This is a transcript of the June 8 event hosted by New America's Education Policy Program.

MaryEllen McGuire: I'm going to begin today's discussion with brief overview of New America's just released report on teacher equity, "Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools;" and from there I will move onto the panel to hear their perspectives on the issue, ask a couple of questions from the podium, and then take Q&A from the audience. So let's begin. We need technical assistance for one moment. Got it OK.

The problem: teachers with the least experience teach our most at-risk children in our poorest schools. And this puts low income students at a disadvantage. Why does this put them at a disadvantage? Because teacher experience is at least a partial predictor of success in the classroom, and one of the approximations for teacher quality widely available today.

The research shows that teachers become more effective as they gain experience, particularly after the first few years, that experienced teachers tend to have better classroom management skills and a stronger command of the curricular materials,and that novice teachers tend to struggle during their initial years in any classroom, never mind a more challenging classroom.

Well of course this doesn't seem fair, does it? What's causing this to happen? Inter-district school finance and equity. Spending disparities between schools within a single school district. What is the major driver of school finance inequities? Teacher's salaries.

And this is for a variety of reasons. First of all, teacher pay is general based on two things; years of experience and credentials. Teacher's salaries account for the majority of school district expenses, generally 60-80 percent. And veteran teachers, generally within their contracts have transfer priority.

So when you consider a school that has title one, and non-title one schools-- so low income schools, and higher income schools-- generally when a position becomes available in the wealthier schools, which are generally sees as more desirable teaching placements, a teacher with seniority, a teacher with more experience will choose to transfer, and will actually have the first option to transfer in that school.

Over time that has built an imbalance for more experienced, more expensive teaches are inequitably distributed in low poverty, low minority schools.

So again, how do experienced teachers disproportionately end up in lower poverty schools? Doesn't federal law actually require resources within a district, including instructional staff to be equitably distributed across title one and non-title one schools? Well they do, there's a provision in title one called comparability.

Comparability requires school districts to provide at least the same level of services to title one schools, as non-title one schools using state and local funds. Only once this requirement is met can they receive the federal title one dollars.

Now comparability can be demonstrated in one of two ways, by filing a written assurance to the state, and maintaining documentation that the district has implemented a district-wide salary schedule; or comparing the actual resources across schools in one of three areas: Student/institutional staff ratios, student/instructional staff salary ratios, and total expenditure per pupil.

The most popular of these choices is a written assurance. When schools actually choose to compare actual resources, more often than not they choose the student/instructional staff ratios.

And again, more often than not, they are not actually looking at the cost, they are looking at the number resources. So they are comparing ten teachers to ten teachers, as opposed to the actual cost of those teachers, which is a proxy for experience.

So why isn't comparability working? Well, loopholes, watered down regulations, and weak enforcement over several years. The teacher salary loophole, comparability actually prohibits the consideration of salary differentials, due to years of employment, when determining comparability across schools in the district.

Watered down regulations. District can count paraprofessionals as  instructional staff, even though they are not required to have the same level of skill and knowledge as teachers, and even though they are not allowed to provide direct instruction under NCLB.

And the comparability threshold, the actual differential that you are allowed to have between your title one and non-title one schools, has risen over the years from five to 10 percent. That widens the gap between title one and non-title one schools.

And finally, weak enforcement. The guidelines for comparability have been few and far between. And a 2007 audit by the department of eds IG, actually found that school districts do not always report complete and accurate information on comparability.

And often improperly classify schools as comparable. They also found the federal protocol for monitoring states comparability was flawed an insufficient.

So is there really a difference? Does this really matter? Yes it does. There's been a number of studies; one study showed that of the 50 largest school districts in California, schools in the lowest poverty highest wealth quartile, received and average of $2,560 dollars more per teacher, than schools in the highest poverty quartile.

A New America analysis the data from Amarillo Texas actually compared current student/instructor ratio, to a more rigorous method that uses teacher salary spending per pupil. Still using the 10 percent differential.

And what we found was under the current student/instructor ratio 24 out of 25 schools proved to be comparable. When you used a more rigorous teacher salary spending per pupil, what we found is only 12 schools were comparable.

So what can we do? Well, we could require school budget transparency. Congress could amend the elementary and secondary education act to require school districts that receive title one money to report real dollar spending on teacher and other instructional resources at the school level. So again, it's about spending, not about just counting the number of resources.

We can require school districts to demonstrate comparability in total per pupil spending by school. Taking into account teacher salary differentials, based upon experience. Now we would recommend that this requirement would be phased in.

And we don't believe that forced transfer should not be required. Instead funds should be leveraged to attract teaches to title one schools.

The definition of instructional staff should be revised, so that instructional staff only applies to certified teachers.

Current law should be amended to lower the threshold from 10 to five percent and clarify that the comparability requirements serve as a floor, not a ceiling, for funding title one schools.

 At lot of districts, a lot of states, actually interpret the law right now, so that they believe that the 10 percent that you're supposed to be within, is actually a ceiling that you can't go beyond that in your title one schools. And you actually can provide them more.

 And we recommend that dedicated funds are provided to help schools meet teacher distribution requirements. Schools that are out of compliance with title one comparability could be required to spend at least 45 percent of their teacher Title two enhancement grant dollars on teacher distribution activities.

 And we could broaden the scope of the teacher incentive fund to allow schools districts to use these dollars for teacher distribution purposes. Including base pay increases for teachers who agree to teach in high poverty and high minority schools.

 And I do think, and I guess that some of you are going to address this later. But it's really important to know that you have to address the problem. The fact that some schools are more desirable to work in than others. We have to look at teacher working conditions. So that's where we are.

 So I am going to now turn to our three panelists, and ask them to spend about seven to 10 minutes on their perspective on the issue.

 Alice Johnson Cain: Good morning. First I just wanted to say thank you. And thank you especially for [inaudible 08:08] issue. And ways that [mumble] data. And especially from most of the analysis of [inaudible 08:21] discussion draft. So I just had four quick points that I wanted to make. First, I will just put out there from the beginning of last sophomore [inaudible 08:41] this was a very important issue. It was clear when we were starting this occupation process in 2007. I'd be a very grimerish murders, since we wanted to do something about this problem.

 We put comparability approaches with our statement out there, publicly, in the different pages of the discussion draft. But it was [inaudible 09:06] and continues to be an important issue. And I think that if our country is serious about education, that this is a critically important piece of that.

I also wanted to talk a little bit just about the history of this. I was really interested reading the report, seeing it traced all the way back to the 1960's. To the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to the NAACP Report; in the 1970's, with the changes that were made after that, to the Reagan administration watering things down.

