[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1660-E1662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              H.R. 2127, A TRAGIC SETBACK FOR THIS NATION

                                 ______


                           HON. NITA M. LOWEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 4, 1995
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last night's vote on H.R. 2127, the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill, represents 
a tragic setback for this Nation and particularly for our young people. 
The cuts embodied in that legislation are a full-fledged assault on the 
prosperity of this Nation's next generation. Fortunately, the action of 
this House last night is far from the last skirmish in the battle for a 
solid commitment to educate America's young people.
  Before my colleagues leave to return to their districts, I want to 
share with all of you a speech given this past Sunday by Louis V. 
Gerstner, Jr., chairman and CEO of the IBM Corp. which is headquartered 
in Westchester County, NY, parts of which I represent. His remarks were 
to the National Governors Association. They are, without a doubt, a 
call to arms in the pursuit to revolutionize and dramatically improve 
education in America.
  I could not agree more with Mr. Gerstner's sense of urgency about the 
need for a true commitment to enhance education in America. He is right 
that much more clearly needs to be done. He hit the nail on the head 
when he said, ``A true change agent puts their money where their mouth 
is.'' Unfortunately, last night's vote tells the American people that 
the House has made a decision not to be a partner in pursuing the 
changes in America's schools that we all know are needed.
  Mr. Speaker, change is possible. I have seen the innovations that are 
occurring in schools in Westchester, the Bronx, and Queens. Over the 
years, I have been deeply involved in major education reform 
initiatives, including Goals 2000, title I reforms, and a newfound 
commitment to professional development and technology through the 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the Technology Learning 
Challenge.
  Unfortunately, the bill passed last night makes precisely the wrong 
kinds of changes. It eliminates funding for Goals 2000, cuts funding 
for title I by 18 percent, and slashes the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
program. This bill also undermines our commitment to preserving the 
American dream by cutting student financial assistance and higher 
education program.
  As we head back to our districts, I urge my colleagues to reflect on 
Mr. Gerstner's message. I sincerely hope that, when we return to 
Washington in September, this body will do what is right for America's 
future and correct the serious mistakes included in the bill approved 
last night. When so much is at stake, this House should not abandon our 
bipartisan commitment to America's schools--and our children.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Gerstner's speech be 
included at this point in the Record.
 Remarks of Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Chairman and CEO--IBM Corp. at the 
             National Governors' Association Annual Meeting

       Thank you, Governor Dean. It's good to be back in Vermont.
       In 1983, the report A Nation at Risk focused the country's 
     attention on the deficiencies in our public school system. 
     Here's a quote from that report that has stuck with me for 
     many years: ``If an unfriendly foreign power had imposed our 
     schools upon us, we would have regarded it as an act of 
     war.''
       That was 12 years ago. What's happened since? Lots of hand 
     wringing, lots of speeches, lots of reports. Not much 
     change--very little improvement. It's twelve years since A 
     Nation at Risk was published, and U.S. students still finish 
     at, or near, the bottom on international tests of math and 
     science.
       I wonder what the national reaction would have been if in 
     the 1984 Olympic games we 

