[Senate Hearing 107-479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-479
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: PROVIDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OR STILL SEPARATE AND
UNEQUAL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND RESOURCE ADEQUACY AMONG PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEMS WITHIN AND AMONG STATES
__________
MAY 23, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-941 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Thursday, May 23, 2002
Page
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., Chairman, Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, opening statement.............. 8
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont, opening statement..................................... 1
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Fattah, Hon. Chaka, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania, prepared statement............................ 14
Text of proposed bill submitted by Rep. Chaka Fattah............. 17
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia, opening statement.................................. 47
Wellstone, Hon. Paul D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 49
Catchpole, Judy, State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Cheyenne, WY, prepared statement............................... 60
Price, Hugh B., President, and Chief Executive Officer, National
Urban League, New York, NY, prepared statement................. 65
Rebell, Michael A., Executive Director and Counsel, Campaign for
Fiscal Equity, New York, NY, prepared statement................ 74
Lang, Mary-Beth, Teacher, Bridgeport, CT, on behalf of the
National
Education Association, prepared statement...................... 85
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: PROVIDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OR STILL SEPARATE AND
UNEQUAL?
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher J.
Dodd presiding.
Present: Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Wellstone, and Enzi.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Senator Dodd [presiding]. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us here
this morning at our hearing on ``America's Schools: Providing
Equal
Opportunity or Still Separate and Unequal?''
I am pleased that my colleague and friend from Wyoming is
here with us this morning, and pleased as well to recognize our
two distinguished colleagues from the other body--my good
friend Chaka Fattah, whom I have admired immensely for many,
many years, and Johnny Isakson, we are delighted to have you
here as well. We do not know each other as well, but I know of
you, and I am delighted that you could take some time to be
with us this morning.
The way we will proceed is that I will open with some
comments, turn to my colleague from Wyoming for any opening
comments he may have, and then turn to our colleagues for their
testimony.
Just to let you know, Superintendent Catchpole, we will
probably call on you first on the second panel, because Senator
Enzi has to leave, and we want to give him the opportunity to
hear you.
Again, thanks to all of you for joining us in this very
important discussion. I have put a chart up here which shows
the difference in quality of schools available to rich and poor
students in developed nations.
As you can see from the chart, regretably, our country
ranks at the very bottom of all industrialized nations in that
differential. So I am interested in hearing the thoughts of
witnesses on how we can address this.
Last year, Democrats and Republicans worked very closely
with the President to pass the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' to
hold schools accountable for closing the achievement gap for
low-income students, minority students, limited English-
proficient students, and students with disabilities, to hold
schools accountable for all students performing at a very high
level.
There is no more important goal to our Nation's future than
ensuring that every child has the opportunity through education
to reach his or her potential as an individual and as a citizen
of our great country. But today, we are going to hear that the
Federal Government and State governments are not doing their
part to help our country's children reach that goal.
It is all well and good for us to hold schools
accountable--we should--but we and States must also be
accountable. It is not enough just to ask parents and students
to do more; every part of society must contribute and be held
to a standard if we are going to improve the quality of
education.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court in the landmark case
of Brown v. Board of Education, said that the American promise
of equal opportunity was empty without equal educational
opportunity. That 9-to-0 decision, I think, reflects the view
of an overwhelming majority of Americans.
But today to a great extent, whether an American child is
taught by a high-quality teacher in a small class, has access
to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school
in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from the
educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a
quality education still depends on where the child's family can
afford to live.
Today, low-income, minority, urban and rural children do
not have equal educational opportunity, so that for many of
them, the American promise is empty. This is simply
unacceptable. Regardless of one's ideology, regardless of one's
political persuasion, it ought to be as we enter the 21st
century totally unacceptable that we would say to a child in
America that your opportunity to succeed and to contribute to
your family and this Nation depends upon the economic
circumstances into which you were born.
It is unacceptable that our schools, which must prepare
students to succeed in the 21st century, are still being
financed by a system that is rooted in the 19th century.
It is unacceptable that a country which purports to make
education its top domestic priority devotes less than 2 percent
of its total Federal budget to education from K through 12.
That is why the Senate last year voted overwhelming to
support an amendment that Senator Collins of Maine and I
offered which authorized full funding of Title I in elementary
and secondary education. I think it is why the Senate as well,
with bipartisan support, voted to finally meet the goal that
Congress and the President set some 27 years ago to fully fund
the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
That is why I offered the amendment, which I would not have
thought would be so controversial in 2001, to ensure
comparability of educational resources within States, which is
already required within school districts, by the way. The law
says that within a school district, there must be comparable
educational opportunity. We also set a standard at the national
level saying that schools have got to do more. But, we have
left out the States as far as accountability for achieving
those goals.
Although the amendment did not pass, more than 40 of our
colleagues recognized that a system which, according to the
World Economic Forum's 2001-2002 Global Competitiveness Report,
ranks us last among developed nations in the difference in the
quality of schools available to rich and poor students, must be
changed.
One reason Democrats were able to work so closely with the
President last year was that he assured us that he agreed with
us that neither reforms nor resources alone, but reforms and
resources together, were the keys to helping schools provide
our children with the education they need and deserve.
But this February, just a few weeks after he signed the No
Child Left Behind Act, the President released his education
budget, and the resources were not there--far from it. In fact,
the President's budget would take a giant step backward by
reducing Federal support for education reforms, including for
hiring and training quality teachers, after-school programs,
bilingual programs, and helping schools stay safe and drug-free
at the same time as it would siphon nearly $4 billion from low-
income public schools for private school vouchers.
The budget would serve only 40 percent low-income children
under Title I. Instead of joining the bipartisan effort to
fully fund special education, the budget would provide an
increase which, if we provided the same increase every year,
would never fully fund special education.
Even though we are facing a shortage of 2 million teachers,
and the President spoke in his State of the Union Address of
the importance of a high-quality teacher in every classroom,
the budget would eliminate high-quality training programs for
nearly 20,000 teachers in this country.
When you say that you are going to leave no child behind,
that comes with responsibilities as well. But the President's
budget does not meet those responsibilities, and it would leave
millions of children, unfortunately, behind.
Holding schools to high standards of student achievement is
extremely important, but it is not the same as reaching those
standards. If we do not make sure that every school has the
tools that it needs--and we are going to hear today that many
schools do not have those tools--we will be like parents with
two children, telling them they expect both of them to work
hard and do well in school but that they will only help one of
them with their homework, will only allow one of them to use
the family's encyclopedia or computer, and will only allow one
of them to study in a warm room while the other must study in
the unheated basement.
I know that States have made some progress over the years
in leveling the playing field and that they are facing terrific
budgetary pressures themselves, and I know that the Federal
Government is facing its own deficits instead of surpluses--
although in large part, that is because the President made a
choice to place a higher priority on tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans than on educational resources.
But providing enough resources for education should not be
a choice. We do not and we should not ever say that we would
like to do more about national security, but times are tough. I
do not think we can accept that argument for education, either.
In fact, when times are tough, increasing our investment in
education may be one of the best things we can do for long-term
economic strength and recovery.
According to a recent report from the Alliance for
Excellence in Education, if African Americans and Hispanic
Americans went to college at the same rate that whites do in
this country, our gross domestic product would increase by $231
billion, and our tax revenues would increase by some $80
billion. Obviously, that is not going to happen without equal
educational opportunity in our K through 12 schools.
Almost 40 years ago, President Kennedy asked whether any
American would be content, and I quote: ``to have the color of
his skin changed and stand in the place'' of African Americans
who, among other things, could not send their children to the
best public schools.
Today, for different reasons, we are asking a similar
question about low-income Americans, minorities, urban and
rural Americans, and I have no doubt that the answer is the
same.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this
morning and having a good conversation on what we need to do to
achieve equality in educational opportunity for all of our
children in this country as we begin the 21st century.
With that, let me turn to my colleague from Wyoming, and
then we will begin with our witnesses.
Senator Enzi.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL ENZI
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the role of
the Federal Government in ensuring educational equity within
State and local school districts, and I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome all of the witnesses. I am especially
pleased that we are joined by Congressman Johnny Isakson from
Georgia. During our service together on the Web-Based Education
Commission, I came to greatly respect Congressman Isakson's
expertise on this issue of education, and I am sure he will be
able to share some valuable information with us today. He is
former chairman of the Georgia Board of Education and as such
is uniquely qualified to talk about the role that States play
in education funding as well as the impact that Federal school
funding mandates would have on States.
And of course, I am very honored today to have Wyoming's
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Judy Catchpole,
with us this morning. She is currently serving her second term
as Wyoming's chief education official, and during her years in
office, Judy has overseen the implementation of standards-based
education reform in the State of Wyoming. She has also had to
deal with the impact of ongoing State legislation over equity
of school financing, and that has been an ongoing litigation
battle in our State for 20 years; it is required in our
Constitution, and when I was in the State legislature, I had an
opportunity to deal with that a little bit and to see how
difficult the problem is. I am sure that she will add a
valuable perspective to our discussions.
I would mention that 2 weeks ago, there was an article in
the paper about Maryland taking on full funding of their
education. I read all those education articles with a great
deal of fascination and usually learn a tremendous amount from
them and was very pleased to find that there was mention in
this article that there are only two States in the entire
Nation that fully fund education. One of them is Wyoming, and
the other is Ohio.
In Wyoming, of course, we do not think that education is
fully funded, but we are pleased that others know that we have
made some tremendous strides in that direction.
The courts have not only been involved in the litigation,
but the Supreme Court Justices provide oversight to the
legislature. We are not sure constitutionally how that all
works out, and they are considering some constitutional
amendments in that regard as well.
I will say that I usually go home to Wyoming on the
weekends. I head out on Friday, and if I can get there early
enough, I stop in and visit some schools. I knew that Wyoming
had quite a diversity of schools, how rural they are and the
size of the schools, but I have come to know that a little bit
better.
We have one school district that is half the size of Rhode
Island, and I had the opportunity one afternoon to address
every student in that district--all 111 of them. We have some
bigger districts, but our biggest city is 52,253 people--not
that we are keeping track exactly--but that is a much smaller
school district in terms of number of students than most--our
total population is smaller than the size of most districts.
We have gone for distance learning. We have found that we
have not even been able to define the word ``equity'' very well
yet. Does that mean equity of dollars, equity of buildings,
equity of course offerings? Course offerings are very
important. If you have a high school that has nine students in
it, they want to have the same access to a variety of languages
that the large schools have. When you are trying to fund
sports, it is a different problem. So there are a whole variety
of costs that begin with how students get to school.
We have provided this little formula in Wyoming that no
grade school child should be on the bus for longer than an hour
each way. It is hard to do. It means that you have some very
small schools. Some schools at times have one to three students
in them. So if you are providing an equity of funding per
student, you cannot begin to fund that school.
So I am always fascinated with these discussions,
particularly when we get to the Federal level, because I always
contend that a one-size-fits-all mandate is not going to work
very well for my State, and I am pleased to be here to watch
out for my State and other areas that have rural problems like
I mention.
The issue that we are here to discuss today is what role,
if any, the Federal Government has in determining the manner in
which States finance education. As we look at this issue in
depth, we must remember that the Federal Government provides
only 9 percent of necessary funding for education. We will all
take note that this percentage has risen from 7 percent a few
years ago, thanks to President Bush's commitment to education.
States and communities contribute the rest of the necessary
funding for education.
While the Federal investment is critically important to our
Nation's neediest students, we must not forget that this
investment should not allow the Federal Government to take
control over what has always been a State and local function.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to examine the
implications of extending unprecedented Federal control into
our Nation's schools. At the end of the day, I hope we can
agree that the Federal Government must continue to target our
resources to the students who are most in need, while resisting
the urge to interfere with ongoing school financed litigation
based on individual State constitutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Mike Enzi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mike Enzi
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here this
morning to discuss the role of the Federal Government in
ensuring educational equity within States and local schools
districts. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all
of our witnesses. I am especially pleased that we are joined by
Congressman Johnny Isakson from Georgia. During our service
together on the Web-Based Education Commission I came to
greatly respect Congressman Isakson's expertise on the issue of
education. I am sure he will be able to share some valuable
information with us today. As the former Chairman of the
Georgia Board of Education, he is uniquely qualified to talk
about the role that States play in education financing, as well
as the impact that Federal school funding mandates would have
on States.
I am also honored to have Wyoming's State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, Judy Catchpole, with us this morning. Judy
has been involved with children throughout her life as an
educator, an advocate and a public servant. She is currently
serving her second elected term as Wyoming's chief education
official. During her years in office Judy has overseen the
implementation of standards based education reform in the State
of Wyoming. She has also had to deal with the impact of ongoing
State litigation over school financing. I am sure she will add
a valuable perspective to our discussions.
The issue that we are here today to discuss is what role,
if any, the Federal Government has in determining the manner in
which States finance education. While we all understand that
the primary reason the Federal Government first became involved
in education was to ensure that traditionally underserved
students receive an equal education, we must also remember that
States and local school districts shoulder the primary
responsibility for providing an education to our Nation's
students. The Federal Government only provides about 9 percent
of the necessary funding for education. You will all take note
that this percentage has risen from between 6 percent to 7
percent a few years ago thanks to President Bush's commitment
to education. States and communities contribute the rest of the
necessary funding for education. While the Federal investment
is critically important to our Nation's neediest students, we
must not forget that this investment should not allow the
Federal Government to take control over what is properly a
State and local function.
As a former State legislator I have some experience with
this issue since my home State of Wyoming has been involved in
school funding lawsuits since the early 1980s. In fact, in 1995
the Wyoming Supreme Court found that Wyoming's State
constitution established education as one of the States' top
priorities. The court even went so far as to provide remedial
guidelines to the State legislature for establishing an
equitable funding system. Earlier this year, after a great deal
of debate, the Wyoming legislature passed legislation that
contained an education funding model they hope will satisfy the
courts concerns.
While Wyoming's experience provides a striking example,
there are at least 43 other States that have been involved in
some type of school finance litigation. The issue of equalizing
school finances has clearly gained the attention of States
across the Nation and it is being dealt with. This is why I,
and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, feel that
there is no role for the Federal Government in this area.
I would also like to point out that while resources are
important, we must also remember that simply giving schools
more money doesn't equal a better education for our students.
Research from the American Legislative Exchange Council
indicates that there is no clear correlation between Federal
spending on education and student achievement. According to
their Report Card on American Education, per pupil expenditures
have increased by more than 22.8 percent in inflation adjusted
dollars over the past two decades nationwide, yet 69 percent of
American eighth graders are still performing below proficiency
in reading according to the 1998 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Clearly, improving academic achievement,
and ensuring the future success of disadvantaged students, is
not as simple as providing more money.
Finally, I would like my colleagues to remember that the
Federal Government does not fund education with the goal of
creating equity. The Federal Government targets those students
with the greatest need with the hope that Federal dollars can
make a real difference in the lives of these students. This
does not mean that the Federal Government is not concerned
about making sure that every student learns, however. As all
the members of this committee are well aware, the ``No Child
Left Behind Act,'' which was signed into law by President Bush
earlier this year, already provides a structure to help ensure
that low-income or minority students are learning at the same
rate as their peers. We must allow the new reforms in this
legislation, which are geared towards equity in academic
achievement, time to work so that we can see if the years of
work that this committee put into education reform are
successful.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to examine the
implications of extending unprecedented Federal control into
our Nation's schools. At the end of the day I hope we can agree
that the Federal Government must continue to target our
resources to the students who are the most in need, while
resisting the urge to interfere with ongoing school finance
litigation based on individual State constitutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator Enzi.
We have been joined by the chairman of the committee,
Senator Kennedy, and before turning to him for some comments, I
just wanted to quote from Linda Darlin-Hammond, a Stanford
professor, from some studies done. ``The wealthiest 10 percent
of school districts in the United States spend nearly 10 times
more than the poorest 10 percent, and spending ratios of 3-to-1
are common within States. Poor and minority students are
concentrated in the least-well-funded schools, most of them
located in central cities or rural areas, and funded at levels
substantially below those of neighboring suburban districts. A
recent analysis of data prepared for school finance cases in
Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and Texas, have found
that on every tangible measure, from qualified teachers to
curriculum offerings, schools serving greater numbers of
students of color have significantly fewer resources than
schools serving mostly white students.'' That is a serious
problem.
Senator Kennedy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
The Chairman. I want to thank Senator Dodd for his
leadership on this issue of equity and adequacy in terms of
funding schools. He has been the real leader in terms of
getting full funding on Title I programs, and I think this
hearing today is enormously important, and I am grateful to
him. It is always good to see my friend from Wyoming, Senator
Enzi, as well.
Massachusetts, as other States, has written in their
Constitution the guarantee of education, and it is more
descriptive. It was written by John Adams. David McCullough,
the great historian, reminds us that it is more specific in our
Massachusetts Constitution than any other State in the country.
Recently, up at the Kennedy Library, we celebrated the
Profiles in Courage Awards. The first recipient was Carl Elliot
from Alabama, who understood that the most important civil
rights issue is education. He was targeted and buffeted about,
used his whole pension and died impoverished fighting for the
adequacy of education. This was before Brown v. Board of
Education. This struggle is almost as old as the country, but
we passed the Morrill Act because we understood the importance
of trying to make education available to young people; with the
GI bill, we tried to make education available; in the early
1970s, we passed the Pell Grant programs, understanding that
people in need should receive a helping hand in order to
continue their education.
And now, with all respect to this administration, we have
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which I support and take
pride that we were able to do it with the increased funding
that we had last year. And we hear a lot of speeches from the
administration about the increasing funding, yet we find this
year that school districts and schools have additional
responsibilities and fewer and fewer resources from us.
Not only are there fewer resources, but there are appalling
inequities, which is what this hearing is really all about--
adequacy and equity--both are the challenge. Today, under the
leadership of Senator Dodd and the excellent witnesses here, we
are going to remind the American people of the great
inadequacies and inequities that exist in our society in terms
of the funding of education.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and I hope
we are going to be able to take some action on the issue as
well.
I want to particularly welcome our two House members for
being here, both of whom have spent a good deal of time on this
issue. I think Mr. Fattah makes more phone calls over here on
issues of education than anyone has received in recent times,
but we are always glad to receive them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Thank you Congressman Fattah and Congressman Isakson and
everyone else for coming this morning. And thank you Senator
Dodd and Congressman Fattah, in particular, for continuing to
fight for school finance equity and adequacy.
School finance is the most important civil rights issue in
education since school desegregation. Last week's anniversary
of the Brown v. Board of Education case is bittersweet for many
of us. While undoubtedly, progress has been made in the civil
rights battle for educational opportunity, in many ways our
schools fail to meet even the 176-year-old discredited Plessy
v. Ferguson standard of ``separate, but equal.'' The majority
of Latino and African American children remain in racially
isolated schools and remain disproportionately concentrated in
poorly financed schools.
In America, the children who need the most that public
education has to offer too often get the least, while those who
need the least get the most.
Inequities in school finance are dispiriting and
inadequacies in education resources too often are appalling.
Those who say that investing more money in education makes
little difference do not send their children to inequitable and
inadequate schools--schools without books, schools without
certified teachers, schools in which teachers dip into their
own pockets for school supplies.
This is wrong. It is wrong that children in the same town
are treated differently, just because they go to different
schools. And the President's budget just makes matters worse.
The new education reform bill passed only months ago places
substantial new demands on local schools, teachers, and
students. Students will be tested on more challenging curricula
and schools and teachers will be held accountable for results.
But schools cannot achieve high standards on low budgets. We
have an obligation to match new education reforms with new
resources, so that all children will have a fair chance at
academic success, no matter what school they attend.
Many of us have been fighting the Administration's latest
budget that provides no new resources for public school reform,
that embraces huge additional tax cuts for the wealthy, and
that diverts public dollars to private schools. We have to win
the fight for more Federal education resources if we are to
have any chance at remedying local school inequities and
inadequacies, any chance at improving education through
standards-based school reform.
Educational equity and adequacy is an educational
imperative, an economic imperative, and a moral imperative.
Thank you again Senator Dodd and Congressman Fattah for your
past work on this issue. I look forward to working with you
both and others in the future on this important area.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We have been joined by Senator Wellstone as well, and
Senator, if you do not mind, I would like to turn to the
witnesses and then come back to you so we can get started.
Senator Wellstone. Fine.
Senator Dodd. I thank both of you for being here. Senator
Kennedy is absolutely right about your interest in education,
Congressman Fattah. I have never known a member who has spent
as much time focusing on every level of education as you have.
Your interest in this subject matter goes back to your days
serving at the local level in Pennsylvania, through now your
fourth term as a Member of the House of Representatives
representing the 2nd District of Pennsylvania, which includes
parts of Philadelphia and Delaware County. You have been a
leader in innovative education policy, and it is a pleasure to
have you with us.
Your colleague, Johnny Isakson, second term, 6th District
of Georgia, which includes part of Cherokee, Cobb, Fulton, and
Gwinnett Counties. You are a member of the House Education and
Workforce Committee and last year were very much a part of the
conference committee when we dealt with the bill that Senator
Kennedy has referenced and I have talked about, the No Child
Left Behind Act.
We are honored to have both of you here to talk about this
issue.
Let me turn to you first, Congressman Fattah, and then
Congressman Isakson.
And then, I would like to--because both of you are so
interested in the subject matter--have you come up here and
join us after your testimony and listen to the witnesses,
because obviously, if we are going to talk about solutions, it
is going to have to come out of both bodies, and it has got to
be bipartisan. So I invite both of you to stay for a while, or
as long as you can, to hear the testimony.
Chaka, thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHAKA FATTAH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fattah. I appreciate that invitation, and I will take
you up on it.
I want to thank you for your leadership here in the Senate
on this issue, both today and on many days prior to this
morning. And to be here with the full committee chairman--he
talks about my phone calls--I am glad that he has been here to
answer so many calls and for our work together on Gear Up,
which is now benefitting over 1.5 million children in all of
our States, moving young people through the educational
pipeline; and to Senator Wellstone, who has a background and a
continuing interest particularly in this issue and has spoken
out on it most forcefully.
Senator Enzi and I served on the Web-Based Education
Commission, and I know, as he has recounted, that his State,
with the Clearmont decision and issues going through the courts
there, has really been leading the country in grappling with
this issue; but yet still today, there is a lot more than
remains to be done, both in Wyoming and across the board.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to enter into the
record just a few documents if you would consent. The first is
a new bill that we have fashioned based on all the comments
from the Senate debate on the comparability amendment, which
you were so gracious to offer, from all sides of that issue and
where we got, as you said, over 40 votes in the Senate, and in
the House, I offered H.R. 1234, the Equal Protection School
Finance Act, and we got 183 votes. But from all of the
dialogue, I have now fashioned some new language that I think
meets the concerns raised by all parties, and we have presented
it to the panel. It is going to be entitled the Student Bill of
Rights, and it articulates the question that was asked of you
on the Senate floor--what does comparability mean--and we lay
out seven very specific, fundamental ingredients that are
needed for a child to learn. They include a fully-qualified
teacher, and as the President indicated in the State of the
Union speech, that should really be our goal in terms of
education reform. It talks about updated textbooks and
computer-to-student ratio, guidance counselor access, library
access at the school level.