There is a whole history here, and I hadn't realized it went all the way back. And I think that that's really helpful as we try to develop things, in a sense moving forward.

There is a provision -- and getting to this third point I want to make, related to that, that tells us no progress has been made to date on addressing this. I think I would like to focus on that, and then hopefully during the Q&A we'll have a little more detailed conversation about the way this could look in the future.

I think some of the progress - NCLB has a surprisingly little known provision, [laughs] beyond these walls, around teacher distribution. There is the comparability provision, but there is also a provision around teacher equity and requiring schools and districts... requiring districts to look at and say how they are distributing teachers.

So looking at resources, not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of capacity making sure that poorer districts do not have a disproportionate number of unqualified out-of-field teachers. And I think HQT helps, I think it doesn't go far enough, that the out-of-field part, I think is equally, if not more, important.

I think a great example of the impact of that, if you look at today on middle school math, and middle school math achievement, and if you look at the number of kids... That trisects the data on this, the number of kids in low-poverty schools with teachers with majors and minors and great expertise and experience in teaching math.

Then you look at high-poverty schools, and teachers. They are getting much lower percentage of teachers with background, expertise and experience in math. Then we look at the fact that those kids aren't doing as well in math [laughs]... You know, it is not rocket science.

I would say in terms of progress, reports like this are really helping, and EdTrust West has done some really helpful to work on this, CAP has done really helpful to work on this. Marguerite Roza has been the sort of theme of this. I think that's been very helpful.

I think that in terms of policy, moving forward, there are some baby steps that have been in the right direction, but we need a much larger step with the authorization. A couple of things that have happened to date.

As part of higher-ed, my boss got the TEACH grants enacted in the House and then into law. That provide $4000 a year scholarships to outstanding graduate and undergraduate students who agree to go into teaching in high-poverty schools. So that's in kermit.

So that's out there, and we got it funded so there is mandatory spending. So every student out there who qualifies for those dollars, can get it. It's not dependent on Congressional appropriation every year. Over time, as word about the TEACH grants get out, they can get some great talent into high-need schools.

Right now, that's for students that agree to teach four years in a high-poverty school -- $4000 per year up front tuition assistance to get the education they need to go do that.

It's not loan repayment; it's not contingent on Congressional appropriations. If they meet the criteria, they can get it. So hopefully, that can help us bring some more talent into high-need classrooms, particularly as more teachers get hired as expected over time.

Another piece of this -- we did put out a proposal to address it in the discussion draft in 2007. We got a very mixed reaction, frankly. We got people who said this was the most important thing we were doing in that piece of legislation. We were serious about lessening the achievement gap. We also got people saying this was the end of the world as we knew it, if this passed. And everything in between. A lot of people just didn't know, or didn't comment. But for the people who were following it, it was sort of the extremist positions.

So a lot of things in that draft. But we put it out there, we put it out there very intentionally. We also put, both in the discussion draft, Title II provisions, and then TEACH Act, which was first introduced in 2005 a provision that said that districts and states could not qualify for the Title II dollars unless they enforced or implemented the provisions in NCLB addressing teacher distribution issues.

It required districts to look at how their teachers are distributed right now, report on it publicly, and if they saw this disparity, to come up with a plan to do something about it. We didn't say what they had to do about it, but we said they had to look at it, they had to report on it, they had to really own that it was there.

That provision has not been... there has been civil rights reports, including the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, that have traced the implementation of those provisions that will just bind. Basically, they found that in the initial state plans for NCLB, this was not enforced by the Department. A lot of states never put the provisions in there, the Department basically looked the other way, and it's taken a lot of time to get some traction.

Still got ten minutes of this sitting. One more point. In the stimulus bill, back in January, one of the things working in the House on that legislation, that Mr Obie said, he said "there were so... I have of ideas for a lot of reforms, when you are talking about that kind of money," that we wanted to push.

One of the decisions that was made early on, was that rather than rewriting NCLB for the stimulus, you could have provisions that enforced current law but not go beyond that. We said, we want to be serious about enforcing the current law. That's the provision that you need to enforce in current law.

So one of the assurances for the $40+ billion, for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is the governors have to show that once and for all they are taking that provision seriously. They have to report on it, they have to look at it, report on it, and figure out what they are going to do about it.

We are not telling them what they are doing about it. We are trying to get away from one size fits all solution. But we are putting it out there, as required with $40 billion plus in cash.

So we consider that really an important step forward on this issue, moving forward with the great support from the administration and Senate, getting them on board with this, we hope that it can lay the ground work for doing more with reauthorization.

The last thing related to the stimulus, I think the provisions around longitudinal data systems can also be helpful in the teacher provisions. I think when you start putting these various pieces together, there is a lot of room for a lot of hope that we can make some progress.

We want to do it in a fair way; we want to do it the way it works, for kids and for teachers. I think if we put our heads together, I think with all the performance pay that's out there now, particularly on high-need schools - we've got to find the right combination of carrots and sticks on this, though we can't keep saying all this anymore. So, thank you.

MaryEllen McGuire: Thank you. Roberto?

Roberto Rodriguez:Good morning. First I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you this morning. I want to thank MaryEllen and applaud the New America Foundation for having this discussion. I think it is critically important to address this provision moving forward. It's an important provision that really speaks to the heart of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as drafted, and the spirit of that law.

I think it's encouraging to see new analyses and new attention being brought to the issue. We're really looking forward to exploring a whole array of policy solutions that help us achieve a better outcome with respect to the spirit of the comparability provision.

I think MaryEllen's presentation really brought to light a part of the problem which is that we have very inequitable resources distributed across our schools. In particular, even within a school district, between high poverty and low poverty schools.

Often we look at teachers' salaries as the gauge, and it's an important gauge to glean more data and glean a better picture of some of these inequities. You saw that in her presentation, there's on average about a $2,700 differential in the salaries paid to teachers in high poverty versus low poverty schools. Other data has suggested that might be even as far as $5,000 per teacher.

So when you aggregate that at the school level it really paints a troubling picture with respect to really providing resources that we need for all students, in particular for low income students, to achieve.

More important than any of the teacher salary analysis is the broader objective here, of really addressing the foundation that all children are going to need to succeed. That's a federal imperative in No Child Left Behind, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

That Act has for years, really established a commitment to serving all disadvantaged students, in particular in Title I, and has established the commitment and reaffirmed the commitment - Congress has reaffirmed this commitment over the course of years, around closing the achievement gaps and helping our most disadvantaged students meet high standards to succeed.

