澳门跑狗论坛

Includes updates and/or revisions.

On Feb. 4, Senior Editor Lynn Olson and Assistant Editor Erik W. Robelen interviewed U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in her office at the Department of Education鈥檚 headquarters in Washington. Here is an edited transcript of the interview.

Q: Could you say a little bit more about the proposed 鈥渉igh school intervention鈥� fund [a proposed $1.2 billion in federal money] and what you envision doing with this money?

A: Well, a lot of that [President Bush] talked about last summer and through the campaign. And there will be additional details forthcoming. 鈥�

Obviously, the assessment piece of it is well known. He鈥檚 called for two additional grades of assessment. Basically, we believe that the same sound principles that undergird [the] No Child Left Behind [Act] in grades 3-8 ought to be extended in the high schools, and that includes regular measurement and reporting that data in a disaggregated way.

We recognize that it鈥檚 a little bit more complicated when there are different kinds of course offerings and class structures by state and by district. Sometimes they give algebra in 9th grade, sometimes in 10th, you know, all of that. To that end, we want to allow an adequate phase-in time. Just as is the case with No Child Left Behind, the federal government will pay for the cost of those assessments. But that鈥檚 the notion鈥攗se the same principles in the high school.

As for intervention, [the president] called for a couple of things: a 9th grade intervention initiative, where we can have a more individualized approach with each kid as to how we鈥檙e going to get this 9th grader from this point out of high school. 鈥� We obviously need to do a much better job of getting them in and out and ready to compete in college or in the workplace. Likewise, the Striving Readers initiative that [the president] has talked about previously basically builds on the principles of Reading First and Early Reading First, and talks about extending those. How do we use the research base that we have with young children to extend into middle and high schools? One of the things we know is that, frequently, it鈥檚 a reading deficiency that is keeping kids from being able to do more rigorous coursework. If you can鈥檛 read a 10th grade textbook, then you鈥檙e kind of on the downhill slide. 鈥�

Q: But there鈥檚 going to be $1.2 billion in a special pot, as I understand it, that is for accountability, that鈥檚 separate from Striving Readers.

A: You鈥檒l see all of this in the budget: 鈥�the high school [initiative], 鈥� Striving Readers, 9th grade intervention, assessment, a major focus on math and science, 鈥� teacher loan-forgiveness. 鈥︹��

Q: The strictest consequences under No Child Left Behind right now are in section 1116, which really applies only to schools receiving Title I funds. Given that most high schools do not receive Title I money, what鈥檚 your vision for how to make the same NCLB-type accountability apply in secondary education?

A: Well, these are the things that we鈥檙e going to negotiate with the Congress, obviously. One of the things that I think is encouraging is around the country, Governor [Mark] Warner [of Virginia], Governor [Haley] Barbour [of Mississippi], to name a couple鈥攁 Democrat and a Republican鈥攁re starting to talk about high school proficiency and readiness [for work and college] and completion in their own states. And I know we have, we put in place, in Texas 鈥� a completion exit test that鈥檚 now at the 11th grade level, not at the 10th grade level. All of that was enacted under then-Governor Bush. And so what I鈥檓 saying is, I think there are states who are dealing with this now. I鈥檓 anxious to see how they鈥檙e doing these things. Obviously, in Texas, and I know that it is the case or Governor Warner intends it to be the case in Virginia, [accountability] doesn鈥檛 apply just to Title I schools. It鈥檚 all high schools. So, I mean, those are the sorts of things we want to learn about and understand as we negotiate this on their behalf and with the Congress.鈥�

Q: Is your goal, though, that all high schools would have to meet, or fall under, those explicit consequences?

A: I don鈥檛 know yet, is the short answer.

Q: One of the other things that happened this week was that the Education Department reversed its earlier ruling on North Dakota regarding 鈥渉ighly qualified鈥� teachers, and I wanted to ask you why you changed your stance?

A: Well, I wouldn鈥檛 characterize it as a reversal by any stretch. 鈥� As I understand it, and I just showed up, 鈥� you need to talk to Ray Simon [the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education] about the particulars of this, who has met with the delegation repeatedly, and had some of his folks out there on the ground, and has worked with the governor鈥檚 office, you know, et cetera. There are a lot of details. But I do know that for the first time, they [state officials] have put in place a HOUSSE [high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation] process, which they did not have for elementary school teachers. I mean, I think where we started out, as I understand it, is they wanted to basically grandfather each and every teacher that was currently in the classroom. And, as you know, No Child Left Behind does not provide for that.

