Kennedy Faults Bush Justice Dept.

This from Ed Week:

The lion of the U.S. Senate is roaring.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has published an academic article criticizing the Department of Justice’s civil rights division under President Bush’s administration, including its oversight of school desegregation cases and other education issues.

The senator says in the article, in the current edition of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, that under the current administration, “the vital cooperation between political appointees and career civil servants in the division has broken down, with troubling consequences.”

Sen. Kennedy says the educational opportunities section, which oversees desegregation and other civil rights issues in schools, has been spared political pressures faced by other units within the civil rights division. But the education section, which was once one of the division’s largest, “has been allowed to atrophy” and is now one of the smallest in its number of lawyers, the article says....

Cronyism First Yields Poor Results

"Well, a Federal study released today shows that President Bush's $1 billion a year Reading First program has done nothing to increase the reading skills of young students. However, his Oil Company First program -- going like gangbusters."

That was Jay Leno's joke following last week's report that President Bush's $1 billion a year initiative to teach reading to low-income children has not helped improve their reading comprehension.

Funny.

Sam Dillon writes in the New York Times:

“Reading First did not improve students’ reading comprehension,” concluded the report, which was mandated by Congress and carried out by the Department of
Education’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences. “The program did
not increase the percentages of students in grades one, two or three whose reading comprehension scores were at or above grade level.”

There's nothing I enjoy quite so much as some good old fashioned Bush bashing. I have trouble finding a whole lot this administration has gotten right.But in the case of Reading First, sober reflection causes me to hold my fire. This is a program President Bush almost got right. But it was also a program badly damaged by unethical practices (and consequently needy children were damaged).

Where did it all go wrong? Just follow the money.

In October 2006, Michael Grunwald wrote in The Washington Post, "an accumulating mound of evidence" suggested "that Reading First has had little to do with science or rigor. Instead, the billions have gone to what is effectively a pilot project for untested programs with friends in high places.

"Department officials and a small group of influential contractors have strong-armed states and local districts into adopting a small group of unproved textbooks and reading programs with almost no peer-reviewed research behind them. The commercial interests behind those textbooks and programs have paid royalties and consulting fees to the key Reading First contractors, who also served as consultants for states seeking grants and chaired the panels approving the grants. Both the
architect of Reading First and former education secretary Roderick R. Paige have gone to work for the owner of one of those programs, who is also a top Bush fundraiser.

On Sept. 22, the department's inspector general released a report exposing some of Reading First's favoritism and mismanagement. The highlights were internal e-mails from then-program director Chris Doherty, vowing to deny funding to programs that weren't part of the department's in-crowd:

'They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.'

Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, released the following statement in response to the report on the Reading First program.

"The Bush Administration has put cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last and this report shows the disturbing consequences. Instead of awarding scarce education dollars to reading programs that make a difference for our children, the Administration chose to reward its friends instead. I call on the Administration to put children first by putting politics aside and enlisting high-quality programs in the important task of helping school children learn to read."

I can certainly sympathize with anyone who wanted to wash their hands of the program, NCLB, Spellings and everything else that goes with it.

However, this is a moment to stop - and think about the kids. I say this for two reasons: First, putting high quality teachers in front of needy children is going to be the solution to closing the achievement gap. We need to be persistent and patient. Second, the media has reported the report's conclusions and printed the headlines without much examination. This study was neither randomly constructed nor designed to draw the conclusions it made.

Reading guru Reid Lyon analyzes the limitations of the Reading First study, which found no improvement in reading scores for high-need students. The sample excluded the neediest schools, which presumably would be most affected.

Lyon says: . . . many non-Reading First schools were implementing the same programs and professional development opportunities as the Reading First schools. This impact evaluation is not a true experiment which could have certainly been done given the tremendous financial resources allocated for the evaluation.

As Tim Shanahan, who served on the study's Technical Work Group has pointed out, the comparisons made were not Reading First with non-Reading First schools, but Reading First with less-Reading First schools.Lyon also points out that Reading First schools are spending less than an hour a day on reading instruction, much less than the program calls for, and are devoting more time to comprehension than to phonics.

D-Ed Reckoning has adds:

"Methodological deficiencies notwithstanding, I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that the the interim Reading First Study seems to be showing null results."

NewsHour interviewed Douglas Christensen, commissioner of the Nebraska Department of Education, and Michele Goady, director of the Reading First program for the Maryland Department of Education last week.

