montana. down in georgia, somebody else, some other committee of educators writes -- that doesn't make sense to me either. i think we need to find a good mix of local control of schools, local districts are the ones that are going to run schools and manage them, but i think there has to be some kind of consensus about what students need to learn, what the emphasis should be. and we as a nation have -- i mean, we're not just -- we are not only people that live in vermont or texas, we're not just state people. we are americans. so there are some common things that need to learn. we need to learn a common history, so on. >> if congress passed no child left behind, can they respond to this decision by the education department? since it was unilateral in a sense? >> well, the waiver policy that secretary duncan is proposing would last only until the law is

rewritten. so definitely the waivers would come to an end and they'd operate under the new rules of the law. >> some of the states considering a waiver include colorado, idaho, georgia, illinois, kentucky, louisiana. there are others. you can see them as we go to the next call. tony, democrat's line. >> caller: hi. >> you're on. >> caller: hi. >> you're on. go ahead. >> caller: oh, hi, i wanted to ask your guest, ohio has been determined three times by our supreme court in the state -- you know in ohio that the way we the distribute funds for education in ohio is unconstitutional. so like for instance, i live in an what sha, they can have the money spent on them and then in the rich suburbs they're having $12,000 spent on them. so when it comes to core issues,

education, health care and a living wage, if you start with a solid foundation for any individual, when you start with that foundation in regard to education, then the rest is up to the kid. but, you know, given whatever circumstances they deal with at home. so could you address the ohio constitution in regard to -- or as the supreme court decision in ohio with regard to the way that funds are distributed in ohio? i want to ask the host from the website, race for iran, because like earlier in the earlier segment the situation with syria was said to have nothing to do with israel and that's a complete miss. the website is race for iran. >> thanks for your question. well, the issue of funding and funding equity has been addressed by many state courts, not just ohio.

funding equity is a problem in many states. there are districts in which we spend $25,000 on each student. even more. there are extreme cases. there are other states in which a lot less gets spent. and i even -- and even within states our schools are financed through a mixture of local property taxes and state legislatively approved allocations as well as a little bit of federal aid. you get huge differences between some districts in poor areas and affluent districts in the suburbs and in places that are doing better economically. so that's not healthy for the country either. the country's out there that are doing better than we are on the tests that we're able to measure, countries progress in education, generally try to mitigate the differences between poor areas and wealthy areas.

there's no reason why a kid that's growing up in a poor area of appalachia should get a less effective education or why that person's teacher should only earn a third as much as the teachers in a wealthy suburb of cleveland. so i agree in concept. there should be an effort in the country to equalize the funding of -- by the formulas by which we finance the schools. that said, this has been -- there have been endless legal battles over this in states for probably a half a century. and probably this will never be solved in the courts. it isn't going to be a question of political will. i don't see it actually out there. i don't think the american people generally are -- we have a lot of problems in our

country. that's not one that i see -- that's high on the radar. but it's a problem. >> next up, arizona. phoenix, arizona, derrick, independent line. >> caller: good morning. my question is concerning the ethnic makeup of the committees that are writing these curriculums for our children. i'm here in phoenix, arizona, i just recently met a couple -- a young man who came out of school a year or so together. as i'm asking questions to these kids, put in mathematical formulas they couldn't answer. one thing i did ask, if they knew who marcus garvey was. they're only 19 years young, they had no idea who marcus garvey is. so my question is what's the ethnic makeup because if they have no concept of their history and the only history they have is american history, then that's

a problem there. our kids interns of african-american kids aren't being taught their history. they're being taught someone else's. what's the ethnic makeup of the children or the people othe committee writing the particular curriculums for the children? and i believe that and these are african-americans that we need to separate ourselves and teach our own history because they aren't being taught in this country. >> that's a good question. you know, my impression is that -- we have been talking about the variations across states, the way the curriculum works. my impression is that american history is taught in a much more equitable fashion than it has in the past. the multicultural movement has been going on in the past. i'm surprised they didn't know who marcus garvey is.