And we know that a student's teacher is really, fundamentally one of the most important resources we can give to a student to be able to succeed. The research very clearly demonstrates that to us. And yet we have the situation where, in our high poverty schools, our students are more than twice as likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers or inexperienced teachers.

So I think the comparability discussion is an important discussion, in part, because it really focuses us on this broader policy objective of making sure that we are, in fact, aligning federal policy to ensure that we have our most talented teachers in the schools that need them the most.

And only then, in terms of fulfilling that policy objective, will we be able, I believe, to turn the corner here in terms of seeing some of the gains, and successfully begin to narrow the achievement gap and provide the opportunity that the ESEA envisions for all disadvantaged students.

The comparability provision also I think is important to point out, as it was included in 1970, over the course of the years, maintenance of effort provisions have been added and supplement-not-supplant provisions have been added.

That three legged stool, so to speak, of comparability, supplement-not-supplant, maintenance of effort, really signals the commitment within the federal law that federal resources should augment and supplement the basic educational aid of basic foundational education that our low income students receive in their schools.

So again, I think that's also an important piece to take together.

And we really need to struggle and really seek to keep that promise that's really inherent in all three of those provisions, around really ensuring that our federal education dollar, in particular in our lowest income schools, is providing added value and providing the supplemental educational experience that students need to be able to meet high standards.

We know now that in many cases that's not the case. We know that, and other data has suggested that, school districts in fact, upon receiving title one dollars may allocate those dollars to lower income schools, and then free up other state or local dollars that would be reallocated for higher income schools.

So you might have a case where, rather than sticking with the spirit of the comparability provision to allocate a basic educational need across the district, and then to add Title I on top of that, you might have a situation where Title I comes into a low income school to provide additional reading specialists, to provide a pre-kindergarten classroom, to provide after school programs or expanded learning opportunities for a student, and then state and local resources are in fact reallocated to higher income schools to provide a comparable level of service to those students.

I think that's another practice that we need to be aware of and conscious of in this conversation. Because that practice as well, which brings people beyond the teacher salary issue, really puts our most disadvantaged students, at the end of the day, at a disadvantage with respect to opportunity that they have to be able to reach high standards.

So we're also at a real disadvantage nationally in that we don't have data at the local level that provides a per-school, per-pupil expenditure and a picture of how much is being spent, and including the effort and the opportunity that's being provided to students.

We really sought to change that in the crafting of the ARRA. And Alice mentioned a number of provisions that were included in the ARRA around the assurances which improved them. And it's thanks to Chairman Miller, who's been a really great advocate and champion on this, that we've been able to move forward and include those as part of the ARRA's implementation.

But there's also an important provision that says that as a condition of funding we're going to begin to get on a school level, a school by school level of the per-pupil expenditure.

That's an important commitment in the ARRA, it's one that our administration is committed to, it's one that we want to work closely with school districts and other stakeholders to really craft.

This is not meant to be an undue burden at the local level in terms of gathering that data. And at the same time we do want to have a better picture, not only of the differential of salaries, but also of differentials of resources and opportunities provided on a school by school level.

Let me also make the point that resources are critically important and this discussion is about comparable resources for our lowest income students. But resources alone won't get us to where we need to go with respect to providing opportunity, the instructional opportunity that students need to be able to succeed.

And so I would argue that we should look at this comparability discussion as a foundation in equity, but really seek to evolve upon that foundation and build upon that foundation, talk more and address more through federal policy, the issue of teacher effectiveness.

That's been an issue that our administration has been committed to. It's been an issue that both the president and the secretary have spoken quite a bit about. And we're on an issue that Congress, again, has been leading on. Alice mentioned the TEACH grants that were included. There are a number of different pieces that we can look at, both in the pre-service as well as the in-service realm, to address teacher effectiveness and really institute new policies, practices, and strategies to ensure that we are in fact getting our most talented teachers to the places where they can do the most. And that we have a federal policy in place to help retain those teachers and support those teachers throughout their profession.

And the pre-service side of things. That obviously means really a challenge and a call to attract more talented individuals to the teaching profession. And to reinvigorating the teaching profession is really not only key to helping close the achievement gap and helping students succeed, but really it's a key to service and to serving your country.

And that's going to lead to something that both the president and the secretary have equated the importance of preparing the teacher professionally. And it also demands we take a fresh look at in service and we adopt new strategies to attract and support teachers, in particular in the first years of their profession which are the developmental years of their profession.

And we know that if we can get quality and talented teachers over the four-year hump, we have a better chance of helping the mediocre students throughout student achievement, and have a better chance of keeping those teachers in the schools that need them.

In terms of in-service support for teachers, we really need to look at new strategies that involve differential compensation, but also involve differential roles and responsibilities for teachers to be able to help them succeed in the classroom.

And that certainly means looking at new strategies and approaches that might differentiate the work of a master teacher from entry teachers in particular schools.

That might change the culture of that school so that new teachers that are coming in have an opportunity to really succeed, and have the guidance and leadership from more seasoned staff that have struggled with the day to day realities of the classrooms, and to be able to really help them be successful.

And we also need to look at how we incent rural areas to really attract our teachers to the places that need them the most, and really attract our teachers that are in high need and high demand subjects.

We desperately need, as Alice mentioned, we desperately need more math teachers, qualified, seasoned, talented math teachers and science teachers. We have a tremendous shortage. And almost any school district that you go to speak with will immediately go to the shortage that they're facing around special education teachers, and around teachers that are certified and qualified to teach English language learners.

These are really important areas of focus around teacher effectiveness and around instructional effectiveness that we need to focus on, in addition to helping comparability issues.

Very briefly on the recommendations that have been advanced by New America, we'll also applaud the focus on not only addressing the need but also providing some potential solutions.

Transparency is certainly a great first step forward, to be able to have a better sense of where we are with respect to the allocation of our resources across our schools. And how our federal dollar, our Title I dollar in particular, is being used relative to state and local aid is really important.

We also should clarify that the comparability threshold is a floor and not a ceiling. And we should do that in the same way that I ordered upcoming reauthorization of the Homeland Secretary of Education Act, to clarify that basic certification and subject matter competence in teaching is a floor rather than a ceiling.

We know that much more is needed, both in terms of resource allocation as well as in terms of talent and skill, to be able to really help all our students succeed.

And then finally I think the suggestions around using Title II or added enforcement mechanisms certainly are interesting ones. I think even beyond the enforcement methods in question, there certainly are strategies that could be explored within the existing Title II of the ESEA to better fulfill the spirit of the comparability provisions.

