[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        FIRST, SAVE THE SCHOOLS

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 21, 1994

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the following 
editorial by former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch to 
all of my colleagues. I strongly agree with the author that instead of 
simply providing more money for unnecessary and wasteful education 
programs we must replace the current failing education system with a 
framework which gives parents a greater role in their child's education 
as well as the freedom to choose where to send children to get the best 
education possible, and at the same time allows local education 
authorities the flexibility and freedom from burdensome overregulation 
so that they can be creative and innovative in introducing reforms.
  We must change the focus of current education reform effort from 
supporting the education bureaucracy to actually helping America's 
children establish a pattern of lifetime learning and becoming the best 
and the brightest in the world.

                [From the New York Times, June 27, 1994]

                        First, Save the Schools

                           (By Diane Ravitch)

       New York City's public school system needs to be reinvented 
     from the ground up. Organized a century ago and never 
     seriously revamped since then, it has become a bureaucratic 
     monster that wastes vast sums that should be spent on 
     instruction. But what is worse than wasting money is wasting 
     lives.
       Five years ago, the State Commissioner of Education 
     reported that 63 of the state's 77 worst schools were in New 
     York City. This year Chancellor Ramon Cortines identified 40 
     schools as ``educationally bankrupt.'' Too many of New York's 
     poorest children spend their days in huge buildings designed 
     in an era when factory method of production was much admired; 
     today, reformers agree that schools need to be on a smaller, 
     human scale, capable of meeting the needs of students from 
     diverse and often adverse backgrounds.
       The educational results bear the reformers out. Fewer than 
     half the city's ninth graders graduate within four years. Of 
     those who do, nearly 40 percent enter the City University of 
     New York, and only a quarter of those pass all three of its 
     tests of minimal reading, writing and math skills.
       Now Mr. Cortines plans to send specialists to the 40 
     failing schools once a week, retrain the teachers and even 
     replace principals if necessary. And Edward Costikyan, Mayor 
     Rudolph Giuliani's special adviser on schools, is proposing 
     that much of the system's sclerotic central bureaucracy be 
     dismantled.
       All this is good, but much more must be done, and soon. 
     Even an energetic, hands-on Chancellor like Mr. Cortines 
     lacks the tools to bring about the dramatic changes that are 
     needed to overhaul bad schools. The goal of school reform 
     must be to insure that every child gets a good education, 
     now..
       To make that happen, the system's very structure must be 
     drastically altered. The city's borough presidents favor a 
     plan to create borough school boards; others would 
     redistribute power among the central board and community 
     school boards. But such proposals ignore a simple fact: 
     boards don't educate children; schools do.
       The following four reforms, taken together, would allow 
     better schools to flourish and would close the doors of bad 
     ones.
       Good schools should be allowed to become independent public 
     schools by a majority vote of parents and staff. Though the 
     school system spends an average of $7,500 per pupil, only 
     $2,500 goes to classroom instruction. The creation of 
     independent schools would shift dollars away from the 
     bureaucracy.
       As independent schools, they would control their budget and 
     personnel. Every school would get an allocation based on 
     enrollment, and schools with poor and handicapped students 
     would get extra Federal and state funds. Schools would buy 
     goods and services at the best price, either from the Board 
     of Education or elsewhere. If a window was broken, the 
     principal could hire a local glazier for prompt repairs. (The 
     board is currently 40,000 work orders behind.)
       Each school would be accountable for its performance, and 
     each would regularly be audited and evaluated by educational 
     authorities with the power to cancel the school's independent 
     status if it was misused.
       Britain started this reform in the late 1980's, and 
     hundreds of British schools are now free to make repairs, buy 
     their food services and manage their budgets, while accepting 
     responsibility to prepare students for the national 
     curriculum and tests.
       As a result of efforts by reformers like Deborah Meier, 
     principal of Central Park East in East Harlem, and former 
     Chancellor Joseph Fernandez, New York City has nearly 50 
     small schools that operate with unusual autonomy because they 
     have temporary waivers from the United Federation of 
     Teachers. But these schools do not control their budgets, and 
     they have only a tiny fraction of the city's students.
       Nine states, including California, Massachusetts and 
     Michigan, have already passed legislation to encourage 
     ``charter'' schools--public schools exempt from most rules 
     and regulations. A dozen more are considering similar 
     measures. New York's State Legislature should, too.
       The Board of Education should be permitted to award 
     contracts to run schools and create new ones where needed. 
     Potential contractors--colleges and universities, successful 
     public or private schools, museums, hospitals, businesses, 
     unions, community groups, groups of teachers--could bid to 
     manage schools identified as educationally bankrupt. In other 
     schools, dissatisfied parents, by majority vote, could 
     petition the board to solicit outside managers.
       Prospective contractors would present their plans and goals 
     to the community, which would then make recommendations to 
     the chancellor. And contractors could compete to offer new 
     kinds of schools for dropouts or children with special needs.
       Neither the state commissioner nor the city chancellor now 
     has the resources or personnel to do much more than offer 
     technical assistance to low-performing schools. Under this 
     proposal, either official could invite successful contractors 
     to bid for the management of failing schools.
       Children in educationally bankrupt schools should be 
     offered scholarships to use in any accredited school--public, 
     private or sectarian. Schools accepting these scholarships 
     would have to meet city educational standards. Would it be 
     constitutional to include religious schools in a public 
     scholarship program? Probably, as long as the choice of 
     school was made by the family or student. Parochial schools 
     already get public funds to educate the handicapped and to 
     run Head Start programs.
       The role of the public authorities must change. The State 
     Legislature should reconfigure the role and functions of the 
     city Board of Education. The integrity and effectiveness of 
     the overall scheme depends on it.
       Instead of running everything, the educational authorities 
     would evaluate the quality of education provided by others. 
     They would set citywide standards and administer tests. They 
     would audit and monitor independent public schools and 
     contractors.
       They would have the power to award management contracts and 
     the power to cancel them. They would negotiate a citywide 
     contract with the unions so that each school could select its 
     own team and shape its own program without infringing the 
     rights of teachers.
       They would provide information and research to help parents 
     and students make good choices. They would manage a corps of 
     inspectors to help improve schools. They would represent the 
     city school district in seeking funds from Washington and 
     Albany. They would continue to manage schools that were 
     neither self-governing nor managed by contract.
       This strategy, with its complementary parts, aims to 
     reinvent public education. The idea is not to privatize 
     education but to allow public authorities to engage every 
     resource, public and private, in the quest for good schools 
     for all children. It encourages bad schools to close or 
     change managers. It enables good schools to be self-
     governing, free of wasteful bureaucracy. It allows students 
     and parents to choose their schools. It gives the central or 
     borough authorities plenty to do, while withdrawing from them 
     the power to control what happens in every school. And it 
     promises to replace a moribund, rule-bound system with 
     innovation, diversity and cooperation between the public and 
     private sectors.
       The basic principles of renewal in this approach are 
     autonomy, choice and quality. In each school, the adults are 
     personally and professionally responsible for the success of 
     every student. Furthermore, everyone who works in or attends 
     a school would be there by choice. Forced assignments--
     whether of teachers or pupils--destroy the morale of a 
     school. A school functions best when everyone wants to be 
     there.
       The best way to assure equality of opportunity is not by 
     imposing one model on everyone but by insisting on a high 
     level of performance from a diversity of providers, subject 
     to watchful pubic authorities. The system we have serves 
     adults, not children. Let's reverse that formula.

                          ____________________