[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5363-H5370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION CAUCUS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, tonight I
rise to talk about an issue that every person in America, every person
in this Congress, has a great interest in, and that is the issue of
education.
We often talk about the need to provide a college education to our
children across this country, and Members of this Congress, about 72 in
number, decided to come together to form something called an Education
Caucus. Members of the House, as well as Members of the Senate, decided
that for the first time in this Congress, we needed to concentrate our
efforts on a group of people who believe that we should push education
forward in this country, should meet as a caucus, and organize as a
caucus, and push legislation and appropriations as relates to education
in both the House and the Senate.
I am very pleased that so many Members of this Congress have decided
to participate in this caucus and to move it forward, and tonight, I am
just making a simple plea to all Members of the Congress on both sides
of the aisle to take an interest and to join a caucus that we consider
to be one of the caucuses of the future of this Congress, a caucus that
believes in bipartisanship because education is an issue that both
Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
I would like to mention that Senator Wellstone will be chairing the
caucus, co-chairing the caucus with myself. Senator Wellstone has been
working very diligently in the caucus on the Senate side, and we have
now organized such that we have even a whip operation in the caucus,
and tonight I want to talk about some of those national organizations
who are concerned about
[[Page H5364]]
education, who met at our very first meeting, and who talked about the
concerns of education in this country.
We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, that on the
16th of May several education groups embarked upon this Capitol to talk
about the children and to talk about how we prepare for their future
and to talk about how we, as Members of Congress, could make an impact
on their future by improving the quality of education in this country,
elementary on up to higher education.
We have caucuses in this Congress for almost everything. We have a
Sun Belt Caucus, we have a caucus for peanuts, a caucus for cotton, a
caucus for almost every issue that you can imagine. But I thought it
was somewhat strange that we did not have a caucus for education, and
these individuals for the first time in years had the opportunity to
sit and express their concerns before a group of people, lawmakers,
about how they felt about education.
One individual, Mr. Speaker, was Ms. Scarlet Kelly who was the
executive director of the National Community Education Association. She
was able to come to that meeting and give us some insight in terms of
what we should be doing as lawmakers to improve the quality of
education, because all too often one of the things we fail to do is to
get the input from teachers and from parents and from students
themselves as relates to education. We often walk into the Halls of
Congress and the halls of State legislatures, quite frankly, speaking
across this country, and make very, very crucial decisions that affect
education, and many times we fail to consult enough educators and
enough parents and enough students and fail to involve them, in a real
sense, in the process, and many times those decisions are not the best
decisions because of lack of information.
Ms. Kelly was able to bring to the table some community aspect of
education and how we can improve education by networking with the
community. I am going to enter her testimony into the Record because I
do think that people should know some of the things that we can do to
improve education, and it should not always come from politicians and
from lawmakers. It should come many times from people who do it on a
day-to-day basis.
We also heard testimony from Mr. Joel Packard who has the senior
professional association and governmental relations division for the
National Education Association, the NEA. The NEA, as most of you know,
has been very, very strong advocates of education in this country. They
were pleased at the fact that Members on both sides of the aisle, both
Democrats and Republicans, were coming together to talk about
education, and he shared some very good information to each of us.
One of the things he wanted to make emphatically clear is that in
order for this caucus to be effective, we had to pull from both sides
of the aisle, and he talked about how people should be able to rally
around the issue of education.
I do not think there is a Member of this Congress who does not
believe in education. I do not think there is a Member who is elected
to public life, to be quite honest with you, who does not advocate a
strong educational system and building educational systems, be it in a
State through a State legislature or through a board of education, a
State board of education, or be it in the U.S. Congress.
But we do differ, quite frankly, speaking in terms of how we meet
that goal. We all have the same motive. We all, every Member of this
Congress, I do not care if you are a Democrat, I do not care if you are
a Republican, I do not care if you are from California or from New
York; every Member of this institution believes that we need to provide
kids with a quality education.
{time} 2030
We all have the same motive. But many times we have different
methods. I think one of the reasons why our methods are somewhat
different is, and many times we find ourselves fighting on the floor of
the House, is because we do not network enough. This caucus will
provide an avenue for us to network and talk about some of our
differences in terms of how we move education forward.