It does provide a way for current, experienced teachers to become highly qualified under the definition of the statute. And my understanding is they鈥檝e put in place a way to do that through their HOUSSE system. You know, beyond that, you鈥檒l have to talk to Ray about the particulars. 鈥�

Q: Can you say a little bit, in general, about the enforcement of the highly-qualified-teacher provisions, because I know there鈥檚 been some criticism that the department hasn鈥檛 been very aggressive on that front. 鈥� How are you going to handle that?

A: Well, first I need to know more about what the plans provide; what is at issue when people say we haven鈥檛 vigorously enforced it. I need to know, what do they mean by that specifically? And as I said, I just got here, and I鈥檓 anxious to do that. And, as you know, I mean it鈥檚 50 different stories.

I do think we know that a teacher who knows what he or she is doing, knows their subject matter, and knows how to impart knowledge to kids is a critical piece of closing the achievement gap. And, of course, it鈥檚 in [states鈥橾 interest, it鈥檚 in all of our interest, to do that. One of the things I think we鈥檙e going to do through this teacher-pay-for-performance [initiative] is try to seed some things, like more qualified teach-ers in the neediest schools, rewarding teachers who enhance student achievement. And, you know, that鈥檚 a pretty rich half-billion-dollar grant program to put out there that, I think, will put some skin in the game in helping lead states and teachers into these more rigorous kinds of practices.

Q: I know another thing that perked up the ears of a lot of state peo-ple was your statement during the confirmation hearing that you want to find reasonable and sensible ways to implement the No Child Left Behind law. I wondered if you could be more specific about the areas where states might expect to see some new approaches or some flexibility?

A: Well, first I want to listen to what they want: What is causing them prob-lems and issues? You know, what are the facts? I will tell you that 鈥� there are some very 鈥� I don鈥檛 want people to think that No Child Left Behind is up for grabs. It鈥檚 not. There are some very bright-line pieces of this statute that are nonnegotiable.

Q: What are they?

A: Well, one of them is annual assessment in grades 3-8. It鈥檚 integral to the implementation of everything. And we have given lots of resources and lots of time to fully implement these annual-assessment provisions by 2005-06. So don鈥檛 be coming down here and telling me you haven鈥檛 done it. 鈥� But all of what鈥檚 at issue with LEP [limited-English-proficient] kids and special educa-tion assessment, and so on and so forth, I鈥檒l just have to find out more. I can tell you one thing. Obviously, this is why we鈥檙e in an administrative arena, and not in a legislative arena, is that administrative authority is meant to have the capability to be refined and perfected and modified, if need be, without running to the Congress and asking for a statutory change. So I think we need to explore those possibilities.

Q: One of the approaches that Virginia took in its most recent request to you is to ask that you use your waiver authority under the law鈥攖heir sense being that it鈥檚 a pretty broad waiver authority. [Former] Secretary [Rod] Paige had been pretty clear that he wasn鈥檛 interested in granting waivers. Do you share that sentiment?

A: I agree with Secretary Paige about the waiver provision. When we arrived [in 2001] 鈥� only 11 or so states had complied with the [1994] ESEA [Elemen-tary and Secondary Education Act] reauthorization. It was 鈥渨aiver city,鈥欌�漚nd I think people got, maybe, a little complacent. But again, let鈥檚 start with: a) I鈥檝e got to get the facts. There is room to maneuver through the administrative process without waivers, which this department has done, already on LEP and special education and 鈥渉ighly qualified鈥� [issues], particularly with rural teachers. So I think there are things we can do without waivers. But this 鈥渨aive everything鈥濃�攏o. That鈥檚 a slippery slope.

Q: In your confirmation hearing, you mentioned some recognition of the challenges with the school choice provisions in the law, and how in some places supplemental services might be a more realistic option. Can you talk a little bit more about your thinking there?

A: Yeah, I think what we鈥檝e seen, and, you know, we know some things now that we didn鈥檛 know when this act was put in place. That鈥檚 the way it鈥檚 supposed to be, that you learn things over time. And I think we鈥檝e seen in urban districts, in particular, the capacity issues have some of the public school choice provisions be, you know, not a very vigorous or realistic option for parents, while supplemental services, although it takes an additional year for this to kick in, are more readily available.

Q: Would you consider, because I know this is one of the requests states have made in the past and that Virginia is making again, reversing the order, so that districts and schools could provide supplemental services before choice?

A: My understanding is we don鈥檛 have the authority to do that. I mean, that鈥檚 a bright line in the statute that I think 鈥� obviously, you could talk to members of Congress about that, but if we had known what we know now, they might have done that. Although, I will say also, now that this act is matured鈥攚e are in year three in many places鈥攋ust the passage of time has caused the supplemental-service option to kick in. So, it鈥檚 sort of healed itself.

