Secretary Paige sent this memo to editorial writers on March 11, 2004
To: Editorial Writers
From: U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
Re: No Child Left Behind Implementation
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been in the news a great deal in recent weeks. Our country has undertaken an important new course in terms of its commitment to educate every child, regardless of skin color, spoken accent or zip code. Educating close to 50 million children in a big, complex nation like the United States is bound to be a dynamic process. To help bring clarity to the process of the last two years and a sense of where we are presently in terms of implementing No Child Left Behind, I would like to offer the following specific information.
Although there is a great deal of hand-wringing in certain circles concerning the impact that the law is having, it is undeniable that in the two years since enactment, NCLB is having what I consider a transformative impact on our public education system. It is also undeniable that this transformation is taking place in large part due to the determined actions the Department and this administration have taken in implementing the law. For the first time in history, every state has an approved accountability plan to ensure academic proficiency for every child. Achievement gaps are being identified and addressed. The success of schools is now being measured on the academic achievement of all students so that children who need help aren't hidden in averages. Under-performing schools are getting the assistance needed to improve. In other words, in the two years since the bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, we have begun to see critical movement in the public education system to address these important issues.
When President Bush took office in January 2001, it wasn't clear that this sea change would occur. While the President signaled his strong and personal desire to improve the education of all our nation's children by the early prominence and introduction of his No Child Left Behind proposal, Congress did not move expeditiously in debating and subsequently adopting the bill. Through the debate on tax cuts, the change in leadership in the Senate, the terrorist attack on 9/11, and the closure of the congressional office buildings due to the anthrax "attacks," it was not until the end of 2001 that Congress moved to pass the bill. However, even after such a lengthy period, many of the intricacies of the law were intentionally left vague, with the expectation that the Department of Education, through the regulatory process, would smooth out the "rough edges."
This is a complex law with a number of significant provisions that will have varying impact on the 15,000 school districts in the nation. It is also a far cry from the "one size fits all" approach as many have belied. That is why, under my watch, the Department has undertaken aggressive efforts to provide comprehensive regulatory and technical guidance on many, if not most, of the complex issues in the law. Those endeavors take thoughtful deliberation, conversations with the people in the field, discussions with members of Congress and their staffs, and careful promulgation of regulations and guidance. The opposite tack--to promulgate rules and regulations, in a desire for speed, closeted in Washington without input from practitioners and key policymakers--was not an acceptable option to me. Compared to the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, also the basis of NCLB), the issuing comprehensive regulations on Title I accountability, standards and assessments (including the negotiated rule-making required by law)--within 10 months of passage--took immense effort.
To put our efforts in context, when this administration took office, only 11 states were in compliance with the 1994 ESEA. One of the first tasks we undertook was to address those states that were not in compliance with that law. In less than a year, we entered into compliance or timeline agreements with states to ensure that they would be in compliance with a law that had been in effect for seven years but really had never been enforced. This was critical, for, as you may know, many of the principles of NCLB (development of standards, assessing students, identifying schools for improvement, to name a few) have their roots in the 1994 ESEA reauthorization.
Upon issuing the new Title I NCLB regulations, it was our task to work with the states to institute accountability plans under No Child Left Behind in such a manner that balanced the interests of the states with the goals of the law. Considering that there are 50 different state educational standards and assessment systems in place and 50 different state governance systems overseeing more than 15,000 school districts, these negotiations were challenging, as I'm sure you can imagine. (You should also keep in mind that many of the state departments of education experienced changes in leadership during this time.) Yet we accomplished our goal, and on June 10, 2003--18 months after the law was enacted--all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had approved accountability plans in place. This was a historic day for our nation, our educational system and, of course, our children. It has been only eight months since those plans were approved, yet as of today we are seeing the impact of those state-driven accountability plans all across the nation.
Contrary to the perception in some corners, this historic achievement did not occur by happenstance but was due in large part to our extensive and unprecedented interactions with the states. We discussed with every state its unique education system and needs. At my invitation and at the expense of the Department, delegations from 47 states came to the nation's capital to meet individually with senior Department leadership. Then, an accountability peer review team composed of Department staff and experts in the fields of accountability, standards and assessments visited every state to review its accountability plan.
In the three years of this administration, the Department of Education has transformed its relationship with both the states and local school districts. The level of outreach and cooperation extended to the states on a range of issues has been unprecedented. And, unlike previous years, this administration is actively enforcing the laws that have been passed by Congress and signed by the President.
(On a side note, I would like to add that we got our own house in order before undertaking massive changes to the educational system. We are demanding the same kind of accountability and results of ourselves that we would expect of any school. I'm proud to report that for fiscal year 2003, the Department received its second consecutive unqualified or "clean" financial audit opinion. This represented only the third clean audit in the Department's 24-year history.
Remember, this is the same agency that was featured on the network news for having employees who embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars and submitted more than $1 million in false overtime charges. We have made critical steps forward in our efforts to inject accountability into everything we do here at the Department of Education. Because of a concerted effort on the part of Department staff, taxpayers can rest assured that their hard-earned tax dollars will be managed responsibly).
We continue, on a daily basis, to interact with and provide in-depth technical assistance to states on their accountability plans. This is especially important as states revisit their plans and make adjustments based on implementation. State plans are not static: a number of states have already received approval from the Department to amend their plans. I should point out, however, that the number and nature of these amendments have been limited so that we do not allow states to water down the intent of the law.
Since last summer, our technical assistance and outreach efforts on NCLB have expanded. At all levels--from senior leadership to staff-level experts--the Department is communicating on a daily basis with states, districts and schools. The following are just a few examples of this effort:
 The Department has issued guidance on numerous programs within NCLB. Since passage of the bill two years ago, 30 guidance documents on NCLB programs have been issued. In addition, we have sent almost 20 letters on NCLB implementation issues to chief state school officers, governors and other state officials.
