[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I would like to say we will be in 
session all day Monday with votes during the day and into the evening 
in an effort to make further progress and, hopefully, complete action 
on this bill on that day.
  So Senators should be aware of that and plan their schedules 
accordingly.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 2429

  (Purpose: To amend the Title I formula in S. 1513, the ``Improving 
                    America's School Act of 1994'')

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 2429.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 554 line 21, strike all through line 15 
     on page 556 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (iii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II) the 
     equalization factor for a local educational agency shall be 
     determined in accordance with the succeeding sentence. The 
     equalization factor determined under this sentence shall be 
     calculated as follows: First, calculate the difference 
     (expressed as a positive amount) between the average per 
     pupil expenditure in the State served by the local 
     educational agency and the average per pupil expenditure in 
     each local educational agency in the State and multiply such 
     difference by the total student enrollment for such agency, 
     except that children from low income families shall be 
     multiplied by a factor of 1.4 to calculate such enrollment. 
     Second, add the products under the preceding sentence for 
     each local educational agency in such State and divide such 
     sum by the total student enrollment of such State, except 
     that children from low income families shall be multiplied by 
     a factor of 1.4 to calculate such enrollment. Third, divide 
     the quotient under the preceding sentence by the average per 
     pupil expenditure in such State. The equalization factor 
     shall be equal to 1 minus the amount determined in the 
     previous sentence.
       (II) The equalization factor for a local educational agency 
     serving a State that meets the disparity standard described 
     in section 222.63 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as such section was in effect on the day preceding the date 
     of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) 
     shall have a maximum coefficient of variation of .10.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to what 
has become known as the equity bonus of the title I formula included in 
S. 1513. My amendment would treat all States equally under the equity 
bonus included in S. 1513. I believe, Mr. President, that an equity 
factor certainly is the one place to treat all States equally.
  I want to begin my making it clear to my colleagues that my amendment 
does not change any of the other three factors that comprise the four-
part title I formula. In crafting my amendment, I wanted to work within 
the framework established by Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and 
Jeffords. I have been very pleased to work with my distinguished 
colleagues on this bill. I appreciate the hard work done by the 
majority and minority leaders on the full committee and subcommittee 
and their respective staffs. They are dedicated professionals who care 
deeply about improving the education of American children.
  Yet, I believe this formula can still be improved.
  My amendment very simply removes the arbitrary floor and ceiling that 
limits the overall effect of this formula factor. These boundaries have 
the effect of grouping States into one of three tiers, each tier having 
a single multiplier for the purpose of computing the formula. Each 
State, therefore, does not benefit individually.
  I am referring to my proposed modification as an equalization factor 
so as not to confuse my colleagues. My amendment proposes an 
equalization factor that treats States equally and is based on a factor 
that States can control: the equal distribution of resources among 
local school districts in the State.
  The principal measure in both the S. 1513 equity bonus and the Hatch 
equalization factor is known as the coefficient of variation. This is 
defined as the difference between the local education agencies [LEA's] 
within a State having the highest and lowest per pupil expenditures. 
This coefficient of variation [COV], according to the Congressional 
Research Service is widely considered to be one of the best measures of 
school finance disparities.
  Since they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, let me 
note several ways in which the Hatch equalization factor is the same as 
the S. 1513 equity bonus in addition to the use of COV measure.
  This measure for the average disparity in expenditures per pupil 
among the local education agencies of a State--meaning the COV--has 
accounted for differences in enrollments for these local education 
agencies and applies an extra weight of 0.4 for the number of poor 
children. This is the same as the S. 1513 formulas equity bonus.
  My amendment includes a 100-percent hold harmless for the first year 
and caps the amount a State can gain at 115 percent. This is the same 
as in S. 1513.
  My amendment recognizes the strain placed on particular States 
severely affected by a reduced tax base as a result of Federal 
installations and ensures that these federally impacted States are not 
penalized under the Hatch equalization amendment to the title I 
formula. This is the same as in S. 1513.