Q: I know the department has said previously that it would oppose any legislative changes prior to the next reauthorization of ESEA. Is that still hard and fast, or is there some room to consider minor legislative fixes?

A: I鈥檓 seeing no need for them at this moment, I鈥檒l say that.

Q: So you would oppose them?

A: Yeah, I think we would oppose any at the moment, but I鈥檓 not aware that there are any proposed. 鈥� I do hope that members of the Congress and interest groups, 鈥� I hope that the Department of Education will be the first place that people seek a solution. They might not find it here, and if and when they don鈥檛, then it鈥檚 still a free country. But 鈥� the Congress has lots to do this year. 鈥�

Q: We鈥檝e just heard a lot of rumblings, and I鈥檓 sure you have too, that members of Congress might pursue changes in the law, which any number of groups have suggested. The National School Boards Association just put out their package of proposals, 鈥� and the National Conference of State Legislatures is preparing to put out their package. There will be a lot of noise.

A: Well, maybe they鈥檇 like to call the department first. I鈥檓 not implying that we鈥檙e going to listen, necessarily. I mean, I am going to listen. I don鈥檛 know what their changes are, but 鈥�

Q: Going back to the high school issue, another thing that has come up in the implementation of No Child Left Behind is this whole issue of high school dropout and graduation rates. Do you foresee the department, as part of this new high school initiative, trying to get some more common definitions in that area, or being stricter in how states approach that part of the law?

A: It is really a vexing problem, having lived with that at the state level. I mean, it鈥檚 a hard thing to do, to figure out. And there are some legitimate reasons that states want to make sure they get credit, or whatever the right word is, for a kid not being a dropout, when they get married and move鈥� or they join the military. Whatever.

So, I just need to look at the definitions, how they vary, what the practice is. Again, the truth of the matter is we haven鈥檛 paid that much attention to high school accountability. I think that the things the president has laid out will undergird a better understanding of dropouts and, I hope, will mitigate this. If we do a better job with this whole 9th grade thing and so on, then it鈥檒l be less of an issue, in that I hope to God there will be fewer. 鈥�

Q: One of the first things you had to deal with as secretary was the controversy regarding Armstrong Williams [and payments to that commentator for promotion of the No Child Left Behind Act]. Could you talk a little bit 鈥� about what you鈥檙e currently doing at the department to make sure there aren鈥檛 any similar issues that have gone on and that they鈥檙e not going to occur in the future?

A: Well, as I鈥檝e said, there鈥檚 nobody who cares more about the credibility of this department and the credibility of No Child Left Behind than me. And 鈥� as the president said, we want our policies to stand on their own two feet, and believe that they do鈥攑articularly, this new law that was passed by huge bipartisan margins. And I鈥檓 gratified to know that Senator [Edward M.] Kennedy [D-Mass.] and Congressman [George] Miller [D-Calif.] are still completely behind the goals and the policies and so on. 鈥�

As to Ketchum [the public relations firm that subcontracted with Williams], I mean we鈥檝e put in place a stop-work order. Obviously you know that. We have an inspector general鈥檚 investigation going on. We are cooperating fully, obviously, with that. The GAO [Government Accountability Office] is doing an investigation. We鈥檙e cooperating fully with that. I am going to get all the facts first, and put some systems and procedures in place to guard against that sort of thing in the future. To me, the PBS-contract issue [concerning an episode of the show 鈥淧ostcards from Buster鈥漖 and the Ketchum-contract issue are not dissimilar in that we need to know what our federal tax dollars are being spent for, and we need to exercise all good stewardship to make sure that we do. ...

I also want to say that it鈥檚 important for this department to communicate about this law: to educators, to chiefs, to parents. And that鈥檚 righteous and appropriate. And so, I don鈥檛 want to just throw the baby out with the bath water, obviously. But do we want to make sure that we鈥檙e not paying for pundits, and that it鈥檚 properly done and well overseen? Absolutely.

Q: How does career and technical education fit into your high school agenda?

A: I think鈥攁nd this is the president鈥檚 philosophy, and mine, too, since we started working on this in education at the state level鈥攁nd that is, we鈥檙e about results. And, you know, if and when vocational education, career and technical programs, get results for kids to get out of high school with levels of proficiency in reading and math and science, who are college- or workforce-ready. 鈥� What we know is the workplace is more demanding than ever before. So it鈥檚 not this either-or college track versus workforce kind of notion that we have had previously. It鈥檚 we鈥檝e got to have rigor. And the president has called for this. 鈥� The long and short of it is, we need more rigor in all kinds of programs. And when vocational education programs do that, if I were a school superintendent, I鈥檇 embrace that. But the other notion is, we also believe that those folks closest on the ground that we鈥檙e holding accountable for the results can decide, and ought to evaluate which programs get results.

