[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   FINAL PASSAGE OF ESEA CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AGREEMENT AND GENERAL 
                      COMMENTS ON EDUCATION REFORM

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, on Wednesday I voted to pass the 
conference committee report on H.R. 6--legislation reauthorizing the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA].
  Again, I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and 
Jeffords for their leadership during this long and at times, 
contentious process. They hung tough in shaping this legislation 
despite very strong opposition from the House of Representatives and 
from some members in this body as well.
  It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve with my colleague on 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Our ability to work together 
on a bipartisan basis has resulted in some very important legislation. 
From Direct Lending and National and Community Service to Goals 2000 
and ESEA, we have made a contribution to reforming education in this 
country.


                         Highlights of the bill

  While some provisions in this bill concern me, overall I am pleased 
with its final form.
  Unfortunately when it comes to formulas, there will always be winners 
and losers. The title 1 formula in this bill seems to focus on Federal 
money to the poorest children and the communities and States most in 
need of assistance. My own State of Minnesota tells me that this is a 
formula that they can live with.
  Reasonable compromises were reached on a number of difficult social 
issues including school prayer, school violence and school health 
related issues.
  There are provisions which address one of my great concerns--
federalizing education. Senator Gregg's amendment regarding unfunded 
mandates is now part of this legislation. It is clearly stated that if 
any requirement in this bill results in an unfunded mandate, affected 
States and communities don't have to comply. In addition, the Secretary 
of Education may not decide what standards or assessments a State may 
use. Finally, the bill prevents federally mandated opportunity to learn 
standards.


 Inclusion of Charter Schools and the Community Schools Partnership Act

  There are two provisions in this bill I want to briefly discuss. I am 
very pleased that my recommendations regarding the Charter Schools 
Program were accepted by the conference committee. The changes I 
proposed authorize a stronger role for States in awarding grants, defer 
to States what public agencies may charter schools, and promote a 
stronger leadership role on charter schools for the U.S. Secretary of 
Education.
  The legislation makes clear that charter schools must be non-
sectarian, may not charge tuition and may not discriminate in admitting 
students. Charter schools have been authorized in 10 States and a dozen 
or more States are actively considering legislation to authorize 
charter schools.
  I am also excited about inclusion of the Community Schools 
Partnership Act which creates and develops community-based, volunteer 
operated foundations in primarily low-income neighborhoods, towns and 
cities throughout the United States. These partnerships will improve 
education achievement levels and increase access to educational 
opportunities for all students.


     Congress continues to struggle to define a proper federal role

  Mr. President, I noted at the beginning of my remarks that this 
legislation was developed over a period of many months in a bipartisan 
process involving the Clinton administration and both Republicans and 
Democrats on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
  Even though I don't agree with every item in this bill, I respect the 
process that produced it. I feel that I have had a sufficient 
opportunity for input--many of my own ideas were incorporated. And I 
believe it now deserves to become law.
  On a more personal note, ESEA also represents my last opportunity to 
vote on a major education bill before I leave the U.S. Senate. I can't 
let that opportunity pass without offering at least a few more general 
comments on the Federal Government's role in helping to prepare future 
generations of Americans for work and for life.
  Sixteen years ago, I entered the Senate at a time when much of the 
so-called education debate in this chamber was about creating a Federal 
department of Education.
  I supported creating that Department, Mr. President. And, I opposed 
efforts early in the 1980's to dismantle the new Department once it had 
been created. I continue to support a limited and appropriate federal 
role in education to this day--most recently exemplified by my support 
for cloture and final passage of the ESEA reauthorization bill now 
before us.