And there also are strategies that we can fulfill looking forward. And to that we will encourage using funding such as the Teacher Incentive Fund, which receives some additional support through the ARRA, and which our administration will be working hard on to make available to districts, and to really reshaping our act to provide some new support for a future place.

So with that, thank you very much.

MaryEllen McGuire: Thank you. Segun?

Segun Eubanks:You want me again? This is an area which interestingly enough, probably not often enough in this day and age in Washington DC, for which there is a tremendous amount of consensus around the problem and its impact on children. The inequitable distribution of talented teachers and its disparate impact on poor children and children of color, is a critically essential component to solving the achievement gaps that exist in far too many of our schools. And it is perhaps one of the most significant challenges that we can address in reauthorization of the ESEA.

And certainly I'll begin by thanking the New America Foundation and the work of our colleagues here on the Hill for really beginning to push this. I think that every one of the recommendations that are part of the report need to be part of a comprehensive discussion around the reauthorization of the ESEA and what we do about it.

Your report, I think, indicates some things that we've all advocated for from the association's standpoint. Teacher experience matters, the research is clear on that. When and how it matters is something, again, that we need more information and data on.

But clearly, teacher experience matters. Far too many of our urban and inner city schools are subjected to having far too few experienced teachers and far too many novice teachers, and unlicensed and under prepared teachers.

Teacher credentials matter. Again, to what extent? The research is divided on, but clearly there is considerable research around full licensure and its impact. There is research around getting masters degrees in your subject matter and other types of research that show that the kinds of learning and credentials that teachers have matter when it comes to ensuring that their students are successful.

There's a lot more about teacher quality that matters that I won't go into in great detail. And again, while we take as a given that this is a matter that is of extreme concern, I want to spend just the few minutes that I have talking from the teacher's perspective about what it takes to resolve this problem.

And at NEA we've done several things to go out and frankly ask our teachers. Over the last couple of years NEA sponsored six statewide summits in six states across the country. Where we gathered the state's most accomplished teachers, those teachers who have achieved national board certification, we gathered, over that period, over 2,000 teachers. And we said, "National board teachers are underrepresented in high need schools. Talented teachers and experienced teachers are underrepresented in high need schools. We need your skills, your knowledge, and your experience in high need schools. What will it take to get great teaching in high need schools?"

And they had, not surprisingly, a lot to say. I will talk some about it, and as you guessed, one of the things, clearly, that folks talked about, and the report alludes to it. We know that we can't force any teachers to teach somewhere where they don't want to be. We know that we need to transform the learning and working conditions that exist in high need schools.

We know enough to understand that, fundamentally, when we call a school "high needs" or "hard to staff, " that our fundamental challenge is to change whatever it is about that school that makes it hard to staff so that it is not a hard to staff school.

That is going to be fundamentally what it takes to change that. And in many cases that's everything from the adequate resources that my colleague talked about, smaller class sizes, better support, et cetera. And our teachers were loud and clear about that.

The second thing that they were loud and clear about, and many of our national board certified teachers put it out. Our official report talks about recruiting and developing accomplished administrators. Our teachers said, "We won't teach for a bad principal."

And so school leadership is critically important. And what is it that we can do from a policy perspective in order to ensure that we're putting the same amount of energy on the children That we have highly accomplished, highly effective school leadership in our hardest to staff schools, in order to provide what is actually essential in changing those school environments and helping these teachers to be successful.

The other thing that our teachers talked about was that it takes additional challenges and there are additional challenges that exist in high needs schools that require additional knowledge and skills, that far too many of our teachers didn't get in their traditional preparation programs.

What is it about teaching in extremely diverse environments? What are the challenges about teaching kids with very divergent, wide range of skills, knowledge, and ability, and background? What kinds of skills, knowledge, and dispositions do teachers need to develop in order to be successful in these environments?

Those are things that need to exist more in our preparation programs, and again, in the support through Title II, and other places need to make that a requirement and needs to be part of a professional array of experiences of our teachers.

The fourth thing that teachers talked about is that financial incentives do indeed matter.

Again in the research about how much it takes to recruit and maintain teachers as mixed, although we've recommended what seemed clear for us, there are many of these financial incentives that have been relatively successful at recruiting teachers, but significantly less successful at keeping them there, most of the times.

Those incentives need to be significant. But even more importantly is the focus on a growing expertise within high-needs schools. The idea that we need to massively shift the staffing of schools and move teachers around in massive numbers is both not necessarily practical, and not necessarily effective.

What is it that we can do to improve the quality of teaching, to improve and retain the experienced and talented teachers that we need, and to focus on growing the talent that we have in schools.

With targeted professional development through the New Teacher Project just released, an important report about what it takes to improve teacher evaluation and assessment, and divide the kind of targeted professional skills and knowledge that our teachers need to succeed.

So we know that those are just a few of the things that we think make a difference. The other, I'll just make a couple of other points, and then hopefully we can convene to some good dialogue.

Much of what we talked about on comparability, and my colleague Mr. Rodriguez talked about it a little bit, but a lot of what we talk about is around intra-district distribution of teachers. And that is important, it matters, the data could not be clearer on that. However, inter-district teacher distribution is equally, and perhaps more important.

While I don't have the data on me, if you take out states like Maryland and Florida that have large countywide school districts, and some of our larger urban districts, much of the disparity among income and wealth and teacher salary is across districts, and not necessarily within districts.

So there has to be state solutions. Again, we talked about in revisions of ESEA to require governors to really take a look at this from a statewide perspective and not just one that is intra-district.

The other thing I'll say is, as we really look at teaching, and we talk about new ways of looking at teaching and teacher effectiveness, there are all kinds of models that we need to look at. NCTAF, the National Commission on Teaching and American's Future just released a report talking about the concept of team teaching -  The concept of looking at something different than our 19th century model of a single teacher and a single class being accountable for a single group of kids.

We know that if you pay teachers that way and evaluate them that way, it's probably easier, because we've been working at it for a long time.

But if we really want to look at what's in the best interests of children, how do we bring in a group of teachers who have some with a tremendous amount of experience. Some who are novice, some who have expertise in different areas, and make them responsible for larger groups of children, how can we maximize the kind of skill and knowledge and expertise that teachers bring to the classroom?

So, again, I think as we move forward, clearly the issue of transparency and making the data open and available matters, we ought to address that when we deal with comparability provisions.

But we ought to ensure that we're making the holistic look at what it takes to both recruit retain and grow teacher excellence, and to ensure that every one of our students has a fully qualified and effective teacher.

