[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania
amendment no. 1384
(Purpose: To encourage local educational agencies and schools to enter
into a contract with a private management organization for the reform
of schools)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself
and Mr. Dole, proposes as amendment number 1384.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 66, line 23, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 67, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
On page 67, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(15) quality education management services are being
utilized by local educational agencies and schools through
contractual agreements between local educational agencies or
schools and such businesses.
On page 90, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 90, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
(I) supporting activities relating to the planning of,
start-up costs associated with, and evaluation of, projects
under which local educational agencies or schools contract
with private management organizations to reform a school;
On page 90, line 11, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in consultation with the managers of the
bill, I had arranged to submit this amendment next and will not take a
great deal of the Senate's time because it has been agreed to by both
managers. I consider this to be a very important amendment, Mr.
President. I am sure all my colleagues will want to hear the details of
this amendment.
This amendment provides for the private administration of public
schools. It may turn out to be a very important experiment which could
materially improve the educational system in the United States.
More accurately, and with some elaboration, it provides that funding
under this bill may be allocated by local school boards, at their own
discretion, to hire private management organizations to administer the
operation of their schools.
This is an idea which has been gaining currency in the United States
with a company known as Education Alternatives, Inc., which has
established contracts for the private administration of schools in
Baltimore, MD, Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida.
The activities of Education Alternatives, Inc., in some 9 schools in
the city of Baltimore is most impressive. The Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, held a
hearing on January 25 and heard extensive testimony on this subject.
Those offering testimony at the hearing included the superintendent of
schools for the city of Baltimore, Mr. Walter G. Amprey, and the chief
executive officer of Education Alternatives, Inc. Mr. John T. Golle,
who testified about their experience with the nine Baltimore schools.
On the surface, this testimony was very impressive.
On a dissenting note, Ms. Bella Rosenberg, assistant to the president
of the American Federation of Teachers, did offer a challenge to this
testimony calling for an objective evaluation of what has happened in
the Baltimore schools. However, based on the testimony of the
superintendent of schools and the chief executive officer of Education
Alternatives, Inc., the early results have shown substantial promise.
An important thing to note on this amendment is the fact that it is
not mandated, it is not Federal policy. Instead, it is only an
alternative which the school administrators may consider when they
receive funding under this legislation.
Mr. President, the issue of public administration received quite a
boost, at least publicly, when the president of Yale University, Dr.
Benno C. Schmidt, left that prestigious position to take a position
with the Edison Project. When I noticed that Benno Schmidt had
undertaken this type of activity, I sought a meeting with him, and
after some considerable discussion was very much impressed with the
undertaking.
When I first heard about administration of public schools for profit,
it, frankly, was somewhat surprising, and very unusual. But after
careful consideration, it seemed to me that if the private
administration of public schools could attract people of the caliber of
Benno Schmidt, and we could have the advantage of his insights, his
initiative, and his experience, it was certainly an idea worth
pursuing.
In addition to Dr. Schmidt, Mr. Golle, Mr. Amprey, and Ms. Rosenberg,
we also heard testimony from the superintendent of the schools of
Washington, DC, Dr. Franklin L. Smith, who testified about the deep
interest of Washington, DC officials in experimenting with this
program.
We also heard testimony from Mrs. Patricia Parham, with experience in
Dade County schools in Miami, FL, from Mr. Dennis Doyle of the Hudson
Institute, who testified that it was a matter worth experimenting, and
from Mr. Thomas Payzant, Assistant Secretary for the Department of
Education.
The bulk of their testimony was to the effect that private management
is something which should be looked at closely.
That, Mr. President, is the essence of the amendment. We will,
however, have to have further tests, in greater detail, to see
precisely how it is working. But with this bill in the Senate it seemed
to me this was a good opportunity to include private management as an
alternative which school boards may explore with the funding provided
in this bill. It is for those reasons I have offered the amendment and
have sought the agreement of the managers of the bill.
Mr. President, I believe that widespread public concern about the
inadequacy of our education system demands that we test any and all
promising avenues for school reform. The challenge is to find new and
better ways to teach our Nation's 43 million schoolchildren. This takes
new and innovative ideas. It also means finding new approaches to free
up teachers and school administrators from noninstructional
duties, allowing them to devote more time and resources to the task of
educating our children. As a member of the U.S. Senate subcommittee
that last year appropriated more than $28.7 billion for education
programs, I take this challenge seriously. That is why I recently
called a Senate hearing to learn more about an idea now being tested by
a handful of school districts--contracting with private firms to manage
some facets of public school education.