i don't think that it's -- that the problem -- you're describing a problem with history curricula. i don't think that the problem is that there's, you know, it's like an all-white committee or something like that. i don't think so. the standards i have seen have been generally -- they have a pretty good representation on the committees and i think the people are doing a pretty good job trying to give the -- look, our country is a rainbow of peoples. we have a rich history. every group has contributed. african-americans have contributed a huge amount. they haven't gotten as much credit as they should. but i generally in looking at for instance, the common core standards. they don't have history standards because they're -- they focus on reading and math, but the reading materials for the reading standards include for instance, martin luther

king's speeches. they include frederick douglas. so it's a concern, i'm sorry to hear that the student in arizona didn't know who marcus garvey is, but i don't think that's generally a problem in which we're neglecting vast areas of our history. >> we hear from a teacher next from chattanooga, tennessee, ken. >> caller: yes, can you hear me? >> yes, go right ahead. >> caller: first time i heard george w. bush say no child left behind, i understood the weakness in the idea. we're dealing with such large numbers and such variety, it would be impossible to achieve 100%. we understand that in almost any other area. with our factory production line, education model, it should be especially obvious that we don't expect that in the factory either. might be a good call, but it's never achieved.

furthermore, as we -- i just -- my question is, is there any discussion in the education political community in washington, across the state, of the problem with dealing with this huge variety of students in such huge numbers? we know for example that 18 is a better class size than 35 and yet, in our state 35 is the class limit. you know, the formula for hiring teachers is the number of students in the schools divided by 35. so guaranteeing everybody a maximum class load. and then special education students are included of course, with different demands. teachers are issued mandatory modifications for those students to teach parallel curricula. if that is not possible, then the modified curricula is

taught. is there any discussion of solutions for the simple kind of solutions to these kind of problems for reducing class size substantially? >> okay. we're almost out of time so we'll leave threit there. >> well, the class size debate is 20 or 30 years ago. there's passionate advocates on both sides. i know it does get a heck of a lot harder if you have 25 students in your class and then they raise it to 35. nobody can convince me that it isn't a lot harder to teach effectively in those circumstances. now, the people -- there was a powerful lobby for reducing class sizes and the goal based on the research that had been done was to reduce all class sizes to 15 students per teacher. that turned out to be tremendously expensive. some states tried it. they spent billions of dollars trying to get there.

and more recently a lot of economists for instance have looked at this, well, i don't think we're getting the bang for the buck trying to get to that 15 goal. currently, it's been overwhelmed by the fact that most states have budget deficits. you know, they're laying off teachers, so most of them -- it's become a fait accompli that class sizes are rising and just wish the teachers well. there are teachers who are teaching 35 or 40 students in a class. my heart goes out the them. >> one more call. paul from the democrats line. >> caller: the phrase growth model will replace no child left behind. that will to a certain degree address the issue. but african-american and the one

who called about the marcus garvey, i would venture to say those kids had some knowledge of marcus garvey, so much is taught that they couldn't recall that. and african-american students must study more. our kids just must study more. if you look at the subgroups throughout, we typically are at the bottom. we just have to put more focus on studying and not blame the system as to why we're not doing well. >> caller, thanks. what will schools or states who want to get a waiver, what will they hear in september from the administration? >> i think it's a $64,000 question. >> in a general sense. >> yeah. they're going to get a big, thick document issued by the secretary of education that describes the school system -- describes the case they need to make about the current quality of their school system, about their commitment to improving their schools, about holding

schools accountable for achievement. about raising the question of the teachers and then they're going to get a series of fine points about requirements that we don't know yet. i hate to speculate about what the details will be. >> sam dillon is a national education correspondent, talking about no child left behind. thank you very much. >> it's been great. this week, the obama administration named ten states that would be allowed to opt out of no child left behind. states that get a waiver would have to meet new education requirements. for details, we talked to a reporter with national journal. >> fawn johnson writes for national journal. why did the administration give some states waivers on the no child left behind law? >> it's part of the administration's we can't wait campaign. it's something they've been cussing for over a year.