Here's the transcript:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, a multibillion-dollar reading program for struggling students comes under fire. Jeffrey Brown has the story.

JEFFREY BROWN: The idea of the Reading First program is to improve elementary school reading, particularly for low-income children. And it now reaches about 1.5 million students in 5,200 schools nationwide.

The program requires students to spend additional time each day on a set plan emphasizing several skills, including phonics.

In 2001, President Bush described it as a cornerstone of the federal No Child Left Behind effort.

President of the United States: We`re making great progress on what I`ve called a Reading First initiative. The budget I submitted triples the amount of money to help fight illiteracy in schools.

It says that, if a state wants, you can access the federal money. But you develop a K-2 diagnostic tool to make sure kindergarten teachers through second-grade teachers have got the ability to discern which children need extra help.

It means you`ve got to develop a curriculum that works. By the way, phonics needs to be a part of our curriculum in America.

JEFFREY BROWN: But is it working? A new study from the Department of Education found the program has had no measurable effect on students` reading comprehension.

The program has also been under fire over concerns about conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts. As a result, Congress has reduced its annual budget.

We get two views now. Douglas Christensen, commissioner of the Nebraska Department of Education, and Michele Goady, director of the Reading First program for the Maryland Department of Education.

Well, Ms. Goady, starting with you, first, help us understand this program. How is it different from traditional means of teaching reading?

MICHELE GOADY, Maryland State Department of Education: Well, Reading First is not just a program, but it was a federal initiative to provide funds to the states, to provide an intensive reading program for children who were traditionally struggling in reading.

So we selected both school systems and schools that traditionally needed a lot of support in reading. We went in and provide a comprehensive reading program.

So it includes providing support for teachers through what we call coaching, or mentoring, being with teachers, supervised support. It does include a clear, systematic instruction.

And that instruction would include the full complement of a reading program, a core reading program we want to call it, provide services for children that continue to have problems in reading. And we would call that supplemental and intervention services.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Mr. Christensen, what`s wrong with that? Why do you think it`s been ineffective?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, Commissioner, Nebraska Department of Education: Well, I think from the beginning it`s been a policy disaster, in the fact that there was no evidence to support heading down this road in the first place.

It seems to me that the reading panel that was convened prior to this made it very clear that there were multiple methods of reading instruction that were supported by evidence and there was no one particular methodology that came out above the rest.

And yet, Reading First came out to look at direct instruction as just about the only way in which phonemic awareness and phonics and those, structure of language, comprehension, could be taught.

And I think, secondly, it fails from the standpoint of any notion that you can transform practice from such a remote place from the classroom as Washington, D.C.

Geographically, certainly the distance is huge, but from the standpoint of practice, you couldn`t get any more -- any further away from the classroom than you do there.

And then, secondly, or third, the idea that you can prescribe a practice and that you can create compliance conditions and, therefore, teachers will simply become perfect or best teachers they can possibly be, that notion has never been established and is offensive to me as an educator that we would try to be that prescriptive about a program.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let me get a response from Ms. Goady. Have you found specific results that you can -- positive results that you feel you can point to?

MICHELE GOADY: In Maryland, we have had good results. When we look at our Maryland state assessment scores of our children in reading before Reading First, up until last year, we see growth in all of our Reading First school districts and in all of our schools. So test scores is one way that we measure that.

But more importantly, when we go into classrooms and we see teachers who feel more confident about their skills, who are better able to teach a variety of readers with a variety of needs, differentiated needs, and we`re able to see them be successful, and we`re able to see children reading, and reading successfully, we`re making success. We`re moving forward.

JEFFREY BROWN: I wonder, Mr. Christensen, is this a debate over defining what we mean by reading or reading comprehension or what kids can actually read? What exactly is the problem in how to determine success in something like this?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Well, I think that is one of the issues, that`s at the heart of that, is that the measurement of reading looks more at the sub-skills of reading than the actual outcome of reading, which is being able to comprehend, being able to place meaning in the words that are being used, and then to turn around and be able to write on the basis of what you have read.

And I see no evidence that Reading First has done that. In fact, the sole and almost exclusive use of DIBELS, in my opinion, prevents Reading First from accomplishing what it could accomplish.

DIBELS is certainly an indicator that kids are developing some degree of fluency in the ability to recognize and pronounce words, even nonsense words, but it has nothing to do with grasping meaning, or understanding, or being able to take an idea and make it your own.