These seven fundamentals, we think, answer the question
about what do children need to adequately live up to their
potential. What this new language would call for is not Federal
control. What it would do, however, is call for a report card
on States to ascertain to what level there is a disparity in
the provision of these fundamentals in terms of an education
being provided.
Let me just tell you that in New York City this morning,
some 20 percent of the teachers are not certified and not fully
qualified under State law in New York. In Philadelphia, 50
percent.
Senator Dodd. By the way, just to give an idea, I think
that is around 13,000--is that correct--in New York alone?
Mr. Fattah. That is correct, and in Philadelphia, we have
65 percent of what the State says are unqualified teachers in
one of our 501 school districts. In Chicago, the Chicago Sun-
Times, in its survey discerned that if you happen to be a low-
income student in the City of Chicago, you are 23 times more
likely to have a teacher who has failed all five of the basic
skills tests on the Illinois teacher's exam. A recent study
showed 42,000 spread between cities in California.
There is a continuing problem of lack of access to
textbooks. There are schools in our country today with over
1,000 students who have fewer than 10 computers in the whole
school building.
So we have a real problem. And as the Federal Government,
under the leadership of President Bush, now insists, and I
think properly so, that students be tested in federally-
mandated tests in every school ever year, I think we have a
responsibility to ensure that these students have a teacher and
have textbooks so that they can properly demonstrate to what
level their potential exists.
It is inappropriate for us to try to discern whether a
child can swim if there is no water in the pool for them to
demonstrate their capability. We have students who go through
middle and high school never having been taught by a math
instructor who majored or minored in math.
I read the Arkansas case last night, where the affidavit
submitted by Roy King said that he was the only math teacher
for his whole school district. The problem is that he did not
major or minor in math. His degree was in physical education.
He made less than $12,000 a year and made another $5,000
driving a school bus. And he had four textbooks to offer the
students.
There are, throughout our country, these kinds of
disparities.
I also want to enter into the record the legislation that
brought each of our States into the Union, in which there was
an irrevocable commitment that had to be made in order to
States to join this Union that they were going to provide for
public schooling. That is the origin of all these commitments
listed in these State constitutions. And we have had
litigation, as your colleague has indicated, in Wyoming for 20
years, but in many States for many more years, that has yet to
satisfy the responsibility to provide an adequate education for
poor students.
[The documentation was not available at press time.]
In fact, we have a situation where the students who are the
most disadvantaged when they show up at the schoolhouse door
are, in fact, the least likely to have any of what we now know
to be the fundamental needs in order for them to receive a
quality education. We talk about low-income students not
performing well. The truth of the matter is that they are not
being given an opportunity at all to demonstrate their ability
to perform.
So, rather than stigmatize the children, my legislation
seeks to force States in order to remove themselves from what
would be a highly public list of States that, under this bill
as I am going to introduce it, the Student Bill of Rights,
would be identified as States providing an unequal education,
that they do something about it. We give them multiple years to
develop a remedial plan and implement it. We do take your
suggestion, Chairman Dodd, to penalize them only in the
outyears, the third year out, if they do not implement a
remediation plan--just the administrative dollars that
accompany Federal grants--so that there would be a penalty, and
there would be some ability to enforce this.
My legislation would also require some studies. One that I
think would be important is in the area of defense. We have
tens of thousands of young people who are volunteering to serve
in our military but are not capable of passing the academic
tests administered by the Department of Defense for military
service. These are students who, when you look at where they
come from, are coming out of these low-performing schools. The
Bush administration said just a few days ago that there are
some 7,000 failing schools in our country. We have to do
something about this.
As I conclude, I want to enter into the record a listing of
findings in these various State equity cases around the country
where it has been determined that this problem is, in fact, so,
and I want to read into the record just one of them, the most
recent, from North Carolina, where the court found that ``The
clear, convincing and credible evidence presented in this case
demonstrates that there are many children who are at risk of
academic failure who are not being provided with an equal
opportunity to obtain a sound, basic education, as mandated by
the Constitution of this State.''
[The documentation was not available at press time.]
That could be true in any State in our Union this morning,
and it is impossible for us as a country to move forward in the
area of education without finally addressing this question of
how we encourage and require States to provide a more equal
playing field.
I want to enter into the record some of the rules that
accompany some of our professional sports. The NBA has a set of
rules, and the NHL; all of our teams operate under a system
that allows competition to take place under a fair process.
[The documentation was not available at press time.]
As I spoke to President Bush on this issue, I reminded him
of his days heading up a baseball team in which all the teams
come with the same set of rules, and then you can discern what
someone's ability is, because they are all playing the same
game by the same set of rules.
Poor children today and every day that has preceded this
hearing have been in a situation in which their opportunities
for a higher education, for a job, for the ability to be
productive citizens, for their opportunity to assert their
citizenship and to vote in Federal elections, to serve on
Federal juries, to be a part of this country, are handcuffed
from the beginning.
In Wyoming, the situation is not as bad as in Pennsylvania.
In the suburban classrooms surrounding Philadelphia, we spend
$70,000 more per classroom on average than we spend in
Philadelphia each year for the 12 years of a child's education.
In Wyoming, that differential is only $37,000 a year.
But in every State, the poorest of our children are getting
the least of the resources, and at the end of the day, we
stigmatize them, and we will further stigmatize them with these
federally-mandated tests by saying that they somehow not
measured up, when the truth, we really know. And this hearing
gives us a louder microphone to speak from, because there is no
more important legislative body than the U.S. Congress, and
this is the upper chamber.
So it is a pleasure to be here. It is not often that
Members of the House get over here to talk to our colleagues in
an informal way. I appreciate this hearing, and I hope the
record this morning will reflect the beginning of a new era of
reform in which we do not just talk about students being
accountable, but parents and teachers, and that we say to the
States, which make every important decision about schools--they
decide the number of days kids go to school, they decide who is
certified to teach and who is not, they decide the taxing
formulations that are used to finance districts, they decide
how many districts they are going to be. There was a time in
our country when there were more than 1,000 school districts in
Arkansas, and one in Hawaii. These are arbitrary decisions made
by State governments. They decide on property taxes or sales
taxes or income taxes.
But however the rules are constructed, somehow, in every
State, poor kids are left in the shadows. And hopefully, today,
we will let some sunshine in, and I hope this will be the
impetus for us to take legislative action to correct this
without infringing on States' responsibilities, but with those
responsibilities that States have, there is a responsibility of
the Federal Government, and that is to ensure that every
citizen in these United States has an opportunity to what we
understand to be in the U.S. Constitution, that is, the pursuit
of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Congressman. That was
very, very helpful, and we will have some questions for you in
a minute.
I would just note that there was a time when a child in
Connecticut or Wyoming or Pennsylvania or Georgia may have been
competing only with a child in other parts of the State, or
maybe in the neighboring States. But in the 21st century, our
kids are competing with kids in Beijing and Moscow and Sydney
and Paris and so on. So we have got to start thinking in the
context that how well a child is doing in your State, or mine,
or my friend from Wyoming's, has a direct bearing on all of us.
The days when we did not have to think about that are long
past, and we have got to be conscious of the new markets and
the new realities.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Hon. Chaka
Fattah follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chaka Fattah
Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Gregg, and Senators of
the committee for providing me the opportunity to lend my voice to the
debate over the Federal Government's role in improving our Nation's
education system. I would like to especially take this opportunity to
express my gratitude to Senator Christopher Dodd who has joined me,
among others, in the fight to eliminate educational inequities and
resource inadequacies in our Nation's public school system. It is a
pleasure to testify before a committee that has recently worked so
tirelessly to find the right mix of policies and resources in the
``Leave No Child Behind Act'' necessary to properly educate our
Nation's young. While I applaud your effort as a first step in the
right direction, it goes without saying that our work as education
policymakers is far from complete.
Today, I am here as a sincere advocate for what I believe is
missing, both in theory and in practice, from the approach taken in
H.R. 1 to improving our public school system. To accomplish the goal of
providing every student with a high quality education, we must act
decisively to eliminate inequities that exist among public school
systems within and among States. Therefore, I come here this morning,
calling upon our Nation's leaders to make certain that all children,
regardless of income level or place of residency, are provided adequate
educational resources to become successful members of society. In order
to accomplish such a fundamental feat, we must require that our
Nation's public school systems provide all students seven essential
elements for learning, which include: (a) instruction from a highly
qualified teacher; (b) rigorous academic standards; (c) small class
sizes; (d) up-to-date instructional materials; (e) state-of-the art
libraries; (f) updated computers; (g) qualified guidance counselors.
Senators, we know that public schools work. They perform
wonderfully, everyday, for millions of students and parents living in
more affluent neighborhoods, where abundant resources are readily
available and invested accordingly in order to assure that their
children have access to a high quality education. Unfortunately, these
same opportunities do not exist for the countless number of students
attending public schools throughout our Nation's rural and urban
communities. Since a high quality, highly competitive education for all
students is imperative for the economic growth and productivity of the
United States, an effective national defense, and to achieve our
historical aspiration to be one Nation of equal citizens, the call for
dismantling separate and unequal State public school systems that
subject millions of equally deserving and aspiring students to inferior
education and guidance must not go unheeded.
Therefore, I am preparing to introduce legislation, entitled the
``Student Bill of Rights,'' which seeks to remedy our country's current
education anomaly, by holding States accountable for providing every
student within their jurisdiction equal access to a high quality
education. As the President's Commission on Educational Resource Equity
found in 2001, ``A high quality education is essential to the success
of every child in the 21st century.'' To deny children such
opportunities or access is, in essence, a denial of their basic right
to become prosperous and competent adults, not to mention, highly
intellectual individuals. For it is education that provides us with the
values and skills necessary for living productive lives. If no child is
to be left behind, then all children must be given an equal opportunity
to compete. And that is the underlined objective of the ``Student Bill
of Rights.''
The ``Student Bill of Rights'' will require States to certify with
the Secretary of Education that their Public School System operates on
an equal statewide basis in terms of offering all students access to
some of the scientifically proven educational inputs necessary to
achieve high academic outcomes. For example, according to a report
published by the National Science Foundation on ``Women, Minorities,
and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,'' the unequal
participation of minorities in science and mathematics education can be
directly attributed to the differential access to qualified teachers,
and differential access to resources and curricula emphasizing advanced
science and math. Moreover, in the President's State of the Union
Address, President Bush addressed the importance of education reform by
challenging America to ``provide a qualified teacher in every
classroom'' as the first building block for real education reform. This
same concept is embodied in my proposed legislation by requiring that
States provide all students, suburban and urban alike, with instruction
from highly qualified teachers in core subject areas of reading,
mathematics and science. We will find that access to a fully certified
teacher throughout the duration of a student's learning experience
significantly increases the chance of reaching the high academic
standards put forth in ``The Leave No Child Behind Act.''
In addition to high quality instruction, access to rigorous
academic standards, curricula, and methods of instruction with respect
to each school district in a State is unquestionably and fundamentally
necessary if we are serious about eliminating the achievement gap
between high performing school districts and those with less impressive
academic scores. Students of all backgrounds need and deserve to learn
a foreign language, physics, or calculus. Particularly, those students
interested in attending an institution of higher education.
Furthermore, the number and type of advanced placement courses
available in secondary schools should be comparable across local
education agencies in order to give every child a fair opportunity to
succeed. Unfortunately, there is nothing level about the educational
playing field in America with regard to access to formidable curricula
and methods of instruction.
The ``Student Bill of Rights'' recognizes the importance of
eclucating all students, and specifically disadvantaged students in
smaller classes. Numerous studies indicate that smaller classrooms
allow for greater student to teacher interaction and more student
centered learning. States should make a substantial effort to meet the
17 or fewer students per classroom guidelines, as recommended by the
National Center for Education Statistics. My own State of Pennsylvania
has one of the widest disparities in the Union on this score. While the
average classroom size is 28 children in the City of Philadelphia,
surrounding school districts not only boast class sizes of 21 students
or fewer, but also report higher academic achievement, which is not
surprising given the levels of inequity. It is particularly regrettable
that this problem continues in the field of education. Especially since
the heart and soul of the American system of universal education is the
desire to give all children the opportunity to succeed and to make the
most of their talents. Not only is this fair to the children, but we
know that we will all benefit from a more productive and cohesive
society where all children have a chance to develop their abilities and
participate in our economy.
Lastly, if we are serious about our partnership with State
governments in the struggle to improve public education, then we must
make certain that students living in lower income localities enjoy the
same or comparable resources that have proven to be so beneficial for
students in more affluent school districts. In addition to the
principles mentioned previously, States should also make certain that
they are providing all students equal and adequate access to updated
textbooks and instructional materials; state-of-the art libraries and
media centers; up-to-date computers; and qualified guidance counselors.
Whether individually or collectively, each of these elements make a
unique contribution to the academic and educational development of a
child. Failure to provide students with these educational compliments,
which is indicative of the current state of affairs throughout our
country, amounts to the perpetuation of a self-reinforcing distribution
of opportunity in this country which is fundamentally unequal. Under
such conditions, it is not startling to learn that the achievement gap
between the poorest school district and the wealthiest school district
students is becoming increasingly wider.
Senators, we can no longer allow children from economically
distressed districts to be consigned to inferior education and unequal
educational opportunities. If we want our Federal dollars to be
effective in helping students, we need to make sure that the State is
not depriving them of the resources they need. Again, at minimum,
students need instruction from a highly qualified teacher; rigorous
academic standards; small class sizes; up-to-date instructional
materials; state-of-the-art libraries; updated computers; and qualified
guidance counselors. Unfortunately, these seven keys are missing, for
the most part, from the most troubled public school systems--small
rural districts and large urban systems serving predominantly poor
students, some of which spend at a rate higher than the national or
their State average. Unlike wealthier districts, these LEA's inherit
dilapidated, under-funded conditions with outdated instructional
systems, inefficient operating systems, and no systems of
accountability of any kind. I mention this not only to acknowledge that
these intolerable conditions exist, but to assert that they must be
addressed if we are to dispose of the radically differential
educational achievement among districts in a State.
In closing, we are not alone in the view that resource equity is an
important element in improving our schools. In fact, some 70 suits have
been filed in over 43 States by school districts, along with parents
and civil rights groups, claiming that not only do current public
school funding systems perpetuate gross disparities in the resources
that are available to districts of different wealth, but that they are
also designed to meet minimum standards rather than providing the high
quality, world-class education our children need to compete in today's
global economy. The continual denial of States to provide children
their due right to an equal and high quality educational experience is
a blatant contradiction to the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of
Education which decreed that ``the opportunity of an education, where
the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be
available to all on equal terms.'' Thus, as disparities in resources,
and more importantly, disparities in outcomes persist, it is clear that
we have yet to fulfill our duty to the millions of children being
educated in under-served poorly staffed, and technology-deficient State
public school systems.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.030
Senator Dodd. Congressman Isakson, we welcome you, and we
are anxious to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Senator Dodd, Senator Enzi, Senator
Wellstone. It is a pleasure to be in the Senate, and it is
particularly a pleasure to be with my good friend, Chaka
Fattah; we have done a lot of things together, and I think we
share precisely the same passion for education. And I am
pleased that Senator Enzi asked me to come and testify with
regard to the original intent, which I believe was House bill
1234, and the issue of financing schools, but I will address
some of the other things that Chaka mentioned in just a moment.
In light of the opening statements, I would like to give
you a little bit of background on me so you understand where I
am coming from. I attended the first integrated schools
following Brown v. Board of Education in the City of Atlanta
and was in the class that admitted the first black students to
the University of Georgia. I lived through the era where we
went from a separate and unequal environment to begin this
journey to provide an equal education for all Americans. So I
was there.
I married a public school teacher who taught special
education until we began raising our family. I have taught
Sunday school for 25 years, chaired the State board of
education, was on the education committee, and had the
financial ability to send my kids to private or parochial
schools and sent them to public schools because I believe that
that is where the real world is, and that is where our future
is. So I wanted to put that on the record.
The last point--when I left as chairman of the State board
of education, I initiated a constitutional amendment which our
legislature passed for a special-purpose sales tax to build
schools, and we are building $6 billion worth of new schools in
Georgia over a 5-year plan by raising taxes. So I do not shy
away from making investments in our children.
With that said, although well-intended, for the Congress of
the United States to threaten to withhold Federal funding based
on an arithmetic formula for whether students are receiving
equitable education would be a disaster, and let me point out
why--and I can only address specific numbers in my State of
Georgia, but I think they are representative of the country.
Over 50 percent of all tax dollars spent in Georgia are
spent on education, and over 40 percent of them just on K-12.
This year, that is over $6 billion in State tax dollars.
The ad valorem tax bill in my home county, of the $3,200 in
taxes I pay on my house, $2,100 goes to public schools. In our
State, about 60 percent of all property tax paid by local
taxpayers goes to public education. So it is the number one
expenditure at the local level, and it is the number one
expenditure in State government.
The reason they tried to create an arithmetic or
mathematical formula to determine equity or compliance is a
disaster is because the finance of education depends on so many
factors. In the State of Georgia, for example, a mill in one
county may raise $12; a mill in another county may raise $80.
The State has a constitutional cap of 20 mills on ad valorem
tax.
I know there are States that use severance taxes and other
taxes to help finance public education, but because of that
very mix, to try to create an arithmetic formula would be a
mistake.
I do not disagree that there is a correlation between low
performance and expenditures in certain areas, but I can show
you examples of where the highest per-pupil expenditures in
Georgia go into systems where there are some of the lowest-
performing schools, so it is not always the equivalent to a
quality education.
Chaka and I have talked about this many times. My State
went through the Dalton City Schools v. Whitfield County case,
which was one of the first equalization cases in the country.
We have equalized funding for education in Georgia that
satisfied the courts that we are providing equitable
investment, but we would be in violation of the Federal statute
if the bill that Mr. Fattah introduced were to have passed,
because you cannot--you cannot--in a responsibility that is
relegated primarily to the States and the local governments,
depress the will of people to make additional investments in
their schools.
Equity becomes only a baseline, but it cannot restrict the
enrichment that local counties or cities may make in their
schools. If you put an arithmetic formula with a deviation of
only 10 percent, you would actually be lowering the investment
in some of your highest investment schools which are not
necessarily best-performing, all to satisfy the formula to get
the Federal funding.
So not to do any degree of overkill, a mathematical formula
is a horrible mistake. It is by no means a mistake for all of
us to look to everything we can do to improve the public
education of every child in America. I think Chaka has hit on a
good point. He has moved from money as the indicator to quality
of teachers, to quality of environment, to other factors that
go into education, and there are a lot of factors that go into
the education of a child.
I would be pleased to work at any time, as I think I
demonstrated in the conference committee on No Child Left
Behind, with any politician, regardless of party, to do
anything we can to improve the education of our children as a
partner with the States and local school boards that have the
responsibility of doing it, as well as the American taxpayer.
Our children are a message we send to a time that you and I
will never see, and the message that America sends to the
future should be as great as the message that past generations
have sent to today's time. But I will promise you that
equitable financial investment is in no way an indicator. If it
were, the people of the United States of America, who pay each
of us approximately $150,000, would all determine they are
getting equitable representation and intellect from every
Member of Congress, and I do not think anybody would agree with
that. There are varying degrees of input, experience,
longevity, intellect, ability, and everything else.
It is a component, but it should never be the component
that determines whether or not Federal funds are invested in
America's poorest and most deserving children and those with
disabilities.
I thank the Senator for affording me the time.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Congressman. I
appreciate your testimony.
Let me turn to my colleague from Minnesota to see if has
any opening comments, and then we will have a few questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is not really an opening comment, but I do want to
react, and I want to hear from Mr. Price and the other
witnesses as well, so I will try to be brief.
On your last point, Congressman Isakson, I think you are
right--people would not agree with the proposition that
everybody gets the same quality representation. On the other
hand, there would be a hue and cry from all over the country if
the Representative from State of Georgia were paid less than
the Representatives from other States. I think people in the
different States would say that that was absolutely outrageous.
Mr. Isakson. I do not dispute that at all.
Senator Wellstone. If it is okay with the two of you--and I
think this is an important piece of legislation, and I
certainly know what my friend from Pennsylvania is trying to do
in really trying to force this equity question, and I am kind
of sympathetic to some of the comments that Congressman Isakson
made in terms of baseline spending versus whether you draw the
line on how much can be spent--but could I get back to this
debate, because both of you have spoken about it, about ESEA in
terms of where the resources are? To me, that is the question
that is before us here and now.
I want to ask two questions. Number one, for Congressman
Isakson, given what you have said about what the role of the
Federal Government is, I found myself in an odd position as a
liberal out on the floor of the Senate, saying that I did not
really think the Federal Government ought to mandate that every
school district test every child in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and
8. I thought that that was an overreach, frankly.
But most important of all, I think the position that I
took--and now I feel horrible about it, because I think it
really has turned out to be true--was that we need resources to
fund the reform. Right now, I do not see the resources, be it
living up to our commitment on special education, or be it
Title I, or be it what we do pre-K, or be it what we do after
school, or be it what we do in terms of teacher recruitment and
teacher retention. I do not see any of the resources that a;
make it possible for each of these kids to do well on what we
hope will be high-quality tests, and b; if they do not do well,
make it possible to provide the additional help for them to do
well.
Can I ask the two of you whether I am right or wrong that
what you have here is a Federal mandate to test every child,
but you do not have a Federal mandate that every child has the
same opportunity to do well? Isn't that the contradiction?
Isn't that the harsh contradiction we are now faced with?
I frankly wish we would not put so much emphasis on the
testing, to be perfectly honest, and I would love to have a
discussion about that some other time. But could I ask just
that one question--am I right or wrong? I am in school every 2
weeks, and I taught, and I believe in it, and you do, but I
find this to be a charade.
I will tell you what I am hearing in Minnesota--I am sorry,
30 more seconds--in our State, people are furious. We are
cutting teachers, we are cutting pre-kindergarten programs, we
are cutting after-school programs, and people in Minnesota,
starting with the education community, feel robbed. They never
got the special ed money, they are not getting what they need
on Title I or any of the rest of it.
The Federal Government does not provide the biggest part of
K through 12 education spending, but why haven't we lived up to
our responsibility to fund what we should be funding? Where are
the resources? Isn't it a charade to have all this testing to
say that we have accountability, and then we do not invest the
resources to make sure the children have the same chance? That
is my question--and when are we going to do it? We had better
do it this session.
Mr. Isakson. Senator, do you want me to respond to that?
Senator Wellstone. That would be great.
Mr. Isakson. First of all, I will say that I do not think
any of us are ever going to be satisfied with the investment
made in education for all the reasons we all believe in it. But
let me specifically answer your question.
When we passed No Child Left Behind, and we passed the
Labor-HHS budget and funded the Department of Education,
everybody in here knows that we made the largest increased
investment in the poorest kids in America that this country has
ever made since Title I was started. So I think the point
should be made that in the year in which we initiated testing,
we also initiated enriched funding only--or primarily--for
those kids which the intent of this bill is talking about.
Was it enough? That is an argument that we could have
forever.