they call it a plan "b" for the no child left behind. to give the states an out to the provision in the law that requires all students to be at grade level in reading and math by 2014. 2014 is coming up fast. there are some schools that won't make that deadline and obama wanted to give those states some ability to come up with other school reforms while congress works out whatever problems that they might be having and i are writing the law. >> they gave the waiver to ten states. is it likely that others will follow suit and ask for the waivers as well? >> yes. when the administration first announced the plan which was last september, they offered up what they would call an advanced -- for states who are ready to go a quick approval process for them so they could plan for their next couple of years' budgets and the other

things they're doing for the schools. but there's an expectation there will be a second or a third round. they have expressed interest there. there's a complex vetting process, the administration takes the state plans through. for example, new mexico was one of the states that applied early for a waiver. and administration officials said there's still working with that state to try to clarify some parts of the plan before they give new mexico a waiver. >> there's a rewrite on capitol hill, both house and senate have versions. how are they different? >> in almost every way. there are some similarities in the sense that i think in the senate and in the house, lawmakers are well aware that that 2014 deadline that i was talking about earlier in no child left behind does need to be tweaked. the house has a whole series of bills that they're planning on putting together in one big authorization later this year. the house's version is more

partis partisan. there are several portions that the democrats don't like. they've returned -- the house returns a lot of power to the states and gives -- and leaves almost nothing with the federal government. which is going to be a little bit of a problem in the administration and in the senate. the senate has a full re-authorization bill that has passed committee. it's not clear when it will be on the floor. the chairman of the health education and labor committee, tom harkin said he didn't expect it to be on the floor until the house is moving. so we'll see what happens with that. it also removes some of the benchmarks that have been most problematic under no child left behind, but leaves the procedures in place. so republicans aren't too happy with the senate bill. >> and mayor bloomberg was displeased with the waivers and felt the federal government's role was to set the bar, set a high bar in education.

how in general has the reaction been to the waiver, this announcement this week? >> well, i think mayor bloomberg would be putting forth the point of view more starkly that the federal government should have a strong role. that's been a bit of a sticking point in education because people expect that states and local governments will be more closely tied to their schools. but for the most part, the waivers are considered by almost everyone on the spectrum of education to be something of a stop gap or a band-aid to overall rewriting of the elementary and secondary education act. they are very useful for states at the moment who will be facing some real punitive problems with the current benchmarks under no child left behind. it gives them the ability to work on something while congress figures out what it's doing. it is not by any stretch a replacement for a new law.

and so i think that when you see comments like that from mayor bloomberg or from others it is just reflecting the frustration at the part -- that the administration can only go so far. they can't actually rewrite the law on their own. >> an update from fawn johnson from national journal. read her on nationaljournal.com. thank you for joining us. >> it's pleasure. yesterday -- of massachusetts, new jersey, oklahoma and tennessee. in november, a senate committee held a hearing on no child left behind. with testimony from teachers about their experiences with the law. this is 2 1/2 hours.

come to order. today's round table will focus on moving beyond ncld, the current iteration of the elementary and secondary education ability. towards re-authorization of the law for the needs of the 21th century. the last two years, we have held hearings covering the other law. and we have held numerous stakeholder meetings and participated in lengthy negotiations with my republican colleagues which resulted in a bill that was voted out of committee two weeks ago. i believe the committees bill

takes several important steps forward. by one resetting our national goal for students attaining proficiency by ensuring they graduate from college to a career. second, by ensuring that title i schools get their fair share of title resources. and three, developing regular rouse teacher and principal evaluations and support systems. with the goal of continuous instructional improvement. and fourth, providing a laser like focus on turning around the bottom 5% of the schools and the high schools, that graduate less than 60% of the students so that real change occurs in the schools and the students who attend them have their t trajectory set on a new and improved course. we'll hear from those impacted by the education laws we pass in washington. i am eager to hear each of their

perspectives on how through the re-authorization we can provide states, districts and schools with the tools they need to help all students succeed. i think we have provided some of those tools in our bill, but i'm sure that there are others who think that more can be done. one thing i know for certain is that the current law is not bringing about the significant improvements in student achievement that our country needs and this our children deserve. we must reauthorize to get out from under the ineffective no child left behind act. i expect our round table participants will discuss things they like about nclb and things they would like to see changed. the goal today is to have an open discussion that informs the on going debate on the rea reauthorati reauthoration. i will now turn to the ranking member who has been a strong partner on our work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your willingness to work on this roundtable. last month's markup of the

elementary and secondary education act was a major step forward in the re-authorization process which has been stagnant over the last four years since no child left behind authorization lapsed. i expect there will be many more changes to the bill that we reported from the committee in order to gain broader support and marking up the bill was the first and important step in the re-authorization process. this is not to say there was not a lot of work that occurred before hand to get that bill to markup. to the contrary, we received testimony from over 70 witnesses including the secretary of education, elementary education experts, state and district superintendents, teachers and representatives of special populations. the committee hosted a website where people from all across the united states could address views and solutions and each senator has heard from constituents as to the concerns, fixes and changes needed to

