Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
10502 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
RICHARD
W. RILEY
SECRETARY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
OF 1965
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee:
I appreciate this opportunity to present the Administration's
views on the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965. The Administration is working on a detailed reauthorization
proposal that we plan to submit for your consideration next month. The
Department will also soon submit to Congress several reports evaluating the
implementation and impact of Title I, other ESEA programs, and Goals 2000. Today
I will provide an overview of our reauthorization efforts, as well as some of
our specific recommendations. If there is one overriding principle that defines
what we hope to accomplish, it is to end the tyranny of low expectations and
raise achievement levels for all of our young people.
Let me begin by urging
the Committee to develop a single, comprehensive bill reauthorizing the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Some have suggested an approach that
could lead to several separate bills. This concerns me, because we have worked
very hard with the Congress in recent years to develop a comprehensive approach
to Federal .support for education reform. If our efforts are to be successful,
it is very important for all the pieces to fit together, complementing and
reinforcing each other to help States, school districts, and.schools to make the
changes needed to raise achievement for all students. This is why the
Administration is developing a single, integrated reauthorization proposal, and
I hope you will do the same.
I also want to point out that with the nearly
simultaneous reauthorization of the Department's Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, we have a unique opportunity to develop a comprehensive agenda
for independent research to support improved practices and instruction in
elementary and secondary education. We should make every effort to develop
research-based solutions to the many challenges we face in elementary and
secondary education, and to get the best information on what works into the
hands of parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents across the Nation.
THE 1994 REAUTHORIZATION: A WATERSHED
This is, of course, this
Administration's second opportunity to work with Congress on improving the ESEA.
The 1994 reauthorization--the Improving America's Schools Act-reflected a
fundamental break with past practice in Federal efforts to promote excellence
and equity in the Nation's elementary and secondary schools. The 1994 Act took
direct aim at transforming a Federal policy that for too long had condoned low
expectations and low standards for poor children. Along with the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, the 1994 reauthorization reflected a bipartisan effort to
raise expectations for all children by helping States and school districts to
set high standards and establish goals for improving student achievement.
It
has been just four years, and many States and school districts are still phasing
in the 1994 Act, but already we have strong evidence of its positive impact on
teaching and learning. For example, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico have developed state-level standards and two States have pushed for
standards at the local level. More importantly, there are promising signs of
real progress toward meeting these higher standards in the classroom. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, has
shownsignificant increases in math scores at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades (See
Chart 1). The National Education Goals Panel reported that between 1990 and
1996, 27 States significantly increased the percentage of 8th graders scoring at
either the proficient or the advanced level on the NAEP math test (See Chart 2).
Yesterday, the National Center for Education Statistics released the latest
national report card on reading, and I find the results encouraging. As you can
see on Chart 3 in my testimony, average reading scores have increased for
students in grades 4, 8, and 12. I believe this is the first time we have seen
such across-the-board progress, and that is a hopeful sign indeed. Making sure
that every child can read well and independently by the end of the 3rd grade is
a key benchmark of whether or not American education is improving.
We also
have information showing progress in Title I, the flagship ESEA program that
targets assistance to disadvantaged and minority students in high-poverty
schools. Title I has contributed to the rapid development of challenging State
standards that apply to all students in Title I schools. Teachers in Title I
schools are increasingly reporting that standards are helping to guide
instruction. Moreover, preliminary data gathered for this reauthorization from
States that have implemented the Title I standards and assessment provisions
generally show increased achievement levels in high-poverty, schools.
For
the 1997-98 school year, 7 of the 10 States with standards and aligned
assessments in place for two years report increasing percentages of students
meeting proficient and advanced performance standards in schools with poverty
rates of at least 50 percent. These State-level data are particularly
encouraging since final assessments are not required to be in place until school
year 2000-2001. This and other information, including data indicating that Title
I is driving higher standards to poor districts and schools, will be discussed
in greater detail in the Congressionally mandated National Assessment of Title I
scheduled for release in late February.
Turning from the national to the
State level, individual States have made notable progress in a very short period
of time (See Chart 4). North Carolina, for example, more than doubled the
percentage of its 8th graders scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on
the NAEP math test, from 9 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1996. In Texas, the
percentage of 4th grade students reaching the NAEP proficient or advanced levels
rose from 15 percent in 1992 to 25 percent in 1996.
We also have evidence of
improving achievement in urban school districts enrolling significant numbers of
poor and minority children. In Signs of Progress, a 1998 report from the Council
of Great City Schools, 18 urban school districts reported increased scores on
national, State, and local achievement tests.
CHANGING THE WAY WE DO
BUSINESS
I believe we are seeing this progress in part because the 1994
reauthorization changed the way we do business at the Federal, State, and local
levels. The 1994 Act included provisions to improve teaching and learning,
increase flexibility and accountability for States and local school districts,
strengthen parent and community involvement, and target resources to the highest
poverty schools and communities. There is strong evidence that these
changes,particularly the emphasis on high standards and new flexibility to
innovate, have helped States and school districts carry out the hard work of
real education reform.
Setting High Standards
States that led
the way in adopting standards-based reforms - like Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, and Oregon - found new support from Federal programs that helped them
to raise reading and math achievement. In other States, the new ESEA and Goals
2000 encouraged and supported improvements in teaching and learning tied to high
standards. For example, in a report on Goals 2000 prepared by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of the Chairman of this Committee, we
were most pleased that State officials described Goals 2000 as "a significant
factor in promoting their education reform efforts" and a "catalyst" for change.
