effective, we want to look at those gaps, we want to be sure that no child is left behind. that needs to be our concentration. i was so thrilled when no child left behind passed because i thought, hallelujah, now we're going to see that every child learns every day. what we're doing in no child left behind is we're leaving behind most of our students because our students that have special needs are not being able to be taught the skills that they need to be taught. our fmd classes, teachers really, really genuinely cared about the students wanted the students to learn skills they could use in their life skills. they can no longer teach those skills because they have to address the standards. these students are going to be tested on the standards. gifted students are left behind totally because they are already proficient or distinguished and so teachers don't feel that they

can use time, their time to work with these gifted students so consequently test scores of our gifted students are getting lower and lower and these are -- many of these are the future leaders of our country and we're not meeting their needs. so those students come to school and go home and have not learned throughout the day. the real concern of mine, i do work with gifted students, it's what i hear from the special ed teachers and their concerns that they have that they can no longer -- they deeply care about these students or they wouldn't be in these jobs, they couldn't be in these jobs, but they cannot address the needs of -- that these students really need in their classrooms. we have even had an instance where we had a terminally ill special needs child and tried to get an exemption for testing and could not get that even with a doctor's note saying that testing just the process of testing, would be detrimental to the child's health. we still could not get an

exemption for that child. and their scores were figured in our accountability. we have a student that has a four-word vocabulary, that's all he speaks and one of the phrases he uses or the terms he uses, i don't know [ inaudible ] he says he can say yes, no, mom, and hell no. that's all he says. he's in sixth grade now. that's all he has said throughout his schooling. he's supposed to do a portfolio. yes, it's an alternate portfolio. people say we have alternate portfolios, but how do you do an alternate portfolio with that? >> thank you very much. mr. luna. >> mr. chairman, just one point of clarification, a concern was raised earlier that the fact that incentives could create competition in schools and that could be a negative impact. just so you understand, in idaho, when it comes to student

achievement we only go down to the school level and so actually, fosters collaboration and teamwork amongst all the teachers in the school because they're working together to hit their students hit an academic goal. all of the teachers receive the financial incentive, not just a few teachers in the school. when it comes to no child left behind, reminds of the clint eastwood movie, good bad and ugly, a little bit of all of that in the law. i think the good part is it brought us -- this was ten years ago, it brought us to a standards based education system where we were accountable for every child and had to have a standardized way of measuring student achievement. the bad part of the law was it was a one size fits all. in a state like idaho, which is a rural state and rural communities within that rural state, it was difficult to implement the law. the ugly part is we had a system where the federal government set the goal and then they prescribed to the states what programs and processes we had to

use to meet that goal, and if their programs and processes didn't work, we were held accountable. and so, you know, that was the ugly part. i think this law, this reauthorization, has kept the good parts of no child left behind, in fact, i think it's improved upon going to a growth model because if we're serious about making sure that every child's needs are met, then a growth model demands that a system not only focus on those students that aren't at grade level but also the students that are above because you're obligated to show academic growth for those students also. today once they hit proficiency you're it tempted to not focus as much on students that are as proficient or higher and focus on kids below proficiency. the other thing about the law, it recognizes the leadership the states have stepped forward and taken in improving education. states chose to work together to develop a higher standard to hold all of our students to called the common core. it wasn't because it was federally mandated.

we chose to work together to create the next generation of assessments not because it was mandated because that's what's best for our students and we chose to develop the next generation of accountability. so you have 40 or more states that without any federal mandate or incentive, have developed a higher standard for our students. we've -- we're developing higher assessments to measure our students and we've come up with our own accountability plan that has had quite a bit of influence on the law that's been drafted. so i think it's a tenth amendment issue, right, and i think it's recognizing the rights that states have and the responsibilities that states have, and i'm comfortable with that more than ten years ago because states have demonstrated they are more than willing and ready to step up and hold ourselves and our schools to a higher level of accountability. >> very good. thank you. miss neas.

>> i wanted to just say a couple things from a perspective of easter seals and i think our perspective students with disabilities in general have greatly benefited from the elementary and secondary education act because the law requires their academic achie achievement to be measured and reported. as a result, more students with disabilities have been afforded the opportunity to learn and master grade level academic conte content. that has been huge for our kids. the whole notion of they get a chance to try. one of the things -- a number of things we like in the senate bill. the notion of states to adopt college and careers -- career ready standards and an assumption of high expectations. we also are very pleased that the build bill does not codify the so-called 2% rule which for us has allowed people to apply very, very low expectations to achievement for students with

disabilities. we're very pleased with the elements that promote universal design for learning throughout the bill, access to multitiered systems of support including positive behavior, interventions and the notion that early learning can begin at birth and then this bill promotes those things. there are a number of things that we're very concerned about and look forward to working with you to improve them. the law -- the bill doesn't change this notion of subgroup size. and as a result, right now, less than -- about 30% of schools have enough students with disabilities to meet the subgroup category. so 70% of schools don't even measure -- don't have enough kids according to their subgroup size. we know that lots of kids, their progress isn't being measured and reported. the law requires 95% of kids to be assessed so we understand that not every kid is going to be at school every day but we

know that we need that data on subgroup accountability. we really want at the end of the day for all kids to have access to the general curriculum and all kids to be held to high expectations. i've spent the last four days with 350 easter seals people who are around the country and i have had story after story after story of families who are told what their kid couldn't do, and they came to us and we were able to help them figure out what they wanted to do. so what i would plead to this committee, don't put in barriers that make it hard for kids to have access to the general curriculum. before no child left behind, before the secondary education act for kids that have very significant cognitive disabilities we used to hear over and over again what they were taught was their colors. and i get a family that would say, this ip, we've got goals and then my kid is going to learn their colors, yellow, red,

green. next year, the goals for my kid's iep are colors. my kid knows their colors. we need to move on. and no child left behind, the elementary secondary act has given us a form that says every kid deserves the opportunity to make academic progress. so i -- my plea to you is let's continue on that to make sure that there aren't barriers put in place that disallow kids to have access to the general curriculum, access to the supports that they need to learn, and that one of the things we need are teachers who know what they're doing who are committed to these kids that will help them learn and the tools to help them do that. >> thank you very much. mr. mr. seton. >> thank you again. one of the things, yes, we do need federal involvement. we need your money. and in order to say we need your money, you need to be able to have some involvement in the

guidance of where and how that money is spent. i do believe in tennessee, that we are moving forward and the culture has been created by no child left behind that looks at the numbers that looks at data and we're willing to change and update our strategies on a regular basis. there are three things that i want to talk about. evaluation, real quickly. it has to happen. in the military they used to say, inspect what you expect. so evaluations will cause us to look at how we're going to accomplish the things that we need to accomplish. leaders, we need leaders. a lot of times people think that becoming an administrator in a school system, you teach 10, 15 years, three or five years, and you can just become a leader. leaders don't happen like that all the time. so there needs to be something that's -- this guy collins wrote "built to last and good to great" big-time business books but they look at how to be

effective over the course of time and how major companies have lasted, and then what they did to last. we need to be able to take those same types of data points and benchmark what it takes to be a good leader in a school. and we need to look at the top 5% of schools as well as the bottom 5% because those bottom 5% of schools are our dropout factories and we need to address that with accountability. i think that no child left behind pointed us in the right direction, but it didn't give us the resources that we necessarily needed to make those changes. so, as i look at what you are talking about, we have a program in memphis called cradle to career and it looks at education from birth to your career. and so the college readiness program that you all have incorporated, i applaud and i think that we, as educators and as a family of americans, need

to get together and we just need to kind of accept the direction that you all have given us. i thank you for this time. >> thank you, mr. seton. again, what's -- what's good and what's bad about the bill? mr. grier? >> thank you, senator. first, we want to say thank you for continuing to have an accountability component in there. focusing on the bottom 5% of our schools that are persistently low achieving schools that have an achievement gap and allowing states some discretion in developing an accountability system in their state i think is all positive. we also would like very much that we no longer have to set aside money for supplemental educational services. in our district this afterschool tutoring program has not yielded any results. we actually have had vendors that would give students rides to movie theaters in stretch limousines for signing up with

