[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, on the subject before us, the Goals 
2000 legislation, I rise to indicate my support for final passage of 
the conference committee agreement on the Goals 2000 proposal.
  I do so fully aware that a number of members of this body, my very 
articulate and ranking Member who has just spoken and a person for whom 
I have such a great deal of respect, have reservations about this bill. 
I do so also fully aware that many of my constituents in the State of 
Minnesota have reservations about this bill.
  I share at least some of these reservations. But, on balance, I 
believe several aspects of this bill will offer needed support to 
education reform initiatives now underway in States and local 
communities all over America.
  And, contrary to its harshest critics, I do not believe this 
legislation will fundamentally change the historic role of parents and 
of local communities in the governance and control of our Nation's 
public schools.
  At the same time, I do not share the hopes of the most enthusiastic 
supporters of this legislation that it will--by itself--result in 
significant improvements in teaching and learning.
  That is not to say that improvements are not necessary. To the 
contrary, America's schools must do a far better job of preparing 
America's students for work and for life. And, that will require 
fundamental changes in how teaching and learning are done.
  But, as we try to address that reality, we are not being honest if we 
believe this legislation--even if fully funded and implemented--will 
result in the kind of significant improvements that a 21st century 
America will need.
  I say that because this legislation depends mainly on plans and in 
incremental changes in existing schools.
  Real change in behavior, Mr. President, does not come from plans, or 
by relying just on existing schools. I do agree that setting high 
standards that focus on results can help offer concrete goals for 
change.
  But, real improvements in what students learn will only come when 
there's a reason to change. And, just like health care and a lot of 
other public services, real change will only come when market forces 
are present that encourage and reward good choice and success.
  To get that kind of change, education must be viewed from a consumer 
standpoint.
  That means, Mr. President, that parents and students must have the 
right to choose which schools their children attend.
  In a minute, I am going to make a statement in introduction of a 
Medicare choice act in which I quote President Clinton in one of the 
great reforms undertaken in our generation the reform of health care in 
our country, and he says there are six essential elements that must be 
in the reform of our Nation's health care system: Security, simplicity, 
savings, choice, quality, and responsibility.
  Our current educational system may give someone the sense of 
security. It may seem simple. It has no savings. It has absolutely no 
choice. It has questionable quality. And it almost totally lacks 
responsibility.
  All you have to do is go to a school board meeting sometime when they 
are having a problem and watch them point fingers at the State Capital 
or the National Capital or mandate or someone else in the system. We 
know that. There is no responsibility, and without responsibility there 
is no accountability and without that there is no impact from whatever 
choice that we make.

  That means that teachers and parents and communities must have the 
right to start and run innovative, new schools; that schools must be as 
diverse as the needs of today's increasingly diverse students; and, 
that new forms of accountability must be tested that offer schools and 
teachers incentives and rewards for improved results.
  All over America, Mr. President, States are taking steps to both 
redesign and redefine public education to implement these and other 
fundamental reforms.
  My own State of Minnesota has been among the leaders by lessening the 
burdens of input-oriented rules and regulations; by redirecting 
accountability toward improved results; by making it possible for 
parents and students to choose which public schools they attend; and, 
by increasing the range and diversity of public school choices that are 
available.
  I am pleased, Mr. President, that at least several of these 
strategies for change will be assisted by provisions that I was able to 
get added to this bill.
  For example, on every positive feature in Goals 2000 is the provision 
allowing States to use State-level improvement funds to support public 
school choice initiatives, including information and referral programs; 
and to support the establishment of innovative new public schools, 
including magnet schools and charter schools.
  Under language I suggested, local school districts may now also use a 
portion of their grant funds to support innovative new public schools.
  Finally, I am also pleased that this legislation now includes several 
significant opportunities for States and local school districts to get 
out from under the burdens of Federal rules and mandates.
  Under an amendment that Senator Hatfield and I authored, up to six 
States will be able to seek broad authority to waive both Federal and 
State mandates--rules and regulations that now stand in the way of 
doing what teachers, principals, and parents now must be done to 
improve their schools.
  Minnesota is leading the rest of the country in replacing 
accountability for schools that's now based on inputs--like how many 
hours students have to be in the classroom and how many days have to be 
in the school year--with standards that reward schools based on what 
students actually learn. Reward schools based on results. What do kids 
actually learn? That is a result. It does not do it on how many hours 
you are in the school. Nor how many minutes you are in a classroom. Nor 
how many kids in front of a teacher. Nor how many days of education 
process is going on. For that reason, I'm very hopeful that Minnesota 
will be one of the six States chosen to participate in the 
demonstration Senator Hatfield and I authored.