  My amendment would benefit three-quarters of the States. If they 
haven't seen it already, I would draw my colleagues' attention to the 
chart I have placed in the rear of the Chamber. As my colleagues will 
observe, 38 of the 50 States benefit under the Hatch equalization 
amendment to the title I formula and four States receive the same 
amount of money.
  It would be nice to find a formula that would benefit every State. It 
would certainly be my desire that every State could be a winner. But, 
unfortunately, the budget process notwithstanding, Congress hasn't 
figured out how to overcome the basic rules of mathematics. Given a 
specific amount of money, different formulas must produce winners and 
losers.
  I believe, however, that the modification to S. 1513 I am suggesting 
pays significant dividends to education in the large majority of States 
while hurting the fewest possible number of States.
  Mr. President, I believe this equalization factor, which treats all 
States equally is a solid formula for the following reasons:
  First, an unequal distribution of resources denies needed resources 
to poor and minority children.
  Some of my colleagues may argue that my equalization factor treats 
poor kids unfairly--that what we ought to be doing is directly 
targeting resources to poverty-stricken schools.
  I would argue that an equalization factor is a poverty factor. I 
believe that the unequal distribution of resources among school 
districts disproportionately affects poor and minority students. One of 
the main goals of this reauthorization has been to target poor kids. A 
stronger equalization factor helps accomplish this.
  A report prepared by the Policy Information Center of the Educational 
Testing Service, titled ``The State of Inequality,'' concludes that,

       Thus, it can be established with national data that 
     educational resources are unevenly distributed. It is also 
     clear that, on average, students in poorer areas are likely 
     to have fewer educational resources than those in wealthy 
     areas. There are also wide variation in the effectiveness of 
     schooling, after differences in socioeconomic status are 
     considered.

  Further studies have also determined that high-poverty and minority 
students have fewer opportunities to take critical gatekeeping courses 
in math and the hard sciences, thus preventing access to institutions 
of higher learning.
  A report prepared for the House Committee on Education and Labor, 
titled, ``Shortchanging Children: The Impact of Fiscal Inequity on the 
Education of Students At Risk'' found that, ``Inequitable systems of 
school finance inflict disproportionate harm on minority and 
economically disadvantaged students.''

  A Rand report concludes, ``The most effective way to overcome the 
adverse effects on the disadvantaged of disparities in state and local 
education expenditure is to eliminate the disparities themselves.''
  Some would argue that equalization of resources would penalize kids 
in poor, urban areas, who need greater resources than kids in wealthy, 
safer suburban neighborhoods. As the CQ Researcher points out, however,

        * * * in the past three decades the non-academic scope of 
     schools, especially inner-city schools, has expanded 
     considerabily. Schools now offer, among other things, special 
     programs for handicapped and immigrant children. And the role 
     of schools has evolved from providing instruction to children 
     to dealing with all facets of students lives, from teen 
     pregnancy to increasing violence. The sad fact is that in 
     some schools, some of the increase in per-pupil spending has 
     been for metal detectors and security guards.

  The point I am trying to make here, Mr. President, is that when you 
differentiate expenditures for classroom resources, from expenditures 
for other purposes, urban schools spend far less for classroom needs.
  This is why I support a weighted factor for poor kids. I completely 
agree that, under this formula, poverty LEA's should be given a boost.
  Not only does the Hatch equalization factor retain the .4 weight for 
poor children that is in the S. 1513 equity bonus, but it also retains 
the weighted child factor as part of the four-part formula.
  I should also note that my amendment proposes no change in the bill's 
formula that distributes title I resources within a State or the 
formula that allocates funds from the district to individual schools. 
Both of these calculations target funds to high-poverty school 
districts and to high-poverty areas within districts.
  So, some of my colleagues are asking, if the formulas are so similar, 
what difference does it make.
  I believe my Federal to State distribution is better than the 
proposal in S. 1513 because, first, equalization has been documented as 
a way to assist low-income LEA's, and my amendment encourages States in 
that direction without being dictatorial about it; and second, all 
States are able to capture all the benefits of their equalization 
efforts on an individual basis. They are not thwarted by an arbitrary 
cap.
  The one problem with the limitations on the equity bonus in S. 1513 
is that it does not permit this formula factor to do what it should 
do--direct State and local resources, as well as Federal, where they 
are most needed.
  I repeat, all my amendment does is treat all States equally under the 
title I formula.
  Second, title I is ineffective if it merely layers resources where 
the resources are inadequate