Senator Wellstone. Well, no--let me ask you--was it enough?
Mr. Isakson. I just said at the beginning that you are
never going to find us to agree it is enough. But I want to
answer your question. It is the largest increase that we have
had.
Now, as far as testing is concerned, I am going to be very
honest and very blunt about this, and I know there will be some
people who disagree with me. In a lot of America's schools
where a lot of America's poorest children go, for a number of
years, they have been chronologically promoted because of their
age to a point where they either no longer legally had to go to
school, or they had the will and the way to drop out. That is
an accurate statement. Some have called it ``social
promotion.'' There are lots of different reasons. Maybe it is
the environment they came from; maybe it is discipline; maybe
it is absolutely abject, terrible teachers. But that has
happened.
Testing and accountability on the schools raises the
visibility of the performance of those schools, and I have
found personally--and I ran the State school system in
Georgia--that we give a bum rap to teachers. Teachers have the
hardest job in America. But there are a lot of administrators
who do a lot of averaging to end up giving statistics that
appear that a system is meeting a certain level. When we
disaggregated, and we tested in reading and math in third
through eighth grade, in my opinion, we made the largest move
toward ending social promotion and lowering the dropout rate in
America that you will ever have. We increased the investment in
the very children that you ask about.
Was it enough? Nobody in this room would ever agree that it
was enough. But it was the largest increased investment that we
have made in some time. So my answer to your question is that
the testing was absolutely essential, because for 35 years, we
invested $125 billion and did not improve the plight of our
lowest-performing kids. Now we are going to have a measurement
to find out if we are or we are not.
Mr. Fattah. Let me say this in response to your question,
Senator. You are absolutely right that there is a dearth of
Federal commitment in terms of what we need to do relative to
the mandates in No Child Left Behind to help schools. But let
me also say that even if it were fully funded, the issues that
bring me to the Senate this morning would still exist. That is
to say, even if we fully funded all of the Federal programs,
which are the most targeted programs that exist in this country
in terms of helping impoverished children, we would still have
the differentials that exist between high-achieving districts
and low-performing districts.
I will enter into the record and just read one paragraph
from an editorial by Bob Hubert at The New York Times just 2 or
3 days ago. Talking about New York City, he says: ``In many
ways, New York City students of all colors are treated the way
black students were treated in the pre-Brown era. They are
measured against standards that are the same for all, but they
are not given the fundamental educational tools that are
necessary to reach such high levels of competence.''
It is not about the pay of members of the Senate or the
House that would interfere with your analogy. What happens if a
member of Congress is asked to represent their district but not
have access to telephones, not have access to staff, not have
the ability to serve on a committee, not be able to speak on
the floor of the House?
How can a youngster be required to pass an SAT to get into
a State college, but for middle school and high school, never
have a science teacher who majored or minored in science or
math, not have access to textbooks? How can these students
achieve?
The point I raise to you is that we need to try to
encourage States--and in my new legislation--and I agree with
and I have heard all the comments about the original document;
that is why we changed our formula and changed our approach--
what we want to do is ask the Federal Government to require
States to say that every child be given a qualified teacher in
the core subjects, that they be given updated textbooks, that
they have the same access to computers that children in the
higher-achieving districts have in those States, that they have
the same access to guidance counselors.
The question in any family is not how many dollars are
available, but let us at least have everyone be able to
participate and benefit by whatever resources are available. So
it is not just a question of what the resources are, but how
can we better provide them so that every child in every
circumstance in this country has a fair opportunity.
Senator Wellstone. Congressman--and this is the final 30
seconds--I so appreciate it, and I know where you are heading,
and Jonathan Kozol would love you. This is right out of his
books, and you know his work, and he knows your work, and I
know exactly where you are heading, and thank God for your
voice and the direction you say we are going.
I just do not want to lose sight of what I consider to be a
here-and-now battle, which is what in the world ever happened
to Leave No Child Behind?
Congressman Isakson, I am not just trying to be Mister
Stroke Man here. You have so much credibility, and you know
your stuff and all the rest, but where I beg to disagree with
you is that, frankly, when I see the number of kids who were
eligible for Title I this year, in real dollar terms, we did
not bump it up. There were many more kids eligible.
I know what Senator Dodd tried to do on the floor. And when
I go to our schools, and I see a pathetic increase in the
overall ESEA budget this past year versus what we did before,
and I see this mandate that we laid on the States, I understand
it when, in the schools that I visit, the teachers look at me
and say, ``Fine. Big surprise. Our kids did not do as well as
the kids in very affluent suburbs. And now we ask you: Where
are the resources for us to make sure these kids have the same
chance? Now what are we to do?'' And do you know what? The
resources are not there.
Therefore, I want to shout it from the mountaintop at this
hearing--I consider this Leave No Child Behind piece of
legislation to sort of be a contradiction, with a goal you
cannot reach on a tin cup budget--that is what we got from this
administration. I am furious the bill went through, because we
never backed it up with the resources. I was just going to say
it, and I said it. I am done.
Senator Dodd. Okay. You said it.
Senator Wellstone. I feel better.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much.
I will turn to my colleague from Wyoming in just a moment,
but let me just ask one question. Congressman Isakson, as I was
listening to you, I was familiar with what Congressman Fattah
had offered earlier and what his new proposal is, and I would
ask whether you are aware of the new proposal and whether your
criticism of it would be the same as before, or whether there
is a different approach being set out here?
And second, all of us are reluctant to get into the
business of punishment and reward--although we do it in a
number of areas already. We say under Federal law that within a
school district, you have got to have comparable services. That
has been in Federal law for years. It is one of the reasons why
Title I funds exist. We now are saying that children are now
going to have to be tested every year. So we have applied a
pretty rigid standard, and we have said to schools that if you
do not meet this standard, we are going to shut you down.
Why is there such a reluctance for us to say something to
the political structure which is most responsible for the
quality of education--our States? I come from the most affluent
State in the country, and yet, in this tiny 40 mile by 100 mile
State, we have tremendously affluent districts and tremendously
poor districts.
Why can't we say something to States about adequacy? I do
not want to see Fairfield, CT or Ridgefield, CT--where it is
remarkable what they have done with resources to commit to a
wonderful education--forced into a race to the bottom, but I
don't want to keep saying to a child in Bridgeport who lives 15
minutes away from Ridgefield: ``I am sorry, but you were born
in the wrong place. I know it is a great State, and this is a
wealthy country, but if you had been born 15 miles down the
road, your Government would do more in order to help you
maximize your potential.''
How do you justify that and not say to the States as well,
``We want to help you. This is not about criticizing you. We
want to figure out how you can close these gaps.''
How do you answer that?
Mr. Isakson. Well, first, I appreciate the question because
I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning. I was asked
to come here to talk about H.R. 1234, and I did a good job of
telling you why I did not agree with that.
Senator Dodd. Yes, you did.
Mr. Isakson. Well, maybe not a good job----
Mr. Fattah. And I heard you, and I have changed.
Mr. Isakson. And he has heard it before.
To Chaka's credit, and the credit of a lot of other people,
I think the seven measurements that he mentioned are certainly
measurements that contribute to an improved education. This has
been a work in progress, so I have seen bits and pieces over
the last week, but I do not get into this ``We are on one side,
and you are on another, so I am not for it''--I kind of do what
I think is right--and if we are improving kids and their
plight, we are doing things right.
But, I appreciate so much what you said about Bridgeport
and Fairfield, and I have been to your great State and have
seen the evidence of the wealth as well as the difficulties
that all of us have in all of our States.
Let me tell you, there are a couple of facts we should all
know. We ought to have a certified teacher in every classroom.
There are not enough certified teachers in America to put in
every classroom. So we need to start--instead of trying to fool
people to think they are out there, but we just do not have
them in the class--we have got to start providing direction,
resources, and partnerships with the institution of education
to get those teachers in classrooms.
On school construction, which has something to do with
pupil-teacher ratio, because every time somebody throws out
this--and I had to do it in the State, so I know--when somebody
says, ``I want to lower the pupil-teacher ratio from 25-to-1 to
23-to-1,'' they just spent $100 million to build classrooms to
put those new classes in. There are lots of things that we need
to look at, and it has got to be a Federal-State partnership.
There are clear indicators in some of the things that Chaka
mentioned that have a lot to do with--I have always hated
``adequacy''; I think ``excellence'' is the better word. One of
the reasons, Senator Wellstone, why the testing is so important
is because it will give us an indicator--I did not say ``the''
indicator--but it is going to give us an indicator of the
performance we are getting with what we do have and what we are
investing. And then, if we focus on recognizing that we do not
have enough certified teachers, and we need more, somehow we
have got to break through the philosophical alternative
certification versus classical certification and find a way to
get certified teachers in the classrooms without politicizing--
I try never to do that.
Also--and I know there have been comments about
disappointments in No Child Left Behind--but I can tell you as
one who has worked with education for a long time and been a
Republican, I am so delighted that my President has taken an
issue that for years, our party did not address and made it
paramount. I am very proud of that.
Senator Dodd. I agree with you.
Mr. Isakson. The fact of the matter is that when I was
chairman of the State board of education, I went to Texas and
actually watched what they were doing, because they started
getting results in closing the achievement gap. And that is
what is so important, because education has institutionally
averaged its way into mediocrity in many elements of testing by
saying, well, our system is doing pretty good because we are
averaging our best with our worst, so we are in the middle.
Now, with the disaggregation, I think we are going to begin
to see some verification of some of the very factors that Chaka
has mentioned, and hopefully, as we work with this, we can find
ways to take his seven indicators and possibly others and find
ways to have Federal-State partnerships to solve the problem,
which I would be totally supportive of.
So I appreciate the Senator giving me the chance to feel
better, as Senator Wellstone does, and so you did not think I
was totally trashing my good friend from Philadelphia, I was
only talking about the error of his ways with regard to
financial formulas.
Senator Dodd. Senator Enzi.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was upset earlier at some of the comments about tin cup
budget--I have heard your speech on it before, and I have
gathered some statistics--but I realize that that is not what
this hearing is about. We have been devoting 7 percent of the
Federal budget to education for years, and we finally got to 9
percent, and it is going up. Now what we are trying to do is
get the money directed to the right places, and I am going to
try to contain my questions to that aspect.
I really do appreciate--and I have not had a chance to look
through it all yet; I have your comments from today--they are
very nicely put together.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Senator Enzi. There is some extremely helpful information
in there, and it is interesting to see the court cases in the
different States. There is probably a little bit more
background on some of those court cases that needs to be put
out there, and perhaps that will happen in the testimony from
Wyoming regarding our case.
At the beginning, we were funding the big schools too much
and the small schools not enough, so we reacted to a court case
early-on and skewed it the other way completely; now we are
trying to bring it back in line where I guess it would be the
inner city of Wyoming, but in a town of about 22,000, it is
hard to relate to that. One thing we are trying to do here
today, and in each of the States, is focus on what education is
about, which is learning and achieving--not about being
allotted a certain amount of money. But there is a
relationship, and we need to figure out how that relationship
works.
Wyoming would be in violation of your bill. As hard as we
have worked on equity, we would be in violation of your bill.
But we might be in violation in a little different way than is
expected, and that is that one of the poorest areas of our
State is the reservation, and they have been funded in an
amount about three times as much as the rest of the students in
the State.
One way that our State tried to solve this problem was to
come up with a cost of education. We recognized that there were
differences in different parts of the State in being able to
buy things. We had the milk controversy where in one corner of
the State, milk cost almost twice as much as in the other part
of the State. We try to make sure that all the kids get milk,
so we had to equalize the milk funding.
Another problem is with getting certified teachers. I think
Wyoming would have one of the highest rates of certified
teachers, but the competition is not between other school
districts getting them; we have some boom areas of the State,
some areas that are high in energy development, and those
people can go out and run a road grader or a truck, or some of
them even just drive a car, and make five times as much as a
teacher. That should never happen, but it does. If we want to
keep teachers, they are not paid the same amount as the workers
in the mines, but they have to pay more in that area than in
other areas of the State. So we have tried to recognize some of
those cost differentials that allow districts to get the kind
of help that they need.
I mentioned the class size disparity. Some of that is
forced by distances that the kids have to travel--but it all
has to be funded. So I guess I am still back at the point of
trying to determine what ``equity'' is, and if either of you
want to comment on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Fattah. First of all, Senator, I appreciate what you
said about your home State, and I have paid some attention to
the efforts there in terms of the ``hold harmless'' and the
small towns and the cost-of-living features. It is part of the
continuum of this effort to get to a circumstance in which
children would have more equal opportunity. Your State has
grappled with it more than most and has been more aggressive
and more creative in a number of different ways.
What I have tried to say in the new version of my bill,
which I think my colleague has said nice things about this
morning, is not to focus on the question of money, because
somehow, when I talk about money, people get excited, and they
either say that money does not matter, and it is not the reason
why these children are not performing--and my old answer to
that was that if it did not matter, let us equalize it--and
then, some who supported my position would say that it does
matter, and I would say that if it does matter, we should
equalize it.
But when I come to Washington, I have learned that there is
a reluctance to get into the issue of the actual financial
basis for school funding which all of these court decisions
that I have laid out have focused in on, that is, if you take
poor communities and finance them based on the property tax,
you inevitably create a circumstance in which they are going to
have lower-funded schools. There is no way around it, and those
children are going to be ill-served.
I think it was the Wyoming case in which one of the
gentlemen who represented the teachers' union stated that it
was not the kid's fault if he was not born next to an oil well.
So the point becomes that I tried to move from the question of
money to something that we can agree on, which is that a kid
should have a qualified teacher in the classroom, a kid should
have a textbook--there are textbooks in libraries,
unfortunately, in some of our States, one of them a State near
you, that were printed 30 years ago, one of which was titled,
``Asbestos: The Miracle Mineral.'' We know better now, but that
book is still on the school library shelf, and we need to do
something about it. I think kids need a library, they need
access to guidance counselors.
What I am saying is let us take the things that we agree
on, whatever they happen to be, and let us measure whether
States, on an annual basis, are doing more to have those things
provided to every child or whether they are doing less, and let
us hold them to a standard on that.
I started with the notion that we should have a drastic
penalty on States. Senator Dodd has moderated my view on that
to the point where we would just have a symbolic penalty where
1 percent of the administrative cost would be withheld, but
when they started making progress, they would get that, too, so
it would never be a real penalty.
What I am seeking to do is simply get us in the business of
saying to State governments: We want a real partnership with
you. We have, as you have indicated, added a great deal in
terms of Federal investment on a percentage basis to education.
Are efforts will be frustrated if State governments do not
insist that whatever they are doing in their high-achieving
districts--I am not talking about small class sizes out of thin
air--I do not care what the class size is; whatever the class
size is in your State for high-achieving districts, you should
try to create a circumstance where that class size exists in
your low-achieving districts, because it might follow that if
we do what we are doing in our high-achieving districts, in our
low-achieving districts, we might get a comparable result.
It did not take Einstein to say it, but he said it--he said
``if you keep doing what you have been doing, you are going to
keep getting what you have been getting.''
Therefore, we have to do something different here if we
want a different result.
Senator Dodd. Very good. Anything else, Senator Enzi?
Senator Enzi. Congressman Isakson, do you have a comment?
Mr. Isakson. Yes. I will be brief, Senator Dodd.
Senator Enzi, again, I did say nice things about Chaka's
new approach, because it goes from the arithmetic formula that
creates unintended consequences to beginning to ask ourselves
what is it that we need to do.
And I just want to inject--and I am not lobbying here,
Chaka--but the word I mentioned about the Federal-State
partnership, we put in H.R. 1 the school report card so that
people in the State will know whether their schools are
failing. We might work toward a report card here, where States
are performing and take the results, Senator Wellstone, the
initial results that we get out of testing and other
measurements and their disaggregation, so we can truly zero in.
Knowledge is a powerful thing, which is why all of us
believe in education; it is also powerful in politics. And if
people know where the problems are, and they know where their
State rates, not in some mathematical formula, but in the
number of people dropping out or the number of people who are
poor-performing, regardless of their race or creed or color--we
care about every child--that is meaningful.
So the outline that Chaka has done here is for us to try as
politicians and those who care about education to find those
things that we all agree are important to an adequate, or
hopefully, a quality or an excellent education, and then find
ways in which we can form partnerships to reach the goal of
every child and every State and every school district getting
there. And that partnership is not totally a financial
partnership. A lot of it has to do with other investments of
other types of capital.
Senator Dodd. In fact, I would be very interested in
introducing with my colleagues here, with Senator Enzi and
others, a comparable bill to see if we cannot pull some things
together.
I appreciate it very, very much. We could actually spend
all morning with you. We have another panel of witnesses, and I
do not want to tie people up, but you are welcome to stay if
you like, because you care so much about it, and you bring a
wealth of information.
I have to be careful here--I do not want our friends in
Georgia or Pennsylvania to get nervous about your presence
here, sitting at a table in the Senate--but neither one of them
is around this morning, so we will try to smuggle you in if you
want to come on up and sit with us.
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
Mr. Isakson. Thanks for the opportunity, Senator, and the
only reason I will not stay is that we have missed a couple of
votes already, and I do not want my opponent to get too
excited, so I am going to get over there and cast a few.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being
with us, and we will stay in touch with you on this. We would
very much like to work with you.
Senator Dodd. Let me call up our second panel.
Hugh Price is president and chief executive officer of the
National Urban League, one of the country's premier civil
rights organizations, with a long history of expertise about
the commitment of equal opportunity, including equal education
opportunity, beginning his work New Haven, Connecticut, as a
legal assistance attorney. We appreciate having you here, Hugh.
It is an honor to have you with us today.
Michael Rebell is executive director and counsel for the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which includes the Advocacy Center
for Children's Educational Success with Standards. He has been
in the forefront of the national movement for equal educational
opportunity, both as a litigator and an author. He taught
courses on law and education for many years at Yale Law School
and is currently adjunct professor at Columbia University, at
the Columbia Law School.
Mary-Beth Lang teaches at Waltersville Elementary School in
Bridgeport, Connecticut. She has had 32 years as a teacher, has
taught kindergarten, first, second, third, and fifth grades.
She is currently a literary resource teacher and lives in
Fairfield, which is the neighboring town to Bridgeport. I made
reference to those two communities earlier, not without reason,
knowing that Ms. Lang was going to be joining us.
Our last witness is the witness that I have already
indicated we would allow to go first because of the commitments
of my colleague from Wyoming, and we know he wants to be here
to hear Judy Catchpole. Judy is serving her second term as
Wyoming's superintendent of public instruction. She also serves
on the executive board of directors of the Council of Chief
State School Officers. She has been involved with children for
many, many years as an educator, an advocate, and a volunteer.
Judy, we are honored that you made the long trip from
Wyoming to be with us, and as I said earlier, why don't we
begin with you. Since we have already been talking about
Wyoming with you in the audience, we would be happy to hear
your comments.
By the way, any and all supporting documentation, graphs,
charts that you would like to include as part of the record, I
will ask unanimous consent that they be so included.
Congressman Fattah had earlier asked for some information to be
included, and all of that information, we will make a part of
the record. Your statements will all be included in the record
as well. I read them last night, and some of them are a little
long. I am going to put this clock on, and again, it is not to
deprive you of an opportunity to be heard, but I want you to
keep an eye on it so we can get through the testimony. So if
you could to some extent--because it is going to be difficult
to get through them in the 5 or 6 minutes that we normally
allocate here--keep an eye on the clock, and when the light
turns red, try to find a way to get to the bottom line if you
could.
Judy, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JUDY CATCHPOLE, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, CHEYENNE, WY
Ms. Catchpole. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Enzi,
Senator Kennedy, and Senator Wellstone. Thank you for this
opportunity to be here to speak with you today.
It might surprise you to learn that the evolution of
education equity in Wyoming certainly mirrors the development
in other States. What we know is that across this country, as
State agencies, we all face many of the same challenges.
The ``how'' of meeting these challenges is a question that
we have grappled with across State boundaries and across
economic barriers. For example, as we sit here today, some 43
States find themselves in some state of litigation of education
equity and school finance; and indeed, so it is in the State of
Wyoming where, over 20 years ago, our Supreme Court first
ordered an ``equitable'' system of funding schools. At that
time in our State and around the Nation, equal dollars was
assumed to mean equal education. That indeed proved to be an
erroneous assumption, and in 1995, the Wyoming court moved, as
have many other courts across the country, to a position that
looks at both equity and adequacy in determining whether or not
a child has equal access to education.
While the United States Constitution is silent on the right
to a public education, the Wyoming Constitution is indeed not.
Our Constitution requires a ``proper and thorough'' education,
allowing those words to define themselves over time.
We have embraced the direction of our State's Constitution.
We have realized that the concept of equity is not easily
defined. Although we have had many court decisions, we cannot
regulate equity.
In order to achieve the concept of equity, we have built a
funding model in Wyoming that provides the same dollar amount
for each student and then, depending on unique local
demographics, that amount is adjusted.
Several years of debate, discussion and hearings have
resulted in a product that we now believe is equitable, yet it
defies a concrete definition. After all of those adjustments,
we arrive at a dollar amount per student as the basis for
comparison. It ranges from a low of $7,009 per student to a
high of $14,715. Those calculations are based on data, and they
are applied uniformly to each student.
As we have struggled to provide equity and adequacy in
Wyoming, we have a variation of spending per pupil of 25
percent. We have a system that accepts ``equal'' as meaning
something far, far different than ``the same.''
In Cheyenne, WY, where the students receive the lowest
dollar per student, Central High School offers 225 courses,
including over 13 advanced placement courses. Wheatland, a
rural district 80 miles away, receives almost $1,000 more per
student, yet it offers only 100 courses for high school
students. In Wheatland, the high school does not offer advanced
physics, but you can take advanced studies in Shakespeare.
Is this an equitable system? I would suggest to you that
based on my experience, it is. The residents of these Wyoming
communities would tell you that the students in their schools
are receiving an education that is, in the words of the Wyoming
Constitution, ``complete and uniform, proper and adequate.''
Last winter, this Congress passed sweeping Federal reform
designed to address the needs of both Los Angeles and Wyoming
in the No Child Left Behind Act. I know that you spent a lot
more time worrying about what happens in our largest cities,
but thanks to Senator Mike Enzi, you also spent time wondering
about what happens in rural Wyoming communities.
I am here to tell you that No Child Left Behind will work
in Wyoming. It will work with flexibility, with hard work, and
the utilization of scientifically-based programs. With No Child
Left Behind, you have already taken enormous steps to assure
equity, adequacy, and the opportunity for all learners. Make no
mistake--States, districts, and schools will labor intensively
to comply with these new provisions. For the first time in our
Nation's history, we as educators and administrators will be
responsible for the real achievement of all students. We will
have to deliver. I embrace this opportunity.
All 50 of our Nation's chief State school officers are
painfully aware of the unacceptable gap in achievement between
advantaged and disadvantaged students. In each of our States,
plans are already underway to address these issues. Provisions
of No Child Left Behind will assure goals, indicators, and
targets. The elimination of this gap stands as our number one
priority.