  I want to emphasize the fact that this legislation places certain 
fundamental protections off-limits from this waiver authority and also 
requires that those seeking waivers demonstrate that the underlying 
objectives of the regulations being waived will not be jeopardized.
  To monitor whether that commitment is maintained, we will need a more 
localized, manageable, and effective alternative accountability 
mechanism for schools and districts that receive waivers. Ideally, that 
alternative accountability mechanism will be local and results-
oriented.
  One such alternative is now embodied in the laws of States that have 
authorized charter schools. Although these laws vary, they generally 
allow public schools to operate free of most rules and regulations in 
exchange for a multi-year, results-oriented performance contact with a 
State or local education agency or some other public body.
  This arrangement keeps accountability with an entity that can provide 
effective oversight. It keeps the number of deregulated schools that 
need to be monitored by each oversight agency relatively low. And, it 
shifts the focus of accountability from input-oriented rules and 
regulations to contractually agreed-to results.
  Clearly, the waiver provisions contained in the Goals 2000 proposal 
will take some time to fully implement. And, I would hope that, as 
these provisions are implemented, alternative accountability 
mechanisms--including an oversight role for State or local education 
agencies, a clear focus on results, and the use of contracts or other 
formal agreements between deregulated schools and the State or local 
education agency--will be given a fair test.
  I also hope that the more general subject of the role of Federal 
waivers in education reform--including how those waivers are granted 
and administered--will be given additional consideration in this year's 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

  Finally, Mr. President, let me comment briefly on the provisions in 
this proposal that authorize so-called opportunity-to-learn standards.
  As Members of this body know, I have been among the most strident 
critics of these standards. My preference would have been that they not 
appear at all in the bill.
  I have not been alone. And, I know that the administration, the 
Nation's Governors, and many others have worked hard to reach agreement 
on the provisions that remain--to ensure that they do not place 
additional mandates on States and school districts and divert attention 
from an increased focus on accountability for results--holding schools 
accountable for what students actually learn.
  I have shared the language in the compromise we have reached with 
education officials in Minnesota, Mr. President. And, I have been told 
that my own State's education reform initiatives will not be 
compromised by the requirement that opportunity-to-learn standards or 
strategies be adopted--but that actual implementation of those 
standards or strategies remain an option.
  Based on that advice, I will not oppose this bill. But, I do pledge 
to maintain vigilance over implementation of these provisions to make 
sure they are not an entre to new and intrusive Federal regulation of 
the inputs needed to improve teaching and learning in our Nation's 
schools.
  In monitoring implementation of opportunity-to-learn standards, Mr. 
President, I have identified five important limitations I believe must 
be respected:
  First, compliance with opportunity-to-learn standards must be 
strictly voluntary. And, there must be no link between achieving such 
standards and eligibility for Federal education improvement funds or 
funds authorized by chapter 1 or other Federal programs.
  Second, compliance with a uniform and mandatory list of opportunity-
to-learn standards must not be considered a prerequisite to being held 
accountable for tough, results-oriented academic standards.
  Third, meeting opportunity-to-learn standards must be viewed as only 
one of a number of alternative strategies available to State and local 
education agencies and to schools in achieving academic standards.
  Fourth, we must accept the reality that all schools and communities 
are unique. Therefore, we must recognize that some opportunity-to-learn 
standards may contribute to achieving performance standards in some 
schools or communities and other opportunity-to-learn standards may 
make that contribution in others.

  And, finally, States and local districts and schools must be able to 
decide which opportunity-to-learn standards may contribute to achieving 
academic standards in their unique circumstances.
  I believe these limitations are consistent with the conference 
agreement now before us, Mr. President. But, I believe all those who 
oppose new Federal mandates in education must remain vigilant to ensure 
that these limitations do not get violated as implementation of this 
legislation goes forward.
  Having noted the various improvements that have now been made, Mr. 
President, I am prepared to vote to approve this conference committee 
agreement.
  I am pleased with the authority it gives States and local school 
districts to increase parent choices and help start innovative new 
public schools.
  I strongly support the authority this legislation grants the 
Secretary to grant waivers to States, districts, and schools that are 
stifled by input-oriented rules and regulations and are now willing to 
be held accountable for what students actually learn.
  And, I believe the compromises that have been made in the provisions 
dealing opportunity-to-learn standards need not stand in the way of the 
important reforms now taking place in education all over America.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I believe we must realize the 
limitations of this legislation and the reality that achieving the 
goals it would make law will require the leadership of States and the 
dedicated efforts of teachers, parents, students in every community in 
this Nation.
  Real reform in education will not result just from changes in Federal 
law or Federal programs. But, the conference agreement now before us 
could help establish a framework within which that real reform can--and 
must--now take place.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
proceed as though in morning business on another subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________