  Title I should ideally be providing additional resources for needy 
children. Unless resources are equalized, one of the primary principles 
under which this initiative was undertaken will be lost. The layering 
of resources where resources are already inadequate will not meet the 
needs of disadvantaged children. Title I was meant to provide 
additional resources, all else being equal. Title I was not meant to 
compensate for an inadequate financial commitment to poorer LEA's on 
the part of States.
  The purpose of Title I is to give educationally and economically 
disadvantaged students additional assistance: teachers, textbooks, and 
additional education resources. These resources were never intended to 
comprise the entirety of aid to an educationally or economically 
disadvantaged student.
  However, it has recently been concluded that the chapter 1 program 
does not spread resources on an already even playing field. In fact, 
often, too often, chapter 1 is the field. Mr. President, this must 
change if all students are going to be successful in meeting the 
national education goals.
  Research completed by Rand's Institute on Education and Training 
determined that, ``The potential effectiveness of chapter 1 depends on 
its supplemental character, which in turn depends on equality of base 
expenditure across LEA's.''
  This report concludes that, ``In sum, the present chapter 1 funding 
mechanism has not been designed to make Federal aid supplemental, 
except in the narrowest, most local sense, in the face of an 
inequitable system of general education finance.''
  These conclusions are supported by testimony delivered before the 
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on August 3, 1993. William 
Taylor, a Washington attorney and children's advocate, drew from the 
report by the Independent Commission on chapter 1 entitled, ``Making 
Schools Work for Children in Poverty.''
  Finally, the failure to deal with educational inequity makes chapter 
1 an inefficient program and prevents it from achieving its goals. 
Chapter 1 has been built on the fiction of a level playing field, that 
is, that Federal funds are provided as a supplement for economically 
disadvantaged children to an educational program that is already 
adequate for them. In many places, this is not the case.
  Indeed, a review of the report issued by the Commission reveals that 
they concur on the issue that chapter 1 should supplement where 
resources are equal, not subsidize an unequal distribution of 
resources.
  Mr. President, some might argue that my equalization factor should 
not be the only determining factor in allocating desperately needed 
title I funds. To them I say, I totally agree with you. The equity 
bonus included in S. 1513 is only one factor in a four-factor formula.

  I also agree that there are many other factors which contribute to a 
State's ability to finance education. I wish again to remind my 
colleagues that all I am doing here is attempting to have States 
treated equally and fairly, which the three-tier grouping does not do.
  Mr. President, I repeat: Economically disadvantaged and minority kids 
are adversely affected by the disparities in educational financing. 
Title I should be used to give added resources to these economically 
and educationally disadvantaged kids. We need to change the status quo, 
and certainly the formula included in S. 1513 does that. But, by making 
one simple adjustment, we can make it so much more effective.
  Third, failure to improve the equal distribution of resources will 
prevent all kids from making progress achieving the national goals for 
education.
  The current level of inequity makes progress toward achieving the 
national education goals for all students unlikely, thereby preventing 
real educational reform.
  I would like to read from the testimony presented on July 26, 1993, 
in the Labor and Human Resources Committee by Dr. Bob Berne, a 
professor at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, 
who has studied equity in school finance for over 15 years:

       * * * the current inequities in our school finance system 
     are every much [sic] as serious a national education problem 
     as inadequate early childhood education, overly 
     bureaucratized schools, non-existent or low educational 
     standards, and substandard preparation of our teaching force. 
     In fact, if the finance inequity issues are not addressed 
     simultaneously with these other problems, the solutions, if 
     they can be found and implemented, will only benefit a subset 
     of our students.