        Essential principles for reform: Competition and choice

  A second major education issue during that period, Mr. President, was 
what role vouchers and tuition tax credits might play in expanding 
educational choices for America's parents and students.
  I was an active participant in that debate one the side of those who 
wanted to expand parent choices--not just beyond traditional public 
schools but among public schools as well.
  One of my mentors in those days--and still a frequent advisor--was 
Joe Nathan, a former teacher and administrator in the St. Paul public 
schools who now heads the Center for School Change at the University of 
Minnesota.
  Back in the early 1980's Joe Nathan wrote a far-reaching book called 
``Free to Teach'' in which he outlined the kinds of reforms in 
education needed to make it possible for both teachers and students to 
do their jobs better.
  I talked about that book in a speech I gave at Hamline University in 
St. Paul 10 years ago next month. And, at the risk of repeating a gross 
overgeneralization, I described Joe 
Nathan's ideas as falling under two simple principles.
  ``One of those principles focuses on the student and one on the 
teacher,'' I told the audience at Hamline. ``One is `choice' and the 
other is competition'.''
  About a year before I gave that speech, many Americans were shocked 
to learn that we were ``A Nation at Risk.'' A blue ribbon commission 
appointed by President Reagan identified a whole litany of flaws and 
short-comings in our Nation's education system summed up by the 
following chilling quote:
  ``If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America 
the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well 
have viewed it as an act of war.''


           A new emphasis on improved performance and quality

  Despite this strong indictment--and a whole host of other reports 
from a variety of credible critics--it wasn't until the Education 
Summit called by President Bush in 1989 that an appropriate role for 
the Federal Government in addressing these shortcomings began to 
emerge.
  Out of that Education Summit--involving the President and the 
nation's governors--came our first National Education Goals.
  To help achieve those goals, President Bush and Education Secretary 
Lamar Alexander then launched a proposal they called America 2000.
  I was a strong supporter of the Bush-Alexander initiative and proud 
that it was unveiled at the Saturn School of Tomorrow in St. Paul, MN. 
Beyond all the bells and whistles and rhetoric, the President used this 
opportunity in St. Paul to introduce a new national purpose in 
education.
  Previously, the Federal Government's interest and involvement in 
education focused primarily on equalizing access to opportunity for 
every American child--the traditional goal of chapter I, special 
education, and other Federal education programs.
  The Federal Government's interest in education was now being extended 
to quality--to results--to setting goals and measuring improvement in 
what students actually learn.
  Most important, the Federal Government's role was to be enabling and 
empowering--for States, for school districts and individual schools, 
for parents and teachers and students--the Federal Government setting 
broad goals, creating opportunities, providing modest resources--but 
leaving decisions on how to achieve those goals up to those who know 
best--in each local community.


           A new, broader definition of ``public education''

  One of the central themes of the Bush-Alexander initiative was school 
choice--harkening back to the voucher-tuition tax credit debate of the 
early 1980s, but also incorporating new lessons that were being learned 
about school choice in various States including Minnesota.
  Unfortunately, the Bush-Alexander initiative did not incorporate one 
of the key lessons being learned as States began to allow parents more 
control over which schools or programs their children attend.
  Put simply, as the Bush-Alexander initiative bogged down in the 
Congress over whether choice programs should include both public and 
private schools, States like Minnesota were moving beyond that debate 
to fundamentally redefine American public education.
  Minnesota did that first with its Post-secondary Options Program--
allowing juniors and seniors in high school to attend public or private 
post-secondary institutions at State expense.

  Minnesota also moved quickly to encourage new and alternative ways of 
delivering public education--through private, non-profit organizations 
under contract with local districts, through new area learning centers, 
that serve at-risk students and students who have dropped out of high 
school, and--in a landmark piece of legislation adopted in 1991--by 
allowing parents and teachers to form new, innovative ``charter public 
schools.''
  Tying these new ways of delivering public education together is 
Minnesota's Open Enrollments Program--which allows students to cross 
district boundaries and attend the public school of their choice--
anywhere in the state where there is room for them.
  Taken together, then, Minnesota meets the challenging principles for 
reform summarized in Joe Nathan's book, ``Free to Teach''--choice and 
competition.
  No longer do Minnesota public school districts have an exclusive 
franchise on public education within a pre-defined geographic area. 
Minnesotans now have not just choice--but a number of ways of creating 
more choices.
  To help promote the charter school idea nationally, I joined with 
Senator Lieberman in 1991--and with a larger bipartisan group of both 
Senators and Representatives in 1993 to introduce what I then called 
the ``Public School Redefinition Act.''
  As I noted earlier, this legislation--creating a new Federal grant 
program to support the start-up of charter schools--is now incorporated 
into H.R. 6.


