom instruction. Could you describe how that process
works, what you are developing and implementing in your school to build
this capacity among your teachers, and the impacts of such an approach
on student learning?
2. What types of parental engagement strategies have you
implemented to engage parents in their children's education?
3. Your written statement discussed the importance of locally
developed curriculum and instruction. Why is the freedom to develop
curriculum and instruction strategies for your students important?

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

1. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
quote ``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the
test' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
actually best for their students.
a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?
b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
are still currently struggling?
______

Response From Ms. Hawley to Questions Submitted for the Record

On behalf of our nation's elementary level principals, thank you
for the opportunity to provide testimony at the hearing held on
September 14, 2011, ``Education Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in
Public School Accountability'' as the Committee considers legislation
to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
The role of the principal continues to change and become more
complex and challenging. The current social and educational context of
the principalship--which combines high-stakes accountability with the
high ideals of supporting social, physical and emotional needs of
children--demands that all principals demonstrate the vision, courage
and skill to lead effective learning communities where all students
reach their highest potential.
As requested by you and your staff, please find the attached
responses to the additional questions for the hearing record.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the principals'
perspective and considering the view of school leaders in the
Committee's important deliberations. If you or your staff have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[email protected].

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN KLINE

Principals understand the importance of the role the teacher plays
in the classroom with data driven instruction and ongoing assessment of
student progress. The foremost signature of a successful school
includes a culture of collaboration and teamwork to help every student
succeed. At Red Pump Elementary, the tactical expectation to achieve
collaboration includes grade level teams that participate in on-going
in a Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) protocols. To begin
this process, which is implemented district-wide, principals are
trained on the protocol and provided the necessary materials to allow
them to bring the professional development back to the teachers.
As a school, our School Improvement Team develops an annual plan to
keep our focus on what is crucial for the students we serve in our
school. Additionally, one of the charges of the team is to find the
time necessary, often in creative ways utilizing all staff members, to
allow teachers to meet together--purposefully, to study student work
instead of faculty meetings. This often occurs before or after the
school day, as well as carving out other times during the day, and
includes a cycle of analysis, knowledge of research- based practices,
instruction, varied assessments and reflection. Together, grade level
teams and building specialists make collaborative decisions that inform
instructional practices. Teachers know and understand their students,
and can better provide a differentiated program for student success.
Decisions about individual student remediation, enrichment, and
intervention are essential to the process. Reflection then helps bring
teachers back together to evaluate the effectiveness of their
instruction to ensure all students are moving forward.
In sum, teachers work together as teams utilizing a protocol for
examining student data, typically gathered from the use of formative
and summative assessments to have a full picture of a student's
learning and progress. This approach helps to ground the culture on a
continuous cycle of effective teaching and improved student
achievement.

2. What types of parental engagement strategies have you
implemented to engage parents involvement in their children's
education?

At Red Pump Elementary, parental engagement is the cornerstone of
our students success. Our mission is to involve parents in every step
of the learning process and ensure that the social and emotional needs
associated with learning are also addressed as part of helping all
students move forward.
As a principal, a core standard of effective school leadership
includes engaging the entire learning community focusing on parental
outreach. In addition to traditional on-going communication routes to
parents such as monthly newsletters and website updates, we host
sessions with parents to provide information about academic subject
areas featuring 'make and take' activities that help parents support
their children's learning at home. The topic and focus of the
activities is driven both by the student body, and the School
Improvement team. As with many school communities, the PTA also plays a
critical role in our communications and outreach efforts with parents.

3. Your written statement discussed the importance of locally
developed curriculum and instruction. Why is the freedom to develop
curriculum and instruction strategies for your students important?

