Testimony on H. R. #5

School for Children
Gussie Kappner
May 6, 2005

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to testify on H.R. # 5 this morning. My name is Gussie Kappner, and I am President of Bank Street College of Education. We prepare teachers and principals to work in schools all across the country.

We at Bank Street support the committee¡¯s effort to improve the quality of education in public schools. Almost 90% of our nation¡¯s children attend public schools. However, less than 8% of funding for public schools comes from the federal government. The remaining funding comes primarily from the states through the property tax.

I strongly support your proposal to increase the dollars budgeted for our nation¡¯s public schools and pledge my support in advocacy for this in the appropriations process.

I share your belief that property taxes should be distributed more evenly throughout each state to fund the public schools of that state. However, the question is: What can the Congress do that would help that happen? What incentives and consequences can the federal government put in place to urge the states down this path? Several states, including my own state of New York, have recently had, or have court cases which have required more equitable distribution of funding for public education. A first step, although a politically unpopular one, would be federal legislation which withholds federal funding from any state which is not in compliance with the judicial rulings of its own courts on the distribution of resources for education. This would move governors, in states like New York, to implement the rulings of their state courts on funding for schools.

I also favor the monetary incentive to states to improve their schools. I would humbly suggest that the committee think carefully about what measures will be used to gauge whether schools are improving or not; and how these measures effect children in school. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) we have regular testing in grades three through eight for math and English. Science will soon be added to these testing requirements. I know you have heard from the states that they feel strongly that the NCLB Act is not fully funded. I agree and believe that provision 1 of H.R. # 5 could remedy that situation. There is, however, growing concern among educators that the kind of end of the year testing which NCLB has instituted may be having an unintended negative consequence on children and schools, particularly low performing schools. Many teachers, principals, and superintendents have noted that with so much emphasis placed on these standardized tests, teachers are losing valuable time from teaching. They also note that children are being deprived of art, music, physical education, and social studies because teachers are teaching less of these subjects and teaching only math and reading or English. While we all want children to do better in math and reading it is imperative that we educate all our children in the broader curriculum which prepares them for the world.

The unfortunate truth about most of the tests that most of our states are using is that they don¡¯t really tell us whether children are learning. They tell us how one third grade class scores on a test compared to last year¡¯s third grade class.  I would urge the committee to consider funding states to develop better assessment tools to measure the quality of teaching and whether children are truly learning. Our faculty at Bank Street School and College has developed a wide range of such measures and would be pleased to work with committee staff and state staffs on how to develop understanding of and promote use of these measures.

Regarding the monetary incentives and consequences proposed in H.R. # 5 I would like to point out to the committee that given the variation in population numbers and rates of poverty in different states,  it might be more effective to peg incentives and consequences to the dollars states receive under the NCLB Act. While $1million might be a significant incentive in Alabama, it would not be an effective incentive in states like California or New York.

I agree whole-heartedly with the committee¡¯s emphasis on the importance of excellent teacher training. Bank Street College has been preparing teachers since 1916. Our teachers consistently score in the highest percentile on state certification exams. We have recently been chosen by the Carnegie Corporation to demonstrate, along with ten other colleges in the country, what excellent teacher education looks like.  I ask my representative from the great state of New York to note that we are the only college in New York State to be chosen for this honor.

While the idea of a new teacher academy is an admirable one, there are many already existing schools of teacher education that, with sufficient support for their students, can meet the need for teachers all across the country. While we hear a lot about teacher shortages, the fact is that in some places there are teacher surpluses. Teacher shortages exist in our urban schools, schools which are usually referred to as ¡°hard to staff,¡± and in some key areas such as mathematics and science, and teachers of English for second language learners. While there are many ways to fix this problem temporarily, it will not be permanently solved until salaries for teachers of math and science and other subjects are competitive with work they can get in other professions.

Your critical provision here is government supported tuition for students who wish to become teachers and who will commit to teaching in hard to staff schools for at least five years. In addition to this tuition subsidy, schools of education should be fundedfluperhaps as consortiafluto provide ongoing support to their graduates over those five years. The greatest shortage of teachers comes not from lack of entry to the profession, but from quick retreat from the profession. In urban areas for example, over one third of new teachers leave within the first five years. Members of the Bank Street faculty would be willing to sit with staff of this committee to discuss ways in which schools of education can be supported to work with their graduates to help reduce this turnover.

I commend the committee for its recognition of the need for teachers to be ¡°fully educated.¡±  Too many districts are taking shortcuts which result in poorly prepared teachers being sent into the classrooms where the children need the best prepared teachers.

On the provision regarding class size, which I read as a potential amendment to the NCLB Act: I support strongly class size limits, but urge the committee to provide for the phasing in of this requirement so that enough competent certified teachers can be prepared to fill the new positions this will create. The experience in California demonstrates that if done too quickly this may result in hard-to-staff schools getting poorly prepared teachers, while well prepared, experienced teachers transfer to easier schools.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to you today.