The National Education Goals Panel issued a report authored by the RAND
Corporation that examined the experience of North Carolina and Texas. This
report found that the "most plausible explanation"o for the test-score gains was
an "organizational environment and incentive structure" based on standards-based
reform, defined as "an aligned system of standards, curriculum, and
assessments;, holding schools accountable for improvement by all students; and
critical support from business." The report also tells us that the willingness
of political leaders to stay the course and continue the reform agenda, despite
"changes of Governors and among legislators," is another key element that has
defined the success of these two leading States, which enjoyed both the largest
achievement gains and significant progress in closing the achievement gap
between minority and majority students.
New Flexibility
At the
Department of Education, the 1994 reauthorization sparked a determined effort to
give States and school districts greater flexibility to make innovations that
help all students reach high standards. For example, we systematically examined
every Department regulation and set very specific criteria for regulating only
when absolutely necessary. The Office of Management and Budget has supported
this approach, and other Federal agencies have since adopted it as a model.
Under our new regulatory criteria, we found that we needed to issue regulations
for only five of the programs included in the 1994 ESEA reauthorization; thus we
eliminated a full two-thirds of the regulations previously covering the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Another major improvement was to give
States the option of submitting a single, consolidated State application,
instead of separate applications, for the majority of ESEA programs. Not
surprisingly, every State but one has adopted this approach, which both reduces
paperwork and encourages a comprehensive approach to planning for the use of
Federal funds. Moreover, States now submit their single plan just once during
the life of the authorization cycle, with brief yearly updates to ensure
accountability. States reported in fiscal year 1996 that the consolidated
application slashed paperwork requirements by 85 percent.
In addition, the
Department has vigorously implemented the waiver provisions included in the 1994
reauthorization, which permit States, school districts, and schools torequest
waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements that present an obstacle to
innovative reform efforts if there are adequate accountability safeguards in
place. Our efforts included a Waiver Hot Line as well as comprehensive waiver
guidance at our site on the World Wide Web.
Since the reauthorization of
ESEA in 1994, the Department has received 648 requests for waivers from States
and local districts and granted a total of 357 waivers. Overall, the Department
has approved 55 percent and disapproved 8 percent of all waivers requested. Of
the remainder, 28 percent were withdrawn largely because districts learned that
they had sufficient latitude or flexibility under existing law to proceed
without a waiver, demonstrating that the ESEA is more flexible than many people
thought even without the waiver authority.
Another approach to flexibility
is the ED-Flex demonstration program, which allows the Department to give States
with strong accountability mechanisms the authority to approve waivers of
certain Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in the way of
.effective reform at the local level. Congress has authorized up to 12 States to
participate in ED-Flex.
We are proposing to expand ED-Flex to allow all
eligible States to participate. I believe such an expansion should be considered
in the context of reauthorization and our emphasis on accountability for
results. ED-Flex can be an important tool for accelerating the pace of real
reform in our schools, but it must be done thoughtfully. ED-Flex cannot be used
to get around established civil fights protections, or to undermine the overall
purpose of helping disadvantaged children reach the same high standards as other
children.
Federal Education Dollars to the Local Level
One final issue I
want to touch on is the Department's performance in getting Federal education
dollars to the local level, where they can do the most good. There have been a
number of "dollars to the classroom" proposals over the past two years based on
the assumption that the Department of Education retains a significant portion of
Federal elementary and secondary appropriations to pay for administrative costs.
The truth is that over 95 percent of all the dollars appropriated by Congress
for ESEA programs already go to local school districts. Almost all of the rest
goes to States to provide technical assistance, to support the use of standards
and assessments, and to provide oversight. If the "95 percent" figure sounds
familiar, it is because some of those proposals I mentioned promise to send 95
percent of Federal dollars to the classroom.
I recognize that some may argue
about whether the "local level" is the same as "the classroom." My view is that
once the funds reach the local level, it is up to local elected school boards to
decide how best to spend them to achieve the purposes of the programs enacted by
the Congress.
I believe that these accomplishments--widespread adoption of
challenging standards, promising achievement gains nationally and even more
improvement in "leading-edge" States, and new flexibility for States and school
districts - show that we were on the right track in 1994. The evidence
demonstrates a clear connection between raising standards andraising student
achievement. The record also shows, however, that many States and districts are
still phasing in the 1994 reforms. Taken as a whole, this experience provides a
compelling argument for the Administration and Congress to keep working together
to help States and school districts get high standards into the classroom, and
to push for improved incentives and strengthened accountability mechanisms to
ensure that these reforms take hold.
DISTURBING GAPS REMAIN
The overall
progress I have described cannot hide the fact that disturbing gaps remain in
the educational performance of this Nation. In the areas of math and science,
for example, the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) provides the
latest evidence of a longstanding pattern of declining performance in math and
science as students move through our elementary and secondary schools. Our 4th
graders score among the best in the world in these subjects, our 8th graders are
in the middle of the pack, and the performance of our 12th graders in math and
science ranks near the bottom of the nations participating in TIMSS.
In
particular, progress toward closing the gap in achievement between disadvantaged
and minority students and their more advantaged peers has stalled in recent
years. Yesterday's NAEP reading report only confirmed-what many other studies
have shown over the past several years: children in poverty, defined in this
case as those who receive free and reduced-price lunch, are almost twice as
likely as other children to read below the basic level.
These achievement
gaps are mirrored and exacerbated by two key systemic problems that we will try
to address through our reauthorization proposal: the teacher gap and the
accountability gap.
Too Many Unqualified Teachers in Our Classrooms
Research shows that qualified teachers are the most important in- school
factor in improving student achievement, yet more than 30 percent of newly hired
teachers are entering the teaching profession without full certification, and
over 11 percent enter the field with no license at all.