Joel Packer said it best. In order for us to get education moving, we
cannot do it by bickering on the floor of the House. We have to do it
by showing real leadership, because the individuals who are looking to
us for leadership are the born and the yet-unborn who are in public
schools and in private schools, and those who plan to attend colleges
and universities across this country and who are dependent on many of
our decisions in terms of how they finance their education, for
example.
There are many students who want to go to college who do not have the
money, and who do not necessarily want a grant. Some students have no
problem with taking out a student loan, but those student loans ought
to be available to those individuals who wish to seek a higher
education. His testimony, Mr. Speaker, will be entered into the Record
tonight as well.
We also heard from Ricki Rafel, who was a board member from the
National Parent and Teachers Association. One of the great things about
this caucus is we are going to include many groups from the outside. At
the next caucus meeting we are going to talk to business people,
because we know that business and education work hand in hand. No
longer can businesses in this country not get involved in education,
because it affects their business. There are too many businesses in
this country who have to train workers, even after they finish college,
in order to prepare them to do a day's work. So business realizes that
there is a necessity to have a strong and quality educational system in
each State and across this country.
Ms. Rafel talked about parental involvement. I am cognizant of the
fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is not government's responsibility to raise
children. It is the parents' responsibility to raise children. We
should, in order to make education work, we should have a relationship
between parents and teachers.
When I was growing up, my teacher knew my mother and my mother knew
my teacher, and I as a student knew that the two knew each other. There
is something different that takes place in the classrooms when parents
and teachers know each other, and the student is cognizant of that
fact. We need to bring about better parent and teacher relationships.
We cannot do that through legislation. We cannot pass legislation and
mandate that parents and teachers sign a covenant, but we can do it by
including parents in the decisionmaking process, to make them a part of
the process.
In this caucus meeting we had an opportunity to hear the parental
side in terms of what parents think, what is going through the parents'
minds, how can we improve the quality of education in this country, how
can we make our schools safer, how can we give parents some sense of
ease when they walk into their job and they have their loved one, their
little child, their little 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-old in a school, how can
we give them some comfort, to know that that child is not sitting next
to a person who may have a gun?
So the parental aspect is so important. She had the opportunity to
talk about how teachers and parents need to create a better marriage,
because when we have a marriage between the two, then we can really get
student involvement. We felt that her testimony was quite informative,
and we certainly want to thank them for all the work that they are
doing across the country.
The other organization we heard from, Mr. Speaker, was the National
Head Start Association. Ms. Angelica Santacruz, who is the associate
director of governmental affairs, she talked about the need for Head
Start. I know Members of this Congress may have different opinions
about the Head Start program, but this caucus will provide an
opportunity for us to talk about it before we walk on the floor and
vigorously oppose each other, be it appropriations or just be it
philosophical, for philosophical reasons. I personally feel that Head
Start is a very good thing. But we want more Members of this Congress
to join the caucus so we can talk about it.
If there are real problems with full funding of Head Start, let us
talk about them, because each of us are committed to improving
education in this country, and in order to do that we ought to have
dialogue. That dialogue should not begin and end only on the floor of
the House of Representatives. It ought to be that we ought to take the
time to talk about it in other places, as well.
[[Page H5365]]
We also heard from Mr. Jerry Lewis, the director of TRIO. He also
works at the University of Maryland with the National Council on
Educational Opportunity Association. The TRIO program is a very
worthwhile program, and we had the opportunity to hear success stories
from this gentleman, because often we walk to the floor and we talk
about TRIO funding, needing funding and not needing funding, but it
gives you a different perspective when you actually have the
opportunity to witness a person who teaches in a TRIO program, who
teaches students in a TRIO program, and who has vast experiences and
success stories.
I take a moment of personal privilege when we talk about TRIO,
because I am a product of the TRIO program. I know what the TRIO
program did for me. I know what it is doing for students all across
this country and will do for students who have yet to enter the
program. I personally feel it is a program that is much needed.
Oftentimes young people who are in high school look at college as a
fear. There is a big fear factor in the minds of many young people.
Before they take that step and enter a college campus, they need
sometimes a little push. Many people are the first to graduate or to go
to college. Many households, many kids come from large households and
they may be the first person to enter college. The TRIO program takes
away that fear, to a large degree.
I take myself as an example. I was afraid of college. I made very
good grades when I was in high school, but I did not have a lot of
people who lived next door to me who graduated from college, quite
frankly speaking, so I did not know if college was the right thing or
the wrong thing. I did not know if I could make it without a college
education or not. I wanted to be a lawyer, but I did not have a lot of
people who I could talk to about college.