And I think that, as a result, we`ve prescribed reading to a point where we`re certainly meeting the prescriptions. The indicators are clear, but the outcomes simply are not there. And confusing indicators with outcomes is a guarantee of failure.

JEFFREY BROWN: Ms. Goady, how do you account for the results of this study that came out yesterday from the Department of Education`s research center?

MICHELE GOADY: Well, when you look at the study, first of all, it looked at growth for the first part or first two years of Reading First. This is an interim report, not a final report. So we`re very anxious to see what`s going to happen as we look at the final report.

However, even looking at the report -- it looked at about 18 schools, I believe, which is a small set of all of Reading First -- it did point to -- certainly, the report pointed to things that we can begin to review and we can even look at, in terms of giving more emphasis, more work on.
But more importantly, it did say that teachers understood scientifically based reading research in more comprehensive way. The report did say that there was more time spent in reading instruction, as compared to before Reading First.

So even the report pointed to some advancements that have happened because of Reading First.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Christensen, as I said in the introduction, President Bush
clearly tied this to his larger No Child Left Behind effort. And that, of course, has been criticized by some for its approach and the testing and the standardization. Is part of your problem with this particular program tied up in that larger critique, as well?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Well, in some sense, yes. In another sense, no. In the sense that you can standardize what our students are to learn and how they are to be taught simply, in my opinion, flies in the face of what it is that we`re trying to teach and what our schools should be about.

We`re trying to produce worthy citizens. And fourth-grade math scores or second-grade DIBELS scores are not an indicator of the degree to which we`re producing kids who are competent, and capable, and self-reliant, and so forth.

I certainly don`t want to ignore those things. But to make those indicators be outcomes is a perversion of both Reading First and No Child Left Behind.

JEFFREY BROWN: Did I hear you say -- did I hear you use the word "DIBELS"?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Yes, I did.

JEFFREY BROWN: And what is that?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: DIBELS is a test -- and I don`t know exactly what it stands for -- but it`s a test that`s used to determine the student`s speed and accuracy in recognizing words that are commonly appropriate for a first-grader, a second-grader, and so forth.

But, again, it`s a word recognition. It may be primer to fluency, but it doesn`t in any way constitute a measure of understanding or the ability to purport meaning to it. And almost all the projects are required to use DIBELS as its outcome measure, and DIBELS is not an outcome. Comprehension is an outcome.

And I think that`s the other part of it. When you try to change practice from so far away from our classrooms, you use indicators as outcomes and it becomes a practice of remote control.
And I`m going to oppose anything, whether it`s a No Child Left Behind, Reading First, Math First, or whatever else comes along, when it begins to diminish the professionalism and judgment of teachers, I simply can`t support that. We should be informing them, not taking that away from them.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Ms. Goady, we have time for a brief response to all of that.

MICHELE GOADY: OK. Well, I think DIBELS, just to answer that, is one of the measures that we use to take a snapshot, to look at where children are at a point in time in their reading.
Teachers use that information. We talk about using data to inform instruction, to inform the instruction that a child is going to receive.

So based on what we see from DIBELS, it helps direct, to some extent, what we`re going to do next. And I think that`s important.

When we think about progress monitoring, DIBELS is one progress monitoring instrument. There are many. There`s also the SAT 10 and other kinds of outcome measures that are used across the state.

What to me is the real story of Reading First is that we have teachers that, because of the systematic training we`ve provided, are better able to teach children, coaches that are able to support teachers.

In Maryland, we have a system of community colleges, universities, institutions of higher-ed, which are getting some of the same information so that it can help train our pre-service and our in-service teachers.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Michele Goady and Douglas Christensen, thank you both very much.

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Thank you.

Budgetary and Legislative Complexities Confound Solutions for Kentucky Schools.

I was just wondering. Is No Child Left Behind "just what you get" when liberals and neocons agree on something? ...a big-hearted, empty-headed power trip?

Maybe it was just the one thing Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush could agree on.

It's the right idea, (insisting on a quality education for every child) warped by a wrong idea (that student achievement can be coerced "on the cheap.") where the end is supposed to justify the means.

As a result, Kentucky schools, which were already examining the performance of all subgroups of students under Senate Bill 168, saw its attempt to build a performance-based, school-centered assessment system disheveled by the combination of NCLB's bad method and unrealistic targets.

And, none dare oppose.