[[Page E1661]]
     had finished dead last. A national outrage, in all likelihood, that 
     would have brought about sweeping changes in amateur 
     athletics in this country. Believe me, by now, 11 years 
     later, we would have seen massive improvements. But in public 
     education? None--and no national outrage or frustration 12 
     years after A Nation at Risk.
       Let's move from 1983 to the education summit in 1989 when, 
     at a meeting similar to this, President Bush and the nation's 
     governors set the wheels in motion for the Educate America 
     Act: Goals 2000 that President Clinton helped shape and then 
     signed in June of 1994. Let me read just a few of those goals 
     we set for ourselves for the year 2000: All children in 
     America will start school ready to learn; the high school 
     graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent; all 
     students will leave grades four, eight and 12 having 
     demonstrated competency in English, math, science, foreign 
     languages, civics and government, economics, art, history and 
     geography; every school in America will ensure that all 
     students learn to use their minds well, so they may be 
     prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning and 
     productive employment in our nation's modern economy.
       Six years have passed since those wonderful goals were set. 
     More important, 1616 days remain until the year 2000 arrives. 
     I wonder how many people in our country are committed to 
     achieving those goals. I wonder how many people think we have 
     a chance of achieving them. I often think how many people 
     even know they exist.
       One of the goals I just cited talks about graduation rates, 
     and another the need for standards. I read recently that 
     Milwaukee now has a requirement that high school seniors must 
     demonstrate a proficiency in math before they are allowed to 
     graduate. That is great. And we need more cities and states 
     doing the same. But the same article I read reported that 79 
     percent of the junior class failed in a warm-up test this 
     spring. That's dismal. And it's reflective of our country at 
     large.
       Now, that's not the whole story. The test consisted of 
     complex, open-ended problems, which--for these kids--was a 
     new approach to math. Exactly the right approach, of course. 
     Exactly the direction we want to head in, and they'll have a 
     full year to master it. But what happens then? What happens 
     next year if a large percentage of the senior class fails to 
     demonstrate the required proficiency? Will Milwaukee refuse 
     to graduate those who fail? If they don't, so much for 
     standards.
       But it's not easy. What do we do about the students we've 
     promoted for 13 years through the public school system 
     without demanding high performance? How will they get the 
     skills necessary to earn a living? And, of course, it is much 
     worse than a single class of seniors. We have given high 
     school diplomas in this country to a whole generation of 
     Americans who cannot basically read those diplomas--they are 
     functionally illiterate.
       The bottom line is that if our kids are failing in the 
     classroom, it's not just their fault. It's our fault. And 
     that, my friends, underscores a very frightening reality. 
     Setting goals for U.S. education is one thing. Reaching them 
     is another. And the only way it will happen, the only way 
     that we have even a ghost of a chance of getting there, is if 
     we push through a fundamental, bone-jarring, full-fledged, 
     100 percent revolution that discards the old and replaces it 
     with a totally new performance-driven system.
       Which is what brings me to Vermont today. I'm here because 
     of Willie Sutton. Willie robbed banks, the story goes, 
     because he realized that's where the money is. I'm here 
     because this is where the power is--the power to reform--no, 
     to revolutionize--the U.S. public school system.
       You are the CEOs of the organizations that fund and oversee 
     the country's public schools. That means you are responsible 
     for their health. They are very sick at the moment. And we 
     are past the time for incremental change and tinkering at the 
     margin. Fortunately, we're not past the point of no return.
       I've spent a lot of time of education. So have many of you. 
     We all have scars to prove it.
       But, I've also spent a lot of time helping troubled 
     companies get back on their feet. It's hard work. Lots of 
     hard work, and it invariably involves massive structural 
     change.
       But here's the good news. When companies do turn around, 
     they often go on to bigger and better things.
       I'm convinced that our public schools can do just that. We 
     can win gold medals in the education Olympics. But it will 
     take a world-class effort and it will only happen if you, the 
     CEO's of the system, reached out, grab it by the throat, 
     shake it up and insist that it happen.
       The turnarounds we've seen in corporate America don't come 
     close to the complexities of the job you face in fixing our 
     public schools, but I believe the principles of structural 
     revolution are the same: First, it takes a personal 
     commitment on the part of the CEO. This is not a job you can 
     delegate; second, it takes a willingness to confront and 
     expel the people and the organizations that are throwing up 
     roadblocks to the changes you consider critical; third, you 
     need to set high expectations. You can't have too many goals. 
     One or two are best. Certainly no more than three; fourth, 
     it's critical to measure the progress against those goals--