Our ability to raise
academic standards also is hindered by teachers teaching "out of field.
" Overall, nearly 28 percent of teachers have neither an undergraduate
major nor minor in their main assignment fields. Another significant concern is
the practice of using teacher aides as the primary instructors. All of these
individuals are trying to do their best, but where they are being asked to take
the place of a teacher we are shortchanging our students.
High-poverty urban
schools are most likely to suffer from unqualified teachers. The National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future reported in 1996 that "in schools
with the highest minority enrollments, students have less than a 50% chance of
getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a license and a degree in the
field he or she teaches."
We cannot expect our students to reach high
standards until every classroom is led by an experienced teacher capable of
teaching to high standards. We must do more to ensure teacher quality,
particularly in high-poverty schools.
Accountability Mechanisms Are Weak in
Many States
Many States are not yet implementing proven practices that are
working in some of the States that are making the most rapid progress. According
to recent special report on accountability in Education Week, 36 states issue
school report cards, 14 do not, and fewer than half of the parents in States
that do issue report cards are aware of their existence.
The report also
tells us that only 19 States provide assistance to low performing schools, and
only 16 States have the authority to reconstitute or close down failing schools.
Only about half the States require students to demonstrate that they have met
standards in order to graduate, and too many still promote students who are
unprepared from grade to grade. We need to provide incentives for all States to
develop and implement strong accountability mechanisms.
THE NEXT STAGE:
RAISING ACHIEVEMENT IN OUR SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS
The teacher gap and the
accountability gap provide the broader context for our ESEA reauthorization
proposals. To close these gaps - and the achievement gaps that they
perpetuate--we have developed a comprehensive, three-part strategy of (l)
targeting investments to disadvantaged children, with particular attention to
the early years of schooling; (2) improving teacher quality, and (3) real
accountability. All these pieces need to fit together if we want to raise
achievement levels.
First, our investments in Title I, the Class-Size
Reduction program, the Reading Excellence Act, education technology, and
after-school programs--to name just a few - are all part of our effort to get
communities and their teachers and principals the resources they need to raise
achievement for all students. We have put a real emphasis on the early years of
schooling because research and common sense tells you that if a young person can
"master the basics" early, they get off to a much better start in their
education.
We want to improve academic achievement for all students, with a
special emphasis on closing the gap upward between poor and minority students
and other students. This is why, for example, we are such strong supporters of
reducing class size in the early grades. Research from the Tennessee STAR study
demonstrated that reducing class sizes in the early grades led to higher
achievement for all students, with poor and minority students showing the
greatest gains.
Second, we think it is absolutely essential to put a highly
qualified, dedicated teacher in every classroom in America. John Stanford, the
inspiring former superintendent from Seattle who recently passed away, had this
marvelous slogan that summed up his philosophy: "the victory is in the
classroom." If we are going to achieve many more victories in the classroom, we
simply have to raise teacher quality and get many more certified teachers into
our Title I schools. This is why we asked the Congress to create a strong
teacher quality initiative in the Higher Education Act reauthorization last
year. Our intent here is to makehigh standards part of every teacher's daily
lesson plans. I will discuss this part of our proposal in greater detail later
on in my testimony.
Third, we want to support Governors and States that are
putting into place strong mechanisms to hold districts, schools, principals, and
teachers accountable for student achievement. And we want to provide incentives
to those States and communities that have been slow to undertake the hard work
and difficult decisions entailed by real accountability.
Strengthening
Accountability
President Clinton's State of the Union address highlighted a
package of accountability measures that forms the core of our approach to
accountability in the ESEA reauthorization. Stronger accountability is the third
part of our broad strategy of improvement. These measures build on the
accountability provisions included in the 1994 reauthorization, and are critical
to ensuring that the substantial Federal investment in elementary and secondary
education is used wisely and actually produces the desired results for all of
our children. Much of our thinking about accountability has been informed by
successful accountability initiatives at the local and State levels. The most
thoughtful education leaders at the State and local level are doing what we are
proposing: they are ending social promotion, requiring school report cards,
identifying low-performing schools, improving discipline in schools and
classrooms, and putting in place measurable ways to make chan such as basic
skills exams at different grade levels. They are striking a careful balance
between giving schools the increased support and flexibility they need to raise
achievement levels and, at the same time, holding schools accountable when they
do not measure up to clearly established goals. We are trying to strike that
same balance in our reauthorization proposals.
Our emphasis on
accountability in ESEA, and in particular in Title I, seeks to build on,
support, and encourage these growing State and local efforts to pick up the pace
of standardsbased reform. Here it is important to recognize that we are not
talking about more regulations. We want better results. There is both a moral
and a fiscal dimension to being more accountable. We cannot afford to lose the
talents of one child, and we cannot waste the substantial resources entrusted to
us by American taxpayers.
The "either/or" thinking that has dominated the
public debate about our accountability proposals--more Federal control versus
less local control--really misses the point entirely about what we seek to
achieve. If a State is putting its own accountability measures into place, we
are not demanding that they replace their measures with our measures. But if a
State does not have such requirements in place, then it makes a good deal of
sense for them to adopt our proposals. We expect States to do this because it is
good education policy and the right thing to do for the children.
Our
approach to increased accountability is one of graduated response, a range of
options--some positive and others more prescriptive--that can help break the
mold and get low-performing schools moving in a more positive direction. On the
positive side of the continuum, we give school districts greater flexibility if
we see that they are making progress. But if a school or a school district
simply isn't making things happen, we want to work withState and local officials
to find out why and shake things up. The local school district, for example, may
not be giving teachers the real professional development time they need.