 The Department recruited and trained 50 teachers, principals, district officials, representatives from higher education, and national policy experts to serve as members of the Teacher Assistance Corps (TAC). The TAC has rendered direct support and technical assistance to nearly every state in meeting the challenges of the highly qualified teacher provisions of the law and now has visited 49 states.
 In September 2003, President Bush and I announced the School Information Partnership, a unique public-private partnership designed to assist states in meeting the letter and the spirit of NCLB as it relates to educational data reporting. Through the financial support of the Broad Foundation and the Department, states have been given the opportunity, at no cost for the next two years, to report and analyze certain data through an easy-to-use Web-based service.
 The Department has provided technical assistance through conference calls, on-site visits, regional meetings, Listservs and the Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers. In addition, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has held conference calls and meetings with state Title I directors, has for the first time initiated a program of national conference calls with local Title I directors, has held eight national conferences and has sent 500 different letters to various state and local offices on NCLB.
 Several organizations, such as the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of the Great City Schools, are working with the Department to provide assistance to states and districts.
 The Office of English Language Acquisition has conducted 52 video teleconferences and 35 on-site visits with the states to provide in-depth technical assistance. This effort facilitated the development and implementation of the integrated systems of standards and assessments, required by Title III of NCLB.
How states and districts use this wealth of information and technical assistance is a separate issue, as I am sure you recognize. States have tremendous flexibility in implementing this law, as outlined in a memo entitled "Charting the Course" which I encourage you to read. This document outlines almost 40 elements of flexibility and decision-making that states have in implementing critical aspects of NCLB. Even a quick review of "Charting the Course" will show that states had numerous opportunities to design an implementation strategy that best meets their needs.
As we learned firsthand, each state has a unique set of issues to address, and thus no two state accountability plans are identical. Some states decided to use more elements of flexibility than others, but, consistent with the principles of federalism and flexibility that characterize NCLB, each state presented a unique plan and rationale for that plan. The variety in state plans underscores the bipartisan intent of the law to build upon existing state accountability systems and reform efforts, not to dictate uniformity. As I think you will agree, this is a testament to the strength of the design of the law and to the methods that the administration pursued in implementing the law. Our overarching goal is to provide the maximum flexibility while remaining faithful to the spirit of the law. We continue to listen and examine issues being raised and will, if appropriate and consistent with the spirit of the law, address additional issues as soon as possible.
You should also know that more than any other time in its history, this Department is serious about enforcing the law. We have not issued waivers; we have withheld funds from states that have not complied with the law; and we have engaged in compliance agreements with those states that could not meet the law's timelines, including timelines that were instituted prior to NCLB. The Department has also upheld and uncompromisingly advanced the spirit of the law while at the same time the administration is providing historic levels of funding.
Indeed, the chorus that there is inadequate funding under NCLB just doesn't wash. America's schools are experiencing record levels of federal funding.
Under President Bush, funding for ESEA programs reauthorized by NCLB has climbed $7.4 billion, or 43 percent. What's more, with the flexibility added by NCLB, states, districts and schools can spend the money more freely than ever, as long as they do what works to improve student learning and achievement.
Bear in mind that these funds go into an environment where spending on K-12 education in general is already at unprecedented levels. In 1994, during the last reauthorization of ESEA, total K-12 spending in this nation was $286 billion. Now, we are investing more than $500 billion in K-12 education. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this is $125 billion more than our nation invests in defense. It averages about $100,000 for the life of a child in our K-12 system. We have spent $125 billion on Title I programs for disadvantaged students in the past 25 years, yet we have virtually nothing to show for it. The best way to win political support for more Title I funding is to demonstrate that it really works to raise student achievement.
Furthermore, three studies and the General Accounting office (GAO) all have found that NCLB is funded at a level to get the job done:
 A study by Massachusetts Board of Education Chairman James Peyser and state economist Robert Costrell and found that NCLB's requirement that states assess their students annually in grades 3-8 is adequately funded. The study was published in the spring 2004 edition of the journal Education Next, co-published by Harvard and Stanford.
 Another recent study (this time a national analysis), by AccountabilityWorks, concludes that states will have $785 million more than they needed this upcoming school year.
 A study last year by the Josiah Bartlett Center, a state think tank, found that New Hampshire would receive more additional federal education aid from NCLB than the additional costs of the law. The center estimated that increased federal aid to education due to NCLB was $13.7 million and that costs associated with attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, new testing requirements, technology plans, and special education would be about $7.7 million--leaving about $6 million of additional federal aid for New Hampshire schools to spend on other state and local priorities.
 A GAO study from May 2003 found that Congress is providing more than enough money for states to design and implement the statewide achievement tests required under No Child Left Behind. The report also shows education reform opponents are exaggerating estimates of NCLB's state testing costs by as much as $5.1 billion between fiscal years 2002 and 2008.
I do believe that investments in education are a priority for our nation if we are to maintain our economic security, not to mention our intellectual happiness as a people. The education of our children is one of the most important endeavors any nation can undertake. However, even after such increases over the last decade, we still hear the chorus of "more money" emanating from certain circles. That has always been and will likely always be the mantra of these organizations, for they chose to measure our commitment not by whether or not a third-grade girl can read on a third-grade level but by how much more money we are spending on the system. It reminds me of how Albert Einstein defined insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing over and over again. It doesn't take an Einstein to see that all the money in the world won't fix our schools if the only plan is just to throw more money at them. To make a difference, you must first create a framework for change. That's what No Child Left Behind does --focuses our nation's attention on the appropriate bottom line--making sure our children are learning. Therefore, NCLB is absolutely leading us in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Rod Paige
|