     relentlessly and continuously; and finally, there must be a 
     willingness on the part of the change agent to hold people 
     accountable for results.
       Nothing pleases me more than to see some of you moving in 
     this direction in your state. You are responsible for some 
     very bright spots in an overall dismal picture. But there 
     aren't nearly enough.
       So what do we do now? In the spirit of my views on how one 
     goes about radical restructuring of institutions, I want to 
     suggest three, and only three, priorities for public 
     education for the next year:
       The first is setting absolutely the highest academic 
     standards and holding all of us accountable for results. Now, 
     Immediately. This school year. Now if we don't do that, we 
     won't need any more goals, because we are going nowhere. 
     Without standards and accountability, we have nothing.
       But if we do have standards and accountability, I would 
     suggest two other priorities that are critical to allow our 
     institutions of education to reach those goals, and they are: 
     Financing change and exploiting technology.
       Let's talk very briefly about each. First, standards and 
     accountability.
       If we don't face up to the fact that we are the only major 
     country in the world without an articulated set of education 
     standards--and without a means of measuring how successfully 
     we are reaching them, we're lost before we get started. Which 
     pretty much sums up where we are today. To turn the tide, we 
     must set standards. Immediately. And we must have a means of 
     measuring how we are doing. Without standards, educational 
     reform is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic
       I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling. In 
     virtually everything else we do in the United States, we set 
     high standards and strive to be No. 1. Why not in education? 
     In basketball, you score when the ball goes in the hoop, not 
     if it hits the rim. In football, you score when you cross the 
     goal line, not when you show up in uniform. In track and 
     field, you must jump over the bar, not go under it or around 
     it. And who would practice baseball with the fences 150 feet 
     from home plate?
       Why can't we establish standards of excellence for our 
     schools? Why isn't winning in the classroom important in 
     America?
       We put a man in space because we set a goal that was 
     beyond--not within--our grasp. We need the same approach for 
     education. And we must be relentless in its pursuit. The 
     lessons we understand so well in every other aspect of our 
     lives must be translated into education or else we will lose.
       We cannot be side-tracked by academicians who say it will 
     take five years just to set the standards. Nor can we be 
     misled by misinformed people who will argue that certain 
     Americans aren't able to reach high standards, so it's 
     inappropriate to even set them. I find that insulting and 
     demeaning to those people, not supportive.
       It boils down to the fact that we can't just settle any 
     more for mediocrity. We must commit to the highest levels of 
     student achievement. And we must do it now. We can't allow 
     our schools to simply sit back, complacently convinced that 
     their only responsibility is to keep students at their desks 
     until they are 18 years old.
       They'll get to 18 fast enough and regardless of what we do. 
     What they need from us are tools to help prepare them for 
     success as they go off to college or work, raise families and 
     join the adult community. This requires an articulated set of 
     academic standards that recognizes the real world they'll be 
     entering.
       In many places, they don't even exist at a rudimentary 
     level. Many states still require only two years of math and 
     science for a high school diploma. Why? Math isn't something 
     that students can finish in the tenth grade, and think 
     they'll never need it again. And, if we are going to do this 
     right, we must make sure our high school students take real 
     math, academic math--not what the students call ``dummy 
     math.'' And they must take laboratory science, not general 
     science.
       We must find innovative ways to help students master these 
     complex subjects, and we we must hold schools accountable for 
     what students learn. It's not enough to memorize facts and 
     figures. Whether we're dealing with the requirements in the 
     job market or skills needed to participate in society, the 
     bar is higher * * *.
       When the Labor Department recently asked businesses what 
     they expected our schools to teach, the answer was clear--a 
     foundation of reading, writing and arithmetic, combined with 
     an ability to use information to solve problems and to 
     communicate them effectively.
       These are not esoteric or complex concepts. They are, 
     however, for every one of these children, the difference 
     between success or failure in their lives. We must find ways 
     to teach them, to measure whether they have been taught and 
     to reward teachers and administrators at schools where 
     students succeed. And we must have serious sanctions for 
     those at schools where students are not learning.
       Obviously, Milwaukee will have a difficult choice to make 
     next year because it's out in front. But the fact remains 
     that until we are prepared to penalize students, and 
     administrators for lack of performance, the system will fail. 
     We have a word for that in business. Accountability. It 
     works. Without it, institutions atrophy and die. Let's turn 
     quickly to the second and third priorities beyond standards.