If
a school district is refusing to change, we are prepared to be much more
specific about how it uses ESEA funding. We do not intend to be passive in the
face of failure. We will help, nudge, prod, and demand action. And, if we have
to, we are prepared to restrict or withhold ESEA funding.
We recognize that
a complete accountability system should be multi- dimensional and include high
expectations and accountability for everyone in the system. All of us are
responsible for ensuring that all students reach high standards. The
accountability measures in our reauthorization proposal will be designed to (1)
help school districts and states provide students with a high-quality education,
(2) focus on continuous improvement, and (3) hold students, teachers,
principals, schools, and districts to high standards.
It is important to
note that our proposed accountability measures reinforce and build on similar
provisions enacted in 1994. For example, the underlying structure of the Title I
accountability provisions is sound, and a minority of States are hard at work
emphasizing continuous improvement and holding schools and principals
accountable for results.
Many States, however, have not fully
implemented the Title I provisions and have moved only tentatively to make other
changes based on high standards and accountability.
We seek to speed up and
strengthen the process by requiring States to take immediate action to turn
around low-performing schools, to give parents annual report cards, to end
social promotion, to improve teacher quality, and to have well-thought-out
discipline policies in place that make a difference.
Meeting State Standards
First, we would retain the current Title I requirement that States establish
assessments aligned with State content and performance standards by the
2000-2001 school year. States must also define adequate yearly progress for
Title I schools and local school districts in a manner that would result in
continuous progress toward meeting State standards within a reasonable time
frame.
Turning Around the Lowest Performing Schools
Second, States
should take immediate corrective action to turn around the lowest performing
schools. Currently, there are over 6,500 schools and 1,300 school districts
designated under Title I as needing improvement. These schools and districts
were placed in school- improvement status afng little or no improvement over a
period of two years. Many of these schools are still showing no improvement
despite receiving additional support. We are saying our children have spent
enough time in low-performing schools--it is time to take action now.
States
should quickly identify the lowest performing schools that are failing to show
improvement and provide additional support and assistance. If any school
continues to show no improvement, States should take bold action such as
reconstituting the school or closingthe school down entirely and reopening it as
a fresh new school. The Department's 2000 budget request includes a $200 million
set-aside in Title I to help jumpstart this process of State and district
intervention in the lowest performing schools.
Annual Report Cards
Third, annual report cards at the State, district, and school levels should
be a requirement for receiving ESEA funds. The report cards should provide
invaluable information on improvement over time or the lack thereof. They should
include information on student achievement, teacher quality, class size, school
safety, attendance, and graduation requirements. Where appropriate, the student
achievement data should be disaggregated by demographic subgroups to allow a
greater focus on the gaps between disadvantaged students and other students.
For report cards to make sense, they need to be easily understood by and
widely distributed to parents and the public. As I indicated earlier, while 36
States already require report cards, many parents and teachers from these States
say that they have never seen them. Our proposal,is intended to give parents a
tool they can use to join the debate over bringing high standards into the
classroom, to advocate on behalf of their children and their children's schools,
and to work with teachers and principals to make improvements.
I assure you,
if parents find out that their children are going to an unruly or unsafe school,
there will be standing-room only at the next school board meeting and that can
be a very good thing. If parents discover that test scores are down at their
school but up at a nearby school, they will start asking questions and spark
reform. In short, a good, honest report card gives parents a real accountability
tool that allows them to make a difference in the education of their children.
Separately, we have proposed an additional test that can help parents
determine if their children are measuring up: the voluntary national tests in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math. The independent, bipartisan National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is developing a plan for this test, in
accordance with language in the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act. I ask the
Committee to join me in looking carefully at this plan when NAGB announces it
later in the spring.
Ending Social Promotion
Fourth, all States
receiving ESEA funds should end the practice of social promotion. I want to be
clear that in calling for an end to social promotion we are not encouraging
school districts to retain students in grade; instead, we are asking school
districts to prepare children to high standards. That is why we have pushed so
hard for programs like Class Size Reduction, the Reading Excellence Act, and the
21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school initiative, which invest in
the early years and help to minimize the number of children at risk of retention
in grade.
Research indicates that from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who
graduate from high school and have not gone further--up to 340,000 students each
year--cannot balance a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to
explain an error on a bill. In addition,about 450,000 to 500,000 young people
drop out of high school between the 10th and 12th grades. These are the young
people who are hurt by current practices. We need to make sure these students
are given the support they need to succeed. The President's call for an end to
social promotion is designed to tell students that"performance counts," and to
encourage districts and schools to take aggressive action to help all students
meet promotion standards on time. States should target their efforts at key
transition points, such as 4th, 8th, and 10th grades, and should use multiple
measures, such as valid assessments and teacher evaluations, to determine if
students have met the high standards required for promotion to the next grade.
States would develop their own specific approaches to match their unique
circumstances.
Strategies to end social promotion include early
identification and intervention for students who need additional help--including
appropriate accommodations and supports for students with disabilities.
After-school and summer-school programs, for example, can provide extended
learning time for students who need extra help to keep them from having to
repeat an entire grade.
Ensuring Teacher Quality
Fifth, States must do
more to ensure teacher quality. States receiving ESEA funds should adopt
challenging competency tests for new teachers, phase out the use of uncertified
teachers, and reduce the number of teachers who are teaching "out of field." I
know the Members of this Committee share our concern about teacher quality, and
we want to work with you to address that concern.