The past few years have seen the emergency of a number of private
firms offering to assume certain aspects of school operations,
including day-to-day administration, teacher training, and other
noninstructional activities. Typically, these companies will manage the
school for the same average cost, about $5,900 per pupil, incurred by
public schools. Initially, the companies invest their own capital in
securing and upgrading the learning environment by repairing and
modernizing the school building, and installing state-of-the-art
computers. After that initial investment, the onus is on the companies
to reduce school operating costs while maintaining quality educational
results. A portion of the money saved through management efficiencies
is reinvested in the school. Since the remaining allocation is profit
to the management firm and there is a presence of competing firms, the
incentive for accountability is likely to be greater than that of our
present system of monopoly.
Among those at the hearing were school superintendents, union
representatives, education policy experts, and the heads of two private
management firms. Each lent his or her own unique perspective on the
idea.
Former Yale President Benno Schmidt explained the Edison Project's
school design which calls for a longer schoolday and year, a student
teacher ratio of 17 to 1, and innovative teaching ideas to foster long-
term sustainable relationships between teachers and students, and
teachers and parents, by having students taught by the same teacher for
a period of 3 to 4 years. But Mr. Schmidt also talked of strict
accountability--accountability that is different from the current
school systems and that is--if the private firms fail to deliver and do
not improve educational services to students, then they will be fired.
John D. Golle, CEO of Education Alternatives, Inc. [EAI], the firm
currently managing schools in Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, and
Florida, told the committee that companies like his aim to do for
public schools what Federal Express and the United Parcel Service did
for the U.S. Postal Service--they introduced competition, and made mail
service in the United States the best in the world.
In Baltimore, where nine schools are being run by EAI, preliminary
results are encouraging. Student test scores are beginning to show
improvement, absenteeism is on the decline, and school facilities are
gradually being transformed. Baltimore City Superintendent Dr. Walter
Amprey reported seeing an increased level of parental involvement and
greater interest in computerized instruction. Perhaps most importantly,
Dr. Amprey views the link between public education and business as a
way to untie the hands of educators and at the same time instill
accountability in our education system.
D.C. School Superintendent Franklin Smith, also testified concerning
preliminary plans to turn over a portion of the District's schools to a
private firm. Smith views private firms as a way of avoiding the slow-
moving school bureaucracy and quickly pumping money into schools for
facility improvements.
Bella Rosenberg, assistant to the president of the American
Federation of Teachers told the committee that the AFT has been
``willing to entertain any idea, within the bounds of mortality, to
reinvent our public schools and to make them first and foremost more
effective and more efficient.'' She also stated that the federation was
not opposed in principle to a role for private management companies in
public education. However, she expressed reservations regarding the
results these management companies could produce in education in terms
of effectiveness or efficiency.
When I first thought of the concept of schools for profit, I found it
different, if not disquieting. And then, after careful consideration, I
said, ``Why not?'' I think we ought to be looking at every alternative
we can find, which offers any prospect for improving our educational
system in this country.
I am not the only one considering this alternative. During his State
of the Union Address, President Clinton endorsed the idea of private
school management companies when discussing the Goals 2000 legislation.
He talked of ``empowering individual school districts to experiment
with ideas like chartering their schools to be run by private
corporations.''
Accordingly, I am offering an amendment to the pending legislation to
ensure that private management companies will have an opportunity to
form partnerships with public schools and give school administrators an
option thought he use of funds awarded to them by the Federal
Government. My amendment would not require, but allow funds under this
legislation to be used to support activities for planning, startup
costs, and evaluations for school systems that wish to contract with
private management companies.
Although this amendment addresses only one possible method of
reforming our schools, I believe that it merits a thorough review
process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure the
most efficient and accountable educational system for today's students,
and to provide the next generation with the most promising
opportunities to learn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just very briefly, we urge the Senate to
accept this amendment. It is supported by the administration. I believe
there was this kind of flexibility in the legislation initially. This
makes it more explicit, and we support the amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also want to join in commending the
Senator for his amendment, and I know of no objection on this side. I
think it is an excellent addition to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate--
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole
be listed as an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. One further comment is in order, Mr. President. That is
that a commendatory reference was included in the President's State of
the Union speech, as Senator Kennedy has stated. There is support by
the administration, by the President himself in that speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The amendment (No. 1384) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
proceed as if in morning business for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________