Tucson lawmaker tells education panel she will vote against reauthorization unless "substantial revisions" are made
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords delivered the following testimony this afternoon to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
The committee is considering reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. Today's hearing was the latest in a series of hearings over the past year in an effort by the committee to understand the impact of the federal education law.
Giffords recently organized two education summits in Southern Arizona and received testimony from teachers, students, parents and educators. Their comments were the basis of her statement to the Committee on Education and Labor.
Testimony of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
No Child Left Behind Act
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor
May 16, 2007
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to share the concerns and opinions that citizens in Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District have expressed to me with their heartfelt passion. Let me begin by expressing my support for the goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). We must raise student achievement, close achievement gaps, and ensure that every child is taught by a highly-qualified teacher. How we best do this is the fundamental question that must be answered before the reauthorization vote. All of us - Republican, Democrats, and Independents - care deeply about the education of our children, and our task is to carefully consider how we will move forward with meaningful changes to No Child Left Behind. In March, I convened two major Education Summits in a rural and an urban area in my district. More than 300 school administrators, parents, teachers, support personnel, business leaders and students from Santa Cruz, Cochise and Pima County in Southern Arizona testified about their concerns with the law. Not once did I hear from an educator or a parent who wanted less accountability. They all shared the desire to see students achieve at high levels and realize their academic potential. However, everyone that testified also wanted to see profound changes made to NCLB. I agree with their assessment, and I stand here before you today to state my opinion that Congress must fix No Child Left Behind. While there are several serious issues in K-12 education that must be addressed - class size, teacher pay, working conditions - I will focus my testimony today on the most frequently voiced concerns from my Education Summits.
Sadly, many children in my district are being “left behind” because promised funding for individualized instruction, remediation, class size reduction and professional development has not been made available. The federal government must provide our schools and school districts with the resources they need to comply with the terms of the law. Arizona received $251 million less than the $511 million authorized level in the 2007 budget (U.S. Department Of Education). If the federal government is going to make demands of local schools, then they should also accept their responsibility as a partner for reform and fund the mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act.
Assessment of Special Education Students and English Language Learners (ELLs)
The testimony at my Summits came through loud and clear regarding the problems with how we assess special education students and English Language Learners. My congressional district in Southern Arizona includes many school districts with a high percentage of ELL students. We must provide common-sense flexibility for assessing test scores from these students. We need to extend the time period before ELL students’ test scores are included in a school’s Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) or assess them in their native language for the core content subjects. A principal from the Sierra Vista school district stated, “The current regulations for [ELL students] are inappropriate and often hurtful to children. Making a child who only speaks Chinese or Spanish take a test in English is cruel…” We face a similar dilemma with special education students. One of the largest groups to testify at my Education Summits was special education teachers, aides and parents. This group was angry and frustrated. One Special Education teacher stated, “making a child who reads at the 2nd grade level take a 5th grade level test only serves to hurt the child’s self esteem and does nothing to actually evaluate the progress the child has made.” We need to allow the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) teams to determine the appropriate assessment and standards, and these collaborative IEP goals should serve as the evaluation for these students. Adequate funding is necessary to provide additional training for teachers and teacher aides who work with these challenging student populations. A parent of a child with autism testified that “many special education children are left behind because their teachers do not have the training to employ new research-based strategies that are available.” Current law does not serve these student populations well, is frustrating educators, and, in many cases, does not reflect the learning that is going on in schools.
Measuring Student Leaning and School Performance
Experts in the field of education have recommended to me that we need “multiple measures” to determine a school’s annual yearly progress rather than basing this accountability solely on standardized test scores. Current law is disproportionably geared towards failure. There are over a hundred ways in which a school can fail to meet annual yearly progress. We should consider other measures of assessment, such as student progress over time, and graduation and dropout rates.
Reduced Creativity and Teaching to the Test
Small Schools and Rural Schools
The 8th Congressional district includes vast rural areas and many small towns. The mandatory requirement that 95% of the students in a particular grade participate in testing adversely affects smaller schools. As one administrator from a rural school pointed out, “If you have 19 students in one grade and one student does not take the test, then you do not make “Annual Yearly Progress” no matter how highly performing the school .” Rural schools also are struggling to find highly qualified teachers in all the subject areas. We need to consider providing financial incentives for teachers who teach in hard-to-staff areas and provide flexibility for rural districts who cannot find “highly qualified” teachers in all subject areas. We need to explore ways in which rural students will be provided the best possible education without penalizing these schools with one-size-fits-all requirements.
Increase the number of highly qualified teachers in our schools
Administrators lamented the increasing difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. Many teachers testified at the Education Summits; however it was the business leaders who were most vocal about the need to adequately compensate teachers and provide them with the support and resources to do their job. A retired educator and scientist made a particularly compelling statement: “A successful design needs to use top down design and bottom up implementation.” This is what we need to consider as we make changes to the current NCLB law.
Conclusion
If the changes to NCLB that I have outlined above are made, then I will enthusiastically vote to reauthorize NCLB. However, if there are not substantial revisions to the law, I will have no choice but to vote against reauthorization.
We must prepare our students for the skills they will need in a 21st century global economy. Reauthorizing NCLB is not a partisan issue. All families care about the education of their children. All children deserve a quality education. We owe it to the children of this nation and those who staff our schools to proceed carefully and thoughtfully as we make changes to this law. I would urge the Committee to listen to the direct experiences of the students, parents, teachers, support personnel and administrators who understand what works and what needs to be improved to make “No Child Left Behind” a more effective law.
Thank you.