them. last year in our district we created our own tutorial program and our turn around schools we reconstituted four middle -- five middle schools and four high schools and we tutored all sixth and ninth graders in those schools in math every day, one tutor per two children, and at the end of the year, we had twice the academic gains that the harlem children's achieved last year. we know that good tutoring with a good curriculum that is organized and that can occur during the school day, can pay huge dividends. based on our own experience with turnaround models, we would like to really encourage you to modify is the one that where -- the current legislation limits the schools that reclassify as persistently low achieving to only use the closure and restart models. we believe that repeat classification should only

prevent the lea from using the same model they used during that initial classification. we also would like to caution the committee on the additional reporting requirements that we fear may be attached to our parental involvement and the successful safe and healthy students initiatives. we worry that potentially a large portion of funding allocations to these reforms will go simply into reporting mandates. we don't need that type of additional bureaucracy. we just don't. finally, one of the things that concerns us in houston and it concerns a lot of our colleagues, my colleagues, and a lot of the large school districts this issue around compra billty. we would love to work with you later to, perhaps, work through some of this. but the way that you would come in and determine the formula around compra billty is

problematic. >> which is in the bill. >> which is in the current bill. needs major attention. >> what's in the current bill that we have, now the law. >> current bill we have. >> i wanted to be clear. >> just a huge issue, particularly in a district, for example, like houston, where in turning around our nine lowest performing secondary schools, these are schools that were tagged with the label of dropout factories, we went this past year and raised almost $15 million from private sources. we lengthened the school day by an hour, added a week to the school year, we hired all these additional tutors. that costs more money, so to do that and bring those outside dollars in and now all of a sudden those are there in the bill's current language, if we had to use the compraibility formula these schools would be penalized for our efforts to go out and raise additional dollars. another thing that bothers me that -- an awful lot is the school superintendent, is it

simply costs more money to turn these schools around and i wish your current bill had some type of set aside. in the title i revenues we receive, that would be required to be spent on those schools and people can say to you, well, you have the flexibility to do that. yes, you do. you often don't have the political will to do that. and that's very, very tough, because you're then taking money away from another school to -- insert in your lowest performing schools. i don't have the magic number in terms of what that set aside should look like, but we set aside 1% for parental involvement. some people argue that's too low. but it is a set aside that requires us to spend money to make sure we can engage our parents. these schools that are so low performing, it takes more money. i can promise you one of the things i'm more concerned about than anything we've talked about here today and i don't know how

your bill addresses this, is the human capital that's required to address these 5% schools. quality principals, quality teacher in every classroom, those are easy words to say. when you get out and you start recruiting, our nonturnaround schools, we recruited nationally. we offered 20 and $30,000 incentives, stretch goals, $5,000 signing bonuses to get principals to go into these schools. we didn't have anyone from our highest performing schools lined up to go into those schools. no one. we recruited 70 principals to hire nine. we hired those nine principals and after a year we replaced four of them. it is just hard work. and this whole issue around turning around these lowest performing schools, the biggest issue that we'll talk about is the issue around human capital. >> thank you very much, mr. grier. miss danks.

>> thank you, again. something i really liked about the bill was the idea that each state would be adopting the college and career readiness standards. i think having those high expectations for all of our students is very important and going to get our students ready for the 21st century work force or college or whatever they end up doing. something that i think has been missing for far too long from many of our standards are life skills standards, standards that address those skills that our students with the most severe cognitive disabilities need to master to be successful after their high school term is finished. we focus a lot on the students that are typically developing on what they're going to do after high school, but this other population is i think left behind but not having those standards so that teachers know what to teach so we can effectively measure progress towards those standards and we can be sure that those students are ready for whatever they may be getting into when they're finished with high school.

we -- everyone says that we assess too much. i think that we assess ineffectively too much. i agree, we have a lot of practice tests for the practice test to take the real test. i think that's completely ineffective. if we were able to adopt some more effective assessments that provided teachers and administrators with the data necessary in order to inform our instruction and improve our instructional strategies so we can push our students to those higher levels, then we would be able to assess quickly, efficiently and more often that data would be collected immediately. i know we've talked about computer based assessments. those often are able to give us more quick results and provide them -- provide them in a way the teacher can use those the next day to inform their instruction and make better strategy decisions. something that was always a struggle with no child left behind that i didn't fully understand how it was addressed in this bill are the highly

qualified standards. i know when i came through teaching i did come through an alternative certification program and the highly qualified standards was a lot of paperwork. no one ever came in my classroom to be sure that i was highly effective but my paperwork was in and that's all that mattered. i feel like we're missing the target on that. anyone can turn in transcripts but not everyone can be a highly effective teacher in the classroom. we've talked about the evaluation of teachers and principals. with that evaluation comes support and guidance and so i think that is a huge piece missing in those -- in that highly qualified standards discussion. just because a teacher is highly effective one year with a new student population or at a new school, they may not be highly effective. i think that continued support to help our teachers grow into better instructors is going to be paramount for our students' success. >> thank you, miss dankss. mr. henderson. >> thank you, chairman harken. senator enzi and to all the distinguished members of this

committee, i want to thank you for inviting me to this important bipartisan roundtable discussion on the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. mr. chairman, i have been uncharacteristically quiet this morning and i would hope that gives me, perhaps, an additional minute to lay out both the things that we like about this bill as well as those that pose a concern. let me say at the outset i think all of us seem to agree that no child left behind is in need of significant improvement. i think we would also agree that the global economy has imposed new demands on our nation to improve the quality of public education available both k through 12, but also post-secondary education. and the fact that our workforce is going to be drawn from an increasingly diverse population, of individuals both native born

and immigrants in our country, makes this not just a moral issue, and that is improving education reform is a moral issue, but it's also a national security issue. the fact that this committee is taking seriously its responsibilities for a deeper in this area is extremely important. there are things about this bill that, indeed, represent improvements over current law. i'm going to outline them very briefly and want to talk about the other things which pose concern. we are very pleased that the bill requires more equitable funding within districts. i would disagree with mr. grier with respect to the responsibility of the federal government to use its leverage and its resources to help encourage improvement in this area. i think the bill does improve the efforts of dropout factories, which are those

schools that represent a significant part of the schools where individuals dropout annually and for african-americans and latinos and native americans, we often lose, perhaps, as many as 50% of our high school graduating class annually. i think the bill does a great job in providing college and career ready standards. i would agree with miss danks that there is improvement there. i'm pleased about the importance of data collection to ensure that the subgroups of boys and girls aren't masked and that interventions can be targeted more effectively. i think that's important. we think the s.t.e.m. courses available to underrepresented groups is an improvement. all those things represent significant improvements and we were especially pleased with senator franken's efforts to provide additional protections for students in foster care. it makes a significant difference. those things are, we think, very important.