While the school district general sets the curricular expectations,
however, it is the principal's responsibility as an instructional
leader to provide teachers with the tools and resources needed to have
the greatest impact on learning in the classroom. Daily formal and
informal formative assessments are an integral part of every lesson,
and having the flexibility to tailor the curriculum for appropriate
instruction to meet the contextual issues in our school building is
absolutely essential. The principal works to adapt curricular
strategies that best support teachers and ultimately improved student
outcomes or learning gains. The reauthorization of ESEA must promote
the greatest level of flexibility for principals and teachers to retain
the ability to develop instructional strategies that will best meet the
individual needs of students--to meet students where they are, and help
them make progress along a trajectory of successful learning within
particular content or subject matter area.

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

Federal policy must encourage and support state and local
assessments that include growth models and multiple measures of student
performance (both formative and summative) to accurately gauge social
and emotional development, language fluency and comprehension,
creativity, adaptability, critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
As noted, the appropriate federal role in education is to promote
equity and provide targeted resources to assist states and local
districts. Federal policies should ask states and local districts to
set high expectations, but also must support state- and locally-
developed accountability systems, curriculum and instruction to best
meet the needs of the students in the local school context.
When alignment between standards, curriculum and assessment is
successfully accomplished through a mastery of pedagogy and effective
instructional practice, it is easier to expand the ``core'' content
areas. Giving teachers the right tools to impact the classroom and
helping them use data to inform teaching practices on a timely, on-
going basis can help them expand to additional areas that will give
students are more robust, well-rounded educational experience.
At the school building level, our teachers work with our special
emphasis areas to incorporate content both directions--teachers
incorporate the arts into their teaching on a regular basis, and the
arts incorporate content area information into their classes. We have a
school-wide character education program, and our school counselor is
on-hand to address social and emotional development. In addition, the
learning day can be restructured so that students understand and see
the interconnectedness throughout all areas of the curriculum,
including art and music.

b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
are still currently struggling?

Children must be educated to meet the demands of the 21st century.
In addition to succeeding in subject matter, the four C's--creativity,
collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving, and
communication--all factor into the quality of an educational
experience. If we continue to focus solely on math and reading and
neglect the areas we know give students the 21st century skills needed
to succeed in today's workforce, our students will continue to fall
behind their peers in a globally competitive economy. As a nation, we
need to do a better job of recognizing that, while mastering math and
reading are pivotal to a student's success, there are other skills and
knowledge areas we must equip and arm students with in order to succeed
in today's workforce.
History Begins With Me!
______

U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
Dr. Amy F. Sichel,
Abington School District, 970 Highland Avenue, Abington, PA 19001-4535.
Dear Dr. Sichel: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
than October 13, 2011, for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
Committee.
Sincerely,
John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

1. Your school district has built systems to collect and analyze
data to improve instruction. Could you give some specific examples of
how this is being implemented in your district and the impact it has
had on instruction?
2. Could you provide specific examples of how your Opportunities to
Learn initiative is helping you address achievement gaps among your
students?

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

Response From Dr. Sichel to Questions Submitted for the Record

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

Question #1: Your school district has built systems to collect and
analyze data to improve instruction. Could you give some specific
examples of how this is being implemented in your district and the
impact it has had on instruction?

Abington School District has a long history of using multiple data
sources to improve instruction. Over the past twenty years, principals
have been given building goals to increase students' proficiency on
state tests as well as in the district's curriculum-based assessments.
With the implementation of NCLB, this has included disaggregated groups
as well. Pennsylvania has a plan for schools that are in Warning,
School Improvement, or Corrective Action entitled the ``Getting
Results'' plan. In Abington we have chosen to use this framework even
though our schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Fortunately,
all of the Pennsylvania state data is pre-populated in the document in
an on-line secure portal. Each Abington school, under the direction of
the building principal, forms a Getting Results team made up of
teachers, building administrators, and members of central
administration. The team critically analyzes the school data by
building, grade levels, disaggregated groups, and individual students.
They add district and school data as well to the document so that the
plan is not based on one single measure but rather a variety of
validated assessments, which are more sensitive to student growth. The
teams meet extensively to develop the plan. During the school year,
grade level or department level teams meet to discuss new data as it
becomes available, and, if necessary, to modify the plan. Continuous
improvement is the goal.
By doing the extensive planning process from August until mid
October, the ``root causes'' for academic and social issues are
apparent. The data drives the interventions. For example, is the issue
due to a gap in the curriculum or is there a need for more
differentiated instruction? Some students may need to be re-taught,
some may need more time on task, some may need modified testing, some
may need drill and practice, etc. Instruction needs to be customized to
the situation. Curriculum issues are addressed with the help of the
Central Office Curriculum staff. Instructional strategies are developed
at the building level. The Getting Results teams in each school are
charged under the direction of the principal with support from Central
Office staff and the Office of the Superintendent to implement the
school plan, monitor progress, change course, if needed, and make
ongoing progress.