As you look at the Federal role in assuring equity, let me
encourage important restraint. No Child Left Behind takes the
Federal Government into uncharted territory. Let this law work.
Federal funding has always targeted our most needy populations
of students. Whether it is Title I, school nutrition, or IDEA,
your goal has always been in supplement and not supplant.
Please bear in mind that the Federal contribution, which
has increased from 6 to 9 percent due to the commitment of our
President, George Bush, is still a very small proportion of
total education expenditures. This agreement between the
Federal Government and the States has kept an important balance
in the local traditions and the national importance of
education.
We implement these laws, and we accept the burden of rules
and regulations and paperwork because we know that in most
cases, this increases opportunities for our students. No Child
Left Behind will strain that. And we will accept these new laws
because we see the wisdom behind them.
As you consider the guarantee of equity in education,
please bear in mind the wonderful progress that is offered by
No Child Left Behind. Please continue to honor the historic
traditions of local control and of States' rights. Please
recognize the wonderful work that is being done this very day
by States and local districts to implement No Child Left Behind
and to guarantee opportunity for all students.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judy Catchpole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judy Catchpole
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for
this opportunity to provide perspective on this morning's topic,
providing equal opportunity for education.
I am currently serving in my 8th year as Superintendent of Public
Instruction for the State of Wyoming. Thanks to Senator Mike Enzi, I am
confident that each of you knows about our State. We are one of those
square States west of the Mississippi. It may surprise you to learn
that the evolution of education equity in Wyoming mirrors the
developments in other States. What we have learned over the past
several years in education is that we face many of the same challenges.
Surely, we all have the same goals for our children: We want our
schools to produce lifelong learners, contributing citizens and
productive workers.
The ``how'' of reaching that is a question we have grappled with
across State boundaries and across economic barriers. The question of
equity becomes more complex as we debate and discuss the issue. And
again, events in Wyoming are so very similar to those in other States,
I shall use us as an example.
As we sit here today, some 43 States find themselves in some phase
of litigation of education equity and school finance. The Supreme
Courts in 19 of those States have found school funding systems wholly
unconstitutional. The spectre of litigation lingers in States and
districts all across our country.
And so it is in the State of Wyoming, where over 20 years ago our
Supreme Court first ordered an ``equitable'' system of funding schools.
At that time, in our State and around the Nation, equal dollars were
assumed to mean equal education. That proved to be an erroneous
assumption, and in 1995 the Wyoming Court moved--as have other courts
in the last decade--to a position that looks at both equity and
adequacy in determining whether or not a child has equal access to
education.
While the United States Constitution is silent on the right to a
public education, the Wyoming Constitution is not. Indeed, our
constitution has established education as a right of all citizens. Oh,
that our founding fathers might have envisioned what words such as
``complete and uniform'' really mean in 2002. Our constitution requires
a ``proper and thorough'' education, allowing those words to define
themselves over time.
We have embraced the direction of our State's constitution, and as
times have changed, so have we. And as times have changed, we have
realized that the concept of ``equity'' is not easily defined. Though
we have court decisions coming upon court decisions, we cannot regulate
this concept. In the world of schools, from the inner cities (which
Wyoming has none of), to the remote outpost (and we have several), each
school is full of individuals. Each of those individuals brings a
unique contribution to the mix.
In order to achieve the concept of equity, we have built a funding
model that provides the same amount for each student, and then
depending on unique local demographics, that amount is adjusted.
Several years of debate, discussion, hearings have resulted in a
product we believe is equitable, and yet it defies a concrete
definition.
After all those adjustments, we arrive at a dollar per student as
the basis for comparison. It ranges from a low of $7,009 per student in
Cheyenne (which is where our largest district is located) and goes to a
high of $14,715 per student in Arvada/Clearmont a small community in
the northern part of our State. Those calculations are based on data,
applied uniformly to each student. And yet, we all ask is it ``fair''
to provide $7,500 more for that student in Arvada/Clearmont?
As we have struggled to provide equity and adequacy in Wyoming, we
have a variation of spending per pupil of 25 percent. We have a system
that accepts ``equal'' as meaning something far different than ``the
same.''
In the aforementioned community of Cheyenne, where the students
receive the lowest dollar per student, Central High School offers 225
courses, including over 13 advanced placement classes. Just 80 miles up
the road, Wheatland, Wyoming is a rural farm community. That district
receives almost $1,000 more per student. That high school offers about
100 courses for those students. In Wheatland, the high school does not
offer advanced physics, but you can take advanced studies in
Shakespeare.
Is this an equitable system? I would suggest to you, based on my
experience that it is. The residents of these Wyoming communities would
tell you they believe their local schools are good ones, and that the
students in their schools are receiving an education that is, in the
words of our Wyoming Constitution ``complete and uniform, proper and
adequate.''
This is a time in our country when the focus in all 50 States is on
ensuring that all students have access to an adequate education. My
counterparts in the other 49 States struggle daily with this challenge.
We share a united sense of purpose. We have found that many processes
indeed lead to increased student achievement. Yet, we also know that
the paths we take to provide equal opportunity rely entirely on the
individual needs of our students.
We have grown over the past decades. We now fully understand that a
check list on inputs and rules does not provide adequacy or equity.
States have discovered that an appropriate blend of accountability and
flexibility is needed to provide opportunities for children.
This Congress took an important step last winter, with the passage
of the ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' In exchange for valuable Federal
dollars, States are expected to develop the research-based systems that
truly lead to student achievement.
In accepting the needed Federal funds, we accept the responsibility
for implementing those systems. And rounding out the partnership, we
have been given some flexibility in determining how we will meet the
goals of the Act.
Just as the status of school finance litigation has evolved to a
consideration of the adequacy of education, so has the role of the
Federal Government in recognizing that individual States, and local
districts must be empowered to make good decisions about how students
learn.
Some of you may have heard Wyoming's former Senator Al Simpson
refer to our State as ``the land of high altitude and low multitude,''
and indeed it is true. Spanning some 97,000 square miles, with a
population of just under 500,000, Wyoming is home to 382 schools and
approximately 87,000 students. In 38 Wyoming towns there is a single
elementary school.
Last winter you passed a sweeping Federal reform designed to
address the needs of both Los Angeles and Wyoming. I know you spent a
lot more time worrying about what happens in our largest cities. Thanks
to Mike Enzi, you also spent time wondering about what happens in a
rural community. I am here to tell you that ``No Child Left Behind''
will work in Wyoming--with a lot of hard work.
Even as we speak, States are submitting their initial plans on
implementation of that new law. Each plan is based on the specific
needs of the schools and students within the boundaries of each State.
With that law, you have already taken enormous steps to assuring
equity, adequacy and the opportunity for all learners.
Make no mistake: States, districts and schools will labor
intensively to comply with the new provisions. Some will fall short,
and there are consequences when that occurs. For the first time in our
Nation's history we, as educators and administrators, will be
responsible for the real achievement of all students. We will have to
deliver. I embrace this opportunity. Knowing that this is a process
that will truly make a difference for the students in the classroom, I
am willing to accept the great changes and challenges inherent in that
law.
All 50 of our Nation's chief State school officers are painfully
aware of the unacceptable gap in achievement between advantaged and
disadvantaged students. In each of our States, plans are already
underway to address these gaps. Provisions of ``No Child Left Behind''
will assure goals, indicators and targets. The elimination of this gap
stands as our number one priority.
One key element in assuring equal opportunity is the move to assure
that every child is taught by a qualified teacher. Clearly, improving
teacher quality is a major initiative in all 50 States. School
districts must be able to hire and retain talented individuals to teach
in our classrooms.
And again, no single method, rule or regulation will assure
qualified teachers. A nationwide discussion of teacher shortages
reveals certain specifics about this problem. There is no general
shortage of teachers. There are indeed shortages in specific content
areas such as math, science, special education, bilingual education and
technology education. There are shortages in certain locations such as
low-income urban and remote rural schools, and in fast growing
districts of the southern and western United States.
No single Federal policy can address these specific needs. Instead,
the answer lies within local boards and the ability to pay more for
teachers in hard-to-staff schools; and in the ability to retain the
teachers in those schools.
We frequently hear about the need to assure equity in the
availability of technology. Yet, the use of technology in the delivery
of education is best under certain circumstances and with specific
types of students.
As you look at the Federal role in assuring equity, let me
encourage important restraint. ``No Child Left Behind'' takes the
Federal Government into uncharted territory. Let this law work.
And bear in mind the historic role the Federal Government plays in
providing educational opportunities. Using the tried and true, ``carrot
and stick,'' the Federal Government provides needed financial
resources, but with ``strings attached.'' While the Federal
contribution is welcome, bear in mind that it contributes just 9
percent of the resources in schools.
States have accepted the responsibility of educating students and
welcomed the opportunity to provide lifelong skills and learning. What
we know about ``what works'' in our schools has come as a result of
local and State initiatives.
Federal funding has always targeted the most needy populations of
students. Whether it is Title I, school nutrition or IDEA, your goal
has always been to ``supplement and not supplant.'' This agreement
between the Feds and the States has kept an important balance in the
local traditions and the national importance of education.
In recent decades you have been an important partner with the
States in creating open doors for all children. I will share gently
that you have also opened the doors on an incredible bureaucracy. Back
in the square States, and in the triangle States, and the just plain
strange States, we labor under the rules and requirements of the
Federal Government. We implement these laws and accept the burdens of
rules and regulations because we know, in most cases, that these
increase opportunities for children. ``No Child Left Behind'' will
strain that. And we will accept these news laws because we see the
wisdom behind them.
As you consider the guarantee of equity in education, please bear
in mind the wonderful progress offered by ``No Child Left Behind.''
Please continue to honor the historic traditions of local control and
States' rights. Please recognize the wonderful work being done by
States and local districts to guarantee opportunity for all.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Ms. Catchpole.
Mr. Price, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HUGH B. PRICE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Price. Thank you very much, Senator. I would like to
thank you and Senator Enzi, Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy,
obviously, and your designated hitter, Congressman Fattah, for
having this hearing today. This committee has been a vigilant
and vigorous friend of America's children.
I have submitted written testimony, and in a shameless act
of self-promotion, I would like to submit for the record an
advance proof of a book I am going to be publishing at the end
of August titled,``Achievement Matters.'' I could not resist
that.
Senator Dodd. I will not put the whole book in the record,
but we will take note of it--with copies for all the Members
who are here, of course. [Laughter.]
Mr. Price. I will do that.
The National Urban League is the oldest and largest
community-based movement empowering our folks into the economic
and social mainstream, and our more than 100 affiliates work
vigorously to help ensure that our children are well-educated,
because we believe as you do that education opens the door to
the American mainstream.
When I and many of us in this room were growing up in the
1940s and 1950s, roughly 80 percent of all the jobs in the U.S.
economy were either unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. We did not
worry about leaving no child behind, because there was a place
for them in the U.S. economy, whether they were well-educated
or not.
But today, 85 percent of all jobs are skilled or
professional jobs, and therefore, education is critically
important to economic success. What we have not done and what
this is a struggle to do is to bring reality on the ground in
our schools in line with the rhetoric that we will leave no
child behind.
We know from the National Assessment for Educational
Progress that nearly two-thirds of our children in the fourth
grade are reading below basic, which is not a sustainable
situation, and that is why we at the Urban League have launched
our Campaign for African American Achievement, to spread the
gospel of achievement among our children. We have teamed up
with Scholastic Magazine to create a guide called ``Read and
Rise'' to help empower parents to know what they can do to
ensure that their children are proficient readers.
I want to salute President Bush, Senator Kennedy, all the
members of the committee, and Secretary Paige for the
bipartisan spirit that led to the passage of the Leave No Child
Behind legislation. This is a very important leap forward in
Federal leadership on this issue.
Our view, frankly, is that vigorous Federal leadership and
pressure on every other player is critically important. We
believe that education is a Federal issue; it is a national
issue. A child educated in Wyoming is just as likely to end up
in Atlanta, and therefore, the State of Georgia has a much
interest in the quality of education in Wyoming as Wyoming
does. We think that the U.S. economy is contingent on and
dependent on high-quality education across the country, so we
believe that there should be no shirking on this issue, and I
am delighted with the leadership that this committee has
provided.
The challenge now is to match the aspirations of the Act
with the appropriations, and frankly--and I am where
Congressman Fattah is--I think the equalization debate or the
equity debate is critically important, but I think we almost
have to call and raise that debate and ask the question, what
is required in order to do what must be done to make sure we do
not leave any children behind, and to do so with dispatch, not
with all deliberate speed.
Urban and rural school districts with the greatest number
of kids who are at risk of being left behind have the least
capacity financially to make certain that they are not. These
districts are tax-poor, as we all know, and the States by and
large have not equalized funding despite decades of litigation
and favorable court decrees. We all know that there are
substantial correlations between levels of school funding and
school success.
I think the discussion of the $5 billion that is part of
the legislation and the debate over whether or not it will be
there for me is the starting point of this conversation, not
the ending point.
What is necessary in order to get the job done? I think we
know that we have to expand our quality child care for
children. There have been debates, and we have been pushing
coverage of Head Start; we have got to continue to push. We
also have to be sure that there is high-quality child care with
appropriate doses of pre-literacy preparation for the children
of parents who are cycling off public assistance and moving
into the labor force. Otherwise, custodial care for their
children just repeats the cycle.
Second, there has to be an intense emphasis on and full
funding of the efforts to promote early literacy, with
instructional approaches that are substantiated by research,
reading specialists in all of the classrooms, and community
mobilization efforts to make sure parents know what they have
to do.
We have to have high-quality teachers for all children. In
New York City, the schools with the lowest scores on State
exams have the highest percentage of uncertified teachers, and
the suburbs of New York pay about 25 percent more than New York
City does.
I just came up from Nashville this morning, and the fellow
who was driving us around there said that he and his wife are
about to move from Nashville to Ridgefield, CT, because his
wife is a Spanish teacher, and she is going to make so much
more money in Ridgefield that it makes sense for them to uproot
the entire family. That is Nashville's loss, obviously, and
Ridgefield's gain. But it illustrates a point about how we have
to think about teachers, and that is that we cannot think about
it as a musical chairs, competitive, free market game. Our view
is that we have got to pay teachers like professionals, and I
see no reason why young teachers should not be paid in the same
way that young lawyers, young accountants, and young M.B.A.s
are. If we want more high-quality, motivated people in the
profession, we have got to pay them like professionals, and
that is going to cost money.
We have to invest in extensive professional development for
teachers, which requires fewer classes that they teach every
week, more planning time, et cetera.
We need intensive interventions for young people who, as a
result of the diagnostic power of these tests, are at risk of
falling behind. And summer school is not the answer. Just as
the private sector has undertaken what might be called just-in-
time inventory management, we need just-in-time interventions
the moment we see that a child is at risk of falling behind.
That costs money.
We need new public school models for kids. In Senator
Kennedy's district in Springfield, our Urban League is
partnering with the Massachusetts National Guard, and they have
created the New Leadership Charter School which, in just a few
years, is one of the highest-ranked schools in the City of
Springfield. It has a longer school day--it goes half-day on
Saturday. It goes about 2 dozen more days during the school
year. That costs money.
We need smaller schools. We have got to break up these
mammoth, anonymous schools, whether it is new buildings or
decentralizing or condominiumizing these massive middle schools
and high schools, because the Bank Street College Study shows
that there are substantial benefits that accrue from smaller
schools. And we have to dramatically expand after-school
programs for kids. We know that that helps to reduce their
propensity to engage in teen crime and teen sex, and that there
are academic gains that are quite significant.
So I would urge you to do everything in your power to match
the appropriations to the aspirations under the act. In health
care, there is a favorite saying that ``an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure.'' We seem to have a blank-check
attitude toward criminal justice in this country but are rather
stingy when it comes to education. In our view--and I do not
know the proper ratio, but I will make one up--$1 of education
is worth $10 of imprisonment.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Price. We appreciate
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hugh B. Price
The Urban League is the nation's oldest and largest community-based
movement devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic
and social mainstream.
The Urban League movement was founded in 1910. The National Urban
League, headquartered in New York City, spearheads our non-profit, non-
partisan, community-based movement. The heart of the Urban League
movement is our professionally staffed Urban League affiliates in over
100 cities in 34 States and the District of Columbia.
The mission of the Urban League movement is to enable African
Americans to secure economic self-reliance, parity and power and civil
rights. We thank the Senate, and the chairman in particular, Senator
Kennedy, and Senator Dodd for this opportunity to share the thoughts of
the League on this important topic.
The National Urban League is pleased that the President and
Congress have made education a priority. We are concerned however, that
education funding continues to be unequal between poor and wealthy
school districts.
1. facts about school funding
It is well researched that school funding affects
students' ability to succeed academically. Students in under-funded
school districts routinely score lower on standardized tests than do
students in well-funded districts.
Throughout the United States, there exists substantial
variation--both across and within States--in per-pupil expenditures in
elementary and secondary education.
Perceived inadequacies in the amount of funding provided
for education, and concerns about the equity of its distribution, have
led to education finance systems being challenged in the courts in many
States, mostly on State constitutional grounds.
While much of the responsibility for resolving education
policy issues has been relegated to the States, the Congress has
identified a Federal role in influencing the amount and the
distribution of education expenditures across school districts.
The ``No Child Left Behind Act'' requires the States to
adopt a specific approach to testing and accountability, intended to
lead to higher achievement for all children. The legislation sends the
message that the Federal Government will be assuming a more forceful
role in elementary and secondary education, one that makes
unprecedented demands on States and local school districts to raise
academic achievement and take direct action to improve poorly
performing schools. In exchange for meeting the new demands, poorer
school districts will receive additional Federal funding, and all
States and school districts will have greater flexibility in how they
use Federal funds.
But, the new law has not given States, students, teachers,
parents and community-based organizations everything that is needed for
our children to have a fair shot at succeeding. Even with the passage
of the historic education bill, the education our children receive is
not on par. The problem continues to be with the ``tough love''
approach that many States have already implemented with carefree
abandon.
The question I ask of elected officials who are so
obsessed with tougher standards and standardized tests, is whether
their focus is just as intense on what it takes to help meet the higher
expectations.
2. looking at inequality in some states
I have attached two figures to give examples of the size of
inequality in per-pupil expenditures in four States, represented here
on this committee: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio and Tennessee. The
range of resources available in the current operating budgets between
school systems, however, can mask a key variable--depreciation. Urban
sprawl brings with it the construction of brand new school buildings;
buildings that because of their newness have high depreciation, versus
the aging infrastructure in too many cities, where fully depreciated
school buildings have no value. With the presence of technology, and
the need to have technologically-ready buildings, the rate of
depreciation has accelerated. Of course, many cities know this all too
well--at least from professional sports team owners who want 20 and 30
year old stadiums torn down for brand new facilities.
But, I will keep to showing the differences in current expense per
pupil. Figure 1 shows the range from the lowest to the highest per
pupil expenditure among districts in each of the four States. It also
shows the average, or mean per pupil expenditure, and the median (half
the districts spend more, half spend less). The range, from high to
low, in Massachusetts and Ohio is more than twice the mean expenditure
of districts in the State. An easy way to summarize the amount of
inequality is to compare the variance, or average distance from the
mean, as a ratio to the mean. This way, inequality is expressed as a
percentage of mean per pupil school expenditure in the State. Viewed in
that relative way, the amount of inequality is greatest in
Massachusetts, and least in Tennessee, among the four States of
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio and Tennessee.
Why is inequality between school districts in a State a civil
rights issue? Because school districts within States not only vary by
expenditure per pupil, but they also vary in the racial composition of
the school districts. By using the coefficient of variation to measure
the school expenditure inequality in a State, it is easy to decompose
that variance into a portion that follows the variation in the racial
makeup of the State's school districts, and a portion that does not.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Urban League Institute for Opportunity and
Equality did this work. The current expenditure per pupil cost was
regressed on the percentage of non-white students in the school system,
weighted by the square root of the number of students in the school
system. The variance of that measure of racial composition can be shown
to be a form of the S index, a commonly used measure of segregation.
So, the correlation between that measure of the racial composition of
the schools and per pupil expenditures decomposes the variance in
school inequality to yield a component related to segregation between
school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 shows the extent to which the differences in the racial
makeup of the school districts can be said to explain, or accompany,
differences in per pupil expenditures. Among the four States, Ohio,
where the level of segregation between the school districts accounts
for 45.1 percent of the variation in per pupil expenditures, is where
there is the strongest relationship between the racial composition of
the school district and per pupil school expenditures. Tennessee, where
the figure was 12.7 percent, has the weakest relationship between the
racial composition of the schools and per pupil expenditures.
Connecticut and Massachusetts were in between those two States.
Data for other States could have been shown. This was just to
highlight how there can be a relationship between differences in the
racial makeup of school districts and their resources. What we must
strive to do, of course, is to fight this unequal distribution of
opportunity for America's children. But, we must also remember the
unfortunate way that inequality may accompany some of the persistent
disparities between the races.
3. federal funding under the ``no child left behind act''
Under the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' significant new assessment
and accountability requirements will be imposed on schools. The schools
that may have the greatest difficulty meeting the new Adequate Yearly
Progress requirements will likely be Title I schools. In addition, all
of the sanctions for failing AYP apply only to Title I schools. But,
this should not be. Federal sanctions for local schools should be tied
to holding States and school districts accountable for all their
children, in all their schools, not just sanctions for Title I funds to
Title I schools. The Federal sanctions will be imposed on Title I
schools for failing to meet its State set standards. Yet, Federal funds
are not withheld when States fail to meet their State Supreme Court
orders to equalize funding and educational opportunity. Also, a portion
of Title I funds will be used for transportation for school choice and
supplemental services, reducing the levels available for instructional
improvement. New teacher quality requirements will be imposed, starting
with Title I schools in the upcoming school year. Finally, Title I
paraprofessionals are now subject to strict new quality standards.
However, the Federal Government only provides enough funding to
fully serve 40 percent of eligible students. For fiscal year 2002, the
average funding per Title I child is $1,020. The ``No Child Left Behind
Act'' unfortunately did not authorize moving to fully funding for Title
I. Still, an increase of $5.65 billion is needed above the fiscal year
2002 appropriations amount to reach the fiscal year 2003 ``No Child
Left Behind Act'' level, and another $2.24 billion to get on a path to
fully fund Title I in 10 years. That level of funding represents the
promise made to our children, and must be kept.
Title I funds could be used to expand pre-K programs, increase and
improve professional development for teachers and training for
paraprofessionals, and generally improve the quality of instruction.
The ``No Child Left Behind Act'' was the culmination of well meaning
compromises on all sides. Walking away from the commitment to fully
fund the Act is, at best, disingenuous to that effort.
4. national urban league's reform agenda
Here is the National Urban League's reform agenda aimed at
transforming all urban schools into high performing schools:
A. Assert No-Nonsense State Leadership and Responsibility
Urban and rural children are caught in an unconscionable trap
between lofty standards and lousy schools. I say the trap is
unconstitutional as well. Why? Because it's the States that set the
standards. It's the States that bear ultimate responsibility for low-
performing public schools. It's the States that tolerate stark
differences along ethnic and socioeconomic lines in school facilities,
academic tracking and teacher quality.