but unfortunately, from our standpoint these improvements are overshadowed by the bill's albeit perhaps unintended, but nonetheless, historic retreat on the accountability question, and because of this retreat, dozens of education and business organizations, including the us chamber of commerce, have determined that we cannot support the bill at this time. we have issued a statement to that effect which i would request be entered into the record of this discussion this morning. now, we are troubled by several provisions in the bill, so let me see if i can just outline them with the sem brevity i did those things we like. we are concerned that the states would be required to take action to improve only a small number of low performing schools. that is the bottom 5% of the schools in most states, and that while the bill does identify an

additional 5% of schools with achievement gaps and those considered dropout factories, the bill does not require these schools to make any significant academic progress and prescribes no interventions. moreover, it allows each state to decide which achievement gaps merit attention and which do not. in the remaining 95% of the schools that are not among the state's very worst performing public schools, large numbers of low achieving students will simply slip through the cracks. obviously that happens today. but that is not the measure that we use to determine whether a newly reauthorized elementary and secondary education act is responsive to those problems. and many states these students will be low-income students, students of color, those learning english and students with disabilities. the bill also does not require states to set targets for significantly improving high

school graduation rates, despite the fact that as i noted that every year, about 1.3 million students drop out and only a little over half of the students of color, including african-american, latino, native american and southeast asian students graduate on time. finally, for english language learn learners, the bill eliminates objectives which is a critical accountability element for the title iii program. finally, the bill weakens requirements in the current law requiring that low-income students and students of color be taught at a higher rates by inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field teachers. we know we can't close the achievement map and also need to close the teacher inequality gap. i don't have the experience of many of the teachers and principals who work on the ground every day, but i am a

board member, a trustee of the educational testing service. the educational testing service is a non-profit corporation, has launched a series of symposium and seminars focusing on ways to close the achievement gap and then i think highly academic and a deeper dive, they've identified a number of elements that lead to actually reducing the achievement gap between students, but all of them are based on the core principle of accountability. it is indispensable to advancing the common goals that we have about closing the achievement gaps and maintaining our country's competitiveness in the global economy, so i think it's fair to say and without hyperbole, that the provisions in the bill that we have focused on with greatest concern really represent the de facto end of a national accountability system as we have come to understand it. and while i believe that this

notion of providing flexibility for individual school districts and schools may be important given the context in which it is raised, it is not appropriate to offer flexibility that, in effect, represents an end to the establishment of national standards that have been the significant -- in fact, arguably the most significant -- driver of the improvement of public schools that we've seen over the past decade of no child left behind. so with that in mind, sir, thank you. and i appreciate the opportunity. >> i thought that was very thorough, thank you very much. mr. thomas, you've got the hammer. >> thank you, senator. i really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and i just want to say as a principal i love my students, i love my job as principal, i love working with our students every day and our teachers every day. in looking at this there are two or three things i would like to mention that i think are positive and things we can certainly work on. certainly i think as everyone is in mind, we're looking out for

interest of students and so some good things i think are in the bill, in the recommendation, would be the student growth model. you've heard that quite a bit and i think that's a real positive thing to get rid of the punitive ayp sanctions was very effective and we appreciate that effort. we are also and it's been a lot of my work has been based on the college and career readiness standards. i think that's a good start there as well. i do think that it's important with the college and career readiness standards that we look at what our states are doing and allow the states to determine what those standards are. and in kentucky we've begun that work and are certainly very appreciative of that opportunity to set the standards as a state. there are some things with the reor authorization that should be looked at and thought about thoroughly before we move forward with anything. once again, locally determine what our college and career readiness standard looks like. in addition, approving some

assessments for our students with special needs based on their accommodations set forth in their ieps. i think our local arc, the release committees, can determine what those assessments look like, and in so doing, there's going to have to be a removal of the 1% cap on some of our alternative assessments for our special needs students. an example of that would be, if you look at madison central high school, we are about 1750 students and if you take 1% of that, for alternative assessment, that would be 17.5, let's round up, 18 students. and at madison central our severe disability students we have three classrooms, ten students each, for a total of 30 students. we're looking at an accountability that doesn't include the entire population that could have an iep that says they should be on an alternative assessment. i would like there to be an alternative assessment, remove the 1% cap and let the committee

determine that would be really good. an issue that we find we struggle with at least in my district and my previous district, is the highly qualified part of the reauthorization. whenever we look at the highly qualified, it's very burdensome. our teachers struggle -- we struggle to hire special needs teachers and as we are all very well aware, the -- some of the best teachers don't come through a natural path through certification and so we would like some alternative ways and not really put the burden on the highly qualified mandate about the testing. to be highly qualified we want to get highly qualified teachers for all of our students, and special needs is one area we struggle in. we want to have high standards and put the best teachers in place there. but to do so, requires a very burdensome testing process. we would like to advocate for some local decisions there on what that highly qualified status looks like.

and then lastly, just simply as a principal, i was very fortunate a month ago to come to capitol hill and to petition on behalf of principals across the united states, but certainly as the met life nassp principal of the year from kentucky i have to talk about the four school turnaround models we have that includes getting rid of the principal in each one of those models if they have been in their position for more than two years. and, obviously, you know, i think there are certainly principals out there who are poor principals who need to be removed, but certainly if we just put one assessment or if we put one measure on those principals and remove them, then it's going to be quite difficult to keep some of our best principals. a really good example would be in our home state and in one of our counties principal has been there just a little bit over two years and he is in the bottom 5%, his school is. we want to turn that school around.

and he seems to be doing a really good job, and if you look at their college and career readiness standards, they're doing very well, but based on the sanctions listed by the 5%, he's got to lose his job. so, as a result, i cannot support the four school turnaround models and i would like to ask for a fair analysis first to determine whether the existing principal is making gains and use some alternative measures to make those gains. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. thomas. let's see. senator paul a. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for having this hearing. i continue to learn more about the issue every time i hear more about not only no child left behind but various ideas. i think it's a recommendation for the hearing that we have a packed crowd. we've had standing room only the whole time. i think it is good. i, for one, see problems as a physician, you try to diagnose the problem, you try to fix it.

and we should continue to look at that as a problem solving orientation for this. i do think that there is a large philosophical sort of debate and battle that is part of this. i hear ideas from people who are probably republican, democrat, liberal, conservative on this panel and a lot of them are good ideas. to my mind it's not whether it's a good idea, but where it gets instituted that does make a difference. mr. grier has ideas, mr. seton has ideas, they all sound good but once we make them universal, i would probably vote for mr. grier to be superintendent or mr. luna to be superintendent of their school i don't want them to be the national superintendent of schools. it is a difference. how much is it federal? i think the most part, this is a philosophical point, the farther we get away from the local school the worse it gets. the farther we get away from local government to national government, the worse the oversight gets. i don't know that we can judge who a good teacher is. i think miss geisselhardt is a

good teacher but i would have to know more, sit in her class and look at that. i would have to judge on how well her students are doing. it's complicated. i don't think i can ever know whether she's a good teacher or not. columbia, kentucky, is different than memphis, different than houston. so my argument for is to keep in mind that there is a philosophical question here on local versus federal and i think we're coming together in understanding that maybe federal overbearing or federal overreach in education hasn't been good. and that it some times makes people a number. people talk about special needs and special education kids. to put a number on them makes them some sort of percentage as a mistake. i don't know how i can tell whether 17 or 30 is right for the school district in richmond, kentucky. i think we shouldn't have numbers in our bill that say, you know, i think we all are concerned. i don't think mr. thomas is not

concerned about special needs. he's concerned about being judged unfairly or his school is. i think we've gone a long way in the right -- a long way towards fixing some of these problems with ayp, with the yearly progress, but i still am concerned that we still have the testing mandates, which will have people practicing to do tests to do tests. i don't think we've fixed that. i think that is still a problem that should be and could be fixed and i'm glad we're having this hearing because we still will try on judging schools but we've determined the way we've been

judging schools wasn't very good. so somebody can help me out if i'm wrong on this but i think we're going to judge the bottom 5% the way we've been judging schools. the problem is my kid goes to a public high school and it gets awards from forbes or "newsweek" from being one of the best schools but it's being told it's failing from no child left behind. 37 states want out. that makes me think the law is not very good and we need more dramatic changes than what we're addressing. i guess my question is, is how are we going to determine if our model is not working for determining which is a good school now, is it a good thing to keep the 5% judged that way or do we need to reassess how we do the bottom 5%. and i would like to start out with mr. thomas and see if he'll make a comment on that, but then i would be more than welcome to hear other folks on this as well. >> thank you, nor paul. i just think it's very difficult when you use one measure to determine what your school is

going to be successful as. under the old law, certainly madison central high school has never met ayp and, therefore, we have struggled historically to meet that standard and, of course, the standard as it rose became quite frustrating. however, whenever we look at our new model, madison central high school is in the top third of college and career readiness. so whenever you're using just one kind of goal to determine what's meeting that standard, it's quite frustrating because it becomes one target is successful, another target is not. it's kind of like what you're mentioning about your local school, is that according to one standard, they're a very good performing school, but according to another standard they're not meeting that. that's the issue that i struggle with there as well. is that we use -- we need to use multiple forms of assessment if we're going to do that, not overtesting, i'm not advocating for that, but let's look at the school wholistly and see what we're doing. >> i'm sorry.