improve the no child left belaw. now that we have marked up a bill in committee, we're hoping to get input on the bill. we want to know whether we're developing fixes to the problems that have been identified. we want to hear about what else we need to do to improve the bill as we move forward. i want to thank the panelists and who can provide a range of observations on both current law on the draft bill that was reported out of the help committee last month. we'll identify problems on the ground with the current legislation, and how we can create policy that provides flexibility for innovative approaches in the states. i'm interested in hearing about the aspects of no child left behind, that today's panelists think should be retained as we move forward. although there are many criticisms, there are positives that we can point to as well. it moved the conversation around education in this country towards greater transparency of outcomes and it invited parents to take a more active role in

the child's education. i think it's turned pack to see that no child is left out. by shining a light on the children, rather than just the schools and making sure that the data that was broadly available, teachers and taxpayers can make decision about children not just about schools. that's a profound development and one i'm committed to building upon as we move forward in the re-authorization. while no child left behind pushed us to address many of the shortcomings in our school, it's a strict one size fits all rules on how we addressed deficiencies in the schools. we removed most of the federal mandates and asked states to int interveen only in the bottom 5% of the schools. the parents will know how they're doing.

we want the results to follow the child so subsequent teachers can make a difference. for all other schools we have told states that they must take the lead by returning responsibility for accountability, albeit accountability that expects students to be college and career ready to determine what makes the most sense for their students. although i hear the concerns of many that this bill does not include performance targets and other federally designed objectives, having the goals of those entering -- careers in college without the need for remediation is a goal that requires intensive step by step, grade by grade planning. not some marker as to whether the students prepared on the they graduate. students will intuitively need to design rubrics that get their students on this path. they don't need to know when and how when they should reach each progressive milestone and no child left behind did not handle

this very well by focusing on schools. the bill we reported out of committee reports on the oversized federal foot print and returned it to the states where it belongs and is most effectively implemented. as i stated during the mark judge i do not support 100% of the bill we reported out. i would have supported a much smaller role. i know senator harkin would have agreed with federal accountability. a bill that will include the broader senate, the broader congress, stakeholders and those interested in better instruction and a more prepared work force moving forward so action can be taken instead of just wasted debate. but again, this is another step in that process, and we will be further informed as more voices are involved. with that said i'll continue to support a lessened federal role in school and greater transparency to parents through reporting on their child's

performance. we need to place more emphasis on seeing that each child is getting the education we promised. i was disappointed it moved in the opposite direction, so i'll work with my colleagues to improve this plan to move it to the president's desk. thank you mr. chairman for working with me on this hearing and looking forward to continuing the substantive policy discussion from last month's markup. >> thank you very much. now, let me take a moment to introduce each of the participants. i know some senators like to also weigh in. and throw in introductions. i'll start on my right now that i see it. first, we have rick hess, director of education policy studies at the american enterprise institute. mr. hess is the author of the education column. and the executive director of education next and associated

with a program on education policy and governance at harvard. next is mr. shnur. he's the cofounder of no leaders. no leaders for new schools. he's developed national educational policies on teacher and principal quality, after-school programs, charter schools and preschools. and i would now invite senator paul to introduce the next person. >> well, i'm pleased today to have pam here, a gifted and talented teacher and i think one of the great successes of our kentucky public education. and i really am glad that we were able to have this hearing to talk about the bill before it's final to get your input and to get your understanding and your input as to how we can change and make no child left behind less of a federal burden on teachers and principals and

superintendents and all the educators. thank you for coming. >> thank you, senator paul. next, we have tom luna, the idaho superintendent of public instruction. mr. luna currently serves as president elect of the council of chief state school officers. he will serve as president beginning in 2012. next is katie bay-niece, a senior vice president with easter seals. she does incredible work with the easter seals. i can attest to that over the years. she's responsible for easter seals federal and state public policies and cochair of the consortium for those with education task force and has expertese in early childhood education. mr. alexander? >> mr. chairman, we welcome charles seton from memphis. he's