I was afraid of college. To walk on a college campus with 10,000
people, leaving a high school with 600 was a big shift for me. But TRIO
took me out of the high school on the weekends and put me in a college
setting. I had an opportunity to be a college student as a high school
student, so I was not fearful of college. I had an opportunity to learn
about college while I was in high school, so I could not wait to
graduate from high school so that I could enter college. It was no
longer a fear factor for me.
Those real stories, those stories are not told on the floor of the
House of Representatives, many times because we are under time
restraints. For example, most of us, when we speak on major
legislation, we have 1 minute, 30 seconds, 2 minutes. You cannot bring
out those kinds of success stories, but we can do it in a caucus, and
we can do it when Republicans and Democrats sit around a table and talk
about programs, and not just look at it in terms of the bottom line in
terms of numbers, but the bottom lines in terms of success: what impact
these programs are having.
We also heard testimony from Edward Kealy, who is a director of the
Committee for Educational Funding. He also spoke of the need for the
caucus to be bipartisan, how we need to bring Members from both sides
of the aisle together to talk about education, because if there is one
issue that we all agree on in terms of whether or not we should have a
good system, it is education. I am happy that we have a number of
Republicans and Democrats who have joined the caucus and encouraged
them to continue to participate.
Mr. John Forkenbrock, who is the executive director of the National
Association of Federally-Impacted Schools, shared a lot of economic
information, talked about how Federal funds are needed for many of the
schools. Many times we look at it from a bottom line perspective in
terms of dollars, and in terms of how we balance budgets and how we can
make everything add up, but he actually gave some real meaning to the
need for the Federal Government to be involved in the education of his
children.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we heard from Marilyn Aklin, executive director
of the National Coalition of Title I--Chapter 1 Parents, a program that
many of us have debated quite profusely on the floor of this Congress.
She was able to talk about the needs for the program and how we can in
fact improve the program.
Members would be amazed at many of these individuals who came before
the caucus on Thursday of last week, and how they were not individuals
who walked into the caucus begging for more Federal funds, but in fact
they were folk who wanted to really improve the quality of education
for our children. That was very refreshing.
When we deliberate appropriations, this caucus may not have the kind
of impact it should have on the 1997 budget appropriations for
education, but budget is not the only thing. I do think there are many
other things we can do to improve education other than money: teacher-
parent relationships. That is a very good start.
To many of the members of the caucus, one of the things we will do is
attend schools within our respective districts and try to do it on a
weekly basis, or at least on a monthly basis, where we can walk into
classrooms and actually talk to kids and talk to them about how we feel
about education, and also talk about how individuals can in fact
improve their own lives through education.
Mr. Speaker, we have established this caucus. I urge Members of this
Congress to join the caucus. If there are Members who wish to be a
member, wish to talk to our office a little bit more about the caucus,
we will be happy to do that, and we certainly feel it is a worthwhile
cause.
I see that I have been joined by two members of the caucus, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Texas is my neighbor State,
and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to
thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. I want to emphasize
his continued leadership on this question of education, and am
gratified at the formation of the Education Caucus and delighted to
join him in its membership, in being a member of that caucus.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a very interesting point as I joined
him. I could not help but here the very focused words that he offered
about the priorities that this country has. He offered, first of all,
to say that we recognize that money is not the answer always to
education; that it includes a community partnership, not only with
those that have children in the school system, particularly the public
school system, but the broader community, the business community. It
certainly involves the parents and a system that supports them in their
efforts to support their children. There is something special about a
parent asking a child about their homework. The child may think it is
not very special, but it is important for that involvement to occur.
As I was listening to the gentleman further, he mentioned the
responsibility, but also the importance of teachers and the recognition
of their value by increased compensation, so that our young people who
are in college can readily choose education as a career, a lifestyle,
because in fact they, too, would be able in the long run to support
their families.
I am disturbed, however, that education has not received the
bipartisan attention that it deserves. We are finding out that even in
the proposed 1997 budget, we have a cut by our Republican Congress of
some 25 percent for education and training programs. Just this past
week, I joined my school superintendent from one of the school
districts that I represent, the Houston Independent School District,
just this past Monday at a school in our district. We were there to
speak about the need for school lunches and school breakfasts.