everybody. okay. might as well just continue down the line. i assume all of the ones up to respond to what senator paul said. >> absolutely. >> mr. hendricks. >> since we are there, let's just go this way. >> thank you, sir. let me respond, senator paul, if i might to your opening observation that this discussion we're having today involves primarily a philosophical difference about whether the states are the best laboratories for establishing significant reforms for education. and whether the federal government may, in fact, have a role to play. i don't think anyone is advocating the nationalization of public education. the supreme court as you know has already addressed that issue in san antonio versus rodriguez, 1974 case, which has acknowledged that public education is not a fundamental right under the constitution. with that same supreme court

sought to examine early efforts to implement a state's rights philosophy with regard to public education and found it deeply wanting and offensive to the constitution because the results of the effort did not provide simply just an equality of educational opportunity, but significant investment in those communities that had the least amount of political power or influence, or were tainted by racial bias which was evident in a number of the states that spoke most loudly in favor of states rights in public education. the decision in brown versus the board of education established, established a federal interest which no child left behind essentially sought to vindicate by ensuring that the use of federal dollars could be an incentive to improve the quality of public education available to students.

that principle hasn't changed. it has been a bipartisan consensus that included people like senator alexander who as secretary of education sought to implement similar efforts and george w. bush who, in fact, signed no child left behind into law. this is not about a philosophical conversation about how best to educate students. it's about the practical effects of the failure to recognize the constitutional interests that every student has, to a quality public education which was not being adequately served by state law. and so under the circumstances, i don't think this bill represents an extension of that principle. i think it represents a fair representation of where the principle stood. i've expressed my concerns about the accountability system because i think under the guys of reform, the provision in the bill go too far to negate the legitimate federal interest that we recognize exists. so rather than weakening their

federal interest given the history of bias and discrimination under the state system, if anything, we should be look to reinforce it in a more significant and positive way. so i don't see this as a fif sofcle debate at all. i see it as a practical debate effecting real life students and the consequences of a failure to educate them properly. >> mr. grier. >> thank you, senator harken. as i understand the bill as it's written today, the bill doesn't just address the 5% of the lowest performing schools or the schools that have the largest achievement gap. it also gives states the option of identifying additional low performing schools in their states. and i think that states are to be commended. whether or not we get into a debate about whether or not some states are different than the other, i happen to believe that states ought to have some flexibility in that arena. as i also believe local school

districts should. when our state told us last year we had four low performing high schools, that they labeled dropout factories, quite frankly we had three or four other high schools that had -- we had some input, we may have decided, perhaps, needed more attention than two of the ones on the list. they were identified by one narrow definer, and so how you -- how you intertwine all that local flexibility and the state flexibility, i think is important. it's often more difficult to do than it is -- than to say we ought to do it. >> now, i'm going to -- skip over one, two, three. i know that both mr. hess and mr. snor have to leave. it's 11:30. i will go to those two and come back to the three. mr. snor and mr. hess. >> i you just got word i was able to move my meeting back as i have longer to get back to new york. >> then i'll get to you later. okay. mr. hess. >> yeah.

remarkable powers. move meetings from anywhere. thank you. i would like to say a couple words about senator paul's question. and then really just a couple other points i would like to share with the committee. one, is i think senator paul's precisely right. one of the design flaws in no child left behind was that one of its great strengths plaz henderson indicated it took a national x-ray of where students were. it told us how students were performing in a give point in time. the problem with that and the way it was used is an x-ray doesn't tell you the cause. knowing that students of this demographic profile and this community are at this level of achievement in reading or math or science does not tell us whether that is due to the schools' performance, whether it is due to their home environment or whether it is due to their prior years of schooling. one of the problems with that x-ray that no child left behind took, was we tried to then use

it as the basis for identifying whether schools were performing adequately or not. i think that was a profound design flaw. many of us pointed this out close to a decade ago and it is very healthy to see the senate wrestling with this today. the superior alternative to try to identify the 5%, again recognizing there's going to be murkiness whether it's the exact 5%, is to focus on how well those students are faring in the course of that academic year. we want to look at how much those students are learning and things that we deem essential in the course of an academic year. that is the right essential starting point for whether schools are doing their job well, again because i think it is an imprecise science, because i think no matter how well intended federal interventions may be, they are unfortunately likely to do more harm than good. i think it is not useful to try to prescribe models but i do think as picking up ten cents on the dollar for state and district outlays it is

appropriate for the federal government to insist that states be identifying and coming up with strategies to address these. a couple other points i would like to make real quick since i unfortunately am required to leave. one, i think we've heard a number of what i would regard as terrific suggestions and practices about how to educate children in schools and districts. i think the mistake is to imagine that when they are good ideas well, need to try to then promote them and encourage them from washington. it's not that -- there is one question which the senator pointed -- senator paul pointed out, the fill sofffill soffic question, when mr. grier is trying to drive school improvement in houston what he is doing is working with a teacher unit headed by houston federation of teachers, he is working with a district over which he oversees control, working with a board, working with employees who report to him. that is profoundly different from what the senate or house are attempting to do in writing

legislation. all esea can do is empower the u.s. department of education to issue regulations attached to funding which then must be funneled through state education agencies, then picked up by school district superintendents and at the end of the day, what we wind up with are rules, regs, case law which create enormous and often unanticipated compliance burdens. just one very i think evocative illustration, is robert bob did a couple years as a detroit financial manager. one of the crazy ideas he tried to promote was the idea they ought to be moving title i dollars out of substitute teacher funds and field trips, into early childhood literacy. the state education agency told him he was not permitted to, that this was in violation of federal guidelines around title i. the u.s. department of education said that was incorrect, that he was actually consistent with the appropriate interpretation of the law, but that's what happens when we try to write laws from

washington and wind up at books on the state and district, we wind up creating enormous and unexpected hurdles for people trying to solve these problems in schools and districts. just two other really quick points. one, let me say that when it comes to school turnarounds, teacher evaluation, i have enormous respect for what mr. sner is talking about, mr. luna, mr. grier, but decades of experience in education and out of education tell us it's not whether you do it, it's how well you do it. there are three decades of research, for instance, on turnarounds, total quality management, corporate reengineering, in the best case scenarios these work 30% of the time. to imagine that we can identify some models that we will then require folks to use, and imagine that is going to increase the likelihood they would succeed, i think, is just to -- just to allow our aspirations to exceed what we can actually competently and usefully do. to give one concrete example of i think particularly on the

teacher evaluation front, what i am concerned about, you may have read or heard about new school models, hybrid schools, like rocketship academies, or the school one in new york city, one of the important things to note is these school models become very nearly illegal under much of what we're talking about in terms of state-of-the-art teacher evaluations. these schools do not have a teacher of record in the conventional fashion. to try to track students to a teacher and hold that teacher accountability in a hybrid model or on-line model or the school of one model, simply doesn't work. if you require teachers are going to be evaluated in this fashion you need to provide substantial waivers and loopholes or make sure that we are not regulating a fashion that locks us into the 19th century schoolhouse. thank you so much. i was honored to be here today. >> thank you very much. very good. >> i had three more. i had neas, luna, geisselhardt

and sner. if you can give me a couple minutes. i want to get to senator isaacson and senator franken. just a couple minutes, please. >> i'll be brief. i wanted to just review quickly with the committee who our students with disabilities. i think there is a great deal of confusion about who is a student with a disability, who's getting special education services. 85% of students in special education have a disability that does not prohibit -- that does not bar them from doing grade level work. so if we look at who the categories are, 42, almost 43% of kids in special education have a specific learning disability. almost 20% have a speech or language delay. 11% have something called other health impaired. for the kids who could probably be appropriately in an alternate assessment on alternate academic

achievement standards, the 1% kids, if we added up all the kids in the category mental retardation, all the kids in the category of autism, all the kids in the category of traumatic brain injury and all the kids in the category of multiple disabilities, we have far -- we're still close -- not all those kids are going to be incapable of learning grade level work, but a lot of those kids are being directed to an inappropriate assessment for them simply because of the nature of their disability category. i have been in too many iep meetings and agree with my colleagues here on the panel who say the test is driving too many things. i've been in iep meetings in virginia for kids who can do grade level work in certain subjects who have been told they can't access the general curriculum because the test dictates what curriculum they have.