            major education initiatives in the 103d congress

  Before I close, Mr. President, I'd like to briefly note the other 
major accomplishments of this Congress in the broad area of education 
and education reform. Despite the partisanship and legislative gridlock 
we're experiencing in a number of important issue areas, I'm pleased 
that there has been a great deal of bipartisanship, cooperation, and 
action on a number of major education initiatives in this 103d 
Congress.
  The first of these initiatives--launching a new direct student loan 
program--actually had its roots in legislation initially authored by 
Congressman Tom Petri. Senator Paul Simon and I introduced similar 
legislation to the Senate in the fall of 1991. The Petri/Simon/
Durenberger ``Income Dependent Education Assistance (IDEA) Act'' was 
designed to reduce costs and offer needed flexibility for students 
burdened by ever-rising levels of debt and student loan defaults.
  The Congress incorporated a pilot program modeled on the IDEA 
proposal in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. And, the same 
concepts were then picked up by President Clinton and introduced in the 
spring of 1993 and incorporated in last year's major budget initiative. 
I was pleased to be the lead Republican cosponsor of this important 
proposal, along with Senator Kennedy, the chair of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee.
  Renamed the Ford Direct Loan Program, a growing percentage of student 
loans will now be directly by the Federal Government through schools. 
And consistent with the flexibility offered by the Petri/Simon/
Durenberger IDEA proposal, students will be able to repay their loans 
as a percentage of their post-college incomes.
  In addition to reducing the level of student loan defaults, this new 
program will eventually save several billion dollars a year in 
administrative expenses--making an important contribution to deficit 
reduction at the same time we're improving access to an important 
Federal program.
  A second major initiative in this Congress, Mr. President, is the 
National and Community Service Trust Act. Again, I felt privileged to 
be the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, along with 
Senator Kennedy, that was given final approval just over a year ago. 
The first national service participants--in the new program called 
AmeriCorps--were sworn in by President Clinton earlier this fall.
  I'm especially pleased that at my insistence, this legislation 
incorporated the word Community into its purpose and its title--as well 
as the name of the Corporation for National and Community Service that 
will give this program its overall guidance and direction. And, I'm 
pleased that the legislation included a series of studies and 
demonstrations I suggested as a way of refining and focusing the 
mission of this important new initiative prior to its first 
reauthorization in 3 years.
  While most of the attention given to this new program is going to the 
stipended service opportunities it offers, I continue to believe its 
greatest contribution will come through its Educate and Serve America 
programs--grants to States, schools, community organizations and others 
to help integrate community service opportunities into the elementary, 
secondary and post-secondary school curriculum.
  These goals were given an added boost through legislation that 
Senator Wofford and I introduced last year called the Wofford-
Durenberger Service Learning Act. Portions of that legislation were 
included in both the National and Community Service Trust Act and the 
ESEA reauthorization legislation.
  My own State is a national leader in service learning, Mr. 
President--an aspect of this movement that's a critical element in 
broader education reform. If young people are given the opportunity to 
serve their communities, I believe they can be a powerful force for 
change and improvement in their lives and in the quality of life for 
all those around them. And, if properly incorporated into the school 
curriculum, I'm convinced that community service opportunities can help 
produce improved educational results.
  A third major educational initiative in this Congress, Mr. President, 
was the School to Work Opportunities Act. I was again pleased to act as 
the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation--once more linking up 
with my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Paul Simon.
  The School to Work Opportunities Act assigns a limited but 
collaborative role to the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education to 
encourage States and local communities to start local workplace 
learning initiatives including youth apprenticeships.
  These new initiatives are aimed at the majority of young people who 
will never finish college. Most of them won't even begin college, yet 
there's a growing recognition that today's competitive marketplace 
requires employees who have skills that go well beyond the capacity of 
many high school graduates.
  I'm especially pleased that this new legislation includes sections I 
authored creating a national clearinghouse for information on work-
place learning, as well as expanding eligibility under this legislation 
for workplace learning programs that begin at a younger age and that 