The Climate of Reform

The most prominent strategy employed in the schools under NCLB has involved a climate of coercion; the assumption being that students weren't doing better because of racist (or perhaps, classist) teachers. To some unmeasurable extent, this must surely have been true. But in my experience, for the vast majority of teachers it clearly was not.

The situation called for leadership. What it got was top-down management.

A lot of good teachers got the implicit (sometimes explicit) message that if a student failed, it was their fault. Period. No excuses.

A (brief?) philosophical interlude

It used to be that if a student came into a teacher's classroom and was unprepared, unwashed, unfed, and undisciplined and uncooperative - it was a parent's or student's responsibility.

Theoretically, the school provided equal opportunity. It was up to the student to take full advantage of what the system had to offer and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The problem with this philosophy was that it produced a system of "good schools" and "bad schools" and it put little pressure on teachers to work harder to reach "difficult" students. There was genuine effort but inadequate funding and no system-wide "stick."

In NCLB, President Bush found a piece of hickory; and he did not spare the rod.

Under the new logic, all children can learn - and if one does not, it is because the teacher hasn't done enough. Any teacher perceived to NOT be "on the bus" is said to be "making excuses" - proof of one's lack of dedication...or racism...or classism...you name it. It's what some school administrators call motivation.

The philosophical shift from equality of educational opportunity to equity of student achievement outcomes is about twelve years old. Is it also on its last legs?

Results (writ large) fall short

What about the results? Well, most of the results of a quality education are unmeasurable. But using what does get measured, three different 2007 studies ranked Kentucky's student achievement at 34th or better. Not the penthouse, but out of the basement. Today's goals are skyhigh and not only include overall growth, but growth and excellence for every subgroup of students.

KSN&C reported in March,

This year, Kentucky Department of Education officials told the [state] board that fewer than 40 percent of the state's public schools are on target to meet those goals.

So what have Kentucky's educational leaders said about it?

Board members said the state needs to develop a "sense of urgency" to find a solution. "I think it's a doable task," [former state board Chair, Keith] Travis said. "That will be the main objective of whoever the new commissioner will be."

[Almost Commissioner Barbara] Erwin - drinking deeply from the Kool-aide - said she [thought] it [was] possible for every child to be proficient by 2014. "Absolutely," she said. "I believe it is our moral and ethical responsibility (to see) that all children can reach those goals."

A More Rational Approach Meets a Deteriorating Budget

Jon Draud, most recently named the commonwealth's education commissioner, took a more reasoned approach that acknowledged both the possibilities and the realities.

Draud's top priority is to assure that Kentucky students meet proficiency standards by 2014, as NCLB requires. "But that must become a goal for more than educators if it is to be reached," Draud told H-L.

"We have to create a sense of urgency, to have people concerned about this again, like they were in 1990 for Kentucky's education reform. The business community has to lead the way," said Draud."Most research says for education reform to work, the business community has to be involved. It takes collaboration and cooperation. Without getting all the stakeholders involved, we're not going to reach proficiency," he said.

Those comments were made at the time Governor Fletcher was touting a much rosier fiscal outlook. Now the state is predicting a tepid 2.4 percent growth in revenue for the first year of the next biennial budget. That's a sharp decline from revenue growth of more than 9 percent in 2005 and 2006.

The budget crisis throws a major shadow over future prospects. Having neglected education funding in the mid to late 1990s, when there was no crisis, the legislature now finds itself in a box.

The Casino Gambling Solution

Will casino gambling solve the problem? No, but it sure will help - if we're all very patient. Assuming Kentucky voters approve such a measure, it will take several years to realize the $500 million in annual fiscal support Governor Steve Beshear estimates.

What happens until then?

President Lee Todd informed the UK campus by Email Friday,

We will continue to make the case as strongly as we can that the state must support the UK Business Plan as the mechanism for achieving our statutory mandate to become a Top 20 public research institution and for making the gains we all want in education, health care and economic development for Kentucky.

Todd's laser-like focus on quality is commendable - and the only "right" position a top-notch university president can take. But if the state coffers are empty, and there is no retreat from the pursuit of excellence, then the only remaining option includes large tuition increases.

But tuition increases pose affordability problems for many Kentucky students who are operating in the same economic climate as the schools, and will keep the goal of doubling the number of college graduates out of reach.

Surely by next year - with the budgetary shortfall estimated at $525 million - cuts will bite into P-12 education, which has largely escaped, so far. But P-12 won't be raising tuition.