we can't put more kids into this track where they can't have access to the general curriculum and they can't learn what all their other kids are being exposed to. i think that's just a really important point that we understand who are these kids in a very, very small number of them are kids who cannot do grade level work. the second thing is i think it's absolutely essential that teachers have the skill and knowledge to do the job they've been asked to do. and that third, that testing has to inform instruction. i don't know why we're testing if we're not doing something that's going to turn around and benefit kids. i think the issues and concerns we have with the bill and we need to make sure that we're not putting more kids in an inappropriate assessment which is directing -- tracking them out of the general education curriculum. i want to add one quick thing about accountability. as you know the bill -- your bill limits accountability to the bottom performing 5% schools. and with the other 95% of the

schools, one of the things that we're very concerned about is we still have the desegregated data reporting requirement which is really good but where there are achievement gaps we think there should be some trigger that something has to happen. i keep calling it subsection do something, where if there is an achievement gap, we do something more than report it. that schools need to look at why that gap is there and take some action to address it. i'm not going to sit here and tell you what that should be. schools know what that should be. but they need to do something. so those are my two points. >> thank you. again, just a couple minutes. i want to get senator [ inaudible ] he's been waiting a long time to say something. >> thank you, senator. i just want to comment that under the current no child left behind law, we are on track for 100% of our schools to be held to federal sanctions.

under the new law, it's 5%. so i think it finds the proper balance and i think it's also important to understand that states have the responsibility under the new law, states would have the responsibility to intervene for all schools, it's just the federal government is only pro descriptive on 5%. i think that finds the balance, senator paul, think those of us who consider ourselves conservative are looking for is what is the proper role of the federal government here. the u.s. constitution is silent when it comes to education so the tenth amendment says it's left to the states. my constitution at the state level is very specific. that i have a responsibility to provide a uniform, thorough system of common public schools. so, i think there are some who on this panel who think if the federal government does not mandate something, the states will not do it. i think our actions speak otherwise. ten years ago, we had a law that required -- before no child left behind, we had federal laws that required standards and assessments for all students,

but 39 states opted out of it. today, we have states that are on their own without any mandate from the federal government have adopted a standard that is comparable to any academic standard in the world. and we've a -- we're moving towards assessments that will be less intrusive and more informative and we have put forth a plan for an accountability system that is even a higher level of accountability than the current no child left behind requires. so i don't think that it's an accurate portrayal of the attitudes of states today to move forward with a bill that is based on the premise sis if the federal government doesn't mandate it states will not do that. i think states have demonstrated they're more than willing and on their own have adopted a higher standard and a higher level of accountability. >> thank you. miss geisselhardt quickly. >> in listening to miss neas i think kentucky may be ahead of the ball game as far as trying to close these achievement gaps. when we see these gaps that does

mean something needs to be done and that's the problem, actually. we're working very hard at closing these gaps and i also agree with her that the esa and no child left behind have helped tremendously the majority of the special ed students as she was saying. many of those students are able to work at grade level. but the ones i was referring to were those that are not capable, no matter what we do with those students, no matter what interventions we use, they are not -- they are identified because they are not capable of working at grade level. and they should be assessed according to their ieps rather than according to -- >> fall into that 1% category. >> that depends on your numbers. in your district. and we've never had the number in our district to fall into that 1%. so we -- you know, they go in with our regular accountability

and while i do have this mike i want to emphasize what mr. hess said as far as funding, that is so very important. i don't think that more funding is the answer by any means to education. the answer is to get funding channeled in the right direction. there is an awful lot of waste in education funding and there just needs to be more flexibility. and as far as the use of funds. >> very good. >> i'm going to go to senator isaacson. >> three quick points on testing, turnarounds and the urgency of passing the bill. first of all on testing senator paul, there is a point that i think in this country there are schools and system that have become too focused on tests as the one indicator. we haven't seen a good organization drive progress without a set of measurable goals that are driving progress every day. we've gone too far in the direction of one test. this bill includes some important components as i understand it to go beyond testing, but to look at things

not only high school completion rates but college enrollment rates and percentage of kids going to college without remediation and that's a healthy move to focus on goals and outcomes but not just tests. on turnarounds, i must say, i think the -- i do think that it's from my perspective, the capacity to turn around low income schools is limited in this country. i don't believe just from a practical perspective in the next few years we have the capacity to turn around more than fairly low percentage of the most low achieving schools. while agree with many of mr. lenderson's comments on accountability i don't think we should overreach on the federal government trying to do too many schools directly because we don't have the capacity to do it. my concern on the achievement gap schools, i think i was a public school kid, my kids are going to public schools, a lot of schools serving many kids well but not kids in great need and kids of color. those schools aren't going to improve for the kids in greatest need if there's not some press to improve that.

i think that's an area for focus. third, and lastly, i would just say on the urgency of this bill overall, you know, we -- this is a race against technology, it's a race against the economy. you know, one piece of data that strikes me is in 1973, there were only a quarter of jobs in the united states that required some post secondary education. a quarter. in a few years, two-thirds of the jobs in the united states require some post secondary education. this is a change of seismic and rapid proportions by historical standards. we were once first in the world and college completion rates, high school completion rates. we have slipped to 15th. not because we have gotten worse, we have stayed the same while other countries are moving ahead. and technology is demanding more. i don't think we have the luxury of sitting around. i think the leadership you're providing here to move this is important. i think kids and educators and teachers are not looking for a prescription from washington, but they're looking for leadership from washington and i salute your efforts to provide that here. >> senator isaacson, thank you

for your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the courtesy. i want to thank all of the guests that have been here to testify today. as i always do, when educators are present, i learn something. and you've all had a great input today into the conversation. i know ms. nays and mr. thomas have expressed themselves already on the issue of special assessment or special education kids. i would like to ask ms. danks and mr. seedan who are in the classroom every day, and i think you're the lead special needs teacher, is that not correct, ms. danks? one of the things i have been an advocate of, and as the chairman knows in this committee, is some flexibility in the assessment of special needs children. in particular, propose that rather than having a limited, narrow waiver for cognitive disability, instead we allow the iep to determine the assessment vehicle each year that the special education child is subject to. because that's the one time you have the parent, the teacher and the school present making the decision for that child in terms of how you're going to measure the progress of that child in that next year. and i'd like to have ms. danks

and mr. seedan just comment on that. >> i agree with you. i think the iep process is creating on getting everyone together and focusing on that one student. i think when we come to assessing based on state or national standards or whatever we're talking about, we really forget that individualized part of the individualized educational plan. and i know at my school, we're constantly battling between the state standards that are far beyond our students' cognitive abilities at this point in time and their iep, which actually does address the skills they need in order to function after they're done with the public school system. and unfortunately, a lot of times those two documents aren't working together. and so we're wasting -- we're using a lot of our time to figure out that balancing game. as far as assessing students with special needs, i think it's essential. whether -- i think an alternative assessment is great. i know in maryland, we had the typical assessment that most students took, and then we also