Less than two weeks ago,
we released our first biannual report on Teacher Quality. In developing this
report, we are making a statement that we are going to keep coming back to the
issue of teacher quality again and again. The report told us that less than half
of America's teachers feel very well-prepared to teach in the modem classroom.
Teachers cited four areas of concern: using technology, teaching children from
diverse cultures, teaching children with disabilities, and helping limited
English proficient (LEP) students (See Chart 5). This study really is a cry for
help and we need to respond.
Our ESEA reauthorization proposal would begin
to address these problems by ensuring that States adopt challenging competency
examinations for all new teachers that would include assessments of
subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills. We would also work to phase out
the use of teacher aides as instructors in Title I schools, but at the same time
encourage paraprofessionals to become certified teachers by supporting State and
local efforts to build career ladders leading to certification. Our proposal
will ensure that States make significant progress in reducing both the number of
teachers with emergency certificates and the number of teachers teaching
subjects for which they lack adequate preparation.
The issue of improving
teacher quality is also of great importance to all of us who want to improve the
education of children with disabilities. The ESEA is meant to serve all children
and there are growing numbers of children with disabilities who have been
successfully mainstreamed into regular classrooms. The ESEA and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act can work together
to make a real difference for many more of thesechildren. The Teacher Quality
report told us that the majority of our teachers do not feel as well- prepared
as they should to teach children with disabilities. We want to work very hard to
make sure that all teachers have the skills and the tools they need to teach
these children to high standards.
We made a good start in improving
teacher quality last year when Congress passed-with strong bipartisan
support--the new teacher recruitment and training programs in Title II of the
reauthorized Higher Education Act. Our ESEA reauthorization plan would build on
this success by providing resources to help States strengthen teacher-
certification standards. It also will include--in the new Teacher Quality and
High Standards in Every Classroom initiative--increased investment in the
high-quality professional development that teachers tell us they need to help
all students meet challenging new State standards.
TITLE I
I have
described some of the key, cross-cutting measures for getting high standards
into all classrooms. Now I would like to outline some program-specific issues
and recommendations, beginning with Title I, which is the largest Federal
investment in elementary and secondary education. This $7.7 billion program
reaches more than 45,000 schools in over 13,000 school districts. With the
expansion of schoolwide projects following the last reauthorization, the program
now serves over 11 million students. In the 1996-97 school year, 36 percent of
the children served were white, 30 percent were Hispanic, and 28 percent were
African-American. Seventeen percent of the children served were limited English
proficient.
Historically, Title I has been the single largest source of
Federal funding targeted to raising the achievement levels of students in
high-poverty schools and helping to close the achievement gap between these
children and their more advantaged peers. The 1994 reauthorization focused on
helping children in high poverty schools reach the same high standards expected
of all students. In particular, States were required to develop content and
performance standards in reading and math, with aligned assessments to measure
student progress toward meeting the standards.
In looking at the impact of
Title I, we should keep in mind, that despite its size and prominence at the
Federal level, Title I represents about three percent of national spending on
elementary and secondary education. Title I is effective only when it works in
partnership with much larger State and local resources. Nevertheless, Title I
can and should do more to assist State and local efforts to raise the
educational achievement level of poor and minority children, and this is what we
are trying to achieve through our reauthorization proposals.
The 1994
reauthorization improved targeting of resources, expanded the schoolwide
approach, and strengthened parental involvement. With regard to targeting, the
GAO recently reported that Federal programs are much more targeted than State
programs. On average, for every $1 a State provided in education aid for each
student in a district, the State provided an additional $0.62 per poor student.
In contrast, for every $1 of Federal funding districts received for each
student, they received an additional $4.73 in Federal funding per poor student.
We believe targeting works, and we recommend leaving in place the Title I
allocation formula adopted by the Congress in 1994.The 1994 Act expanded
schoolwide programs by permitting schools with poor children making up at least
50 percent of their enrollment to use Title I funds in combination with other
Federal, State, and local funds to upgrade the instructional program of the
entire school. Since 1995, the number of schools implementing schoolwide
programs has more than tripled, from about 5,000 to approximately 16,000. Our
reauthorization proposal would maintain the 50-percent threshold for schoolwide
programs.
Parents of Title I children are now more fully involved in their
children's education through the use of parent compacts called for in the 1994
Act. I want to stress that getting parents involved in the process of school
reform is often the spark that makes the difference. ( have been a strong
advocate of increased parental involvement in education for many years and there
is a good reason for it. Parents are children's first teachers and they set the
expectations that tell children how hard they should strive to achieve. Teachers
tell us again and again that parents are too often the missing pan of the
education success equation.
If you look at the chart entitled "Parent
Involvement Counts," you will see why we are placing such a strong emphasis on
developing compacts between parents and schools for our Title I children (See
Chart 6). Four years ago, we created the Partnership for Family Involvement in
Education with 40 organizations. This Partnership has since grown to 4,700
organizations and it continues to grow quite rapidly. To give you one example of
its activities, last month the Partnership sent out a detailed guide of best
practices on how teachers can work better with parents.
Proposed Changes to
Title I
Building on what we have learned since 1994, our reauthorization
proposal would continue to hold at-risk children in high-poverty schools to the
same high standards expected of all children and to link Title I to State and
local reforms based on high standards. We also would continue targeting
resources to areas of greatest need, supporting flexibility at the local level
to determine instructional practices, and encouraging more effective
implementation of schoolwide programs. Title I schools would, of course, be
subject to the accountability provisions that we would apply to all ESEA
programs. Specific improvements to Title I would include targeting additional
resources to help the lowest achieving schools and phasing out the use of
teacher aides as instructors in Title I schools. We also would strengthen the
schoolwide authority by borrowing some of the successful features of the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program, such as basing reforms on
solid research about what works. And in response to a key recommendation of the
reading study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), we are
proposing the use of diagnostic assessments in the first grade to ensure the
early identification of children with reading difficulties. In addition to these
proposals, we are giving serious consideration to phasing in a set-aside within
Title I for professional development aligned to standards.