[[Page E1662]]

       True accountability for performance will depend on 
     exploiting technology and financing change in the system. 
     You've all heard about information technology. Bear with me 
     if this sounds a bit stuffy, but information technology is 
     the fundamental underpinning of the science of structural 
     reengineering. It is the force that revolutionizes business, 
     steamlines government and enables instant communication and 
     the exchange of information among people and institutions 
     around the world.
       But information technology has not made even its barest 
     appearance in most public schools. Look around. The most 
     visible forms of technology remain the unintelligible public 
     address systems, which serve largely to interrupt the 
     business of learning, and the copier in the principal's 
     office, which spews out the forms and regulations that are 
     the life blood of the education bureaucracy.
       Before we can get the education revolution rolling, we need 
     to recognize that our public schools are low-tech 
     institutions in a high-tech society. The same changes that 
     have brought cataclysmic change to every facet of business 
     can improve the way we teach students and teachers. And it 
     can also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of how we 
     run our schools.
       I'd like to make you a personal offer. I'd like to invite 
     you, the governors, and your key people to a conference that 
     I will organize and run next year. I'll get experts from all 
     parts of our industry--including our competitors--to 
     participate and, together, we will show you how technology 
     created for business and government can be used to help re-
     shape the public schools of America.
       We'll put it all together but we'll need your help. And 
     you'll have to be there. You'll have to invest a day--not a 
     few hours. Because, as I said before, real change requires 
     the participation of the CEO. It will be worth it. I think 
     you will be excited by the innovative things that are 
     beginning to happen in some classrooms. And some of you are 
     already moving in that direction.
       Let's think about how technology is benefiting students 
     right here in Vermont. For example, the portfolios used to 
     measure student development are being taken out of manila 
     folders and put on digital discs. This allows educators to 
     make evaluations based on a student's entire output rather 
     than on simple multiple-choice exams. Chicago is combining 
     the power of telecommunications and the Internet to train 
     teachers in math and science. Schools in Charlotte, North 
     Carolina are using video technology to reach into the home. 
     Philadelphia schools are using voice technology to teach 
     language skills to learning-disabled students.
       And outside the classroom, technology is cutting away at 
     the school bureaucracy and dealing with routine matters like 
     bus routing, meal deliveries and purchasing.
       Which brings me to my third priority--financing change. It 
     is my experience in business, and especially in turnaround 
     situations, that if you want to bring about real change, 
     budget allocations must support the new direction. Reforms 
     perish from lack of support. And that means resources. A true 
     change agent puts their money where their mouth is. The 
     educational aparatchiks fight hard to starve the reformers.
       So how do we finance the revolution? How do we use our 
     education resources to reward success and encourage 
     performance? Let's start with the $150 billion or so that 
     you, as the CEOs of our states, invest directly in the public 
     school system. I've done some homework, so I know that a 
     state's education budget is typically constructed by adding a 
     percentage increase to the prior year's outlays. The basic 
     formula--which many describe as arcane--is largely driven by 
     the number of pupils in the system, supports priorities set 
     decades before, and rarely, if ever, is linked to 
     performance, success or change.
       Here's my proposal. Let's try something new. This year, 
     instead of following the old formula, hold back ten cents of 
     every dollar and earmark it for strategic investments. Where 
     would we put this $15 billion to work? It if were me, I'd 
     invest a portion of it in moving teacher training out of the 
     horse and buggy era. We expect doctors to get their training 
     in teaching hospitals. We wouldn't send an NBA player on the 
     court if his only training consisted of lectures on the 
     theory of the jump shot, case studies of the fast break and 
     films of games played years ago.
       Why, then, do we entrust our children to teachers who have 
     only listened to lectures, written essays on classroom 
     management and read text books on the theory of child 
     development? It's time teachers learned their craft in real 
     schools side-by-side with expert teachers. It's time they got 
     the kind of hands-on experience most other professions 
     consider vital for certification.
       If it were up to me, I'd invest some of that $15 billion in 
     reorganizing how our kids spend their time in school. In 
     Japan, where the school year runs 240 days a year, the 
     average 18-year-old has spent more cumulative time in school 
     than the average American MBA.
       And while I challenge you to find a teacher anywhere in 
     this country who truly believes that every subject--or any 
     subject, for that matter--is best taught in exactly 45 
     minutes, we still ring the bell at the end of each period, as 
     though there was a natural order to it all! A science project 
     may take a full six hours to complete. Other subjects may be 
     best taught in 15-minute slots over a two-week period. The 
     school day, week and year need to re-shaped fundamentally to 
     reflect reality.
       There are hundreds of good ideas out there about how to use 
     the $15 billion. I know about them, so do you. Some of the 
     most promising are emerging from the New American Schools 
     Development Corporation which is funding development of 
     breakthrough reforms across the country. All that's lacking 
     is the courage to shift funding from the status quo that has 
     failed unarguably, to the agenda of reform and hope for our 
     children.
       Obviously, my three suggestions are sure to generate howls 
     of protest from the education establishment and from others 
     who are happy with the status quo and are unwilling to 
     change. They will say that setting standards is not possible 
     in education. Or that setting high standards will only raise 
     the dropout rate. Others will attack the focus on technology, 
     maintaining it's a self-serving business scam or a vain grasp 
     for a silver bullet that won't work.
       Still others will attack the $15 billion we're reallocating 
     for strategic investments, saying it's just a gimmick, it 
     won't work and it is really an approach to disguise cutting 
     education budgets. I see it as just the opposite. Everyone in 
     the education community talks reform and supports reform, but 
     when push comes to shove, they back off and attribute the 
     lack of progress to the lack of financial wherewithal.
       Well, now we have it. Our $15 billion fund will provide a 
     way to kick-start a major effort for reform. And here's the 
     real kicker, we're only going to give $15 billion to the 
     schools and systems that actually implement true reform.
     

                          ____________________