have an alternative assessment. for a while, we also had a mod tied assessment for those students that fell outside of that 1%. but still were not able to complete grade level work. and they are doing away with that, and i'm not sure of the policies with that. but as far as assessing students with special needs, i think that our students have enough obstacles, and for us to be another one saying that they can't do, i think that's such a disservice to them. so i think we need to continue holding our high standards, and provide an effective assessment. and i think that can be determined at various levels, like you had mentioned, with the iep process. we can do that during -- we can assess students based on the iep, and we may be serving them better. at our school, we actually went through a process where we created an assessment. we got a waiver from our district assessments, and we created an assessment to look at our students' continuous progress, and that's the exact phrase that we use. and it took us about a year to create this assessment, where we're continually looking at student progress as it relates

to that student's capabilities. so we're not holding them to some standard that someone else told us to. we're actually looking at what the student is able to do throughout the school year, based on what they have been able to do. and what we hope we're able to push them to do in the future. >> before i get to mr. seedan, would you please, if you get a chance, allow the committee to have the maryland alternatives that you're using in terms of measuring progress for those special ed kids? i would love to see what you have developed. >> sure. and, again, that's just at our school level. >> i understand. >> i think autonomy was fantastic because we were able to go through a process that taught our entire school staff that taught so much about our students and staff needs. and coming away from that process, we have a much greater appreciation for how difficult it is to create an assessment, and so we applaud people for doing that. but i can certainly share that with you. >> thank you very much. mr. seedan? >> i do agree also that the iep is a great place to start with using it as a driver for assessment. one of the things that's

happening in tennessee now is we have guidelines that are set for alternative assessments. and what i found in my classroom is i try to make sure i do a thorough evaluation of the records. and try to find anything that will allow me to use alternative assessments if that individual needs it. if they don't, i continue to use the tennessee standards that we have. a little more work for me, but i outline those things that i believe are necessary at the time. so i stay in compliance nationally to make sure that i'm meeting the special ed requirements, but i also -- so you're looking at an iep inside of an iep. you have a set of standards that says that regulatory standards that we have to have that are grade-level functions. but then i have another set that are functions that are necessary for that young person to be

successful enough to want to go to the next level, and then move forward. >> i thank you both. i don't have time to go to another subject, except to say, mr. loon or dr. loon or whichever it is, idaho is doing a great, i didn't know novate active thing by engaging parents more in the education of children. i know in your pay for performance, the parents actually have some say in that merit-based system and i commend what you all are doing very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to ask -- i know you put yourself right away to involve yourself in that last discussion with mr. seatton and ms. danks. >> thank you, senator harkin. what my two colleagues on the panel have described is exactly what is appropriate and available under current law. under the individuals with disabilities with education act, an essential decision that each child's iep team needs to make and the iep team includes the child's parents, of which assessment is appropriate to that child. does the child take an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards, does the

child take the regular assessment with or without accommodation or modification? that is something that's currently required under i. i.d.e.a. for those kids on alternate achievement standards, you have to design something that's appropriate to that child. those kids are on a unique place where they are not on grade level. i oftentimes call them act of god kids. short of an act of god, these kids are never going to be on grade level. it doesn't matter how much their mother loved them, what they had for breakfast, how many books were in their home. these kids are not going to be on grade level. they need a different measure. but they need to make progress. someone needs to be making sure that this year they learned more than they learned last year. and whatever it is to that child is what we need to have continue. so there's nothing in the law that says for those -- that what -- my concern is, when you

put kids who don't belong in that category of kids with the most significant cognitive disabiliti disabilities. when kids are outside of that and are put in that and otherwise -- >> i think there's some confusion here, if i might interrupt. there's a 1% rule that says that schools can automatically -- i guess, if that's the right word, automatically. take up to 1% of kids who are in ieps? >> what the law says is that up to 1% of kids, all kids, which roughly translates to about 10% of kids with disabilities, can have their progress measured on an alternate achievement standard. an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. what the current regulation allows is that states can count those 10% kids in the 1% as proficient. there's nothing that says states can't give more tests -- can't assess more kids.

but they can't count them as proficient outside of that 1%. and that's what we're seeing in a number of states where they're giving more than 1% of the kids are taking this alternate achievement standard. and that's where our concern is. we think that too many kids are being inappropriately placed in that 1%. but we absolutely believe that there are kids who are appropriate to that 1%. >> do you disagree with that, ms. darvenks? >> i don't disagree, but i know something i have seen in a lot of iep students who attend a comprehensive school, so that other percentage that we have been talking about, not the students with the most severe disabilities. and a lot of times when the parents come to the meetings, they say, i don't want my kid to be taking that test. so we'll just opt out of that. because this testing and assessing has just gotten so out of control. and the parents see that it's out of control, and they don't want their child participating in it. and i know we -- sometimes there is a lot of pressure from the parents to exclude the student from that general assessment,

just because of the stigma attached with that. so i agree with that that's an issue. i'm not sure if 1% is the magic number. we're talking about states' rights versus the federal government. i'm not sure if 1% is the correct number. i'm not sure there is a correct number. but i do know that that's definitely something to be considered. and i also think, on top of that, just to go back to the original question, life -- i think a huge component we're missing with this 1% are the life skill standards. so that, you know, we could use the iep, which are those academic standards and some life skill standards. but there are no state -- there's not a requirement that states have those life skill standards and some states do and some states don't. but seeing that as -- i think that's a huge disservice to these students. and we're not preparing them for what happens for most of them when they're 21 years old and they exit the publicel school system. we're not doing a good job of getting them ready. >> senator harken, if i could just add, i think this whole notion of life skills is so important, but -- and i don't know the answer.

but it may be an i.d.e.a. oish u and what's appropriate to that child and not necessarily an esea issue. so i just wanted to raise that. >> mr. seatton? >> yes, for tennessee, we have built in a way to catch some of that 1%. young people that have a certain iq score, we use that as a baseline. if they are average-functioning, close to, they are not allowed to be placed in that alternative assessment bracket. so one of the things that, you know, people who want to opt out are not able to do that just based on the fact that they are young people or you believe that this will be better for your scores. >> i'm sorry, can i just add one thing? i think -- i think the problem we're falling into too, there is either an alternative or whatever everyone else does. and children fall in a lot of spots between those two

extremes. so i'm not sure exactly how it's worded in the law, but the idea of continuous progress can mean a student takes an assessment and they score 30% in this month, and is then they score 35% the next month. and that's continuous progress. and for some of our students no don't fall in that 1% but also are not performing above or at grade level, that's a way for that student to show they're making that continuous progress. and for the school to demonstrate that they are providing the instruction that enables that continuous progress. >> senator franken. >> that's kind of a good jumping-off point for my -- my -- where i want comments from. and it's about computer adaptive testing. and to what extent does this -- and certainly in terms of special ed kids and measuring growth. i want to -- i've been struck by some -- mr. loona talked about growth model. and i know mr. loona is

concerned with gifted kids, and i know that from teachers i've talked to in minnesota, the way the testing has been done in no child left behind is what percentage of kids exceed a certain arbitrary benchmark of proficien proficiency. and so you can take those gifted kids, and you know that kid is going to beat proficiency no matter what you do to that kid, so they ignore the kid. and i think ms. gezelhart talked about that, as well. and ms. danks, you talked about computer adaptive testing. and i want to follow up with you on -- or you to follow up on that, if you like.