With regard to
family literacy, an issue that I know is very important to the Chairman of this
Committee, the Department is considering changes that would further clarify
existing opportunities for using Title I funds to provide family literacy
services. Additionally, we maypropose amendments to Even Start that would build
upon the quality improvement amendments included in the Reading Excellence Act.
The Department also is considering proposals to promote high quality
professional development for early childhood educators and others to help
children develop better language and literacy skills in the early years. The
NAT's reading study presented strong evidence that children who receive
enrichment services focused on language and cognitive development in early
childhood show significantly higher reading achievement in the later elementary
and middle school years. We believe that professional development based on
recent research on child language and literacy development--including strategies
that could be shared with parents--could make a significant contribution toward
the goal of ensuring that every child can read well by the end of the 3rd grade.
Our proposal would target those children most at risk of experiencing difficulty
in learning to read by working with early childhood educators in Head Start and
Title I pre-K programs.
- Separately, we support the continuation of the
Comprehensive School Reform 'Demonstration program, which we believe is
generating some good models for improving the effectiveness.of the broader Title
I program and for strengthening both Title I and non-Title I schools.
QUALITY TEACHERS AND HIGH STANDARDS IN EVERY CLASSROOM
While every State
has developed high standards, States and districts now need significant support
to continue the hard work of turning these high expectations into classroom
realities. This is why we are proposing a new initiative called Quality Teachers
and High Standards in Every Classroom. This initiative would help States and
school districts continue the work of aligning instruction with State standards
and assessments, while focusing most resources on improving teacher quality
through high-quality professional development. Our proposal would build on and
succeed the current Goals 2000, Title II, and Title VI programs.
The
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that the biggest
impediment to improving teaching was the lack of access to the kinds of
knowledge and skills teachers need to help students succeed. We know from the
Commission's report that most school districts do not direct their professional
development funds in a coherent way toward sustained, standards-based,
practical, and useful' learning opportunities for teachers. We need to provide
teachers with opportunities to change instructional practices in order to ensure
that all children are taught to high standards.
Just as we have real
concerns about improving teacher quality, we need to recognize the growing
shortage of qualified principals. I was struck by a recent article in The
Washington Post, which indicated that about 50 percent of all schools face a
shortage of qualified principal candidates. That is a very heavy statistic.
Unfortunately, we have not done enough to support the professional growth of
teachers and principals. Currently, most school districts spend less than three
percent of their budgets on professional development, while our best private
companies spend as much as10 percent to ensure that their employees have quality
training and keep current in their work. If we expect the best from our
students, we need to ensure that we are giving our teachers the best support
possible. And, we know it works. In New York City's District 2, former
Superintendent Tony Alvarado made major investments in professional
development-investments that paid off in marked improvement in student
achievement.
The 1994 reauthorization included a greater focus on
research-based principles of professional development in the Eisenhower
Professional Development program. Despite this emphasis, recent evaluations of
the Eisenhower professional development program found that most districts did
not receive enough funding to support the kind of on-going, intensive
professional development that works best to improve teaching skills.
As we
move into the next phase of getting high standards into schools and classrooms,
we must give States and districts the flexibility they need to strengthen their
local efforts to implement standards and to improve teacher quality. States
could use these funds to continue the development of standards and assessments
and provide leadership to districts working to align instruction with these
standard, and assessments and to improve professional development,for teachers.
School districts would use their funds to implement standards in schools and to
invest in professional development-in core subject areas, with a priority on
science and mathematics.
States and districts would also be able to use
these funds to meet new ESEA teacher quality requirements related to the
implementation and improvement of competency-based assessments for initial
licensure, the reduction of the number of teachers on emergency credentials, and
the reduction of the number of teachers teaching out of field.
Funds would
be used to advance teacher understanding and use of best instructional practices
in one or more of the core academic content areas, with a primary focus on math
and science. The initiative also is designed to complement the strong emphasis
on professional development throughout our ESEA reauthorization proposal,
including Title I, the Reading Excellence Act, and Title VII.
We would
support activities to assist new teachers during their first three years in
classroom, including additional time for course preparation and lesson planning,
mentoring and coaching by trained mentor teachers, observing and consulting with
veteran teachers, and team-teaching with veteran teachers.
Veteran teachers
would be encouraged to participate in collaborative professional development
based on the standards developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. The initiative also would support district-wide professional
development plans designed to help students meet State academic standards, the
integration of educational technology into classroom practice, and efforts to
develop the next generation of principals.
SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE
SCHOOLS
The Administration's plans for reauthorizing the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act have actually taken shape over the past few years in
our annual budget requests. These proposals have been designed to strengthen the
program by improving accountability and by targeting funds to local educational
agencies with (1) significant drug and violence prevention problems and (2)
high-quality, research- based programs to address those problems.
Our
reauthorization proposal would build on these earlier efforts by emphasizing a
schoolwide approach to drag and violence prevention. All school districts
receiving funds would be required to develop a comprehensive Safe and Drug-Free
Schools plan to ensure that they have a drug-free, safe, and disciplined
learning environment. These plans would include fair and effective discipline
policies, safe passage to and from schools, effective research-based drug and
violence prevention policies, and links to after-school programs. These plans
would also have to reflect the "principles of effectiveness" that the Department
recently established, which include the adoption of research-based strategies,
setting measurable goals and objectives for drug and violence prevention, and
regular evaluation of progress toward these goals and objectives.