It was interesting to talk to second- and third-graders who were
eating heartily. I asked the question as to whether or not a good meal
helps them learn, and the broad smile and the brightness of their eyes
indicated such; that with these supplemental lunch and breakfast
programs, for which many children that is the only meal they get, it
provided for a better opportunity and atmosphere for them to learn.
{time} 2045
They even said, and they joined me in my comments, that we were
determining that some of the school
[[Page H5366]]
lunches, because of absenteeism, were not utilized, and the youngsters
said, ``Well, we can give this food to the poor people,'' which this
school district will now be considering. So we do not waste taxpayers'
dollars, and we provide opportunities for those foods that are given
for school lunch that may not be used, as I said, because of
absenteeism, and they are to be used that day and cannot be held over
for another day, to work with the private sector to make sure those
foods get to hungry families.
So education partnerships can be constructive. But at the same time
those children were coming up with those very creative ideas, they
could not tell me how to stop the leaking roofs, the paint that was
pealing, the lead-based paints, the overcrowding that was occurring.
They clearly needed the participation not only of the local community--
of which we will have a bond election in our community on May 28, that
is the local community's participation in Houston--but it is what you
have said over the years, Congressman Fields, about how we have
abandoned the physical plants of our schools throughout the Nation.
We can account for the fact that our children are unable to perform
because they have a poor physical plant, poor access to recreational
facilities, small classrooms, unattractive classrooms, as I said,
faulty equipment. All of this bears upon how we focus on our children.
We see, as the children grow, that we have determined that over 2.5
million students in this new budget, 1,000 post-secondary educational
institutions, will be suffering with the elimination of the Direct
Student Loan Program.
Goals 2000, which many gathered together in harmony to support,
including President Bush, through this new budget Republicans would
deny 5 million students in 8,500 schools the funding that they
currently receive to raise their academic achievement. We are
determined, according to this budget by Republicans, to deny campus-
based low-interest loans to 150,000 post-secondary students.
We were concerned in our community about the attack on bilingual
education. I had a youngster come to me and say that even she noted the
need for improvement in bilingual education, so that we can provide an
equal playing field for those youngsters and families who have come to
this Nation to seek a better opportunity.
Why should we abandon them, throw them to the wolves, if you will,
for other fears and apprehensions that we may have? Why not at least
give the children the best education we can give them? The bilingual
education allows them to be proficient in English and certainly to be
bilingual, which we have determined is equally important.
Needless to say, our libraries in our school--I was also in the
library of the school I attended, and by the way, it was Atherton
Elementary in the fifth ward, the school that both Congressperson
Mickey Leland and Congressperson Barbara Jordan attended in Houston.
Clearly in its instruction it has the potential to raise up great
leaders of this Nation.
But if we continue to undermine the educational system with more cuts
and more cuts and more cuts, and more leaking roofs and smaller
recreational fields and no funding for athletics, we are going to begin
to say to those youngsters not ``Yes, I can,'' but ``No, you cannot.''
I would simply say that it is high time for us to really put our money
where our minds say they are, and to ensure that there is an
opportunity for youngsters to learn.
I might, if I could, Mr. Fields, ask of you, because I know that you
have worked not only inside the classroom in terms of your support for
the tools that are needed to educate our children, but you in fact have
developed sort of a congressional classroom that has helped to educate
our children about Government. I imagine that that is a partnership
that you have endeavored to participate in, and not calling on Federal
funds, but you have helped to expand the horizons of young children.
I have in my district over 125,000 households that have incomes of
less than $25,000. With that in mind, my question to you--because I
looked at the demographics of my district, and certainly we are very
gratified to have some 1,608 households making over $150,000. I am
always encouraged when we can find folk having the ability to improve
their condition.
But I have at least 120,000, I said 125,000, let me be more accurate
and say I have about 121,000 households with families making under
$25,000. And let me say to you that I have households of families
making under $5,000, 26,000 households in the 18th District of Texas.
What I would say to you is with those kinds of numbers, you would
find it and I would find it extremely difficult for those families to
participate in the private school system, which is a very good system.
I am trying to grapple with whether we have had any direction, as you
can see it, where this Congress clearly goes on record to support the
public school system with the kind of funding and partnership programs
that would ensure that those in households like those that I represent
can continue to be assured that their children will have the best
education.