MaryEllen McGuire: Thank you very much. I'm just going to start with a couple of questions from the podium here. I want to start by talking about something important to something that Alice alluded to, spoke about, earlier. In 2007, Chairman Miller released an NCLB Reauthorization Discussion Draft that included language that we would say, arguably, would fix the teacher distribution problem. As proposed, this language would see tremendous impact on the education community.

So what I'm wondering today is, given this, what do each of you think the actual prospects are for inclusion of a similar language in this Congress's draft of reauthorization of NCLB. Are things really different? Is the political climate different? Has comparability's time really come?

Alice Johnson Cain: One thing that's changed since 2007 is we now have a White House that's saying this is a priority. I think that's huge in terms of the political ability to get something done. We were disappointed with the Bush administration enforcement this from day one, it was not a priority. It was only after some of the civil rights organizations started looking at different policies that improved a little bit.

In terms of several of the related policy issues, do not underestimate on Capitol Hill right now, the strength of having the White House giving this appeal. Saying they're behind it and showing they're behind it with the Stimulus Bill which was the first, well, second, third? [laughs] the very early and clear signal of priorities.

I think that's a huge change, and a change that makes me more optimistic.

I think that one thing I'd hope has been very clear from the beginning of the reauthorization process from our office, is there is a wide-open door policy, we have spent countless hours talking to countless groups bringing countless recommendations, buyers and lenders full of them, from basically anyone who wants to weigh in on any thing.

Part of that was the pendulum swinging. I was not here when NCLB was written but I heard a lot of what happened at the end was behind closed doors with a small group of people and there was a very intentional we want to hear from everyone, and we want everyone at the table, we want to see where we can get in terms of process. We made a very good-faith effort. We didn't get where we wanted to get. That was disappointing.

But I think that the offer still stands. Any group that wants to work with us, in good faith, to try to address this problem, and as Roberto, I think he absolutely hit the nail on the head, is he's not about one provision or two provisions or the three-legged stool.

This is about the whole global K-12 issue of how do we help all children in this country's system close the achievement gap and put some urgency and fire behind kids who have been left behind for far too long.

We just had a hearing on dropout factories and schools where, in many cases, half of the kids are dropping out, and have been for generations.

When are we going to get serious and do something about it? So I think anyone who wants to seriously help us try to do something about the big picture and sees this as a piece of that, a critical piece of that, the door is open, will always be open.

We have taken concerns to heart that we hear. When it's not, no, this is not going to help the kids. Or this is something that's not quite there, or is a work in practice. Those are the concerns we want to work through.

But, concerns from those who just want to pull the eyeshades down and go along and say that what we're doing in this country by poor minority kids is OK, I'm sorry, my boss has no time for that. And I think he's made that very clear. [laughs] So there's a complicated, but maybe not so complicated answer to a short question.

I think prospects are good. I think we'll work with anyone who wants to work with us in good faith. But we're not going to get bogged down by naysayers who just say that it's OK the way it is right now.

Roberto Rodriguez: I would agree with Alice. The question I think here in front of us, Alice, is not whether we address this challenge right now. But, in fact, how we address it, and through what means. We will address this comparability issue, it's an important issue issue. We'll look forward to working with Congress when the time is right to do that. We've already begun to address it. We're already beginning to look at, as I mentioned before, richer data from the school, from the district level, on school expenditures. I think the more we can learn about this data, and the more we can understand the differentials from school to school, I think a better position would be in to really advance the strategy to address this.

It's a fundamental issue of equity. It's an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Segun Eubanks: I would simply add, I think that the open and transparent nature of the discussions that we've had, starting with Chairman Miller's opening of the draft, very publicly, that kind of feedback matters. It's important. I think I'm just reiterating that we have, now, a White House that is demanding action, that is demanding change and participation, and saying that there's a commitment, one that Miller and Kennedy have always shared, and I don't think has been shared throughout the Capitol around engaging all the stakeholders around the teachers voice mattering in the discussion, and around a focus on doing what's best for children.

I think if we do those, we have a really good chance of not necessarily agreeing on everything, but on really doing something that makes a difference.

MaryEllen McGuire: I'm actually going to turn it to the audience. Are there any questions?

Mary Cusley: I am Mary Cusley with the American Association of School Administrators. I think the goal of comparability is a good goal. The problem that we continually run into is the way of enforcement, the way of language, continues to come down to teacher salaries, thereby making what we believe is an incorrect assumption that teacher salaries equate to teacher effectiveness.

While we look at all these other, and I think it was good, the other issues that were brought in about climate and things of that nature, I guess I would like to ask the panel, how do we get at this issue that teacher salaries do not equate to teacher effectiveness, and thereby aren't a great sole judge to judge schools on their progress in this area?

I think one of the problems that I know my organization had with the language in the Miller draft on this was that it was that single, it was all about the teacher salaries, and our hands were tied, in some cases, by local collective bargaining agreements, that we have no ability to move teachers with.

So if our hands our tied, we're equating it all to teacher salaries, what other steps, in terms of enforcement from the federal level, can we look for?

MaryEllen McGuire: I'd like to start with that one, Mary. Certainly, I would like you to understand that New America understands that teacher pay isn't the only thing that we're looking at. Teacher pay is a proxy right now more often than not for teacher experience, which is one of the only proxies that is widely available today. Over time, certainly what we would like to see is it actually being about teacher effectiveness, but comparability, along the lines of teacher effectiveness, is what we're going to need. So regardless, the provision is going to have to be strengthened.

Alice Cain:We also, it wasn't about teacher salaries only, it was just getting rid of that loophole in current law. So I wouldn't say that was the only factor, but it was taking out the provisions that prevented that from being one of the factors. We also did have a provision that explicitly said it was not requiring forced transfers for teachers to try to press that. So we got a lot feedback on that too, for not going far enough. So, we've all benefited from talking about it.

Roberto Rodriguez: It's a good point, Mary. I think, and this is why I mentioned that teacher salaries are an important part for us to look at if we need to look beyond that as well. To MaryEllen's point, though, the challenge here is that we don't have really good comparable data beyond teacher salaries from school to school. And teacher's salary place where I think the conversation around resource adequacy and comparability begins, because we do have a good sense, and I think it's the one kind of valid reliable proxy that we can look at across schools.

Certainly it's not an end all, be all in terms of capturing the opportunity that students in that school have to achieve high standards. And I think your point to the importance of looking beyond that, also address teacher effectiveness, address how to build talent in that school, is critically important. I think we should not work in isolation of that.