Question #2: Could you provide specific examples of how your
Opportunities to Learn initiative is helping you address achievement
gaps among your students?

The Opportunities to Learn (OTL) Initiative has helped to narrow
the achievement gap. Over the five years of its implementation, the gap
between the ``All'' students and students with an IEP or African
American students has narrowed significantly. The charge for the OTL
committee in 2005 was ``To identify, collect, and analyze appropriate
data and to formulate cost effective strategies, programs, activities,
and other initiatives which encourage and support broader number of
students to achieve proficiency and success in rigorous academic
course.'' The results to date are astonishing. On October 11, 2011 an
update on OTL was presented to the Board of School Directors and the
public for the purpose of sharing these terrific outcomes. Whether you
look at grade level data or cohort data, progress continues and the
achievement gaps are narrowed. (See page 8 to 13 of the attached
PowerPoint). What is even more encouraging is that our growth data
indicates that in many areas, our 8th to 11th grade students exceeded
more than one year of growth in a year (See pages 11 and 12 in the
PowerPoint).
The attached PowerPoint recognizes the key initiatives, which
included de-tracking and offering only rigorous, college preparatory,
or honors/Advanced Placement courses with the needed supports for
students to be successful. These are the only academic alternatives,
for anything less does not prepare students for post secondary
education and the world of work. School-based supports take priority
during the school day but not at the expense of courses in the arts and
the interests of the students. The initiatives are outlined on pages 5
to 7 on the presentation PowerPoint.
Members of the Abington School District staff have presented our
OTL program at local, state, and national meetings for many districts
want to replicate our model. We have written articles for national
educational magazines and our work with OTL is noted on many websites.
Just recently in 2011 the American Association of Curriculum and
Development published a new book by A. Wade Boykin and Pedro Noguera
entitled Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving From Research to
Practice To Close the Achievement Gap (ASCD, 2-11). The Abington School
District was noted in the following quote:
``Sadly, the number of suburban districts that are also achieving
progress is smaller. Montgomery County, Maryland; Abington,
Pennsylvania; and Brockton, Massachusetts stand out because they have
made steady progress in reducing academic disparities between affluent
White students and more disadvantaged children of color. However, these
districts are the exceptions.''

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

Question: I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out
on ``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
``instructional time,'' and the rigid focus on 'teaching to the test'
means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know is
actually best for their students.
(a) What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?

The key to broadening the scope of subject matter while maintaining
accountability is to ensure that the curriculum is aligned to academic
standards from both a state and national level, the common core
curriculum. What is taught in class must be the eligible content and
not teaching to the test. Teachers must cover this core curriculum and
use their creative teaching styles and approaches to lead students to
mastery and proficiency. This can be done in a creative fashion by
using technology, such as interactive whiteboards, web-based and video-
based real-time instruction, computer- based learning, etc. To do this
well a school district must have a pacing guide with instructional time
for subjects delineated to make sure that the broad curriculum is
covered and to implement common assessments to ensure that learning is
taking place. It is possible to create an instructional timeframe that
allows teachers a limited amount of time for activities of their
choice.

(b) Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which our students
are still currently struggling?