Program
funds would be distributed in larger, more effective grants, because our
proposal would require States to award competitive grants to a limited number of
high-need districts. Program evaluations have consistently found that the
current practice of allocating funds by formula to all districts spreads funds
too thinly to have a significant impact in most districts. For example, about
three-fifths of districts currently receive grants of less than $10,000, with
the average grant providing only about $5 per student.
Our reauthorization
plan also would continue the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program, an
interagency initiative that provides competitive grants to help school districts
and communities to develop and implement comprehensive, community-wide
strategies for creating safe and drug-free schools and for promoting healthy
childhood development. Similarly, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator
Initiative would be continued under our proposal.
We also will propose to
authorize the Department to provide emergency services, especially mental health
and counseling services, to schools affected by the kind of violence we saw last
year in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. This is the
$12 million Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence) initiative
included in the President's 2000 budget request. Our reauthorization plan also
would set aside a small amount of funding at the State level to support similar
emergency response activities.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Since the creation
of Title III in the last ESEA reauthorization, the Federal government has helped
States and school districts make significant progress in bringing technology
into the classroom and making sure that teachers are prepared to effectively
integrate technology throughout the curriculum.With the support of Congress, the
Department has delivered over $1 billion to States through the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund. This investment is helping to increase the number of
classrooms connected to the Internet--just 27 percent in 1997--and has helped
decrease the student-computer ratio from 38 students per multimedia computer to
13 students per multimedia computer.
By early March, $1.9 billion dollars in
E-Rate discounts will be provided to the Nation's schools and libraries. This
means that over the summer, the number of poor schools that are connected to the
Internet will rise dramatically. These discounts will also provide affordable
access to advanced telecommunications and ensure that all of our schools are
active participants in the technological revolution.
To reduce the "digital
divide" that could widen the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and
their wealthier peers, we propose to strengthen the targeting provisions of the
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Just 63 percent of high-poverty schools had
connections to the Internet in 1998, compared to 88 percent of low- poverty
schools. The disparity is even greater at the classroom level, with only 14
percent of classrooms connected to the Internet in high- poverty schools,
compared to 34 percent of classrooms in low-poverty schools.
Federal dollars
are helping to narrow this digital divide. High- poverty schools received over
two-and-one-half times more new computers than their low-poverty counterparts in
recent years. We will make a special effort to address the needs of rural
America, where technologies like distance learning can make a real difference,
and to coordinate ESEA technology programs with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Technology Development
Program, which expands access to innovations in technology to students with
disabilities.
Helping teachers integrate technology into their daily lesson
plans will be another special focus.
Currently, only 20 percent of our
teachers feel qualified to integrate technology throughout the curriculum. The
reauthorization proposal for Title III will focus on supporting State and local
efforts to improve teacher quality, with a priority for developing partnerships
between local school districts, institutes of higher education, and other
entities.
We also want to strengthen our evaluation efforts to find proven
and promising models of how technology is improving achievement that we can
bring to scale.
SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) are the fastest growing
population served by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. According to
State educational agency data, the number of LEP students grew 67 percent
between the 1990-91 and 1996-97 academic years.
Growing numbers of LEP
students are in States and communities that have little prior experience in
serving them. For example, between the 1992-93 and 1996-97 school years, the LEP
population more than doubled in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee.The President's
goal is to hold schools accountable for ensuring that LEP students can speak and
read English after three consecutive years in our schools. We are not proposing
to cut off services to students after three years. To the contrary, schools must
continue to help students until they become proficient in English.
We are
equally committed to ensuring that LEP students reach challenging academic
standards in all content areas. We also want to assure that States and school
districts have the flexibility they need to provide the most appropriate
instruction for each child.
I told you earlier that we cannot afford to
waste the talents of one child. One of America's greatest strengths has always
been her diversity of peoples. Today, immigrants and their children are
revitalizing our cities, energizing our culture, and building up our economy. We
have a responsibility to make them welcome here and to help them be part of the
American success story.
Our reauthorization proposal.for the Title VII
bilingual education provisions seeks to achieve these goals by emphasizing the
same two key strategies we are pursuing throughout the ESEA: improving teacher
quality and strengthening accountability.
To increase teacher quality, for
example, all institutions of higher education applying for Title VII grants
would be required to show that their teacher education programs include
preparation for all teachers serving LEP students.
To strengthen
accountability, we would require both Title VII grantees and Title I schools to
annually assess the progress of LEP students in attaining English proficiency.
These assessments will be used to inform parents of their children's progress
and to help schools improve instruction.
LEP students who have been in U.S.
schools for less than three years would continue to be included in the Title I
assessment system, but after three years reading assessments would be conducted
in English. Schools and districts would be held responsible, as part of the
larger ESEA accountability provisions, for ensuring that LEP students reach the
three-year English language proficiency goal.
I also believe that America's
children need to become much more fluent in other languages. We are very far
behind other nations when it comes to giving our students a mastery of other
languages. There are teenagers in Europe who can easily speak three languages. I
am certain we can do a much better job at giving our students both a mastery of
English and fluency in at least one foreign language. There are currently over
200 two-way bilingual education programs that teach English and a foreign
language and allow all students to truly develop proficiency in both languages.
EXCELLENCE AND OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION
As I travel around the
country visiting schools, I continue to see the spark of innovation and
creativity in many public schools. Public education is changing quite rapidlyat
the ground level and offering parents many more options in the terms of the type
of schools their children can attend and the courses they can take.