How deep will the P-12 cuts be? ...and for how many years? If NCLB goes down (while I don't advocate it, that's OK by me) and Kentucky reduces its financial commitment to reform, and the hickory stick is put away, how many more schools will fail to meet their 2014 targets?

Will poor fiscal stewardship at the state level spell the end of real education reform in Kentucky?

What now?

What happens in the long run depends on the people of Kentucky. It seems clear that Frankfort politicians advocating tax hikes will be as rare as hen's teeth. But clearly, some kind of taxation has to be a part of any real long-term solution. The alternative is the abandonment of reform - which would galvanize Kentucky into the bottom realms of state economies for decades to come.

Only a strong push to continue improving the quality of Kentucky's schools and workforce from the grassroots citizenry will provide the motivation our state leaders need to do right by our children. ...all of our children.

Building that support will require persistent leadership over time. Citizens need to be informed about the successes our schools have produced, the looming budget crisis and its likely impact on our future economy. Teachers need to wake up. Kentucky needs champions who will tirelessly dedicate the time it takes to travel the state and regenerate the kind of support for reform we saw in the late 1980s.

Draud has the right approach in mind. Drawing support from the business community is critical. Going community to community is critical. Building alliances is critical. Spending time is critical. His plan is reminescent of earlier State Superintendents Robert J Breckinridge and John Grant Crabbe who used the bully pulpit to rally support we need. It's what a champion does.

The people of Kentucky need an education on the value of investing in education.

The ultimate constitutional responsibility lies with the legislature. But in the end, Kentuckians will get the schools they support; the schools they insist upon. In that sense, Kentucians will get the schools they deserve.

Senate punts on NCLB, Law remains in force

This from the Associated Press

Senate Not Considering New Education Law

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top two lawmakers on the Senate Education Committee are putting off consideration of a new No Child Left Behind law until next year, congressional aides said Friday.

Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., have decided that there's not enough time this year to complete work on the legislation, which has not yet been formally introduced...

...[The aides] spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations over the content of the legislation are ongoing and sensitive...

...There is broad agreement that the law should be changed to encourage schools to measure individual student progress over time instead of using snapshot comparisons of certain grade levels.

There is consensus, as well, that the law should be changed so that schools that miss progress goals by a little don't face the same consequences as schools that miss them by a lot.

Deep divisions remain over some proposed changes, including merit pay for teachers and whether schools should be judged based on test scores in subjects other than reading and math.

Congress Passes Overhaul of Student Aid Programs

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Congress gave final approval to a broad overhaul of federal student loan programs Friday, sharply cutting subsidies to lenders and increasing grants to needy students.

In quick succession, the Senate and the House approved the changes, allowing Democrats to say they had made good on one of their campaign promises last year, to ease the strain of rising college costs. In the Senate, the bill passed 79 to 12, reflecting broad bipartisan support, while the House approved it 292 to 97 .

The federal education secretary, Margaret Spellings, said she was recommending that President Bush sign the bill because it “answered the president’s call to significantly increase funding” for Pell grants for low-income students. The administration had issued a veto threat against an earlier House version of the legislation.

Republicans in the House expressed disappointment at the administration’s change of course, arguing that the cuts in lender subsidies went too far.

The final bill, hammered out this week in a House-Senate conference committee, alters many of the ground rules for financing higher education, offering forgiveness on student loans to graduates who work for 10 years or more in public service professions like teaching, firefighting and the police, and limiting monthly payments on federally backed loans to 15 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income.

It also raises the maximum Pell grant, the basic federal grant for middle- and low-income students, to $5,400 from the current $4,310 over the next five years. To pay for the changes, the bill reduces federal subsidies to lenders by roughly $20 billion over the same period.

Democrats likened the legislation to the G.I. Bill that sent millions of veterans to vocational training and college after World War II. “Today we’ll need a similar bold new commitment to enable the current generation of Americans to rise to the global challenges we face,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the education committee. “Today we’ll help millions of students achieve the American dream.”

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the House education committee, said that last year, Republicans took nearly $12 billion from federal student aid programs. “We took $11.39 billion and put it back into Pell grants,” Mr. Miller said. “That’s the difference that an election makes.” ...

This from the New York Times.

Miller: No Child Law Should Be Changed

WASHINGTON — A revised No Child Left Behind law should include merit pay for teachers and new ways of judging schools, the chairman of the House education committee said Monday.

"We didn't get it all right," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.