mr. thomas, you talked about a growth model, and why a growth model is so important. and mr. haspet, before he left, was talking about just how kids are progressing during the your. and you can do that with a computer-adaptive test because you can take it multiple times a year. we have been doing, giving the test at the end of april and the results come back, and they're autopsies. and mr. shenire, you talked about the importance of beyond one test and the thing with the computer-adaptive test, you can take it multiple times over the year, and you can measure growth. so i just kind of would like anyone or -- who wants to talk about what -- do they see any down side to the computer-adaptive tests. and we've made -- one thing we have done is made it voluntary. i mean, it's one of the

federalism issues that we've responded to, is -- i think -- i think every state should have computer-adaptive tests, but i deliberately said this is something you can do. you may do. you're allowed to do. so does anyone have any feelings about that? thoughts? >> i'd like to take a quick stab at it. i think you're spot-on in what you're proposing. i think the infrastructure across the country is sorely lacking for schools to be able to do this on a large-scale basis. because you just can't march kids into one computer lab in a school in groups of 25, and think you're going to be able to do this. i've worked innel school districts where we had computers in every classroom, and it was wonderful. teachers could do quick assessments and get information back on really a daily basis. every two weeks or whenever you wanted them to. but i work in a school district now where we don't have that

type -- >> you have a computer lab? >> we have a computer lab in most of our schools. but very few of our schools have a computer in every classroom. >> right. but you can -- you don't have to all -- and not everybody at the school has to take this the same day. >> no. if we're just talking about special ed students, that may be different. but i think this technique you're talking about applies to all students. it makes it just much more difficult in a 3,000-student high school. >> yeah, but what i'm saying is that i don't think the -- all the -- all grades have to take it the same day. third grade can take it one day or one classroom in third grade can take it one day, and one classroom -- as long as you have a computer lab. which i think schools probably should have. >> with all due respect, i was just saying to you, from living it every day, one computer lab in the school would not support the kind of testing model you're talking about. just won't do it.

>> okay. in minnesota, they seem to be able -- i've talked to schools where they've had one computer lab and they've been able to do this. but maybe they're smaller schools or something. i don't know. >> senator, in -- mr. chairman and senator, in idaho, we've done computer testing since no child left behind started. we never did the paper and pencil. we could see the writing on the wall. and we have done computer tests all of the time. in fact, the first test that we rolled out was an adaptive test, and it showed growth. but it did not then pass muster under no child left behind. so we had to take a step backwards. the law that is being considered today is going to allow us to go back to the kind of test we were actually doing eight or nine years ago, where we could actually measure growth without a floor or a ceiling so that we could actually see where a student is -- they're performing.

i think what you're talking about, senator, is right now we have assessments of learning, we give them at the end of the school year. those are great for accountability systems and they help inform instruction somewhat for the next year. but what we need are assessments of learning -- or same sorry, assessments for learning, or assessments that are less intrusive, and they happen during the regular classroom period. i've gone into classrooms before where the -- the -- it's a very high level of engagement, where children are engaged and there's a lot of learning going on. and all of a sudden the teacher says, okay, it's time for the quiz, everybody close your books, and it's like somebody sucks the oxygen out of the room. the technology is available to capture assessment data during a regular lesson plan while it's being delivered. it means a heavy dose of technology in every classroom. it's not going to get done with just one or two computer labs per school. in our state, we have chosen to make heavy investments in

technology, not with race to the top dollars, not by raising taxes, not by spending more money on education. but by -- we're willing to spend the money we already have differently. and so i won't go into the details of our technology improvements, but they're very expansive. and every one of our classrooms will have the technology available to do the kind of assessments that you've -- you're talking about, without relying on rotating kids through a computer lab. >> my only reaction to that -- i've seen tests or seen classrooms where you can immediately -- where they do exactly what you're talking about, and that's -- and that's fabulous. what i -- advocating on computer adaptive tests, one of the aspects of it is exactly what you're talking about, which is that the test results, if they can be done as the year is going by, they're allowing -- they're for learning. because the teachers can see what's going on. and use the results for -- for

instruction. and i think, ms. danks, if -- is probably going to speak to the special ed fact, which is that if you're measuring -- if you're allowed to go outside of grade level, you're able to measure growth. and that makes the problem we were talking about before -- it actually -- i think addresses it to some extent, anyway. which is that if you're at least measuring growth, kids who are below grade level and you -- you can still see that they're learning. >> exactly. >> i think you make a great point. and that applies to all students, not just students with special needs. seeing that continuous growth is going to be much more rich data that the teacher is going to be able to use than that one time in march or april, where -- where the school has probably completely stressed out the

child to get ready for this assessment. you know, the parents know about it, the city knows, everybody knows about it. and then those results don't come back until june. and like you said, it's like an autopsy. and then the -- that information is not always useful. and a lot of times, it's given too late. well, here's this skill we taught in september that this student never mastered, which i would have known that in september. so i think that testing has become such an event, and it comes with so much pressure. and i think, like you were saying, it doesn't need to be everybody does it on the same day. it could be two or three kids coming in. ask some of these kids know how to use a computer better than anybody i know. so as far as that being a barrier, even for students with special needs, i don't think that's an issue. our school does work with a partnership board, and we've been able -- they have helped us tremendously in raising a great deal of funds. we have several computers in every classroom, a per meethian board in every classroom and i would encourage schools struggling to gain that technology, reach out to your community partners, businesses getting rid of computers,

because then you can implement this in your schools. >> you had a response on this. >> quick comment. senator franken, i think you're absolutely right to focus on computer based adaptive assessments. i think in the future, that's going to be universal in education. i think it's a good example of something in which you're showing judiciousness. there have been lots of bills in both parties where say it's required. i think it's good to support. the one thing i would say about the goals, changing the transparency and the goal requirements and accountability to enable growth and improvement is crucial to help all kids, lowest-achieving, highest-achieving. one thing i think, at a minimum the state setting goals for kids to get some absolute level of performance, high school graduation i think is important. otherwise we'll make slight improvements but not -- >> i think we're talking about

mandating a certain rate of growth so by the end of 12th grade, they're ready for college which is what the goal is, anyway. >> i think that's the right direction. >> i'm not sure how that -- that's -- i'm not sure how that language is in the bill in terms of mandating that every year there will be a year of growth. >> and mr. saturdeatton, you pur card up. and then i'm going to go to senator merkley. >> yes, sir, i teach in the orange mound community, the second largest african-american community in the nation, only behind harlem. and one of the things when you start looking at technology, we need and we are raising money through our district. but we need the support of the national government in order to fully use technology throughout our system. i believe that the rapid assessments that we can get through those computer-based

tests will be fabulous for us to use it as an ongoing tool. but i think that we still need to think how long will it take to get that type of technology in every school. and i think that one of the things that was mentioned, the common core standards, is -- and this is where i believe we need some national leadership, in having those common core standards as a base for our national assessment. since wee looking at being competitive globally, we need to know where we all are from california to the bottoms of mississippi. >> are you saying, mr. saturdea that there is an inequality of funding for schools, based upon their zip code? >> no, sir. >> we should rectify that. >> no, sir, i'm not saying that at all. >> you should be. >> can i read this language,

just to respond, because now i have it in front of me. it says, if the state chooses to use a student -- use student growth as a measure of academic progress and to determine students are on track to college and career readiness, a student performing below the on-track level of performance for the student's grade level under subsection blah, blah, blah, on the academic assessment, blah, blah, blah, is attaining a rate of academic growth in the subject that indicates that the student will be on track to college and career readiness in not more than a specified number of years. and two, a student who is performing at or above the on-track level of performance for the student's grade level on the academic assessment for the subject is continuing to make academic growth. so for -- for states that choose a growth model, we are addressing, i think, what you

raised. i think. are you satisfied? >> i think that's good. my view is that having that federally prescribed but state -- some big goals about increasing percentage of kids reaching medium big goals is important, but i know that's a longer conversation. but i think that's a great step in the right direction. >> thank you. >> roll call vote. >> we have a roll call vote that just started. senator murphy has been very patient. i'm going to go to him as a roll call. i know it's going to be 12:15 and we're probably not going to come back after. mr. merkley. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you to all of you for bringing your expertise here to the capitol. i'll follow up on the computerized adaptive testing. oregon was an early adopter of this, and folks can't imagine any other way of doing it. if schools out there are still using paper tests, and the results come back months later, that is crazy. if you're trying to have teachers be able to utilize the results in order to understand how their students are

progressing. and the cost of the technology has come down so much that i certainly would encourage folks to explore it. i wanted to note a different -- another issue, which is we're replacing the current requirements for adequate yearly progress for college and career ready standards. and the goal of developing statewide accountability systems in order to receive federal funding by 2014 and 2015. states vary in terms of the progress that they have made, and will be making to develop this new accountability system based on college and career ready. and so i thought, superintendent luna, perhaps from idaho's perspective and other people are welcome to chime in, could give us a sense of how the state is progressing in developing and

adopting these new assessments, or the process that's anticipated and the expected time line and kind of insights about the challenge that will occur in terms of this transition. >> mr. chairman and senator, idaho, along with oregon and a number of other states -- i believe there's almost 30 are part of the smarter balance consortium that is working to develop the adaptive computerized assessments that we're talking about. i believe that they will begin piloting them in two years, and then be -- and then after the pilot begin to administer them. at the same time, those assessments are going into place we're also going through the process of adopting the common core. and so we have to go through the process of aligning our curriculum to the higher standard and now an assessment that measures to this higher standard. and all of that is, as i said, in place to be piloted, i believe, in 2014.