In fact, our discussion on comparability and on resource adequacy and equity should lead us to a broader strategy that certainly our administration is committed to, of really supporting more effective structure in the classroom, and providing the types of resources. But also new strategies, some of the things I mentioned before, using data to help improve structure, and providing teachers more of a feedback, which would really address the needs of their classroom and other diverse classrooms.

It was a lot different than it did, for many veteran teachers when they started teaching, all of these things need to be addressed. The comparability piece is kind of a first step that opens that discussion.

Alice Cain: Can I say one other thing related to this? I think that Segun made some really important points, extremely consistent with what we've heard from teachers over and over again of what matters. This proposal was not put out there in isolation. It's was put there in the context of a proposal that addressed every single one of the issues that were laid out.

From the no forced teacher transfer to changing working conditions in high-poverty schools as a prerequisite for getting some money into those schools, to give bonuses of up to $12,600 a year to critical mass teachers going with an accomplished principal into those schools.

As in conjunction with mentoring induction for new teachers in high-needs schools to help them grow on the job. In conjunction with career ladders for teachers, mentoring master teachers, to continue to grow and also provide some of that leadership to the newer teachers.

So I think that is a really important point. Where Miller has been coming from on this for years is trying to look at this issue and get a picture in context and try to address it from a number of different levels at once, and not just a one step program for one provision.

We just ask to put the discussion about this in that context, too. That all started with the TEACH Act.

MaryEllen McGuire: All right, another question? This gentleman on the end over here?

Pedro Martinez: Pedro Martinez with the Higher Ed. subcommittee. I want to thank you for the presentations and, especially at this point, I think that Congress at least, or the administration are ready, to try to make some considerable progress in these issues. Prior to 1954, the population we're talking about was already experiencing problems with lack of resources. Throughout the years, the members have put in provisions in ESEA, such as comparability; supplement not supplant, ways that they see that the law might be able to help in these areas.

But the history of litigation for resources in the States is much longer, is more protracted. Accountants and lawyers will always find a reason why you can't spend enough money in each state. At certain points the members will vote for following... putting the money where the student is. But then the next week they'll come back and vote for hold-harmless.

So, there is an argument that goes that money equals something but in this case really, the money is always separate from the discussion that Mr. Rodriguez brought out, which has to do with the core of teaching for certain students.

If you think of the students that were aimed at these provisions, poor inner-city, mainly African American children; later on, the limited English-proficient children, American Indians, some immigrants.

Throughout the years, we tried to somehow say that seven or eight out of every $100.00 is going to change the way a public schools finance these programs is sort of wishing for something that isn't coming.

But, now they focus on the teacher qualifications, and making sure that teachers actually can teach those students, because in our hearings where we tried to bring Title II, Higher Ed, and Title II of ESEA together. We've had witnesses here from California, the state that produces more teachers than anywhere else, indicate that the provisions in NCLB were certainly adequate. But they were not adequate for people who didn't know how to teach LEP kids or kids with disabilities.

So, this is the period where we can actually try to focus in on the teaching provisions, quality of instruction, and try to prove that there's actually some instruction going on. If we can do that, that would be a major, major step forward in the K to 12 as far as the area is concerned.

So, I really appreciate your bringing this forward, and I really would like to see everybody encourage the teacher privileges to be greatly expanded and focused.

Thank you.

Roberto Rodriguez: I'll just very briefly... I think you made a very good point and I think it's a point that we're committed to really addressing again. The comparability issue needs to be addressed, but we also need to know about inherent effectiveness and added value that our teachers are bringing to our students in the classroom. We really need to take a close look at student achievement and student outcomes, in relation to our teachers' skills in the classroom, and we need that picture to really be able to bring better solutions to bear on helping students succeed.

So, part of that is also, how can the principle know that there are challenges and weaknesses in the system so that we can remedy those?

I think that's really important.

[Microphone noise]

Woman: I'm just a member of the public, I don't represent anyone, but I am just curious as to what you think the ideas. Meaning, changing the rules, the national laws as well as whereever else they come from, about tenure for teachers. I know that's a really controversial issue as far as diminishing it for older teachers or teachers who seem to have more experience and get paid more, but may not necessarily be as effective.

This is an issue to me. I was wondering if you have a comment.

[Microphone noise]

Segun Eubanks: I think... let me focus on the discussion on everything in the policy community around that is developing the kinds of systems that are going to: Number 1, ensure that teachers coming into the profession, have the skills, knowledge and ability necessary to be successful. Teachers need to be successful in the beginning of their tenure, although we can't expect a first-year teacher to enjoy the same level of success as someone who was there for 10 years.

We ought to make the new teacher induction support process rigorous. It ought to be meaningful. There ought to be standards embedded in schools to help be able to measure how teachers grow over time once they're in the classroom.

It ought to be long and intense enough so that when the teacher reaches a point of professional in their career, we have an extremely clear judgment about that teacher's ability, about that teacher's skill, and about that teacher's everything.

So, if we do that and then continue on with the growth process that makes it challenging to reach a point of professional status some people call it tenure, or whatever you want to call him, continues growth and development.

Surely we know we certainly didn't create...the system was a bunch that was created as 30 steps to get... there's 30 steps and 30 years to get to $65, 000. To anybody else, it's not our idea of an ideal status. Shorten the salary schedules so that the teachers can get there quicker and then show that they're accomplished and then share that experience with some of their colleagues.

There are a whole lot of ways in which we can do that. That doesn't make tenure necessarily the lynch-pin for whether or not it is there or isn't there as being quality. But, ensuring that if it's there it is part of a quality continuum.

Roberto Rodriguez: I think that there certainly is a need to take a fresh look at pathways that teachers have to really, work with students in the classroom. That more than anything, is the crux of the issue. Maybe that means looking at tenure. It's very much a state function. But it's something that you know, I think that whether we're talking tenure or salary schedule or other pieces, we really need to kind of think creatively, in the right way, about how we provide meaningful pathways for teachers to be able to advance, succeed, and to give them a place to grow. We also need to have everything on the table in talking about that.

Man 3: I've read many of the papers. I've met with you guys individually on the issue. It's been talked about for a long while now, comparability. I mean, I still don't necessarily get it. Comparability, I think, has taken on a life of its own. It's become a buzzword. It's a mechanical calculation. I think we've learned enough in No Child Left Behind about blunt instruments and mechanical calculations. I think a better approach here, and I think Roberto indicated would be to look at what we're actually trying to get at.

As you indicated, if I've got 10 teachers in one school and 10 teachers in another school, and the other school I'm paying 20 percent more money, how is that inherently unfair? They're providing six hours worth of instruction every day to kids. It's not inherently unfair.

