Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 16, 1999, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1934 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 16, 1999 TERRY BERGESON SENATE HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS IMPROVING EDUCATION FOR DISADVATAGED CHILDREN
BODY:
IMPROVING EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED
CHILDREN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
COMMITTEE Dr. Terry Bergeson Washington State Superintendent, of Public
Instruction On behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers, I am happy
to be with you and have this opportunity to comment on the reauthorization of
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am the elected
Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction. I head the state agency
with the responsibility for providing leadership, assistance and resources to
Washington's 296 school districts and 1,900 public schools. I am here
representing the State of Washington and the Council of Chief State School
Officers. Washington State, working under state legislation that preceded Goals
2000 and federal reform efforts, has four state learning goals broken down into
state academic standards, grade level benchmarks, and an assessment system which
includes basic skills, as well as challenging thinking skills and performance
Prior to my election as Superintendent, I headed the Commission on Student
Learning which involved thousands of Washington stakeholders in the development
of standards and assessments in the state. Education is a local function, a
state responsibility, and a federal priority. I am delighted to be here to speak
as a state chief and on behalf of CCSSO on the reauthorization of the
ESEA. The points I want to emphasize are the following: STAY
THE COURSE Title I helps students with major challenges in their lives succeed
academically despite the odds. Educational reform in Washington and across the
United States is organized around breaking the correlation between poverty and
student achievement. Title I funds are critical to our strategies. Title I
programs must be continued and expanded to meet the needs of the 50% of poor
children not currently being supported by Title 1. The 1994 reauthorization put
the infrastructure for educational reform in place with challenging standards,
performance assessments and accountability systems. These are largely in place
in all states. The 1999 reauthorization should provide the leadership,
assistance and resources so that all America's children will be prepared for the
requirements of the 21st Century and the United States will have a system of
education that is "First in the World." The newest national assessment of Title
I documents its effects. Students in the highest poverty schools (75% or more
economically disadvantaged students) are accelerating their achievement at a
rate that is measurably closing the gap between their performance and that of
"regular" students. ACCELERATION AND FOCUSING, OF EFFORT Title I should be
reauthorized in the context of a bold new "First in the World" framework, as
recommended by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Under this broad
vision, Title I is the lynchpin of support for children in poverty so that they
can accelerate their "catching up" with their peers and meet challenging
standards. I submit the Council's proposal for the record. As we implement state
reform, we are learning more about how we can accelerate the academic progress
of high poverty schools, as well as all schools. Three studies examining state
educational reform efforts have just been completed in our state. They provide
valuable insights. The first, conducted by Jeffrey Fouts and graduate students
at Seattle Pacific University, studied sonic 40 schools using a restructuring
index to examine the degree and depth of change. A second study, sponsored by
Washington's business-supported "Partnership for Learning," was carried out by
Paul Hill of the University of Washington's Public Policy School. The study
matched 35 schools which made gains in assessments with schools not making
gains. The third study, implemented by Peggy Vatter of the OSPI staff, consisted
of telephone interviews with 53 schools, including some high poverty schools,
which had made major gains in mathematics assessments between 1997 and 1998. The
results of these studies were similar -- schools that improved were
characterized by the following: Involvement and Consensus of Stakeholders. In
the improved schools teachers, parents and administrators collaborated on a
common academic focus, The successful poor schools in all three studies began
with the expectation and belief that poverty is no excuse for low, achievement.
It was their responsibility to find ways to increase the learning and
achievement of all students. They developed plans and implemented them with an
intentional focus and a constancy of effort. Expertise of Teachers. Teachers
realized and used their expertise to diagnose the individual needs of students
and to provide the supplemental resources and activities needed to Increase the
learning of all students. They realized that although structured programs are
useful, no program has all the answers. They used their own knowledge to adapt
when necessary the use of federal, state and local resources. Rethinking the Use
of Time. The schools reconsidered their use of time and restructured many of
their traditional practices such as increasing reading and mathematics time,
preteaching in a "Sunrise School," providing after-school, summer or tutoring
programs, and using cross-grade tutoring. The point of these studies is that
schools need support to develop and implement a whole school change effort.