Q: Going back to No Child Left Behind, can you say any more about specific areas where the department might do a little rethinking? You mentioned, at least with the testing requirements, that that鈥檚 not going to change. 鈥�

A: I don鈥檛 know yet. 鈥� I haven鈥檛 been here long enough鈥擨鈥檝e been meeting with you people this week鈥攖o sit down with the chiefs and superintendents and principals and see how it鈥檚 working. I mean, I expect to do that. I want to do that. I鈥檓 going to do that. I hope to do it, not just here in Washington, but around the country. I鈥檓 not afraid of doing that. I want to know how it鈥檚 working out there. I mean, one thing I know about change is we are not going to close the achievement gap without educators.

Q: I know that you mentioned testing special education students as one area where the department has provided some flexibility. 鈥� Do you see addressing some of those issues through the regulations around IDEA [the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act], which the department is trying to work on?

A: Yes. I think one of the things that we know about鈥攜ou know, we鈥檙e in the early days, and again, I鈥檓 thrilled that we鈥檙e having these kind of 鈥渢echno鈥� discussions. 鈥� I mean, we鈥檙e talking about what are the best ways to assess special education students that are appropriate and that will measure their achievements in a way that is suitable. And there are some early pioneers around the country in doing that. 鈥� So I鈥檓 going to look at who鈥檚 doing the best work, and we ought to, obviously, foster more of that, and share that information with states who may not have come as far.

And that鈥檚 the other thing about this law鈥攜ou know this鈥攊s that we鈥檝e got some [states] that are well matured and who are pioneers. 鈥� I mean Texas, frankly, is struggling with the special education issue. And yet they鈥檙e one of the states that has the most vigorous accountability in the high schools. My understanding is that Kansas, Massachusetts, they鈥檝e been more pioneers on the special education side. So, I mean, I think we ought to learn from each other.

Q: What are some of your biggest concerns about how the law is play-ing out?

A: Well, I think we鈥檝e rounded the corner. I think people think that this law is here to stay. And 鈥� this is not really a concern, but we saw this in Texas. And I鈥檓 going to give a couple of examples about this: 鈥� that people start to understand that this is a useful tool for them鈥攆or teachers and for principals and for superintendents. So rather than being fearful of assessment and data, they now say, 鈥淗ey, this technology program is not getting as good results as the elementary school next door with similar demographics, and what should we be doing?鈥� So, they鈥檙e starting to be able to use it to serve kids and to evaluate curricula and to do staff development in a more strategic way, and so on and so forth.

So, the story I was going to tell you is, you know there was a lot of discussion, obviously, and anxiety about the assessment provisions in the early days in Texas. And then we got to a place where people were demanding that we test science and social studies and the arts and other things, because it鈥檚 the 鈥渨hat gets measured, gets done鈥� kind of notion. So there鈥檚 one way to make sure that we鈥檙e not narrowing the curriculum, and that鈥檚 measure across the curriculum. People who say, well, the test is too easy 鈥� the Scarsdale mothers kind of deal. ... Well, that tells me you need a more vigorous test, and you need, maybe, multiple assessment systems. You know, when you go to the doctor, we don鈥檛 say, 鈥淔it people don鈥檛 have to get their blood pressure checked.鈥� We don鈥檛 know if you鈥檙e fit unless we do check your blood pressure. ...

Q: Do you have your own vision for where you鈥檇 like to take this department, now that you鈥檙e here? Is there something we haven鈥檛 talked about that you really want to be sure to communicate 鈥� about the department鈥檚 face externally?

A: Well, 鈥� I had a little staff meeting yesterday 鈥� and I told them when I was at the state level, we鈥檇 hear the 鈥淲e鈥檙e from Washington, and we鈥檙e here to help鈥� kind of thing, and people would roll their eyes, and say, 鈥淣o they鈥檙e not.鈥�

We want to obviously foster a relationship that we鈥檙e a partner with states; that we all share the same goals of closing the achievement gap, just as the Congress does; and that we鈥檙e practical and sophisticated enough to understand what they鈥檙e talking about. That we are going to learn from them, and I hope they鈥檒l learn from us. And that we can foster the learning from each other. 鈥� And then I hope we鈥檒l build on, obviously, I want to advance the president鈥檚 agenda of extending these principles into high school. And I want to make sure that they鈥檙e embedded and here to stay after he leaves office. And I think we鈥檙e going to get there.