The law, which is now up for renewal, requires annual math and reading tests in grades three through eight and once in high school. Schools that miss progress goals face consequences, such as having to offer tutoring or fire their principals.

Miller said the law places too much emphasis on the math and reading tests, although those are still important indicators. Other tests or graduation rates could also be used to judge how schools are doing, he said.

The teachers unions have called for that kind of change, but the Bush administration and some Republicans in Congress say it could weaken the law.

Miller also said the law should pay teachers extra for boosting student achievement, an idea generally opposed by the national teachers unions.

Miller said he hopes the full House will vote on the legislation this September.

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy, who chairs the Senate education committee, said he hopes the bill gets through his committee in September.

The legislation is a priority for President Bush, who pushed for its initial passage in 2001.

A majority of Americans want the law to be renewed as it is or with minor changes, according to a poll out Monday by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and Education Next, a publication of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

This from the Associated Press @ Newsvine.

No Retreat on School Reform

This OpEd from Senator Edward Kennedy ran in today's Washington Post. Kennedy, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, was a lead author of the NCLB.

(Emphasis added)

Five years ago, Congress and President Bush made a bold and historic promise. We pledged in the No Child Left Behind Act that the federal government would do all in its power to guarantee every child in America, regardless of race, economic background, language or disability, the opportunity to get a world-class education.

We have made progress toward fulfilling that commitment. Before the act was passed, most states lacked ways to track student progress and teacher effectiveness. Many state accountability requirements had no commitment to improving education for every child. Only four states had approved assessments that tracked and reported the achievement of every group of students in their schools.

Today, all 50 states have standards, assessments and accountability procedures that enable us to track the achievement of every group of students. Every school measures performance, based not on overall student population but on progress in closing achievement gaps and getting all students to meet high standards. Schools across the country are using assessments under the No Child law to identify weaknesses in instruction and areas of need for their students.

These are significant reforms, and we can't simply ignore them. But to fulfill our promise, much more remains to be done.

The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization. Some in Congress feel the challenge is too great and want to turn back the clock on reform. One Republican proposal would even let states avoid accountability requirements and still receive federal funds.

Most of us in Congress know that a retreat to mediocrity is wrong. To meet the demands of the 21st century, we have to expand opportunity for all and keep our commitment to leaving no child behind.

We know the law has flaws, but we also know that with common-sense changes and adequate resources, we can improve it by building on what we've learned. We owe it to America's children, parents and teachers to reinforce our commitment, not abandon it.

We need to strengthen our academic standards and assessment methods to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills necessary for today's knowledge-based global economy.

We can improve accountability by helping states modernize their curriculums from prekindergarten through high school so that all students graduate with the education they need to pursue a college or technical degree, participate in the workforce or serve in the armed forces. We should also help states develop better assessments to track the progress and growth of all students, including students for whom English is a second language and students with special needs.

We must expand and fortify the teacher workforce. Researchers agree that teacher quality is the most important factor affecting student achievement. Good teachers can make all the difference in closing achievement gaps for low-income and minority students. The same research also shows, however, that our most at-risk students are often taught by the least prepared, least experienced and least qualified teachers. The No Child Left Behind Act made a commitment that every child would be taught by a highly qualified teacher. To reach that goal, a greater federal investment is needed.

Finally, we can't just label schools inadequate. We must help them improve. States and localities need to initiate and support school improvement. Part of the act's promise was that greater accountability would be accompanied by greater support. We knew that federal resources would be critical to achieving the goals. When the law was adopted in 2002, Congress delivered $22 billion to support public education -- an increase of 20 percent over the previous year. This was an unprecedented federal investment. The law promised increased funding levels over the life of its provisions, in step with the increase in targets for student performance. Yet year after year, the federal government has failed to provide the resources that states and school districts need to improve struggling schools. Assessment and accountability without the funding needed to implement change is a recipe for failure.

In the weeks ahead, those opposed to doing what it takes to leave no child behind will do everything in their power to impede our progress. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. Local control means nothing without the resources for improvement. Increasing flexibility without preserving accountability is fiscally irresponsible and educationally unwise.

No Child Left Behind is not just a slogan. It's a national commitment, inspired by our fundamental values and aspirations. It's a promise to do all we can so that every American child receives the high-quality education he or she needs and deserves. We may never achieve that lofty goal, but if we hope to keep America strong and just, prosperous and free, we can never stop trying.