link the large number of young people who work part-time to teachers 
and others who can make that work experience a part of their education. 
And, I was pleased to make several major contributions to the 
governance sections of the bill--more clearly focusing accountability 
and responsibility for these programs within State government.
  A fourth major education initiative in this Congress, Mr. President, 
was passage of legislation reauthorizing the Federal Head Start 
Program. While this legislation continued to expand the authorized 
funding level for this vital program, it also paid increased and needed 
attention to Head Start Program quality and accountability.
  That's essential, Mr. President, if we are to begin to achieve the 
first of our National Education Goals--ensuring that every child starts 
school ready to learn.
  My own contributions to the Head Start reauthorization were largely 
based on the input I received from Minnesotans--particularly on the 
need to encourage a greater degree of collaboration between Head Start, 
federally subsidized child care programs, and other programs that 
assist low-income children and their families.
  I was pleased to discover during this reauthorization that at least 
some collaborative activity is now going on. But the changing needs of 
today's low-income families will require more--including linkages and 
even comingling of funds from child care and Head Start programs, more 
flexibility in offering full-day Head Start services for parents who 
are in school or working, and increased access to at least some Head 
Start services for families who are income-eligible, but not formally 
enrolled in a Head Start Program.
  A final important education initiative in this Congress, Mr. 
President, is the Goals 2000 legislation that was approved earlier this 
year.
  Members of this body worked long and hard to make sure Goals 2000 
would not become a new Federal license to run local schools. I believe 
we succeeded--by eliminating much of the prescriptive language 
preferred by the House. In particular, I'm pleased we were able to keep 
the role of input-oriented Opportunity to Learn Standards to a 
minimum--clearly an optional part of state and local reform 
initiatives.
  And, I'm especially pleased that the final version of Goals 2000 
includes the provisions I had suggested that authorizes the use of 
school improvement funds to help start charter schools and other 
innovative public schools, to support public school choice, and to help 
launch programs that offer parents and students useful consumer 
information to help them make wise educational choices.
  I'm also pleased that Goals 2000 includes a provision I authored 
along with Senator Hatfield that makes it possible for up to six States 
to be delegated authority to waive Federal rules and regulations. 
Minnesota has indicated to me that they are interested in being one of 
those six ``super ed-flex'' States.
  Mandate reform is a part of all the major education initiatives we've 
adopted this year, Mr. President. That affirms the reality that the 
best way the Federal Government can be supportive of State and local 
education initiatives is to simply get out of the way.
  Let me conclude these comments where I began, Mr. President, with an 
appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the work 
we have begun to design an effective and proper role for the federal 
government in education.
  Flexibility, choice, competition, parent and teacher empowerment, 
making the whole community the classroom--these are the essential 
elements of education reform.
  We can encourage high standards, we can give support and 
encouragement, we can help equalize access to resources, and we can 
help communicate what works and what doesn't.
  But, we can't decide what will work where. And, we can't second guess 
local communities on how best they will respond to the challenges or 
opportunities we send forth.
  If we follow that guidance, Mr. President, the national government 
can play a useful and supportive role in improving results--in meeting 
the challenges articulated by Joe Nathan and A Nation at Risk and the 
National Education Goals and the needs and aspirations and potential of 
every American child.


                       thank you to jon schroeder

  Before I close, I want to thank a key member of my staff, Jon 
Schroeder, who has been my policy advisor and now State director since 
1984. Education has always been Jon's No. 1 issue, in terms of both 
interest and expertise. His efforts over the past 10 years have been 
instrumental in shaping my own views on this and a number of other 
important issues. With his help, I have been able to push Minnesota's 
forward-looking education reform agenda. And I have been able to 
accomplish important education reforms on a national level--national 
and community service, direct lending, results oriented education, 
choice and headstart among others.
  His efforts to promote interest in charter schools on a nationwide 
basis, is particularly notable. Jon serves me effectively in many ways, 
but he has truly excelled in his efforts to help me achieve many of 
Minnesota's education priorities. I wish him well in his new career 
endeavors.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________