This
Administration is a strong advocate of public school choice as a way to
encourage and stimulate the creative efforts of school districts to give parents
the opportunity to find a school that best fits the needs of their children.
Some discussions about choice suggest that there is choice only outside of
public education. Well, that is an assumption that I want to challenge because
it really has no basis in fact.
You can go to school district after school
district and find schools- within-schools, magnet schools, school-to-work
initiatives, high schools collaborating with local colleges, and option and
theme schools that focus in on specialized fields like the environment, the
visual and performing arts, communications and technology, back-to- basics,
classical studies, marine science, accelerated learning, the international
baccalaureate, finance, and medical sciences.
There is a great deal of
variety in public education at the local level, from alternative schools to
community-based learning efforts, to schools-without-walls, to public schools
that focus in on the core- knowledge approach to education. There are public
school districts like Seattle that have a completely open choice model and many
other school districts that offer intra-district choice, inter-district choice,
and controlled choice. Critics of public education would do well to recognize
that many public school districts are far more in touch with parents than they
think and are giving parents the choices they seek.
I want to stress that
one of the most important choices that parents can make about a child's
education is the choice of subjects and not schools. We have a growing body of
research showing that courses students choose in middle and high school are
powerful predictors of success--from mastery of high-level math to gaining
entrance to top colleges and universities. The best schools in America--whether
they are public, private or parochial--all share something in common: they place
a strong emphasis on a rigorous and engaging academic program. This is what
makes these schools distinctive, and it is what makes them work.
That is why
President Clinton has spent six years advocating the idea that by raising
standards, exciting families about their children's education, and putting
quality teachers into every classroom, we can raise achievement for many, many
more of our students--and indeed, someday soon, hopefully all of our students:
That is the best public policy for us to support. Private school voucher
programs affect only a small number of students, divert us from our goal of high
standards for all children, and take scarce resources from the public schools
that serve around 90 percent of America's children.
While the Administration
strongly opposes efforts to divert public funds to private schools through
vouchers or similar proposals, we want to encourage the development of new
choices within the public school system. This is why we worked very closely with
Congress to reauthorize the Charter School legislation that fosters creativity
with accountability.
This year we are proposing a new choice authority that
would help us identify and support new approaches to public school choice, such
as inter-district magnet schools andworksite schools, and promote a new, broader
version of choice that works within all public schools.
We are interested in
promoting public school choice programs in which the schools and programs are
public and accountable for results, are genuinely open and accessible to all
students, and promote high standards for all students. There are many successful
public schools that can provide models for improving low-performing schools, and
one of our goals must be to find ways to help States and local school districts
to replicate these successful models by leveraging "what works" for our
children's education.
MODERNIZING SCHOOLS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
An
additional priority for the Administration is to help communities build and
renovate the school buildings they will need to help all students reach
challenging standards. The General Accounting Office has reported that States
and school districts face over $112 billion in repairs to existing schools.
In addition, many schools face severe overcrowding as a result of the
"baby boom echo." The truth of the matter is that America's schools are
overcrowded and wearing out. The average school in America is over 40 years old
and we know that school buildings begin to deteriorate once they become that
old.
The Administration is proposing $25 billion in bonding authority to
finance the construction or renovation of up to 6,000 schools. As pan of the
President's tax legislation, the Federal government will provide bondholders
with tax credits in lieu of interest payments. State and local bond issuers will
be responsible for repayment of principal. In addition, through the reauthorized
ESEA, we would make grants to involve citizens in designing schools that reflect
the needs of the entire community. The President's 2000 budget would provide $10
million for these grants under the Fund for the Improvement of Education.
Teaching and learning is changing and the schools we build need to reflect
these changes, and be much more open to the community as whole. The generation
of schools we build now are going to be around for a good 40 to 50 years and
they ought to be built in such a way that they are true centers of community and
anchors for livable communities. We have found that engaging citizens in the
process of planning and designing schools also encourages people to save money
and share resources. Placing an elementary school next to a Senior citizen
center, for example, can be beneficial to everyone.
CONCLUSION
These are
just the highlights of a comprehensive reauthorization proposal that will span a
dozen or so titles affecting nearly every area of Federal support for the
Nation's elementary and secondary schools. I encourage you to give careful
consideration to our full proposal when it is completed next month, and I look
forward to discussing the specific details of our plan as your work on your
legislation.
The framework for all of our thinking is the clear recognition
that the days of "dumbing down" American education are over. We want to "achieve
up" and raise expectations for all of our young people. As I have said so many
times before, our children are smarter than we think. We can and surely will
debate the merits of the policy ideas thatwe are putting forward today and that
is healthy. Let us find common ground, however, around the idea that we have
both a moral and social obligation to give the poorest of our young people the
help they need to get a leg-up in life and be part of the American success
story.
As I travel around the country visiting schools, I really do get a
sense that things are happening, that a very strong consensus has developed
about what needs to be done to improve our schools. All the elements are coming
together: a new emphasis on early childhood, better reading skills, high
expectations for all of our young people, and accountability for results. We are
moving in the right direction and we need to stay the course to get results and
always remember that "the victory is in the classroom."
In conclusion, I
want assure you that the Administration is prepared to work with the Congress to
help and support local and State educators and leaders who are striving to raise
achievement levels. I hope that in the process, a new bipartisan spirit can
evolve around education issues. The last few years have been somewhat
contentious here in Washington, 'and we need to give a better account of
ourselves to the American people.
I will be happy to take any questions you
may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 13, 1999