The curriculum in Abington has always been expanded to be far
broader than just mathematics and reading. All students, including
struggling students, need a broad-based, comprehensive, standards-based
curriculum in all subjects including social studies, science, health,
art, music, physical education, etc. Mathematics and reading underpin,
support, and are reinforced by the instruction in all of these areas. A
structured weekly schedule that allocates an appropriate number of
minutes each day to the various subject areas coupled with required
lesson planning, common assessments, and data-driven intervention plans
will establish a setting in which students learn in all subject areas.

______

U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
Ms. Hanna Skandera,
New Mexico Public Education Department, Jerry Apodaca Education
Building, 300 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe, NM 87501.
Ms. Skandera: Thank you for testifying before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce at the hearing entitled, ``Education
Reforms: Examining the Federal Role in Public School Accountability,''
on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
Committee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later
than October 13, 2011 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Dan Shorts of the Committee staff who can
be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
Committee.
Sincerely,
John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

1. What is the proper federal role in ensuring states are
intervening in a significant way in schools that are not performing?
2. Should the federal government dictate how states construct
growth models, or what type of growth models they use, as part of their
state accountability systems?
3. States and districts should provide parents effective options
when their students' schools are performing poorly. How can the
presence of additional choices drive improvement within the entire
system?

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R-IL)

Response From Ms. Skandera to Questions Submitted for the Record

1. What is the proper federal role in ensuring states are
intervening in a significant way in schools that are not performing?

While the federal government should require states to intervene in
low-performing schools, the federal government should not prescribe
what intervention models and methods must be utilized. For example,
under the current School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, many schools
are required to replace the principal. However, in small rural
communities, that is often unrealistic. Further, depending on why the
school is low-performing, proven strategies for real change should be
are the center of what interventions are undertaken. Prescribing
specific methods and models does not allow states, in collaboration
with districts, to effectively target the specific need(s) of a school.

2. Should the federal government dictate how states construct
growth models, or what type of growth models they use, as part of their
state accountability system?

In no way should the federal government prescribe the use of growth
models for accountability, or specific models that must be used. While
all states should be encouraged to develop accountability systems that
measure both student proficiency and growth, the weighting of such
components and how those components are calculated should be determined
by the state.
3. States and districts should provide parents with effective
options when their students' schools are performing poorly. How can the
presence of additional choices drive improvement within the entire
system?

What is key is that effective options are provided. Further, by
holding all schools--traditional, charter, virtual, etc--to the same
expectations, transparency and accountability will be consistent. If a
school continues to under-perform, the state should have the ability to
intervene and support the school in its efforts to improve. However, if
the school continues to under-perform, the state should have the
discretion to exert more oversight. If a charter school fails to raise
student achievement, there needs to be a concerted effort to help that
school improve despite their status as a charter. If a traditional
public school improves significantly, there should be the opportunity
for that school to receive more flexibility.

4. I've heard from educators who regret having to miss out on
``teachable moments'' because often it requires risking a loss of,
quote ``instructional time'' and the rigid focus on ``teaching to the
test'' means teachers risk lower class scores by doing what they know
is actually best for their students.

a. What suggestions do you have for successfully broadening the
scope of subject matter, while maintaining accountability?

An effective teacher can teach math through a science lesson, teach
reading as part of a social studies lesson, etc. States should still be
required to implement accountability systems that include measures of
student proficiency and growth on core academic subjects. By providing
states with the flexibility to design accountability systems that
include additional content areas, it is likely that overtime, states
will work towards implementation of including subjects such as science
and writing.

b. Are you concerned that an expanded curriculum would undermine
the current focus on math and reading, subjects with which are students
are still currently struggling?

Currently, New Mexico offers assessments in writing and science in
addition to reading and math. While those subjects are nor currently
included in the states A-F school grading initiative, that will be
considered at a later date. But because reading and math are the
building blocks in the early grades for future academic success, a
command focus on those content areas must be maintained. The federal
government should not require states to include assessments in other
content areas--that should be a state's decision.
______

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]