Title I funds help poor districts support academically-struggling kids. In
addition, three school. focused components of Title I - program improvement,
schoolwide projects and comprehensive school reform - involve a state leadership
role in the type of capacity- building and planning for school change that was
seen in our Washington studies. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT. State resources must be
expanded to allow SEAs to provide more in-dept capacity-building activities, We
strongly support President Clinton's $200 million increase in the program
improvement earmarked for states and local districts to assist the 6,900 Title I
schools identified in greatest need of program improvement. This increase should
be in the reauthorization authority for state education agencies to use up to
2.5% of Title I funds to assist schools when student achievement fails to meet
standards. States must be able to bundle state, local and federal funds together
in comprehensive school-by school strategies. State accountability system are
identifying schools where achievement of eligible students is not accelerating
sufficiently to enable them to reach high standards. Yet the majority of states
are finding the .5% to 1% of Title I funds earmarked for program improvement to
fall far short of the needs of these schools. SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS. Schoolwide
programs are very important for schools with large concentrations of poverty. We
urge maintaining the 50 percent poverty criteria for school wide programs. Other
schools with special circumstances should have waiver options, such as those
provided by Ed Flex. Seattle just received a Department of Education waiver for
some schools with less than 50 percent poverty which needed to be able to use
funds from several programs, such as bilingual education, immigrant education
and migrant education with Title I to provide quality programs. The Council's
reauthorization proposal would provide a way for schools to organize and
delivery coherent, integrated instructional services for students eligible under
one or more of these programs, whether they are in schoolwide projects or not.
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM. The Comprehensive School Reform Program
(Porter-Obey) should be maintained and expanded as well. Comprehensive school
reform brings the best of the research based models to Title I schools,
including the lowest performing and highest poverty schools. It has provided a
strong incentive to schools to undertake focused and sustained improvement
planning and implementation efforts, such as those described in Washington's
research studies. New initiatives, such as the 21st Century after-school and
class size reduction programs, should also be components of Title I so they can
be integrated into the design of school-by-school change efforts and focused on
the kids with greatest needs. As part of Title I, these programs would be
administered by the SEAs to local education agencies, using the single
ESEA consolidated plans and application for efficiency and
effectiveness. The SEA would use up to one percent of funds to administer
programs. As stated earlier, education remains a local function, a state
responsibility and a federal priority. As educational reform efforts focus oil
accountability for student learning results, new roles at all three levels are
emerging. Educational excellence is attained when these roles are articulated,
respected and supported. The roles of states and districts have been denigrated
by those who claim they are not needed. However, schools can't do all the work
alone. The state has a critical role in providing standards and assessment
leadership and in supporting statewide educational technology systems and
regional delivery of technical services. Moreover, there is an essential role
for districts in providing services to schools so that they can concentrate
their efforts on instructional programs and teaching and learning. These
leadership roles should not and do not direct much money from local schools in
terms of quality. The return on these dollars is many times over the cost. They
leverage the use of those local dollars more effectively, Our Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Committee of the Washington State Legislature just completed a
study which documented a consistent spending pattern across wealthy and poor,
large and small districts. Ninety percent of funds are used for teaching and
learning - 60 percent for instruction, IO percent for instructional services,
and 20 percent for school level support services - with 10 percent used for
administration and technical services. This is consistent with another study
conducted in Washington by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Education. Emphasis should be given to the importance of
integrating all federal programs and funds, not just Title I, through
comprehensive state district and school plans which link federal funds with
state and local efforts. Integrated plans and expanded Ed Flex authority will
provide the necessary capacity for more effective use of Title I and other
ESEA resources. State, district and school accountability for
these funds should be tied to the performance results of our students. Since
these funds are allocated for students with a variety of special needs,
performance results should be disaggregated and reported by student population.
We would also ask the U.S. Education Department to work with states and
districts in developing models for effective integrated programs that will scale
up the success of education reform across all groups of students. I've been in
education for 35 years, as a teacher, a counselor, a teacher leader, a school
administrator, and now state superintendent. The past six years, have been the
most rewarding. I'm observing changes that I would never have dreamed possible.
The momentum for kids' learning has been established, and we urge you to help us
to keep moving toward the goal of "First in the World." If we stay the course,
continue to learn and be accountable, our students will compete successfully
with anything the world throws at them.
LOAD-DATE:
April 1, 1999 