and then the year after it becomes part of the accountability. it's the measure that we use in our states as part of our accountability system. >> so do you anticipate that the ayp will continue to be used between now and then -- if it's piloted in 2014, do we anticipate wide adoption the following year or two years later? >> mr. chairman and senator, i think that's going to be up to the plan that the state puts together. i know that if it's a state -- i believe that it's -- if it's a state that's pursuing a waiver, that there's actually one year where everything kind of stays the same. and that is the transition year. and i believe that that is 2013. and then there's the transition. but i think it has to do -- it depends on the plan that the state puts together. >> of do we have time for any other feedback on this question? thank you. >> do you have feedback? >> i wanted to address what senator -- >> i'm sorry. i wanted to address what senator

franken said in regard to formative assessment. i think there is a lot of emphasis on formative assessment now. and it is being used. and used for instruction. but as far as the tests that we would use at -- for data collection, and comparing students. we're comparing growth, which is what we hope to be able to do in the future, is compare growth, we would have to have -- as i said, we would still have to have a testing window, where testing is done within a particular time frame in order to use it for comparisons. >> mr. chairman, i had one more quick comment. and it was in response to senator paul's early concern, where he said that currently we have basically everyone that's frustrated with the current law, but now we're going to just take what we're frustrated with, but only apply it to 5% of our schools.

under the new law, the 5% are not going to be held to the same frustrating parts of no child left behind today. we will use a growth model, which we cannot use under the current no child left behind. it will be a growth model that we'll use to measure how those schools are improving. and then i think the most important part is now under the new law, there's flexibility. we receive federal funds right now where it's very prescriptive, where the school may need to focus on a specific area, but the funding forces us to spend it elsewhere. now because of the flexibility in the law, we can take the federal dollars, and we can combine them and focus on the area where we know that low 5% school needs assistance. so it is a different approach, and i think it will be a far more successful approach. >> yeah, i'll entertain a couple more. but when the second bell rings, we've got to go. mr. sheery had something and then mr. greer and then mr. henderson. that's it. go ahead.

>> senator merkley, i think your question is a really important one. and i think there is a risk. as i said, there are many good elements to this bill. i think i have some reservations, significant ones, about the incentives i mentioned before, and teacher evaluation and around the press for accountability and transparency. and i think there is a risk without more steps being taken that you won't in this bill drive the crucial transparency needed to look at performance across the whole system. and in an effort to provide flexibility, i think your question that we may not give the public the transparency in how well states and schools have been doing in educating kids at all levels, achievement gap schools. and i think that flexibility is good. but i think there is some imp t important improvements that need to be made, otherwise there can be a real down fall in law. but i hope that can be addressed in this legislative process. >> i want to come back quickly to this issue about compa comparabili comparability. and this is really a serious issue, and i might suggest that the committee consider a

detailed impact analysis from the general accountability office, or the congressional research services on the impact that these changes before you move forward. the last thing i wanted to say is, most of the really good charter networks in this country that are doing a great job are spending between $1,000 and $2,000 more per student in those low-performing schools and getting good results. this is in addition to the title 1 money. and i want to come back again. i'm really concerned that if we don't look at some type of set-aside to provide some additional title 1 funding for these low-performing schools, that we just aren't going to be willing to make the tough political changes that we need to make in giving them the amount of funding they need to do this work. >> i thought they were ringing a bell. my staff just reminded me, we have a 4% set-aside in this bill, just precisely for what you're saying. there is a 4% set-aside.

>> for those bottom 5% schools? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. henter son. >> thank you, mr. chairman. because this discus no child left behind is imperfect and in need of reform. i don't think anyone disputes that. i think there are some who would argue, however, that the current draft bill represents an -- shall we say overreach on the part of the federal government. by using its federal dollars of investment to try to guide state accountability. i got that. the truth is, however, that esea really establishes a flaw, not a ceiling, on accountability. and that states are obviously free to exceed and create new standards that, in fact, hold all students accountable. my only point is this. look, i celebrate the fact that over the last 50 years, the country has changed significantly for the better and become a more perfect union. but i also recognize that

americans obvious are ahistoric, and fail to take into account the specific elements that led to the change that we support today. had had the federal government not chosen to intervene in states activities in this area, we would not have had the improvement the we have seen. and those who seem to argue that states, when left free of their own devices, can achieve the kind of goals that we all seek, need only look at the record that has been established over the past to recognize that the states themselves are not perfect, and that they have, in turn, improved their academic involvement, because of the federal government. not in spite of it. so i think in that sense, this does -- the discussion of government's role, a disservice to the extent that we fail to recognize the contributions that the federal government has made in improving the quality of education for all. >> well, thank you very much. thank you all very much. i thought this was a great two hours. i guess as chair, i get to have

the last word, i guess. let me just sum it up this way. the whole issue of elementary and secondary education is a complex issue. but we can't just throw up our hands and say because it's complex, and there's all these moving parts, that we can't do anything and we walk away from it. what i've heard here is that there is a role to be played by the federal government, the state government and local government. we just kind of figure out what those roles are. and they may vary from time to time, depending upon circumstances. i will state that this bill that we have will not solve every problem in elementary and secondary education. mr. luna said that when he talked about -- about no child left behind, he said there's the good, the bad and the ugly. what we have tried to do is get rid of the bad and ugly and keep the good and try to expand on it somewhat. so, yes, we have retreated in some areas, advanced in others. now, every bill that passes a committee or a congress, i can

poke a hole in it. you know, no bill has everything everybody wants. i understand that. this bill is not mr. enzi's bill, and it ain't mine either. but it is ours. and in that way, we make those kind of agreements. i think the central question is, is it better than the present bill? does it advance the causes of finding the proper balances between federal, state and local? and does it warrant general support? across a wide spectrum? knowing full well that everyone here has something that probably they would like to change in that bill, including mr. enzi and me. but the question is, is does it advance the cause? of what we're trying to do and

finding those proper roles and troig to provide a better structure and framework for every child in america to get a really good education. so we have really good, effective teachers, good leaders in schools, that we have comp e comparabili comparability, that we have -- that we even out these -- mr. seatton, i don't think you got my subtly in that. jonathan coziel wrote about this a long time ago, about savage inequalities. i'm out in fairfax county. our schools have the best computers that you can imagine. why don't your schools have those? well, there's a little bit of inquality in zip codes. so we have to figure out how we make sure that kids who happen to be born to -- in bad circumstances, have a bad family circumstance, low income, impoverished area, maybe english language learners, maybe have a disability, how do you keep them progressing too? how do you reach down, that child who has the least and make

sure they get the benefit of our education system? that's what we're trying to do. imperfect as it is, that's what we're trying to do. so i thank you all very much. it's been a great discussion. the committee will stand adjourned. thank you. >> got to go vote. i'm keeping the record open for