  The unequal distribution of resources affects all kids. Unless we 
make equity a priority, then the goals we have codified for teachers, 
students, parents, and schools will not be realized.
  Fourth a fair equalization factor will promote bottom-up education 
reform that will help all kids make progress towards achieving the 
national goals.
  Real education reform must take place at the grassroots level. A 
series of edicts issued from Washington, DC is not going to improve 
education for Americans. State and local education agencies must take 
on this daunting challenge. This is one of the major reasons why I 
support having an equalization factor that treats all States fairly.
  The degree to which a State equalizes funding for education is a 
factor that a State can control. A State that equalizes is a State that 
will benefit under a fair equalization factor.
  Also, equalization is a factor that can be quantified. So much of 
what the Congress is asking the State and local education agencies to 
do requires a judgment based on a series of qualitative analyses. A 
fair equalization factor does not rely on subjective determinations.
  A fair equalization factor does not rely on mandates or guidelines 
for how a State should achieve equalization. I, for one, would oppose a 
measure that specified how a State was to engage in equalization. On 
the contrary, I believe States are perfectly capable of figuring this 
out for themselves.
  Fifth, including an equity factor in the title I formula could help 
prevent costly, time-consuming lawsuits.
  On July 13, 1994, the Washington Post reported that ``the New Jersey 
Supreme Court declared the state's method of funding public schools 
unconstitutional, saying that it did not go far enough in eliminating 
disparities in spending between rich and poor school districts. This 
ruling is the latest in a series of high-profile cases around the 
country * * *''
  In its ruling the court stated unanimously that funding disparities 
within the State created a ``separate class of students within the 
state * * *. `Many [are] undereducated, isolated in a separate culture, 
affected by despair, sometimes bitterness and hostility, constituting a 
large part of society that is disintegrating.'''
  Twenty-four States currently face lawsuits over the unequal 
distribution of resources. Washington Post, July 13, 1994. The practice 
of suing a State because of financial disparities has a long history, 
spanning over 30 years. Several States have had their school finance 
systems declared unconstitutional. One thing, however, is apparent: 
every State is vulnerable to legal challenges based on financial 
disparities. My point, here, Mr. President, is that this issue is not 
going to go away. Furthermore, I believe we are today in a position to 
encourage action in this area and, hopefully, to help head off 
unproductive and costly legal battles.
  The report from the Educational Testing Service, ``The State of 
Inequality,'' has concluded that:

       The issue of inequality in providing public education and 
     inequity in its financing has, for at least two decades, been 
     framed as a legal issue debated and decided in State 
     courthouses * * * . It is a policy issue for executive and 
     legislative branches as well, at all levels of government.

  We have an opportunity today to help address what has been called the 
savage inequalities that exist within our Nation's schools.
  All my colleagues understand the problem. I urge them to support my 
amendment to help do something about it.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to debate this matter for an hour on 
Monday then, if it is all right with the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I think in terms of 
the membership, I doubt if we would be able to have much of an impact 
on our friends and colleagues tonight. So I will look forward tomorrow 
morning to reading the speech with great diligence.
  Mr. HATCH. I thought the Senator would. I have to say I am looking 
forward to it. I hope the Senator puts his speech in the Record so I 
can read it. I know it will not be nearly the debate unless the Senator 
from Massachusetts has an audience on the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand I will be able to put in 
some remarks in response to the statement.
  Mr. President, we have been debating these issues all evening, and I 
doubt if there is much that we could add to the discussion tonight.
  I will include in the Record some remarks in response to the 
Senator's amendment.
  I understand we have been accorded time on Monday morning to debate 
this prior to the Senate making a judgment on it at 10 a.m. So that is 
the way that we will proceed. As the majority leader has indicated, we 
will have a full day on Monday. Hopefully, we will finish the formula 
amendments in the morning. Senator Danforth has an amendment, Senator 
Gregg has an amendment, and Senator Graham has an amendment as well. We 
will plan to have a full day on Monday through Monday evening.
  Again, I thank all of the membership for their courtesy and for their 
cooperation this evening. We look forward to completing the 
legislation, hopefully, on Monday and no later than Tuesday.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________