States claim they cannot afford to invest more in urban and rural
schools. That's baloney. They are squandering billions of dollars
annually to incarcerate thousands of nonviolent offenders who aren't a
menace to anyone.
Conventional wisdom holds that public education is a local
responsibility. I don't buy that argument either. Chances are that
children raised on farms in Idaho will manufacture Saturn automobiles
in Tennessee. Youngsters reared in Chattanooga will become investment
bankers on Wall Street.
Society has a compelling interest in the quality of America's high
school graduates that justifies aggressive leadership by States and by
the Federal Government.
No longer should poor and minority children be held hostage to
communities with low tax bases, with weak commitments from States to
provide quality education, and skinflint taxpayers who oppose providing
equal and adequate support for all schools in their State.
No longer should unqualified teachers, outdated books, over-crowed
classrooms and crumbling facilities and abandoned communities, stunt
the untapped potential of our young people. We cannot afford to be so
cheap.
Having imposed high standards on all children, the Government now
has the moral, financial and legal obligation to guarantee high quality
education for every child.
B. ``Professionalize'' the Teaching Profession
The hidden scandal behind those lousy test scores is the poor
quality of teachers in many urban schools. After all, as one State
education official said: ``Students cannot learn what teachers don't
know.''
Thousands of eminently qualified motivated teachers do a marvelous
job in urban schools. But the undeniable reality is that in New York
City, for instance, the schools with the lowest scores on the State
exams have the highest percentage of uncertified teachers. In fact,
according to the National Alliance of Black School Educators, of the
80,000 teachers teaching in New York City, 13,000 are uncertified and
are teaching in low-income districts.
These schools also have more teachers who barely made it past the
State certification exams. Compounding the problem is the fact that
surrounding suburbs pay starting teachers 25 percent more.
Given the projected shortage of principals and teachers due to
retirement, plus the urgent need to increase teacher quality in urban
and rural schools serving low-income children, the compensation offered
education must be improved dramatically in order to create a strong
demand for these jobs.
One thing that would help is to increase salaries to levels
comparable with other professions. If education truly is as important
to society as we say, why not offer young graduates with masters'
degrees the same initial salaries as young MBAs, attorneys and
engineers? Since most urban and rural districts are strapped
financially, the Federal and State governments should take the lead in
financing the economic incentives needed to attract stronger educators
to these school districts.
C. Challenging Courses for All
When I was growing up, the teachers in my schools focused on
educating a small proportion of pupils well. The economy needed a few
managers and lots of laborers and factory workers. As a matter of
equity and economic necessity, we expect all students today to meet
lofty standards.
Yet our school systems are mired in obsolete and elitist thinking
about which students are capable of achieving at high levels. It's as
though deep in their hearts, they believe the thoroughly discredited
thesis of the borderline racist book, ``The Bell Curve.''
How can black and Latino children possibly meet exacting academic
standards when they're systemically excluded from rigorous courses
geared to those standards?
According to the Education Trust, high scoring white and Asian
students are twice as likely as high scoring African American and
Hispanic youngsters to be assigned to college prep courses. Those
miserable test results in New York City have served also to expose the
widespread pattern of tracking young minority children into basic and
special education courses.
School districts must cease these discriminatory educational
practices towards African American, Hispanic and other children of
color. Washington should not only sanction school districts that do not
meet the State performance objectives. Washington should increase
Federal assistance for those school systems that:
End tracking of African American, Hispanic and other
children of color into dead-end, non-college preparatory courses, to
increase their offerings of Advanced Placement Classes, or reward
States that actively encourage districts to increase such classes;
Create programs of intervention and prevention of reading
deficiencies to insure that children are not disproportionately placed
in special education classes.
D. Close the Gap
We should not stop at Title I funding, though. The gaps in
achievement begin earlier. There must be ways to help children
transition from home to school. And this means building the blocks for
early literacy. When I say we all should focus on early literacy, I
mean we should make certain that every child can read, write and
compute at grade level--or better--by the time she or he graduates from
elementary school. So, we acknowledge and appreciate the $1 billion
request to support scientifically based early reading programs. But,
that is only part of the bill due. We must also provide the needed
funding for quality child care to make any proposals to reauthorize the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 a real chance for poor children to succeed.
Parents can start their children out on the right track by
enrolling them in high quality preschool programs and childcare that
prepare them for reading. They shouldn't settle for babysitting or
custodial care. Let's ensure that every Headstart program, preschool
center, day care program and K-5 charter school is deeply committed to
early literacy and has the skilled faculty, curriculum and, in the
final analysis, results to prove it. Agencies that work with parents
and caregivers, whether in parenting programs, job training centers or
digital campuses, should impart an understanding of the importance of
early literacy and help equip them for the critical role they must
play.
The National Urban League has teamed up with Scholastic, the
world's largest publisher of children's books and magazines, to create
a guide for parents on how to help children become good readers. The
guide is called ``Read and Rise'' and it's chockfull of practical tips
that really work. You can get it through the Urban League or from
Scholastic. You can get it online at the National Urban League website
at www.nul.org/readandrise and on Scholastic's website at
www.scholastic.com/readandrise.
We're determined to saturate our community with Read and Rise.
We've started out by distributing 250,000 copies. Urban League
affiliates are getting it out to parents and caregivers in their
programs.
The National Urban League is committed to America's children having
the education opportunities they need. But, we must have the Federal
Government equally committed. We cannot tolerate high dropout rates in
any community, and support the targeted efforts to reduce the
unbelievably high Hispanic dropout rates. We cnnnot tolerate leaving
children behind because we cannot address limited English proficiency,
or accommodate the needs of students from our growing melting pot. We
cannot leave America's children in any trap set by adults.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79941.032
Senator Dodd. Mr. Rebell, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. REBELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL,
CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Rebell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In my testimony, what I would like to do is highlight and
go into a little more detail on a couple of themes that have
been raised by the members and others who have testified this
morning.
The first is the stark fact which was well-illustrated by
Senator Dodd's chart that he put up at the beginning of the
hearing, that in the United States of America today, the
reality is that children with the greatest educational needs on
average receive fewer resources than children with lesser
educational needs. In a democracy of the 21st century, quite
frankly, I think that that is a scandal. We are the only large
industrial nation that reflects that pattern, and clearly,
something needs to be done about it.
This is not a new problem. This body has been aware of it.
The Federal courts and the State courts have been aware of this
issue for decades, and there has been progress, and let us
acknowledge that.
But I think we have come to a point, as Congressman Isakson
was saying, that there has to be a new look here at a Federal-
State partnership and a new focus on the problem that so many
speakers have already identified, that the No Child Left Behind
Act has given us a very clear framework on what the goals are,
how we can assess whether students are meeting those goals, but
the core accountability here is not necessarily the children's
test scores--it is whether both the State and Federal
Governments are going to provide the resources that allow all
children to have a fair opportunity to reach that goal.
I would like to acknowledge both the progress that has been
made in the No Child Left Behind Act on a bipartisan basis by
President Bush and by all Members of Congress. I want to
specifically express my appreciation for the work of this
committee in the amount of funding that was provided for Title
I last year, and for Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy and
others, who I know worked so hard to get that targeted funding
and the education finance incentive grants, which are a real
start in the right direction on what needs to be done.
But obviously, there is a need for a lot more to be done.
In thinking through where to go on this, the fact that we have
had litigation, as Ms. Catchpole put it, in 43 out of the 50
States over the last 30 years really provides an empirical
groundswell of data and information not only on what the
problems are but on what can be done about these problems.
There has been litigation in virtually every State of the
Union, and they have served an enormously beneficial purpose.
The litigation in the State of Connecticut, for example, the
Sheff case, really highlighted the extent to which, almost 50
years after Brown v. Board of Education, the racial disparities
in education remain enormous, and the concentration of poverty
and minority students in large city districts has not been
dealt with in any forceful way.
I think the litigation in Senator Enzi's State, the Wyoming
litigation, has gone the furthest of any State in the country
in showing us a direction for remedying these types of
conditions because the kind of detailed costing-out methodology
that the Senator and Ms. Catchpole alluded to is really the
direction in which I think all States need to go, in order to
put a focus on exactly what the disparities are and what are
the resources needed to overcome the disparities, in order to
give all children an opportunity.
I know it has been a complex task. I know the Campbell case
was first decided in 1995, and it is now 7 years later, when
you seem to have come to a point where most--not everybody is
ever going to be satisfied--but most people think that Wyoming
has come up with an equitable approach.
I take note of the fact that in the neighboring State of
Maryland, right in shooting distance--that is the wrong word; I
am sorry--in hailing distance of where we are at the moment,
there recently was another well-conceived educational reform
that was based on a similar methodology of trying to determine
precisely what resources are required to provide the key
elements of education to all students throughout the State. I
think this is consistent with the kinds of concepts that
Congressman Fattah was talking about. He laid out seven areas
of major resources that all children should be entitled to.
That kind of analysis is the starting point of the
methodologies they have used in Wyoming and Maryland to try to
hone in on precisely what amount of dollars is needed to reach
those goals. And as we have seen in Wyoming, it may be that
because of the cost-of-living, the price of milk, whatever it
is, in different areas of the State, you will not wind up with
exactly the same amounts. It may be that to meet the needs of
students with special circumstances, you are going to have to
have extra funding to provide more time on task, to provide
one-on-one instruction, and the other specific techniques that
research and experience have shown really make a difference
with at-risk children.
So in the Maryland example, I think the proportion of
supplemental funding that was determined through the costing-
out methodology was that at-risk children in inner city areas
like Baltimore required something like 110 percent additional
funding over the base adequacy amount for students in general
throughout the State. That recommendation that came through
this type of expert analysis was accepted by the Maryland
legislature, and their new reform which is going to be phased
in over the next 5 or 6 years calls for that type of increased
funding to be going to students in Baltimore and other areas
throughout the State.
So the methodologies are there. I think that what really
needs to be done now from the Federal point of view is to focus
on both the need to fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and
Title I and the IDEA in particular, up to their authorized
levels or in a reasonable phasing approach, to begin the path
of full funding of those.
I would like to again emphasize the importance of the
targeted concentration grants and the incentive grants in that
regard, but I would also ask this committee to consider adding
a requirement to the No Child Left Behind Act that would
require States to undertake the kinds of costing-out analyses
that have been done in Wyoming, have been done in Maryland, and
have been done in 10 or 11 other States, so that in the first
instance, we have a focus on what the actual needs are in
dollar terms, and both the States and the Federal Government
can know what it is that needs to be done.
That kind of knowledge allows the public to be aware of the
specifics of the issue, to know exactly what resources children
in certain areas are not getting and what resources those
children will need to meet the challenges of No Child Left
Behind and the State standards. It allows Federal funding in
future years to be focused on those areas of greatest disparity
in particular States, and I think it also puts additional
pressure where it should be, on the States in their own
internal financial schemes to bring their funding up to a level
that provides an adequate education to all of their children.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Very, very good. Thank you for that testimony
as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rebell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Rebell
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
Michael A. Rebell, the Executive Director of the Campaign for Fiscal
Equity, Inc., an education finance reform advocacy organization in New
York. I am also an adjunct professor and lecturer in education law at
Columbia University. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the committee regarding the pervasive and devastating
inequities in educational opportunity faced by millions of low-income
and minority students in our Nation's public schools, and the clear
links between increased educational equity and higher student
achievement.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity is litigating CFE v. State of New
York, a constitutional challenge to New York State's education finance
system. In a landmark decision in January 2001, the trial court ruled
that New York's current system of funding schools unconstitutionally
denies hundreds of thousands of public school children--mostly low-
income, minority students in New York City and other impoverished urban
and rural districts elsewhere in the State--of their right to the
opportunity for a sound basic education. The court concluded that the
inequitable school finance system in New York was depriving the State's
neediest students of critical educational resources, including
qualified teachers, adequate school facilities, appropriate class
sizes, and up-to-date instructional materials and technology.
CFE also operates the ACCESS Education Network, a national network
of attorneys, policymakers, researchers, educators, and advocates that
monitors school funding reform litigation and advocacy efforts across
the country. The project operates a website, www.ACCESSednetwork.ora,
that has up-to-date information on the history and status of education
finance litigations and reform efforts in all 50 States.
In my testimony today, I will first provide a national overview of
educational inequities, and the detrimental impact of inadequate
resources--both in funding and services--on the educational outcomes of
low-income students. Next, I will describe the extensive body of
research that has unequivocally concluded that equity in education
funding improves educational outcomes, and that money does matter in
educating all of our children to be successful, productive citizens.
Finally, I will lay out, in broad terms, the role that Congress can
take in achieving greater funding and resource equity in every State.
overview of educational inequities
school funding disparities
Through inequitable and inadequate funding, our States and the
Federal Government have, for decades, consistently left behind millions
of low-income, rural, and urban school children as their wealthier
peers take full advantage of the educational resources and
opportunities that are made available only to them. While qualified and
experienced educators, modern school facilities that are conducive to
teaching and learning, and basic instructional materials like up-to-
date textbooks and science labs are taken for granted by suburban
children and their families, in countless examples across the country,
chiidren in rural and urban school districts--disproportionately from
low-income, non-white families--can count on none of these to be
provided to them in their years in public schools.
In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics released
statistics that confirm that children who go to public schools in
central cities in the United States--by and large, the country's most
socioeconomically disadvantaged students--attend schools that, on
average, have lower per pupil expenditures than non-urban schools. In
the 1996-97 school year, per pupil expenditures in urban schools were
below both the national average and the average of non-metropolitan
public schools, when adjusted using the geographic Cost of Education
Index (CEI). The public schools with the lowest poverty levels (less
than 5 percent of the student population below the poverty level) had
the highest per-pupil spending levels.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the funding of Philadelphia's school
district generates per pupil expenditures below the State average and
far below the surrounding suburban districts, making it difficult for
Philadelphia to compete in the market for qualified teachers,
especially since Philadelphia has the State's highest cost of living.
In New York City, despite the fact that the city faces the highest
regional costs in the State of New York and has one of the highest
concentrations of at-risk students, per pupil expenditures in New York
City public schools are below the State average and significantly lower
than the average in the surrounding suburban counties. In recent years,
New York City has spent nearly $1500 less per pupil than the State
average, and at least $4,000 less than the average in the nearby
suburbs, even though those districts have very low concentrations of
at-risk students. In 1998-99 (the most recent year for which data is
available), New York City spent $9,623 per pupil, while in nearby Long
Island suburbs, Great Neck spent $17,640 per pupil and Port Jefferson
spent $21,613 per pupil. In Westchester County, the average per pupil
spending was $13,651, with per pupil expenditures in one district
exceeding $19,000 per year.
Furthermore, during the 1990s, most increases in public elementary
and secondary expenditures went to students in non-urban schools.
Between 1991-92 and 1996-97, per pupil spending in central city schools
remained essentially flat, with an increase (in constant 1996-97
dollars) of only $45, or less than 1 percent, over that 5-year period.
In contrast, per pupil spending in schools outside metropolitan areas
increased over 9 percent over the same period. (NCES 2001).
In sum, in contrast to basic principles of democracy and equal
educational opportunity, the stark reality in the United States today
is that children with the greatest needs are actually given the least
resources. The United States is the only major developed country in the
world that exhibits this shameful pattern of educational inequity.
What is the cause of these extensive patterns of educational
inequity? Much of it surely is the continuing legacy of the dual school
systems that in many States had relegated African American students to
separate, grossly under-funded school systems before the United States
Supreme Court outlawed school segregation in Brown v. Board of
Education. But the problem extends beyond racial segregation. Millions
of low-income and rural students also are denied equal educational
opportunities, by a system of education finance that relies on local
property assessments and local property taxes to fund most educational
expenditures.
Residents of low-income school districts around the country, both
urban and rural, typically tax themselves at much higher rates than
residents of wealthier districts. Because of lower property values and
reduced home-ownership in poorer areas, however, the greater tax effort
in these communities produces significantly lower revenues. Lower
income communities--invariably those with the highest spending needs
for education and other important services--simply cannot fund public
education at adequate levels; they require State and Federal funding to
provide students in these communities with comparable educational
opportunities.
Ironically, this inequitable pattern of educational funding has its
roots in one of the most notable attributes of the American education
system--namely, local control of education. Although local governance
remains a viable and significant vehicle for civic participation and
commitment to education, the 19th century property-based funding system
that continues to accompany it is an unnecessary and unacceptable
anachronism in the 21st century. Just as virtually all of the States,
with Federal encouragement, have established State-wide academic
standards to ensure that all students are educated in accordance with
contemporary needs, all of the States, with Federal encouragement,
should ensure that adequate resources are in place to ensure that
students in every school district have a fair opportunity to meet those
standards. State-wide standards for funding adequacy, like State-wide
standards for academic performance, need not conflict with continued
adherence to the American tradition of local control of education. On
the contrary, fair funding will, in fact, empower many poor school
districts, especially in urban and rural areas, and allow them to
actually take control of their educational destinies.
funding inequities are a national problem
The basic pattern of severe financing inequities has for decades
impeded educational opportunities for low-income children throughout
the United States. Almost 30 years ago, at a time when civil rights
advocates were realizing that the promise of Brown v. Board of
Education could not be achieved without remedying the huge resource
deficiencies in the schools most minority students attended, this issue
was brought before the United States Supreme Court. This 1973
litigation, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,
starkly illustrated the basic pattern of funding inequities: per capita
spending for the largely Latino students of the Edgewood, Texas school
district was exactly half the amount spent on the largely Anglo
students in the neighboring Alamo Heights school district (even after
Federal Title I funding was taken into account), even though the
Edgewood residents had assessed themselves a 25 percent higher tax
rate. The United States Supreme Court acknowledged and decried this
pattern of inequity, but because the court held that education is not a
``fundamental interest'' under the Federal Constitution, it denied
plaintiffs any relief. Since most State constitutions do consider
education to be a ``fundamental interest'' and/or contain specific
provisions that guarantee students a right to an adequate education,
reformers turned to the State courts. In what has probably been the
most extensive area of State constitutional activity in American
history, since Rodriguez there have been litigations challenging
inequities in State education finance systems in 43 of the 50 States.
Overall, plaintiffs have prevailed in a majority of these
litigations, especially in recent years. Indeed, since 1989, when the
standards-based reform movement began to provide State court judges
with ``judicially manageable'' tools for remedying the patterns of
funding inequities, plaintiffs have prevailed in about two-thirds of
these litigations. Thus, in States like Arizona, Kentucky, New Jersey,
Texas, Vermont and Wyoming, extensive successful reforms have been
implemented as a result of plaintiff successes in these litigations. In
places like New Hampshire and Ohio, plaintiffs won major victories from
the courts, but battles are still raging about the nature of the
remedies that need to be put into place. In other States like Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia the cases were dismissed and
the inequitable funding structures remain largely in place. The
difficulty of achieving successful reforms at the State level is
illustrated by the fact that in some States, like California and
Connecticut, where plaintiffs won initial victories a number of years
ago, problems persist and new litigations were commenced years after
the initial cases had been terminated. Moreover, in other States like
New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina, where the defendants had
prevailed in the 1980s, plaintiffs who brought new cases in the 1990s
have succeeded in getting the courts to reconsider the issues.
In sum, while State courts have effectively remedied persistent
inequities in a number of States, from a national perspective the
complex and uneven nature of State-level education funding reform
remains highly unsatisfactory. Millions of students in a majority of
States continue to be denied the type of educational opportunities
contemplated by the NCLB Act and in most of these jurisdictions neither
the legislative nor judicial branches are acting to correct flawed
financing systems. Clearly, persistent and egregious inequities in
basic educational funding are a national problem that are inconsistent
with the aims of the NCLB--and inconsistent with the effective
functioning of our democratic society. Justice Powell's decision for
the majority in Rodriguez acknowledged that ``The electoral process, if
reality is to conform to the democratic ideal, depends on an informed
electorate: a voter cannot cast his ballot intelligently unless his
reading skills and thought processes have been adequately developed.''
Because no claim was made in Rodriguez that any child was receiving
less than the minimum amount of education necessary to attain this
level of skills, the Supreme Court did not further consider the issue
of whether the exercise of civic responsibilities under the First
Amendment to the Federal Constitution would require some level of
adequate educational opportunity. The standards-based reform movement
and the NCLB Act have, however, now highlighted the issue of adequacy,
and have demonstrated that there are feasible methods for assessing
whether children are, in fact, receiving an adequate education and the
importance of their doing so. Clearly, then, ensuring that all students
are, in fact, provided the opportunity for a basic, adequate education
has become a national issue, of which Congress must take note.
inequitable and inadequate resources
Teachers
Qualified and experienced teachers--the most important resource in
our public schools--are in shortest supply in schools that serve our
neediest children. School districts with low teacher salaries cannot
recruit and retain qualified teachers, losing the best-qualified
candidates to wealthier school districts that can pay higher salaries
or to better-paying jobs in other sectors of the economy. Courts in
several States have ruled that inequitable outcomes of public school
students are strongly linked to high proportions of unqualified
teachers--measured in terms of lack of appropriate certifications, poor
undergraduate preparation, low performance on teacher certification
exams, and high teacher turnover--in low-income urban and rural school
districts.
In Arkansas, for instance, a court recently found that ``. . .
disparity . . . in teachers' salaries . . . are so great that they work
to destabilize the education system by driving qualified teachers away
from districts where they are most needed. Schools and school districts
with more disadvantaged students need more qualified teachers per
student. However, the schools with the highest number of disadvantaged
students are typicaily the schools which have the lower teacher
salaries.'' For example, 94 percent of the students in the small rural
Lake View School District in Arkansas are eligible for free or reduced-
price lunches. According to the court, ``Lake View provides an example
of the limitations of a poor school district . . . Lake View has one
uncertified mathematics teacher for all high school mathematics
courses. The teacher is paid $10,000 a year as a substitute teacher
which he supplements with $5,000 annually for school bus driving . . .
In his geometry class he does not have compasses. Only one of four
chalkboards is usable. His computer lacks hard- and software . . . and
the printer does not work. Paper is in short supply and the duplicating
machine, an addressograph, is generally overworked so that frequently
documents, including examinations, have to be handwritten on the
chalkboard.'' For Lake View students who do move on to college, ``the
college remediation rate is 100 percent'' because of the grossly
inadequate instruction and curriculum available to them in high school.
Within New York State as a whole, according to the New York State
Board of Regents, African American and Latino students are taught by
the least qualified and most inexperienced teachers. Seventy-three
percent of all minority public school students in New York State are
enrolled in New York City public schools. New York City provides a
classic example of the least-qualified teachers being put to work in
the most challenging conditions in public schools in the State. The
court, in 2001 in CFE v. State found that 13.7 percent of New York
City's public school teachers were uncertified, compared with only 3.3
percent of those in the rest of the State. The Court also took note of
a study which indicated that 31.1 percent of teachers newly employed in
New York City had failed the basic liberal arts State certification
test at least once, compared with 4.7 percent in the rest of the State,
and that 42.4 percent of the math teachers currently teaching in New
York City's public schools had failed the math content test for
certification at least once.