When you break it down into teacher-effectiveness or teacher-experience issues, then you get into the unfairness issue. I think we're able to do that. I'm hoping we're able to do that. We certainly can break it down in teacher experience.

We can do things about some kind of equivalency of not having teachers from year one to year three. If we can do those calculations, teacher-effectiveness is going to be much harder. But, if we continue to push this concept of comparability, we're looking at a mechanical calculation that doesn't get us where we need to get to.

I'm hoping that we can actually break it down to the policy issues and the issues of teaching kids and achievement that actually get us beyond. Because if we stay on comparability, we'll continue to have the debates and the pull and tug that we've had over the years that I don't think necessarily gets us where we need to go.

MaryEllen McGuire: I will agree that it is a little extreme. And I think this really sort of ties nicely together Mary's point and Carlos's point that it's not just about teacher differential. Right now, it is really the only proxy we have, as it's related to experience. It is teacher effectiveness. As we get there, that's what we should be looking at. That's the balance that we should be getting to.

Also, leading into this novice teachers, who may not be at the peak of their effectiveness, have pathways, have mentors that are right alongside us what are not being thrown into the most challenging school situations.

For now, though, I do believe that this type of- we're living in the here and now, and this is necessary. As we move on, we look towards teacher effectiveness, and that's what we want to get to. I think that's something that we should be getting to in the next reauthorization.

Roberto Rodriguez: May I just comment briefly? I think Jeff raised a good point. We've had discussions about this in the past. I think, really, this morning's conversation on comparability brings and illuminates a broader point here, that we've had various iterations of trying to get at this issue of resource advocacy and opportunity, and opportunity for effectiveness, what used to be called opportunity to learn.

I think we have this kind of black box that we had in the past where we've never really been able to know school-by-school what types of resources are allocated to students. What types of opportunities are allocated to students? Is there effective opportunity for students to be able to master standards?

We have danced around all of these issues, and they're issues that are important to the federal policy, but we haven't had good data. We haven't had good school-by-school data on these issues.

So the data piece, I think, is where we begin. It's why we need to address the comparability issue, and really make sure that the data that we're collecting from the school district is the best data that we can get. It's also why we need to go even further than that and address data and information all around the effectiveness of instruction in our schools, so that we can learn to understand how to remedy these issues.

So, we want to take some significant steps forward on the data front. And we want to make sure that we keep our eyes on the positive data role, which is not data for data's sake, but how do we improve teaching in American schools?

Jeff:I think more of the problems with the first No Child Left Behind was that, all too often, the data was the answer rather than an indicator. And I think some of the data becomes a nonissue as you move forward. I think that if we really look at this issue, and we look at the data as an indicator, and not as the problem. If our goal was to look at comparability and to ensure that teacher salaries are relatively equitably dispersed among all schools. I don't think there's any real evidence that that's going to solve any significant problems.

If you look at and see that we're really out of whack on teacher quality, it is an indicator, in teacher salaries, it is an indicator that perhaps there are some things wrong that ought to be explored.

That's really, I think, the really important way to look at it. The last thing we want to do is go to a school with a group of a majority of young and energetic and talented teachers who happen to be doing a great job, and saying, "Sorry, your salaries aren't right here. We have to make some changes."

What is happening in the schools matters significantly. If we can use these things, use the comparability data as a way to inform a deeper investigation about what's going on in schools, rather than the goal being either you're comparable or you're not, and if you don't deal in comparability requirements appropriately, then you're out of whack. Then I don't think that's what's happening.

Given some of Congressman Miller's language that looks at requiring governments and districts to explore what the data is telling them, rather than using it as an answer. Then I think we'll be heading in the right direction.

Alice Cain: I have a comment on that. First, I just say thanks to Jeff, because he always has good questions and honest ideas, and we've had a lot of conversations about this along the way. I just have two quick points. One is, like I said before, I think that the teachers having expertise in the subject they're teaching is probably the best indicator of the teacher being successful. And one of the things we put in the discussion draft was a needs assessment Title II to ask districts to look at teachers with expertise in what they're teaching.

Going back to the 8th grade math example. If you're being taught algebra by a football coach in a high-poverty school, and you're being taught algebra by someone with a Ph.D. in algebra across town, what you're going to hear and what you're going to learn is probably going to be different.

So, another piece of this is looking at, until we have the better data and more research and I think that is actually one of the best proxys that's out there. We're thinking about how to put talent, which teachers go in front of which students, that's an important piece.

One of the things that we had in the differentiated interventions provisions of the discussion draft was the opposite of a blunt instrument And it was one of the interventions was in schools that did not make AYP to look at the groups of students that were struggling, and not at proficiency, and to reassign them to a new school, and make sure that those students were being taught by teachers with expertise in the subjects they were teaching, and teachers that were highly qualified.

Knowing that that's not a perfect measure, it's a floor and not a ceiling. That's a very different approach, and there are some criticisms of that approach. And so it's this tension. It also goes back to what I said before; the idea here is to solve a problem, until all kids learn. And as Roberto said, it's not so much whether we do it; it's how we do it.

We tried a lot of different approaches and a lot of different provisions and a lot of different Titles to try to get at this in a lot of different ways, and want to continue to keep our door open and to hear from people who have suggestions for how it'll work better, on the ground to make it happen.

So, I would just ask that as you point out concerns, that something is too blunt or may not solve of the intended problems, and Jeff is always helpful about this -- I'm not picking on you, Jeff -- but as you think about criticisms, think about, "OK, what would be better?" And bring that to us, too. That's what moves the discussion forward.

So that's when we move back into this, sort of in a more intense way at some point, that's what's going to move the ball forward as we have those conversations.

MaryEllen McGuire: I actually have two very patient people over here, this woman and then this woman. And then we'll check the time.

Carol Bellame: Hi, I'm Carol Bellame, I'm with Head Start fellow at the office of Head Start. Here's a suggestion for you. Professional development that follows teachers, that checks in with them. Not just training where teachers get it and they put it on a shelf, because they're so busy. A lot of times we have really passionate teachers in these high-poverty areas, but they have challenging behaviors, they have children they can't communicate with.

I'm working on diversity issues, and I'm doing an analysis of home languages and the importance of professional development that teaches teachers how to acquire English language while the child has their home language as well.

So, we need professional development that's out-of-the-box thinking, that's number one. Also, looking at culture diversity, really looking at and communicating with families and the community to support those teachers and follow up, and also challenging behaviors. We really need to help teachers work with those challenging behaviors that are in the classroom.