The cause of this is no surprise. Salaries in the surrounding
suburbs are 20-36 percent higher than those paid in the city, according
to figures cited by the court. The result of this, year after year, is
the same, as New York City and other low-wealth urban and rural
districts face a chronic teacher shortage and are forced to fill
thousands of slots with uncertified and under-qualified candidates. The
New York Times reported just last week that for the 2001-2002 school
year, only 27 percent of the 7,405 new teachers hired bay the New York
City public schools possessed traditional certification. Another 23
percent possessed the less-stringent alternative certification, but a
full half of all new teachers hired this year possessed no
certification at all and many of them lacked requisite course work or
had failed the State certification exams.
In North Carolina, the trial court in Leandro v. State recently
found that the criteria needed to provide at-risk students with the
equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education are: effective,
competent, and motivated principals; highly quality teachers who teach
in their fields of expertise, safe and orderly school environments;
high expectations of teachers and students; ongoing professional
development for teachers; and smaller classes in early grades for at-
risk children. The court cited the North Carolina Commission on Raising
Achievement and Closing Gaps (the ``Bridges Commission''), which
concluded: ``Most policymakers, parents, educators, and researchers now
generally agree that nothing is more closely tied to student
achievement and underachievement than the preparation, support and
quality of classroom teachers. It follows then, that nothing is more
critical to our efforts to close the achievement gap than making
certain that every student, especially those who have been
traditionally underserved by public schools, has access to competent,
caring, qualified teachers in schools organized for success.''
Facilities
At-risk students are too often subjected to substandard school
facilities that, at the minimum, hinder teaching and learning, and at
worst, pose clear threats to their health and safety. The complaint in
Williams v. State, a current class-action lawsuit in California filed
on behalf of the State's disadvantaged school children, presents a
sobering body of evidence concerning the conditions under which low-
income and minority children currently attend school in California.
In San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno, Los Angeles, and elsewhere,
schools are ``infested with vermin and roaches,'' have unstaffed and
rarely updated libraries, lack computers in the classrooms, and conduct
classes in rooms too small for the actual large class sizes and in
spaces altogether unsuitable for instruction, such as open library
spaces, gymnasiums, auditoriums, or poorly partitioned classrooms. For
example, in Mark Keppel High School in Alhambra, the school's 2,100
students must share a single science lab, meaning that many science
classes forgo lab work altogether. In Stonehurst Elementary School in
Oakland, a class of students meet permanently on the auditorium stage;
from 9 to 1:30 every Tuesday and Thursday their teacher must compete
against music lessens that occur simultaneously in the same auditorium
space. The racial inequities in the case are clear: whereas 59 percent
of all California public school students are students of color, 96.4
percent of the population of the plaintiffs' schools is non-white.
In Ohio, low-income students in both urban and rural districts are
schooled in equally unacceptable facilities. Students in Cleveland,
Youngstown, and other urban districts attend schools that are
overcrowded and dilapidated, with insufficient funds for maintenance
and major roof and window leaks causing on-going degradation. In the
DeRolph v. State of Ohio school finance case, plaintiffs presented
numerous examples that highlight the school facility problems in that
State. At the intermediate and high schools in Coal Grove, Ohio, there
are no art or music rooms. The intermediate school has no science labs,
and one shower room serves both boys and girls. One of the high
school's science labs has no running water or gas. In the town's
elementary school, temperatures often exceed 100 degrees at the
beginning and end of the school year; if more than three teachers run
fans at the same time, however, the school's circuit breaker fails. In
Mt. Gilead, some students are being educated in former coal bins and in
Flushing, students as recently as the early 1990s had to use outhouses.
Compare these conditions to facilities at prosperous Granville High
School 100 miles from Coal Grove, which has five language labs with
cordless headsets, a greenhouse between two biology rooms, state-of-
the-art classrooms and technology for industrial arts and computer-
assisted design, art facilities with separate rooms for kilns and
sculpture, carpeted locker rooms with individual showers and installed
hair dryers, a library with rooms for group study, and dark room and
television production facilities.
The disparities in facilities between school districts in Ohio are
rooted in tremendous funding inequities. In 1999-2000, Cuyahoga
Heights, a wealthy Cleveland suburb, received $16,447 per student in
State and local funds. Tri-Valley Local, a low-wealth rural school,
received just $4,532 per student. This pattern is mirrored by countless
other examples across the State. Some of the most egregious facilities
problems in Ohio have since been addressed through the Ohio School
Facilities Commission, established in 1997 in response to the Ohio
Supreme Court's decision in favor of piaintiffs in the school funding
litigation, but all sides agree that billions of dollars more are
needed, in Ohio alone.
These examples, however, are not limited to Ohio and California,
but are indeed representative of a pervasive national problem, with
countless other similar examples of unacceptable school facilities in
school districts in every State.
impact of inadequate resources on student achievement
One crystal-clear conclusion reached by policy researchers, courts,
and State governments around the country is that inequitable and
inadequate education funding has a direct and damaging impact on the
educational achievement of low-income, non-white children. In the
United States, poverty and race are inextricably linked: in the late
1990s, roughly 35 percent of black and Latino children were living in
poverty, compared with about 15 percent of white children. (U.S. Census
Bureau, 1998).
Most recently, in Maryland, the State Commission on Education
Finance, Equity, and Excellence completed a study of the State's public
school funding in January 2002. The Commission found a strong and
consistent correlation between a school's percentage of students
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and the school's test scores.
The commission concluded that schools educating low-income students
need more resources to be able to improve outcomes for their students.
Nationally, long-term trends in academic performance, assessed by
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), show a
persistent and troubling achievement gap between white and non-white
students in the United Stales. The Department of Education began
monitoring this achievement gap in 1971, and until the late 1980s it
found that there was significant progress in reducing the disparities
in educational outcomes between minority and non-minority students due
to the extensive Title I and other supplemental funding that took hold
in the 1970s. During the 1990s however, since the level of Title I
funding was reduced, the gap has steadily widened once more.
The achievement gap between whites and non-whites in reading
performance is particularly disturbing. In 1971, the average reading
score of black 17-year-olds was below that of white 13-year-olds.
(NCES, Condition of Education 2001, Indicators 10, 11). By 1988, the
black-white gap in reading scores had dropped by over 60 percent, from
a gap of 53 points in 1971 to 20 points in 1988. By 1999, however, the
difference in white and black reading scores had steadily risen 55
percent from 1988 levels to a 31-point gap. In 30 years, the only
``progress'' made by black students was that the average black 17-year-
old's reading score was now nearly on par with--but still slightly
below--that of the typical 13-year-old white child. The average
Hispanic 17-year-old was also outperformed in reading skills by average
13-year-old white students. Overall, achievement by all three groups
has improved, but the gaps between white and non-white students
persist.
Trends in mathematics performance are similar. From 1973 to 1999,
white 17-year-olds' performance on the NAEP has been consistent: the
average white high school senior is proficient in ``moderately complex
procedures and reasoning,'' which includes an understanding of numbers
systems, geometric concepts, and the ability to undertake such tasks as
computing with decimals and fractions, evaluating formulas,
understanding graphs, and using logical reasoning to solve problems.
The average black 17-year-old is proficient in none of these basic
skills. The average mathematics scale score of a black 17-year-old in
1999, 283, is identical to the average score of the average white 13-
year-old. Like their eighth-grade white counterparts, black high school
seniors are proficient in ``numerical operations and beginning problem-
solving,'' described as ``an initial understanding of the four basic
operations,'' or the basic ability to add, subtract, multiply, and
divide, as well as the ability to analyze ``simple logical relations.''
Hispanic 17-year-olds fared slightly better, with an average score of
293, which still placed them in the same achievement rubric as their
black peers. (NCES, Condition of Education 2001, Indicator 12).
According to 2000 Census data, 9.4 percent of white Americans
between the ages of 20-24 are not high school graduates. The rate of
high school dropouts among blacks aged 20-24, at 19.5 percent, is over
twice that of whites. Hispanics fare the most poorly: 37.7 percent of
Hispanics in that age cohort have not finished high school. These
statistics correlate closely to college attendance and graduation
rates: while 34 percent of whites in their late 20s hold at least a
bachelor's degree, only 17.8 percent of blacks and 9.7 percent of
Hispanics have graduated from college. According to Harvard professor
Christopher Edley, the consequences of this ``growing separateness by
color and class in our schools . . . are evident in learning outcomes,
but also in such broader societal outcomes as shared community and
intercultural competence in the workplace, the political arena, and the
civic sphere generally.''
The economic consequences of high school dropouts are also
significant, according to analyses by Columbia University economist
Henry Levin. In 1994, Levin concluded that as at-risk populations make
up a larger proportion of the labor force, ``their educational
preparation will be visited on the competitive positions of the
industries and States in which they work and on our national economic
status. Employers will suffer in terms of lagging productivity, higher
training costs, and competitive disadvantages.'' Clearly, this is
already happening. In three national education summits, convened in
1989, 1996, and 1999, attended by the President, governors and chief
State school officers of all 50 States, and national business leaders,
participants agreed that a set of national educational goals was
necessary to prepare American students to compete in the national and
global economies. The general consensus of these national leaders, as
indicated in a report issued from the 1996 summit, was that the
national education system was not keeping up with the pace of change in
the larger economy, which requires that all high school graduates,
whether they are continuing their education or are moving directly into
the workforce, have higher levels of skills and knowledge, including
the ability to ``think their way through the work day, analyzing
problems, proposing solutions, communicating, working collaboratively,
and managing resources such as time and materials.''
In the decades ahead, as non-white students increasingly constitute
the majority of the populations in States including California, Texas,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico, the societal costs of allowing
these inequities to remain unchecked and unremedied will become
progressively more intolerable and unacceptable to business leaders and
to the Nation as a whole.
funding equity will improve educational outcomes
research links adequate resources with student achievement
Although some reports and scholarly articles have asserted the
inherently illogical proposition that ``money doesn't matter'' in
regard to educational achievement, most education economists take issue
with these conclusions and the statistical methodologies used to reach
them and find clear links between additional funding of specific
resources and higher student achievement. (See, e.g., Hedges and
Greenwald, ``Have Times Changed? The Relation Between School Resources
and Student Performance'' in ``Does Money Matter?'', Gary Burtless, ed.
Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996).
Judges in 11 of the 12 cases in which testimony has been made by
Eric Hanushek--a prominent promoter of the notion that ``money doesn't
matter''--have rejected this position because of their common-sense
recognition that, as stated by the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court:
[L]ogic and experience tell us that children have a better
opportunity to learn biology and chemistry, and are more likely
to do so, if provided with the laboratory equipment for
experiments and demonstrations; that children have a better
opportunity to learn English literature if given access to
books; that children have a better opportunity to learn
computer science if they can use computers, and so on through
the entire State-prescribed curriculum . . . It seems apparent
to me, however, that these are inarguable principles. If they
are not, then we are wasting an abundance of our taxpayers'
money in school districts that maintain libraries and buy
textbooks, laboratory equipment and computers. (Roosevelt
Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P2d 806, 822 (Ariz.
1994) (Feldman, C.J., specially concurring).
In the real world, no one doubts that ``money makes a difference.''
The outcomes of the landmark Tennessee STAR Project class size
reduction experiment demonstrate this point well. STAR was a
comprehensive, carefully planned and executed study that followed the
academic achievement over time of thousands of students placed in
classes of different sizes. A number of analyses of the STAR study have
concluded that students placed in small classes from kindergarten to
third grade--especially poor and minority students--show lasting gains
in educational achievement. In the most recent analysis of STAR data,
released in 2001, Princeton economists Alan Krueger and Diane Whitmore
found that the average test scores of black students who spent their
first four years in smaller classes were consistently higher throughout
their time in public school than peers who were not enrolled in small
classes from grades K-3. Krueger and Whitmore concluded that if all
students were enrolled in small classes, the persistent gaps in
standardized test scores between black and white students would be
markedly reduced.
A number of prominent education experts have found that money spent
on specific educational resources has a direct and dramatic effect on
student achievement. Ronald Ferguson of Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government has conducted research that links better qualified teachers,
teacher salaries, and higher student performance. Dr. Ferguson has
argued that highly qualified teachers can help a student overcome other
obstacles to success. ``While factors like poverty and parents'
education levels are often linked with low achievement,'' said Dr.
Ferguson, ``the effect of excellent teachers can be so strong that it
compensates for other factors and helps disadvantaged students achieve
at high levels.''
Education experts also widely agree that additional time on task is
an essential part of ensuring that at-risk students have the
opportunity for adequate educational opportunities. Through increased
instructional time, provided by, among other things, extended school
day and summer programs, student performance rises. According to
Christine Rossell, a Boston University political scientist, time on
task is the single greatest predictor of student achievement. Herbert
Walberg, a University of Chicago education researcher, has concluded
that after-school programs, Saturday programs, and summer school all
improve learning.
Let me give a specific, powerful example, from my experience in New
York, that is applicable nationwide. Reading Recovery is a remarkably
successful literacy program for the lowest performing first-graders,
many of whom are low-income, minority students. Participating students
receive daily one-on-one 30-minute tutoring sessions from certified
teachers who have at least 3 years of teaching experience and receive
extensive professional development. Even though students are chosen
because they are in the bottom 20 percent of their classes, between
1989 and 1996, 83 percent achieved grade-level proficiency after only
20 weeks in the program. The impact of Reading Recovery has been like
putting a rocket on a kid's back. But unfortunately, most schools and
districts educating low-income students do not have sufficient funds to
implement the program fully. In New York City in 1999-2000, there was
funding for only 3,000 of the 17,000 students in the bottom 20 percent
of their first-grade classes, and cuts in next year's budget will
likely reduce that number.
The ultimate truth is that money well-spent will make an enormous
difference. In the past, some school districts that received increased
funding misused their resources. Accountability means currently being
implemented by most States and the NCLB Act are geared to ensure that
school officials properly utilize current funding. At this time, the
focus should be on methods for assuring that poor and minority students
have critical educational resources, such as qualified teachers, pre-
kindergarten, small class sizes, and extended school days and school
years. State legislatures, executive branches, and courts have an
obligation to the students in poorer districts to appropriate a fair
share of educational resources--and to see that effective
accountability mechanisms are put into place that ensure that these
additional resources are effectively used so that they result in actual
and sustained gains in student achievement.
costing-out: linking resources to actual need
There is a broad national consensus on the resources needed by at-
risk students to be successful: highly qualified teachers, small class
sizes, appropriate instructional materials, safe and modern school
facilities, and continuous intervention programs that provide ``more
time on task'' including early childhood education, remediation
programs, and after-school programs, among others. While common sense
would indicate that aid to schools should be based on the actual costs
of these resources, and the specific needs of students, only recently
have States begun to seriously link funding to actual need and to
undertake the critical task of ``costing out'' the per pupil
expenditures necessary to provide students in low-wealth districts
equitable educational opportunities.
A costing-out study determines the amount of money actually needed
to make available all of the educational services required to provide
every child an opportunity to meet the applicable State education
standards. A variety of approaches for undertaking such studies have
been used in recent years in many States, including Alaska, Illinois,
Ohio, Oregon, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming--in some cases as
part of the development of a new funding system ordered by a State
court.
Historically, most State education finance systems have purported
to establish, as their basic building block, a ``foundation amount''
that presumably would guarantee sufficient funding for each child to
obtain an adequate education. From the beginning, however, in most
States no real methodology was used to determine what the foundation
amount should be. Instead, legislatures tended to establish the
foundation based on the amount of funding they were willing to allocate
for educational services with little regard for actual needs. Moreover,
the base amounts that initially were established eroded dramatically
over time because of budget pressures, competing political priorities,
and inflation. The significance of the costing-out approach is that it
determines a true foundation amount by identifying the specific
resources and conditions necessary to provide all children a reasonable
educational opportunity and then systematically calculates the amounts
necessary to fund each of these prerequisites.
A good example of the costing out approach is the study recently
conducted in Maryland. Outside consultants convened expert panels of
experienced educators to designate the resources schools need in order
to produce acceptable levels of student achievement. For low-income
students, the panels identified specific educational resources,
programs, and services that they deemed necessary, primarily more
teachers and other personnel to provide full-day pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten, smaller class sizes, and extended day and summer school
programs.
After reviewing this costing-out study and two others, the Maryland
commission concluded that the base per-pupil cost of providing an
adequate education to students who are not ``at-risk'' of academic
failure is $5,969 in Maryland, and that providing adequate educational
resources to enable low-income students to attain the targeted passing
rates for all students on State assessments will require an additional
$6,566 per pupil, for a total of $12,535. Although, in practice, school
districts will have flexibility in how they spend the additional money,
the commission's report presented examples of how it expects these
funds to be used. The commission's recommendations emphasize services
and supports for pre-school and elementary school children to address
learning deficiencies as early as possible.
An example of a hypothetical Maryland elementary school illustrates
the essential resources additional funding provides. In an elementary
school of 1,000 K-5 students plus 52 low-income students in pre-
kindergarten and the statewide average of 31 percent low-income
students, the additional funds would total $2,377,000. To properly
staff and support the pre-K, kindergarten, smaller class sizes, and
extended day and summer school programs and support services deemed
essential for the low-income students, this money would be spent on 22
additional certified teachers, approximately 30 additional teacher
aides, two library/media aides, four guidance counselors, two
therapists, two health technicians/nurses, two parent liaisons, and two
additional administrative support staff. Some of these funds would also
purchase additional technology and professional development.
proposed congressional action
Congress can take the lead in focusing attention on inequitable
educational opportunities as a national problem that requires sound and
consistent solutions in every State. First, Congress should amend the
``No Child Left Behind Act'' to ensure the resources necessary to
provide all children the opportunity to meet high standards. There is a
broad consensus on the programs and reforms that are needed to increase
student achievement; as Congress rightly supports high standards for
all children, it must not let these meaningful standards-based reforms
become unfunded mandates to States, districts, and schools. The
evidence establishes that qualified teachers, adequate facilities,
appropriate instructional materials and technology, and increased
instructional time are the key resources needed to raise student
achievement. All students can learn, and learn to high standards;
Federal support of these critical resource areas is necessary to ensure
that support of high standards does not push the neediest children
further behind. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to
contribute its fair share to fully funding these critical resources as
a major step in rectifying the gross inequities found in every State.
To do this, Congress should act immediately to fully fund both IDEA and
Title I--which has clearly been successful in making significant
strides to close the achievement gap in the past--and to ensure
guaranteed authorization of full funding for the entire duration of the
act.
Second, Federal education funding in general, and Title I funding
in particular, should be linked to a comprehensive, methodical, and
needs-based costing-out of standards-based education in every State.
The Federal Government should couple full funding of Title I and IDEA
with accurate assessments of the actual costs associated with the
resources funded by Federal aid, like facilities and qualified
teachers. For example, as a condition for maintenance of existing
funding, or increased Federal aid, every State should demonstrate that
it has conducted a thorough costing-out of standards-based education,
and can link Federal aid to correcting specific resource deficiencies,
such as qualified teachers in every class, identified through this
process. Sound costing-out processes should take into account the
critical resources necessary to raise student achievement, regional
cost variations, and the numbers of impoverished students, English
language learners, and special needs students in individual districts.
Linking Federal aid to costing-out at the State level would
accomplish three major goals: First, it encourages States, regardless
of litigation status, to determine the actual costs of educating
children based on a consistent, specific set of State-designated
standards. In many States, this would be the first time the true costs
of adequate educational opportunities would be ascertained. Second, it
would allow the Federal Government to target aid toward remedying
specific deficiencies in line with standards that will be used to
assess their effectiveness. It will be much more difficult for critics
to levy the charge that increased funding is being ``thrown at'' the
problem when it is clearly tied to specific resources and goals.
Finally, it holds the government at the Federal and State levels
accountable for reform. Too often, ``accountability'' in education
debates simply refers to punitive measures on children; it is time to
recognize that every level of the system must be held accountable, and
by costing-out education in specific, transparent terms, it is harder
for the Government to shirk its own accountability for the resources
crucial to making reforms work.
In conclusion, as Americans and members of a democratic society, we
must ground our actions in the basic premise that all children--even
those put at risk of academic failure by poverty, race, ethnicity, and
immigration status--can learn. As Justice Leland DeGrasse eloquently
articulated in his decision in CFE, ``Demography is not destiny. The
amount of melanin in a student's skin, the home country of her
antecedents, the amount of money in the family bank account, are not
the inexorable determinants of student success.'' All children, he
concluded, ``are capable of seizing the opportunity for a sound basic
education if they are given sufficient resources.'' It is time to
tackle our collective responsibility to all children head-on and with
the fullest resources we can provide. If, in the years and decades
ahead, we are to truly leave no child behind, we must remedy the
missing link to success for the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' and
ensure that adequate resources are both put into place and effectively
used to provide all students with a meaningful educational opportunity.
Senator Dodd. I am pleased to introduce Ms. Lang, whom I
have already talked about as being a teacher for many years. In
fact, I have a sister who has about the same length of teaching
time in Connecticut as Ms. Lang; she teaches as an early
childhood development specialist in Hartford, CT, at the
Kennelly School, one of the inner city schools.
I have spoken at every public high school in my State in
the last 15 years, and I go back to my inner city schools
almost every year, so I am very familiar with the high schools
in Bridgeport and Fairfield where you live, and I get lobbied
extensively--Judy, you will appreciate this--by my sister on
education issues. I was at her school recently and did some
reading for her, which I enjoyed.
So it is a pleasure to have a teacher with us today who I
think tells an important story. We appreciate your presence.
STATEMENT OF MARY-BETH LANG, TEACHER, BRIDGEPORT, CT, ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Lang. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Dodd and Senator
Enzi.
In 8 days, I will assume the presidency of the Bridgeport
Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education
Association; but today I come to you as a teacher, a parent,
and a citizen who is convinced that today's education system is
the foundation of tomorrow's society. I am grateful to the
committee for giving me a few minutes of your valuable time.
I suspect that few in this room except Senator Dodd know of
the Rooster River in Connecticut. Most of the time, it is
little more than a creek that flows into the Long Island Sound.
On the west side of the Rooster River is the City of Fairfield,
the town where I have lived and raised my children. On the east
side is the City of Bridgeport, the city where I have taught
for 32 years. Maps will show a dotted line down the Rooster
River that, in terms of educational opportunities, might as
well be an ocean.
My children attended a school with spacious classrooms, a
well-stocked library, an all-purpose room, as well as a
separate gym. Behind the school was an extensive playground
with outdoor gym equipment and two ball fields. Specialists
were on hand to assist and support the teachers.
When she was in the third grade, my daughter had no trouble
getting a speech teacher to work with her because she said her
R's funny. There was a full-time nurse on duty, and in high
school, my daughter had access to a full range of advanced
placement courses.
I could not be more pleased with the educational
opportunities provided by our public schools. I would love to
take all the credit for my children's academic achievement, but
it would not have happened with the excellent Fairfield public
schools.
How different the stories are on the other side of the
Rooster River. The Bridgeport schools face a set of serious
challenges. Families speak a variety of languages; the
population is poorer and more transient; the educational level
of parents is lower, and the students enter the primary grades
with less preschool experience.
Usually, when our society faces large problems, we attack
them with more resources. We know that a bridge across the
Hudson River will cost more than one over the Rooster River, so
we plan accordingly. But as the members of this committee
probably know better than anyone, this is not true of our
educational challenges.
If you visited the Bridgeport schools, especially after
visiting other towns in Fairfield County, you would first be
struck by the physical structures. Old, crowded schools are
surrounded not by grassy playgrounds but by asphalt parking
lots. Some schools have no recreation areas and must hold gym
classes in the halls. Libraries are stacked with warehouse
overstocks.
Good education can occur in an old building, and to be
sure, we have dedicated teachers in Bridgeport providing
wonderful experiences for our students. But they are fighting
an uphill battle. Students do not have access to the
specialists they need, and as a result, correctable learning
problems become obstacles to learning.
For example, I am currently working with a student whom I
fear will fall further behind in reading unless his speech
problem can be corrected. We have high teacher turnover as
certified teachers, especially in math and science, can find
higher-paying jobs with better facilities in neighboring towns.
In all, 100 of our 1,600 teachers are not fully credentialed by
the State of Connecticut.
Class sizes are held in line only by our union contract and
then only after an annual filing of a contract grievance. As a
union leader, I should not have to fight for something so
clearly in our children's interest.
Students do not get the enrichment that a strong art and
music program would bring.
We face a critical shortage of substitute teachers. When a
teacher is absent, students are scattered into other
classrooms--a practice which is disruptive to their learning
and to the now overcrowded class to which they have been
assigned.
Students with no full-time nurses must rely on teachers and
administrators to distribute medications.
The Senate knows what has to be done. The new education law
included requirements to close the achievement gap for low-
income and minority students. That is the gap between Fairfield
and Bridgeport.
You called for helping all students to meet high standards
and for ensuring a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom.
Now you must face the reality that you have set a goal for our
Nation that will be achieved only with adequate resources.
In Bridgeport, we already have three schools identified as
in need of improvement. Three years ago, these schools were
given additional funding from our State surplus. However, in
the past 2 years, our State has faced budget shortfalls. This
funding has been cut dramatically, and I fear that the new
Federal mandates will only serve to hurt these schools more.
Strengthening teacher quality also will not be possible
without increased funding. In Connecticut, we have a statewide
teacher training and mentoring program known as BEST. In the
suburbs, one-on-one mentoring has helped many new teachers
navigate the sometimes overwhelming first years in the
classroom. In Bridgeport, however, lack of funding has made it
difficult for BEST to work well. Our large turnover has left
few mentors for new teachers. Individual mentors are assigned
many new teachers but are not given the time or resources to
assist them.
There are many complex, interlocking reasons for the
disparity between Bridgeport and Fairfield schools--the loss of
industrial jobs in Bridgeport, the transient population, the
drug use and racism may be on the list. I do not want to argue
about whether the fault lies with the parents, with society, or
with our public institutions. I do know that the fault does not
lie with the children.
The daughter of a newly-arrived immigrant comes into the
world as innocent as the son of a CEO. Our challenge is to see
that they have the same opportunities. The only way to meet
this challenge is to guarantee resources to our most neglected
schools.
Senator Dodd has pointed out the gaps in current Federal
assistance: Title I fully serves only 40 percent of students
eligible for assistance; the Federal Government's commitment to
special education remains significantly underfunded; the
President has proposed cuts in Federal support for high-quality
teacher training and a freeze for after-school and bilingual
educational programs.
I urge Congress to provide the necessary resources,
particularly for Title I, special education, and teacher
quality programs. Without such help, you are simply setting
schools like mine up for failure.
Before I conclude, I would like to express my concerns
about the voucher proposals. We cannot afford to take up to $4
billion of our Federal education budget and feed it into
private schools. Instead, we should be using this funding and
more to bring the resources of our inner city schools up to the
level provided in the suburbs.
Once Bridgeport schools have the same resources as
Fairfield schools, I suspect you will not find many people
looking for vouchers.
I hope that you and your fellow Senators will provide the
leadership and the budget to equalize the educational
opportunity between our poorest and richest communities,
whether they are separated by a small river in Connecticut or
are miles apart.
I wish to thank you for your time, and in particular, thank
Senator Dodd for his commitment to education.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lang follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary-Beth Lang
Chairman Kennedy and members of the committee, my name is Mary-Beth
Lang. In 8 days I will assume the presidency of the Bridgeport
Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education
Association. But, today I come to you as a teacher, a parent, and a
citizen who is convinced that today's education system is the
foundation of tomorrow's society. I am grateful to the committee for
giving me a few minutes of your valuable time.
I suspect few in this room, except Senator Dodd, know of the
Rooster River in Connecticut. Most of the time it is little more than a
creek that flows into Long Island Sound. On the west side of the
Rooster River is the City of Fairfield, the town where I have lived and
raised my children for 27 years. On the east side is the City of
Bridgeport, the city I have taught in for 32 years. Maps will show a
dotted line down the Rooster River that, in terms of educational
opportunities, might as well be an ocean.
My children attended a school with spacious classrooms, a well-
stocked library, an all-purpose room for lunch and scout meetings, as
well as a separate gym. Behind the school was an extensive playground
with outdoor gym equipment and two ball fields. Specialists were on
hand to assist and support the teachers. When she was in third grade,
my daughter had no trouble getting a speech teacher to work with her
because she said her R's funny. There was a full time nurse on duty. In
high school, my daughter had access to a full range of advanced
placement courses. She and her friends left high school for the finest
universities in the world. She is now doing graduate work in Senator
Murray's State, at the University of Washington.
I couldn't be more pleased with the educational opportunities
provided by our public schools. I would love to take all the credit for
my children's academic achievement, and I will take some credit, but it
would not have happened without the excellent Fairfield schools. How
different the stories are on the other side of the Rooster River.
Let's be frank, the Bridgeport schools face a set of serious
challenges. Families speak a variety of languages, the population is
poorer and more transient, the educational level of the parents is
lower, and the students enter the primary grades with less preschool
experience. You won't be surprised to know that my children entered
school not only knowing what a giraffe was, but having actually seen
giraffes more than once. In Bridgeport our students do not know what a
giraffe is, or a pier, or many other things more affluent students take
for granted.
Usually, when our society faces large problems, we attack them with
more resources. We know that a bridge across the Hudson River will cost
more than one over the Rooster River, and so we plan accordingly. But,
as the members of this committee probably know better than anyone, this
is not true of our educational challenges.
If you visited the Bridgeport schools, especially after visiting
other towns in Fairfield County, you would first be struck by the
physical structures. Old, crowded schools are surrounded, not by grass
playgrounds, but asphalt parking lots. Schools have no recreation areas
and must hold gym classes in the halls. The libraries are stacked with
warehouse overstocks.
Good education can occur in an old building and, to be sure, we
have dedicated teachers in Bridgeport providing wonderful experiences
for their students. But they are fighting an uphill battle:
Students don't have access to the specialists they need.
As a result, correctable learning problems become obstacles to
learning. For example, I am currently working with a student who, I
fear, will fall further behind in reading unless a speech problem can
be corrected.
We have high teacher turnover, as certified teachers,
especially in mathematics and science, can find higher paying jobs with
better facilities in neighboring towns. In all, 100 of our 1,600
teachers are not fully credentialed by the State of Connecticut.
Class sizes are held in line only by our union contract,
and then only after an annual filing of a contract grievance. As a
union leader, I shouldn't have to fight for something so clearly in our
children's interests.
Students do not get the enrichment that strong art and
music programs would bring.
We face a critical shortage of substitute teachers. When a
teacher is absent, students are scattered into other classrooms, a
practice that is disruptive to their learning and to the now
overcrowded class to which they've been assigned.
Schools with no full time nurses must rely on teachers and
administrators to distribute medications.
The Senate knows what has to be done. The new education law
included requirements to close the achievement gap for low-income and
minority students. That is the gap between Fairfield and Bridgeport.
You called for helping all students meet high standards, and for
ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Now, you must
face the reality that you have set a goal for our Nation that will be
achieved only with adequate resources.
In Bridgeport, we already have three schools identified as in need
of improvement. Three years ago, these schools were given additional
funding from our State surplus. However, in the past 2 years, as our
State has faced budget shortfalls, this funding has been cut
dramatically. I fear that the new Federal mandates will only serve to
hurt these schools more.
Strengthening teacher quality also will not be possible without
increased funding. In Connecticut, we have a statewide teacher training
and mentoring program known as BEST. In the suburbs, one-on-one
mentoring has helped many new teachers navigate the sometimes
overwhelming first years in the classroom. In Bridgeport, however, lack
of funding has made it difficult for BEST to work well. Our large
turnover has left few mentors for new teachers. Individual mentors are
assigned many new teachers, but are not given the time or resources to
assist them.
There are many complex, interlocking reasons for the disparity
between the Bridgeport and Fairfield schools: the loss of industrial
jobs in Bridgeport, the transient population, drug use, and racism may
be on the list. I don't want to argue whether the fault lies with the
parents, with society, or with our public institutions. I do know that
the fault does not lie with the children. The daughter of a newly
arrived immigrant comes into the world as innocent as the son of a CEO.
Our challenge is to see that they have the same opportunities. The only
way to meet this challenge is to guarantee resources to our most
neglected schools.
Senator Dodd has pointed out the gaps in current Federal
assistance:
Title I fully serves only 40 percent of students eligible
for assistance.
The Federal Government's commitment to special education
remains significantly underfunded.
The President has proposed cuts in Federal support for
high-quality teacher training, and a freeze for after-school, and
bilingual educational programs.
I urge Congress to provide the necessary resources, particularly
for Title I, special education, and teacher quality programs. Without
such help, you are simply setting schools like mine up for failure.
Before I conclude, I would like to express my concerns about
voucher proposals. Connecticut is rich in private schools, and my son
attended a private high school affiliated with the university where my
husband teaches. We cannot afford to take up to $4 billion of the
Federal education budget and feed it into private schools. Instead, we
should be using this funding, and more, to bring the resources of our
inner city schools up to the level provided in the suburbs. Once
Bridgeport schools have the same resources as Fairfield schools, I
suspect you will not find many people looking for vouchers.
I hope you and your fellow Senators will provide the leadership,
and yes, the budget, to equalize the educational opportunities between
our poorest and richest communities, whether they are separated by a
small river in Connecticut, or are miles apart.
I would like to thank you for your time and, in particular, thank
Senator Dodd for his commitment to education.
Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Ms. Lang, and I thank
all of our witnesses. It has been excellent testimony, and I
think it will help the committee as we grapple with this
problem.
I will set the clock on us as well so we do not go over
time, and I will be able to move along and give my colleagues a
chance to raise some issues as well.
Senator Enzi. May I just make a comment since I am going to
have to leave?
Senator Dodd. Certainly.
Senator Enzi. I wanted to be able to hear the live
testimony of the witnesses. I had the opportunity to read their
testimony, but often, as in this case, some things came up that
were very helpful in this discussion.
I do have some questions for each of you, and I would hope
the record could remain open so that I could get those, because
it is some additional information that will help us in our task
of trying to reach this equality across the Nation.
Senator Dodd. Certainly.
Senator Enzi. My daughter is a teacher, and her first job
teaching was not in Wyoming. After she got a job in Wyoming,
she had me come to see her classroom. She went over to a
cabinet, opened it up, and said, ``Look at this.'' I looked at
it, and I asked, ``Exactly what am I looking at?''
She said, ``Chalk. I did not have to buy my own chalk.''
That is something that should not happen at all in this
country.
She was out here, and we were doing some traveling, and she
asked me what one of the buildings was, and I said, ``That is a
school,'' and she said, ``Oh--I thought it was a warehouse.''
And that could be a pretty close definition.
So there are some things that need to be changed, and I
appreciate having all this expertise today that can help us
make those changes, and I appreciate the effort that you have
put into coming up with some solutions, and we will see how we
can work together on it.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator Mike Enzi. I
appreciate that very much.
Just as Senator Enzi is leaving, I will say that I go each
year with my sister to Home Depot, where we buy boards and
cinderblocks, toilet paper for her classroom and bathrooms. And
this is in the most affluent State in America, the most
affluent country in the world.
But, that goes on every day. What Senator Enzi's daughter
does, teachers do all across the country every year, and I
guess it is surprising to a lot of people that this happens
with the frequency that it does.
Let me begin, and if I address a question to someone on the
panel, I do not want anybody else to feel that they cannot
respond. I would like to engage in a conversation with all of
you.
One of the problems in these school finance cases as I look
at them across the country is they will reach a decision,
Wyoming being an exception, I think, and now maybe Maryland as
well--but I know that in Connecticut, we go back to the Horton
case and the Sheff case, and we get decisions, and then the
implementation of the decisions, with the practical, political
difficulties--and I am not insensitive to them--my State is
very small, but we have 169 municipalities--is not so simple.
Mr. Rebell, let me begin with you. Even when plaintiffs
win, it seems as though there is no win. Whether you like the
decision or not, it just seems that after a number of years, we
are still talking about the problem despite court decisions,
whether you agree with them or not.
I wonder if you might share with us some thoughts on how
some decisions are just outright ignored by State officials
when they are reached. What can be done? What do you think the
Federal Government ought to do to support the enforcement of
positive decisions? Otherwise, it becomes rather futile. If our
courts are unable to follow up on the decisions, they may begin
to get discouraged about even taking that route--which may
reflect some of the reason why here, there is some desire to
work politically, so we can start seeing these decisions bear
some fruit?
Mr. Rebell. Senator, I think you have put your finger on
one of the core problems here. The courts have done a marvelous
job in all the States, focusing on the problems. Taking the
Sheff case in Connecticut as an example, I think some of the
insights on the problems of inner city minority students that
came out of that decision are just classic. It is in some ways
the strongest decision since Brown v. Board of Education. But
as you indicated, it is 7 years since that decision, and little
if anything has happened in Connecticut.
I think one of the problems here is that State courts tend
to be a little bit reluctant to intervene in ongoing political
matters with the legislature. In that, they are really taking
the legacy of some of the Federal courts' attitudes in school
desegregation cases. I an not sure that that is the best
analogy. I think that State courts work differently; I think
they have different responsibilities, and they can be a little
bit more proactive.
In general, I think you can categorize the 25 or so States
where courts have issued decrees favorable to plaintiffs into
three basic categories. One is the category of deferring to the
legislature without providing any specific mandates to the
legislature. That was true in Connecticut in the Sheff case,
and it has been true in many other areas. And the feeling there
is that, for separation of powers reasons, the courts want to
leave it to the legislature.
Unfortunately in this area, when you leave it to the
legislature, it is kind of putting the fox in charge of the
chicken coop, if you do not mind my saying so, because the
power dynamics in State legislatures quite frankly tend to
favor the affluent suburban areas. That is how we got these
finance systems set up this way in the first place. So that
usually, that tends to lead to inaction and further contempt
motions and so on.
On the other end, there have been a number of State courts
in West Virginia and some other areas that have attempted to
write new formulas, that have attempted to micromanage, and
that is beyond what courts should do.
But increasingly in recent years, a number of the State
courts have taken a middle road, and they have been issuing
basic guidelines that outline the constitutional course, and
without micromanaging, they do make it clear to the State
legislatures that action is expected and the general type of
action.
When you ask where the Federal Government fits in here, I
think that that kind of general guidance that indicates the
direction that needs to be taken without micromanaging specific
details is appropriate and necessary. And this costing-out
route that I mentioned, which actually is learning from the
experience of States themselves--it is States like Wyoming,
Massachusetts, and Maryland that have pioneered in this area--
those kinds of guidelines can really be the most helpful at a
remedy stage in any of these litigations.
I think that if this committee and your House colleagues
gave some consideration to some of these guidelines, some of
these methods that have worked in these cases and considered
putting those as incentives in the No Child Left Behind Act
amendments, that would be a great help to the State courts.
Senator Dodd. Yes, Ms. Catchpole.
Ms. Catchpole. As we talk about Wyoming, I think it is
really important for you to understand--and this is one of my
great concerns about the Federal Government passing legislation
that would immediately be a silver bullet that would fix the
system--that we have spent 7 years, and we have learned a lot,
we have studied the executive branch, the legislature, the
court system. We have been back again and again to get it
right. And to think the one sweeping Federal law is going to
work, saying one size fits all, makes me very nervous, because
I am concerned that you do not understand the difference
between Pennsylvania and Wyoming.
Senator Dodd. I do not think anyone has made that
recommendation. I know that get said about it here a lot, but I
know of no one who believes that one size fits all.
Ms. Catchpole. Great, great. Bless you for that, because it
does not.
Senator Dodd. We understand that. That is clear.
Ms. Catchpole. When you talked about the implementation,
what we learned was that when we only talk about the inputs,
the dollars that go in, and we do not in-hand talk about the
outputs, the results that we want for students--we spent a lot
of time in Wyoming negotiating that, and we came from a
locally-controlled State, where local school boards made the
decisions, with very little intervention except for flow-
through money, both with Federal dollars and with State
dollars, and until we clearly identified what we wanted all
children to know, and how we would know if they know it, we
were not able to determine what the cost for that would look
like for any given child living anyplace in Wyoming.
So my plea to you would be that with No Child Left Behind,
you have put heavy, heavy responsibilities on States to do this
right.
To add something else on top of that, before we have
figured out how we are doing on hitting those targets, where is
it that we need help--is it that we need help with more
dollars--that could be it; it could be that we need more
technical assistance, that we need more staff development, that
we need more parent involvement--to simply try to figure out
which of those things we need, and I say it will vary in
Riverton, WY what they need as compared to Cheyenne, WY. So to
go back and do one major thing, I would really urge you to let
us play out Leave No Child Behind and figure out from that what
it is that the Federal Government can do to help us target our
most needy students.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Price, you wanted to make a comment.
Mr. Price. I would just add that I certainly think the
Federal Government ought to fulfill the appropriations
expectations that were created a couple of years ago.
Second, I do think that it is useful to reframe the
conversation from equalization, which may take away from
Fairfield, to what does it take to leave no child behind, and
to figure out what it costs to implement interventions based on
research and experience, and to go beyond thinking that one
method is going to work.
I really do think we have got to look at restructuring and
reconceptualizing our schools, because I think the big, mammoth
middle school and high school is an anachronism, and a lot of
our kids today are not going with them. What does it take to
create a bunch of small schools? What does it take to provide
really high-calibre professional development, relieve teachers
from having to be in the classroom six periods a day so that
they can engage in the kind of development and growth.
And finally by illustration, we know that youth development
programs after school make an enormous difference in the lives
of kids. What would it take to fully fund youth development
programs for kids in Bridgeport, in New Haven, and so on, and
see if we cannot implement all that we know, figure out what
the price tag is, and then have a conversation in this country
about how serious we really are about leaving no child behind.
And I think the Federal Government should lead that
conversation and should force that issue.
Senator Dodd. I want to turn to Congressman Fattah for some
questions, but when I ask an audience at home what percentage
of our Federal budget do you think we commit to K through 12,
you can imagine the answers I get, but I will promise you that
none of them is that as a percentage of the Federal budget, it
is less than 2 percent. Everyone thinks it is much more because
they are familiar with their State or local budget, where they
know it is such a large share.
It may have made great sense in the 19th century, when the
impact of education was local, and more than adequately met our
needs, but, what many of us are saying now is that we ought to
be a better partner, the Federal Government. Too often, people
become scared when they hear about partnerships, but we really
ought to be a better partner. There is just no other way to
describe this when you talk about the national security needs
of a Nation and the disparity that exists. So one of the
questions has to be how do we get there.
I think Senator Kennedy earlier mentioned the Morrill Act,
and we are trying to conceive of some new way to take the
Morrill Act--I am sorry that Senator Enzi is not here right
now, because he would relate to it very directly--it was the
Senator from Vermont during the Civil War who asked this
Congress to support the notion that the moneys we received from
the sale of public lands in the West would be used to develop a
land grant college system all across the Nation. There are many
land grant colleges--the University of Connecticut is one of
them--that began with that very national idea in the mid-part
of the last century that we would have to provide a resource at
the national level to educate people. And certainly, we have
seen it with the GI Bill and others.
The one area where we seem to get very shy about it all of
a sudden--if you had to graph this out, if you asked a teacher
or a parent if they wanted to influence a child at any point in
his or her life, when would you do it, everyone says zero to 3,
or by the third grade, you can do so much. We must do more.
So if we can, I want us to get away from the notion that
this is Uncle Sam trying to make one size fit all. I hear that
all the time, but I do not know of a single Member of Congress
who subscribes to that notion. I will come back to this later.
Chaka, let me turn to you.
Mr. Fattah. Let me first thank all the witnesses, and to
the president of the Urban League, it is a pleasure to see you
again. The vice chair of your board, Dr. Bernard Watson, is
from Philadelphia, and years ago, he wrote a book titled, ``In
Spite of the System,'' that dissected this whole question of
public education and showed then what we are talking about
now--that is, that poor kids get the least of everything that
we know as a Nation they need in order to get a quality
education, and then we stigmatize them for not performing. We
act as if they are not motivated, or that their parents are not
motivated, or they are not capable of learning. But his point
in his book, which is more than 20 years old now, was that if
you were looking for a science lab in a large urban school
district like Chicago or New York or Philadelphia, and you went
to a neighborhood high school, you would be hardpressed to find
a science lab of any kind that was up-to-date then, and the
same is true now--and then we want to determine whether
children have measured up.
In fact, States that underfund these schools then use the
testing that is the result thereof to deny admission of many of
these children to State universities. And it is not a matter of
race. This is across the board. The Vermont Supreme Court and
the New Hampshire Supreme Court have found that these systems
deny opportunity to low-income children to get an adequate
education.
In Wyoming, you have about one counselor for every 250
students. That is really close to what the national
recommendation is. I can take you to Camden High School in New
Jersey, right outside Philadelphia, and they have the least
access to counselors of any high school in the State of New
Jersey. It happens to be in the poorest city, in the poorest
neighborhood, and more than 1,000 of these children have one
counselor to negotiate.
We have counselors in some districts in our country who
have to meet with students in groups because they cannot give
individual attention. One high school with 1,300 kids has three
counselors, so they do not even try to have individual meetings
with students.
So the question is not whether we add additional Federal
funds. The question is that when it comes to poor children,
since no State has shown its own enthusiasm, its own
willingness, historically or presently, to educate these
children at least to the level that they are educating other
children, who is it in our society that is going to make some
demand, provide some encouragement, provide the impetus to say
to these State governments that poor children can no longer be
treated as second-class citizens, and they deserve an equal
education. That is, if you have, for instance, in the State of
Maryland, 6 percent of the teachers who are not certified, it
is not acceptable to have 36 percent in Baltimore City. You
cannot have 125 kids there having access to AP courses where,
in the suburban county of Montgomery in Maryland, 5,000 kids
have access to AP; or if you go to Compton High, you have no
AP, but at Beverly Hills High, you have 22 AP courses.
At some point, whatever we are providing to others, we
should be prepared to provide to these children, that is, to
whatever level you are providing it in your high-achieving
districts--and someone has to make a demand.