There are lots of wonderful teachers in those areas, but they need a lot of support. And not just a one-day or two-day train, they need training that follows up. And I heard you guys mention mentoring and coaching. Congratulations, Roberto, I hope that things go very well.

Reagan Miller: Reagan Miller, Center For American Progress. So, a critical aspect of recommendations here includes a timeline for implementation, and without the good data, it's hard to know what that timeline should be, and whether what's here is too ambitious, or what I'm even more afraid of, is not ambitious enough.

MaryEllen McGuire: Well, we disagree with that. You're certainly well [mumble].

Woman 3: My question was, you mentioned in the report about waivers, and people have been talking about these individual schools, they have a cadre of highly effective, highly energetic new teachers, and how do we not undermine that. And so, I was wondering what you guys all thought about the role of giving principals the discretion, using comparability in the way it's sort of meant in terms of total budget costs, and letting principals say, "I want my new, super energetic teachers, I want a really good math coach, and I want this educational technology, I want the new curricula, I want smaller classes in my school.

So my total dollar figure, my total budget, is at least comparable to the less poor schools in my district, but I want the discretion to decide which of that money I spend on more experienced teachers, and which of that money I spend on other things that are part of our assets."

And then how do we prevent people from using that just as another way to undermine appropriate comparability and to get around it.

MaryEllen McGuire: Well, in the report we talked about waivers, and really, because we don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, we do have a principle, and it's a unique situation, and it's justified. We don't want to keep people from experimenting with reforming. And we do talk about, however, there needs to be very specific guidelines on a case-by-case basis. There should be in that school a history of actual student achievement, and there should be strict federal audits, which was missing in this process all along.

So, do you want to talk about waivers?

Roberto Rodriguez: I think you covered it. Your comment also touches on a broader issue here, beyond the comparability issue that really goes to site-based management and autonomy around school management. And I think, fortunately, we're beginning to see some really interesting possibilities coming out of various districts that grab certain levels of autonomy around budgeting, around curricular design, around scheduling sequence, around all of the kind of important pieces of management for results in schools.

And I just am kind of encouraged by movement, I am encouraged by the very -whether we call it autonomy zones, or pilot schools, or other types of things that are happening across the country in various districts.

And I think that was developing certain innovation perspective, will lead us more to grab a different policy perspective about how we provide our school leadership more autonomy and more appropriate managing these decisions.

Woman 5: This has been a great panel, and I -- closing the comparability loophole is not so much about effective teachers. You guys have done a great job of discussing steps that must be taken to get more effective teachers into the high-poverty and challenging schools. Closing the comparability loophole is about money. And its about money--it's not only local money, it's about state money, because local districts have the discretion as to how to distribute state money. And they all distribute it in the ways outlined in the report.

That means in high poverty schools, which have high turnover, lots of young teachers who are still learning their craft; you don't have the money to help them become strong teachers. You want them to have master teachers, mentor teachers, you want the effective teachers in those schools to get bonuses so that they'll be encouraged to stay in schools like that.

You can even cut class size. But you can't do it without a fair amount of money going to those schools. The comparability loophole puts these high-poverty schools at a disadvantage in resources to build a strong teaching force.

So, it's not the solution to getting effective teachers, it's the solution to having funds to do things that can result in building a stronger workforce in those high-poverty schools.

MaryEllen McGuire: That's a very important context, and the paper itself actually speaks to a larger expenditure piece, and today we really focused on the teacher equity piece. But thank you, taking that very, very well. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Roberto Rodriguez: I just think you illustrated the imperative. Actually, I think you're absolutely right. Again, this is why, as I mentioned in some of my remarks, we need to really not only remedy the loopholes here, but we also need to really take a close look at the types of resource allocations being made prior to Title I coming into the picture. What we want to try to do is make sure that we do have a standard comparability across our schools with state and local resources before Title I comes on as a federal supplement so that it truly is a supplement.

And we're not playing a game of moving dollars from one place to the next after Title I is in here, and that is a net lost from our lowest-income schools.

Woman 6: I have a big one. Some people have mentioned the need for better data about school-by-school per-pupil spending. I finally know Oakland is the only district using actual teacher salaries to do that. So what I'm wondering is how big is the logistical challenge at the district levels to getting accurate figures there, and what does that mean for the timeline that requiring compliance with the tougher provision.

MaryEllen McGuire: I do think that it's a challenge, and I think that... we were actually really pleased at New America to see, inequitable distribution of teachers included in the stimulus. And certainly, there is going to have to have to, in terms of the data piece and the additional dollars and the reporting requirements, I do think what happens in the next two years in the stimulus will actually give us a preview as to how long it takes to collect this kind of data, track it, and what that means for the future.

Certainly, on the timeline question again, I don't think we necessarily know, exactly what's right right now, but I do think that what's happening in the stimulus could provide clearer idea.

Roberto Rodriguez: At least, I think, there are two provisions here, right? Just so that we're clear, the inequitable distribution of teachers provision is a provision that was included in the stimulus, and I think that is, obviously there are at least a couple issues with that. But those are -- that's data that many districts have looked at and reported even during prior administration. So I think there's some of that data that should be easier for us to get out of and to collect here at the federal level.

There is issue around the logistical challenge of a per pupil expenditure, that school-by-school data, which is the other provision that is included in ARRA. It's the logistical challenge. We're going to need to work more on that.

We're committed to working on that, the administration is committed to working on that, so we will have to really work a partnership with schools to figure out how to get it done.

I can't really speak to the specific timelines at this point, but I am willing to say that our administration is committed to moving forward.

MaryEllen McGuire: OK, one more question in the back.

LeGoich: Hi, my name is LeGoich and I'm with Education Daily. In a similar range of the previous two questions, have you all looked at the equity data that states have to submit to the education department and looked at, whether there any states that are using those types of real data, salary data, in the way that you're proposing to be done?

MaryEllen McGuire:Well, when we look at the data, what we find is disproportionately given the options of how they're going to report comparability, people are looking at the written insurance. And then, when they decide to look at actual resources, then they're looking at the student-instructional staff ratio. But it generally is just sort of counting back and forth.

We did mention Oakland, which actually has their dollars that they're accounting for.

MaryEllen McGuire: Has anyone looked at it beyond that? [pause]

Well, I'd like to thank our panelists. I would like to take a moment to thank the actual author or the report, Lindsay Luebchow, who is a former New America staffer who has left us for law school and is currently deep in her studies. And I'd like to thank Jenny Cohen who assisted with a lot of the research and editing on the paper as well. So thank you.

[applause]

[audio ends]