So my question to the panel is who is it, if it is not the
Federal Government, that is going to make this demand on
States. And I do not buy into this notion that there is no
Federal role. I reference in my bill as one of the findings in
the new language that each of these States, in order to join
the Union, had to make an irrevocable commitment to provide for
a public education. So this notion that has been offered by
many of my more conservative colleagues that there is no
Federal role, there is no Federal responsibility, there is no
Federal nexus to the question of whether these kids learn or
not, I reject, and I use as the basis those documents dated in
some cases 200 years ago, in which in order to become a State
in this Union, these States had to make this commitment to
provide a public education, to set aside land, and to make an
everlasting commitment to provide public schools.
Mr. Price. One of the blessings of the American system is
that when there is a convergence of an economic imperative and
a moral imperative, we actually get something done.
For many, many years, the disparity in education that
Jonathan Kozol and many others wrote about was a moral outrage,
was a shame, but we did not do anything about it. As the
economy has evolved to the point where 85 percent of all jobs
are skilled or professional, and you cannot be a factory worker
handling wireless handheld computers, managing inventory, or
you cannot be a telephone operator unless you know how to
access a computer, which means that you have got to be able to
read and solve problems, there is now a convergence, and our
productivity and competitiveness is at stake now.
I think that that is a Federal issue, and with the level of
mobility that we have in our country, with so many people
reared in one State, one town, moving to another State, another
town, I think that the entire country has a stake in the
quality of education in every community in this country, and as
you heard me say, I think that you as legislators have to
decide where it all sorts out and settles out.
I agree with you that the Federal Government needs to be
pushing very hard, and I think the business community needs to
be pushing very, very hard, and what the final resolution is
and what the language is that everybody can live with--but I
know that we did not move this ball until we began to realize
that the economic imperative converges with the moral
imperative.
Mr. Rebell. If I could just add an additional dimension to
this, one of the things that has come out of this range of
State litigations is a renewed focus on the purposes of public
education. It is very interesting that virtually all of the
State courts that have tried to answer this question directly
have basically agreed that the two primary purposes of public
education in the United States are preparation for the economic
workplace, as Mr. Price has pointed out, and the second is
preparation for citizenship. And most of the State
constitutional clauses, as you may know, were written in the
19th century. They came out of the Common School movement and
the commitment to democratic schools that began then.
So I think we are seeing a convergence of understanding of
the purposes of education. Interestingly, if you tie in the
standards-based reform movement that has also accompanied these
litigations, we are also beginning to understand the level of
skills in particular areas, including the cognitive abilities
to function adequately as citizens--having the analytic ability
to be a competent voter, or a juror, is an understanding of the
outcome of education that we did not have years ago.
I want to bring this back to your point about the Federal
Government, Congressman. As most of you know, the United States
Supreme Court looked at this issue of inequities in funding
about 30 years ago in the Rodriguez case and decried the
inequities in Texas where that case came from at the time, but
held that because education was not a fundamental interest
under the Federal Constitution, it really was something that
had to be left to the States; and that started this whole
movement of State litigation.
But I just want to bring to your attention one very
interesting quote from Justice Powell, who wrote for the
majority in the Rodriguez case. He said: ``The electoral
process, if reality is to conform to the democratic ideal,
depends on an informed electorate. A voter cannot cast his
ballot intelligently unless his reading skills and his thought
processes have been adequately developed.''
This was in response to Thurgood Marshall in dissent,
saying that the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution
guarantees some level of adequate education. And Justice Powell
and the majority agreed with him, but they said on the evidence
in that case that they assumed that kids in Texas were getting
an adequate education that gave them this level of skills
because nobody disputed it. That case talked about the
inequities in funding; they did not get into these adequacy
questions of what kids were actually learning and what was
coming out of the system.
Thirty years later, we focused on those questions. We know
what kids are learning or, in many areas, what the are not
learning. We know what skills they have or do not have. And
quite frankly, I think we are understanding that too many kids
do not have these very skills that the Supreme Court assumed
were the adequacy base.
So I think we are coming back to a Federal perspective here
and a national understanding that in terms of preparation for
the economic workplace and in preparation for sustaining our
democracy in the 21st century, kids have to have a certain
level of skills, and that is a national concern, it is clearly
a Federal concern as well as a State concern.
Senator Dodd. Just picking up on this point--and it is an
excellent point--a few days ago, I was with a group of mayors
in Connecticut--and one of them said to me: ``You know, you
guys in Washington really kill me. The President cuts taxes,
the Congress cuts taxes, the Governor cuts taxes, the State
legislature cuts taxes, and it all falls down here on the local
level. So you all are reducing your commitment, and we cannot
get away with that, because all the cost ends up here.''
It is very difficult at a local level where the rubber hits
the road for the people who serve as mayors, and boards of
education and the like, to meet these responsibilities.
We have not dwelled on this, because today's subject matter
was a bit different, but it relates to it, obviously. I voted
for the No Child Left Behind Act, but I did so--Ms. Catchpole,
I will tell you--because in part, there was a strong commitment
from both sides to meet the financial obligation of the
mandate.
I am working now on an election reform bill, and I am
working with Congressman Fattah on this issue. We are going to
have some minimum requirements in Federal elections. I have
insisted that any time there is a minimum Federal requirement,
there had better be a dollar figure behind it to support it. In
special ed, we are seeing it. When I go home and meet a mayor,
believe me, I get one message--special education--particularly
in smaller towns, where children who have very severe special
education needs can distort a small local budget that it is
difficult, and also puts great pressure on these families and
children. And that should not happen at all, that a child who
is born with a particular disability is targeted because of the
local budget, and we are far short of the 40 percent commitment
that we made back when we passed the legislation.
Most recently, with the testing requirements--and I do not
argue with the need to test; I have some concern knowing that
some States are already doing a pretty good job of testing, and
I worry about schools becoming test prep centers. We had a
hearing here the other day on obesity, with Senator Frist,
Senator Bingaman and myself, on particularly the tripling of
the incidence of obesity among kids. And what is happening? You
have fast food producers, soft drink producers, who offer
literally millions of dollars to school districts that are
impoverished and cannot get their money if they can have
exclusive rights to put these non-nutritious food and drinks
into their schools, demanding in fact, that they be available
during school hours, in order to get the resources they need.
And what happens, of course, is that kids are gobbling up this
stuff. In fact, in one school district, the superintendent
wrote the principals because they were not meeting the targets
for the consumption of a soft drink in order to meet their
contractual obligation to get the money.
So here we are, not only where nutrition seems to be
diminishing, but schools cut back on physical education
programs, sports programs, and so forth, because the crunch is
so severe. And now we are going to have testing mandates every
year. I hope we will be able to get some resources, but as of
right now, the local districts in Wyoming and the local
districts in Connecticut are going to get hit with a heck of a
price tag to meet the Federal requirement in this area. I
supported it, but I did so because both sides agreed reforms
were going to have resource allocations to match the mandates.
I do not want to digress too much on that point, but it is one
that we are going to hear about and further exacerbate, I am
fearful, the very bad situation we see today with the lack of
alignment in these areas.
Ms. Lang. I would just like to comment about the testing,
especially putting more money into it. Connecticut already has
an extensive testing program and uses it to identify children
in need and provide services to those children.
I just do not want to see any more Federal money used to
create more tests that will further influence how the school
day is spent, because a lot of time has to be spent preparing
for testing so that we succeed enough to not be identified as a
priority schools.
Senator Dodd. And as Congressman Fattah pointed out, if we
are not simultaneously giving enough resources.
Mr. Fattah. I have a new term of art that we are going to
use.
Fundamentally, kids have to have a teacher, they have to
have a textbook, they have to have access to a library and a
guidance counselor. So this new term of art, we are going to
start from today, which is ``fundamental.'' We are going to
move beyond ``adequate,'' and we are not going to ``equal,''
but at least a fundamental baseline that kids need.
Mr. Chairman, before we wrap up--I have to go to the
caucus--I want to thank you again, and I wanted to ask the
teacher from your State--the Carnegie Foundation has done a lot
of work on this question of teacher quality, and one of the
things they found, which is the most fascinating to me, is that
the question of whether a child gets a qualified teacher or not
is very, very important to how well they do.
In fact, they found, after spending millions and millions
of dollars studying this, that in actuality, it is worth about
50 percentage points on national norm tests whether a child
gets a qualified teacher or not for 2 consecutive years. So
that children who are now scoring in the 30th percentile on
these national tests could be scoring in the 80th percentile,
not because of their ability but because of our inability to
put in their classroom someone like you--that is, a qualified
teacher.
So that all of this discussion about low-performing
students and failing schools and all of this, at the end of the
day, if we do not do something to create a circumstance in
which we provide the basic fundamentals so that children can
receive an education, we are really creating a contradiction in
which--as I talked to the President, I was burdening him with
my point of view on this, and I was explaining that when he ran
the baseball team, the way the baseball league works is that
each team gets the same number of players, they all have the
same number of bases they have to run, you have to hit the ball
with a bat and see how far you can run around these bases--
these kids, like in the State of Texas, where you have school
districts that are spending less than $4,000 per student and
you have school districts that are spending over $20,000 per
student, you cannot conceivably at the end of the day compare
the results from that and act as if both sets of kids had been
given a fair shot. It is just not intellectually honest.
So we either have to put some asterisks next to these tests
and say that ``Johnny never got a certified teacher, and this
is his score,'' and over here, ``James got qualified teachers,
and this is his score,'' or we are not being intellectually
honest. At the end of the day, we either have to address the
disparity or recognize it so that we can stop stigmatizing poor
kids, because the fact that they are poor does not mean, and we
know it does not mean, that they cannot learn. It is that the
States have never indicated any willingness to give poor kids a
fair opportunity, and it is only through litigation, decades of
it, that we have made any progress in any of these States, and
that progress has been overwhelmed by what has yet to be done,
and hopefully, the great Senator here is going to help us get a
lot more done, working with me on this new venture where we try
to lay out some basic parameters that we can measure States by
so that we can have a report card that indicates how the
grownups are doing in terms of providing kids with a fair shot.
Senator Dodd. Senator Enzi has indicated a willingness to
work with us on something as well.
Let me ask three quick questions of the panel, and some of
them are pointed to individuals, but I would like all of you to
comment.
I wonder if you might pick up, Mr. Rebell, on the issue you
commented on, the courts and the historical genesis of the
Rodriguez case and going forward. In your opinion, are there
actions being brought now in Federal courts around the country,
at the district level, that may be moving through the system,
possibly reassessing the Rodriguez case, so that you may end up
with the adequacy test being challenged?
Mr. Rebell. There really have not been, Senator. I think
some of these concepts about citizenship preparation have begun
to come forward in the State cases. That would be the next
logical step, I guess, if the plaintiffs are not satisfied in
the State courts. So far, plaintiffs have been doing pretty
well in the State courts in the last 10 years--they have been
winning about two-thirds of the cases--so there is less
pressure in the Federal direction.
There has been some Federal litigation on the Title VI
point about these disparities that we are talking about
possibly being in violation of Title VI the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, but because of the Supreme Court's decision in the
Sandoval case about a year ago, which denied a private right of
action, I would not expect that those are going to see their
way to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Fattah. But there are three Federal cases. That is,
there are 30 rural districts in Kansas that have filed a
Federal case----
Mr. Rebell. Those are all Title VI cases.
Mr. Fattah. And they are all Title VI cases. But the
Florida election issue, interestingly enough, may give some
more opportunities here. That is, in the precincts with the
most spoiled ballots out of precincts that correlate with
educational attainment levels at the lowest in the State, and
this whole issue of citizenship appropriately before the
Supreme Court might give some opportunity to review the
Rodriguez decision.
Mr. Rebell. It is an area of real potential, but it has not
been tapped yet.
Senator Dodd. Yes. I appreciate your mentioning
citizenship. Senator Pete Domenici and I authored a number of
years ago the character education proposal. It started out with
about $5 million, and last year, I think the Congress
appropriated $25 million. It is a grant program for States, but
it has been interesting the number of States that have applied
for these grants to promote character education and good
character education. There is a real appetite for it out there,
because people see kids coming to a school system ready to
learn but not particularly in these areas. So filling in what
good citizenship means and basic principles is something that
clearly, parents and teachers and others see a need for, which
brings me to an issue that you addressed--I think Mr. Price
raised it--and that is the issue of child care.
Having written the Child Care and Development Block Grant
some 16 years ago with Senator Hatch, and we are now trying to
argue for additional funds with the welfare reform proposals,
78 percent of parents with children of school age are in the
workforce; 65 percent of parents with children under the age of
6 are in the workforce; and 50 percent of women with infant
children are in the workforce. And those numbers are going up
all the time.
I am so glad you mentioned quality, because accessibility
and cost are obviously important, but maybe Ms. Catchpole and
Ms. Lang could comment on this. I know from hearing from my own
sister, and I know from the survey done of kindergarten
teachers, that kids are just not coming to school ready to
learn. They are seeing a huge gap in terms of their ability to
start. So when we start testing kids very quickly, we are
finding out that they are not ready to learn in that K class,
and the quality of child care in terms of being any kind of
place where those fundamental developmental skills are being
nurtured at all seems to be lacking tremendously.
I wonder, Ms. Lang, if you are seeing anything like this or
would like to comment on the validity of that particular point.
Ms. Lang. Certainly, children are coming to school with
more severe problems than we have seen in the past. As we
expand our pre-K opportunities and our parenting birth-to-3
programs, there is an opportunity for improvement. But right
now, there is a big difference from 20 or 30 years ago when I
first started.
The quality of child care is very important. We cannot
spend our money foolishly to support pre-K programs that are
not run by certified teachers and that do not have quality
curricula.
I just wanted to respond to Congressman Fattah's
frustration with qualified teachers, because that is a huge
frustration for us in Bridgeport. One of our high schools
starts every day down 16 teachers; they have never filled those
classes all year long. And until we raise teachers' salaries to
attract better teachers----
Senator Dodd. Aren't we the highest in the country, or
almost the highest, in terms of what we pay our teachers?
Ms. Lang. But the disparity between the urbans and the
suburbans is great, and what happens is----
Senator Dodd. Can't we attract some teachers out of Wyoming
who might want to come out here?
Ms. Lang. Yes, yes, we could--but what happens is that we
get some great teachers into Bridgeport, we work with them for
3 or 4 years, and if you can teach in an inner city, you can
teach anywhere. So then, the suburbs come in, and they
literally raid our teacher pool. Teachers get phone calls at
home: ``I hear you are a wonderful music teacher. Come and
teach for us. We can give you $10,000 more.''
Mr. Fattah. In Philadelphia, if you are a math teacher, and
you get your 3 years' experience in Philadelphia, you can go to
the suburbs and make twice as much teaching half as many kids,
and 15 minutes away. So it does not take a rocket scientist to
know what the final deal is going to be in terms of holding
onto these teachers.
Senator Dodd. Ms. Catchpole.
Ms. Catchpole. Mr. Chairman, I am so delighted that you
brought up the early childhood issue, because I truly believe
that regardless of the State--currently, we are testing in
fourth, eighth, and eleventh, and our fourth grade test would
parallel the gap of children who are coming to kindergarten not
ready to learn.
The exciting thing that I have found in my 8 years as
superintendent is the awareness now of people like you, the
United States Congress, and State legislatures, who have paid
attention to the brain research that is available, who have
paid attention to the importance of early learning in those
early years. That was nonexistent 10 or 15 years ago. So I
commend you for your efforts to talk to parents about the
importance.
I was driving through Wyoming recently and heard a national
advertisement to parents on the importance of music, art, the
kinds of things that enrich the lives of young children. So I
think that we are partners cannot do enough to emphasize to
parents, to communities, everyone, about the importance.
I never give a speech in Wyoming, whether to the Rotary
Club or to a school, that I do not say ``please take a look at
what is happening to the very young children in your community,
and help us close the gap before they enter public school.''
Senator Dodd. Parents are the best first teachers, but too
often, the simple, basic things, obviously, like reading and
music and so forth--but even just talking--prior to the
hearing, I was telling Ms. Lang that my sister now at the
Kennelly School in Hartford in early childhood development is
now insisting--and this is so contradictory to everything we
were taught growing up--one of the things she does now is have
her kids talk in class for the simple reason that they are so
inadequate in terms of their verbal skills coming in. She never
thought she would see the day where she was actually promoting
talking in class, and a lot of it is because she is convinced
that they are in settings before they start school where there
is no discussion--they are dropped in front of a television--so
their ability to communicate has just fallen off tremendously,
as she has, in her 30 years, particularly in the last 5 or 10
years, seen a dramatic drop in children's verbal skills. And we
know the direct correlation between a child's verbal skills in
any language, by the way, and their ability to learn to read.
So she sees it very dramatically and has seen a pronounced
decline in the verbal skills of children coming in.
I think a lot of it is that, obviously, with welfare
reform, we want more people going out to work, but as we do
that, obviously, we are creating a situation where we need to
do more to promote accessible, quality child care, and if you
are in a minimum wage job and part of the working poor, as so
many kids are, you have 6 million infants in child care, 14
million kids every day in a child care setting, so it seems to
me we have a real job to do if we are going to have more work
requirements, we are going to have to have a commensurate
commitment to see to it that the quality of care of infants is
improved dramatically.
I wanted to raise one last question with you, Mr. Price. In
your written testimony, you pointed out the correlation between
the racial isolation in education funding and equity. I think
that is indisputable. Aren't we also seeing significant
inequities or inadequacies among schools with similar racial
compositions?
Senator Jeffords is not here, but in Vermont, for instance,
which has few students of color, there are also inadequacies,
or in Wyoming, where the significant number of racial
minorities would be relatively small.
Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Price. Absolutely. We look at the world initially
through the prism of those we serve, but there is absolutely no
question when you look at rural-suburban disparities, they are
just as strong, reservation versus suburban disparities, just
as strong. So I think there is a fundamental issue if we are
going to leave no child behind, what does it take, what does it
cost, and are we going to get about the business of doing it.
And we are looking at this through our constituencies' prism,
but it is a much broader issue.
Mr. Rebell. Just to give you a statistic on that, Senator,
in 1999-2000 in the State of Ohio, Cuyahoga Heights, which is a
wealthy suburban district, had $16,000 per student in funding,
and Tri Valley, a nearby rural area, had $4,500 per student. So
it is an urban-rural issue that goes beyond race as well as the
more focused racial issue.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. It is well beyond race in terms of the
disparities, but there are within it, however, certain
pronouncements. When we talk about qualified teachers, the
Carnegie report shows that no matter what the socioeconomic
group, a qualified teacher raises scores, but the only
correlation with race on this question of quality teachers, for
instance, is that if you are an African American, you are the
least likely person in our country to have a qualified teacher.
So that not only do you have the inequality there, but you
also have other issues that come into play in terms of getting
to some of these other issues that we are concerned about. But
I think that it is essentially at its core a denial of poor
children an equal educational opportunity. It is not focused at
race, even though it is more acute when we talk about Latino or
African American students.
Senator Dodd. I would point out that some States do have
primarily State funding. Do you have State and local in
Wyoming?
Ms. Catchpole. State.
Senator Dodd. Just State. In Connecticut, it is very
significantly a local property tax.
Ms. Catchpole. Some comes in, but it all comes in to the
State.
Senator Dodd. Yes, and then goes back out. I often point
out that in Bridgeport--and these numbers might not be exactly
right--but in our cities now--it used to be that a balanced
taxing rate would have our city functioning with 30 percent of
your revenues coming from residential property taxes and 70
percent coming from commercial property taxes--in our cities,
it is exactly the reverse now, that 70 percent of revenues are
coming from residential property taxes and 30 percent from
commercial. You are watching a decline of commercial activity,
and the burden then rises on local property owners. So that a
lot of the residents who live in these cities are only living
there because they cannot get out. No one will buy their homes.
They cannot leave. Given a choice where the housing cost may be
less, the taxes as a percentage of the cost of that home are so
much higher, and of course, the incomes are lower, and the job
opportunities are nonexistent. So you get trapped in these
situations.
I do not know what it is in Fairfield, but obviously, the
ratio is significantly different. Obviously, the costs are
higher in Fairfield, but incomes are substantially higher. Do
you know what those are off the top of your head?
Ms. Lang. I do not know exactly, but I can tell you that
Bridgeport's educational funding is 70 percent from the State.
We only get 30 percent--and it is probably less than that,
because we get some from the Federal Government, too. But most
of it is State money, and that is the opposite in the
suburbans. Most of their funding comes from their local taxes.
Mr. Price. This is why, Senator, whether we call it a
partnership between the Federal Government and the States and
localities, or call it a mandate, or call it a mango, or call
it a banana, the Federal Government has really got to lean on--
--
Senator Dodd. We have got to be in on it, yes.
Eighty-four percent of the American public in a recent
survey felt that if, instead of 1.5 percent, the Federal
Government put 5 percent of its budget to K through 12
education, that would make sense, and if you did that, you
would be increasing our commitment in this area somewhere
between $18 and $27 billion. That is what it would get you--not
that that is going to satisfy all the issues, but it would get
you moving in the right direction, anyway.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, let me just say finally, before
you conclude, because I want the record to be clear on this
point, that I think it is a legal matter. None of these dollars
that are being generated at the local level are local dollars.
In every instance, the States determine by statute the
boundaries of school districts, and they then have to authorize
what taxes can be levied at the local level. There are, in
fact, State taxes levied at the local level and then used as an
excuse for the inequality. That is to say, States could have
just as easily decided to use income taxes as a basis to fund
schools, but as the Republican elected school superintendent in
Arizona said more eloquently than I can, when you use a
property tax-based funding, you allow the wealthiest
communities to have the best-funded schools, to pay the least
amount in taxes as a percentage of their real estate holdings,
and you have the poorest communities pay the highest amount in
millage and still underfund their schools; and then you are
able as a State government to then argue that, well, we are
trying to help these poor districts, we are giving them some
extra help--it is just that these local taxes are unequal
because some people are a little bit wealthier than others.
States should not be let off the hook by arbitrarily
deciding to use a taxing mechanism that confuses people and
confuses the issue. What they should do, as they do for State
troopers in their State--they pay them the same all around the
State--and they pay their State legislators the same amount of
money--there is a recognition of State action even when it is
applied to what is called local taxation that I think the
record should be clear about.
Senator Dodd. Congressman, we thank you for participating,
and I would ask our witnesses to take a look at your revised
proposal.
We will leave the record open for 10 days for any
additional statements or questions from our colleagues.
You have been four excellent witnesses, and I am very
grateful to all of you. Ms. Lang, we always have a special
appreciation for those who have been teachers, and you have
done it for 3 decades. Congratulations on your elevation--I
think we can call it that--promotion--you might have a
different opinion a year from now whether or not that is the
case.
Ms. Lang. The jury is still out on that one.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Rebell, thank you. Come back to New Haven
any time you would like; and Mr. Price, the excellence of what
you have done is in direct relationship to your education in
Connecticut, so we want you to know that you are welcome to
come back any time. And Ms. Catchpole, we thank you as well for
being with us.
This committee will stand adjourned until further call of
the chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]