I am not sure in your research whether you have discovered whether we
are on the right track to protect the least of those who are trying to
do the best by their children.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I can only say to the gentlewoman that as
Members of Congress, as you know, we should view education across the
board, irrespective of what kind of household an individual actually
comes from, what income level they come from.
The national security risk that we have in this country is to not
educate our children. That is the biggest threat that this country is
faced with, not Russia, but to actually have thousands upon thousands
of kids who are not literate, that is a national security threat in my
mind. Because who will take on the jobs of tomorrow if we do not
educate our children? Who will serve in the military, in fact, if we do
not educate our children?
I think this Congress is going to get there. Tonight I am working for
bipartisanship. I want to pull Members from both sides of the aisle to
just sit down and talk about education before we walk to the floor of
the Congress, and work out our differences to the extent that we can,
because there is not a Member of this Congress who does not believe
that a child should not get a quality education.
Now many say, well, education should be a local issue. We should send
money to locals, and the locals should basically make those decisions
in terms of how they run their educational systems. I differ with that.
That is not to say that I am absolutely right.
I just feel that education should be a partnership. I think it should
be a partnership between local, State, and Federal Government. I just
think the three of us ought to have a role in education. If we have a
role, if the city, if the local, the State, and the Federal Government
can play a role in putting people in jail and building prisons, then we
ought to have a role in building schools and educating our children.
I just feel very strongly about that, and I think there are enough
Members of this Congress, because when each of us runs for office, let
us face it, there is not a Member of this House who does not run for
Congress and use education as an issue, not one. You can poll any
district in America, and you will find that education is an issue,
among other issues, but never will people say education is not an
issue. Every citizen in this country is concerned about education.
Now, the gentlewoman mentioned the congressional classroom and you
also mentioned, as I stated earlier, that money is not everything. The
solution to education is not necessarily money. I do not think this
caucus, I do not want to scare people away from this caucus, to think
that this is a caucus only to do budget pushing for education. This is
a caucus to really improve the quality of education for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for starting the same
kind of program. We started congressional classroom in Louisiana. I
noticed at town hall meetings, I saw parents, I did not see kids. Every
town hall meeting I had when I was first elected to Congress, the
adults were there. Mom or grandmother, they were there, dad, granddad,
they were there, but very seldom would you see son or daughter.
[[Page H5367]]
So I decided I wanted to get young people involved, and we started a
congressional classroom. I tell you, since the development of that
group, it grew from 250 to now over 3,000 kids, and their interest
level is so high because they feel that somebody really cares about
education.
We challenge them. We tell them, ``Listen, you come to class. We have
classes on weekends. In order to come to class, you have to behave
yourself. You have to respect people. You have to do well in school.''
We take time with them.
We have had people like Vice President Al Gore to walk into a
classroom, to their classroom, the Vice President of the United States
of America, and say ``Listen, you better not do drugs, and you better
stay in school.'' These kids, I mean chills running down their spine to
say the Vice President of the United States of America cared enough
about me to come to this little classroom and say, ``Stay away from
drugs, and I care about you.''
Even today, in classroom settings, in classroom meetings, members of
the classroom: ``How is the Vice President? You tell him I am doing
well.'' Janet Reno, the Attorney General, met with these kids.
Tomorrow, General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, flying to Baton Rouge, LA to meet with 3,000 kids and challenge
them that they can be any and everything that they want to be if they
believe in themselves.
Mr. Speaker, that is not government. General Powell is retired. That
is personal involvement. We were preparing for this program this
weekend. For 2 months, these kids, they were practicing their speeches,
they are so excited about meeting General Powell.
That is going to have an everlasting impact. That is not a piece of
legislation, but it is going to have an everlasting impact on those
kids when they hear somebody who they have had an opportunity to see on
TV, but now in person tell them, ``Listen, education is important. Let
me tell you my story. I did not become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff by dropping out, by doing drugs, by not working hard.'' It makes
these kids say, ``Well, golly, I can do that.''
So everything is not government, and if each Member of this Congress,
like the gentlewoman starting the same kind of program, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] is starting the same kind of program, the
gentleman from your State, Mr. Green, is starting this same kind of
program. People from all over the Congress are starting those kinds of
programs, and we are committing to spend at least a day a month in a
classroom in our respective districts.
We need to bring parents and teachers together. I now have town hall
meetings with parents and teachers where parents can meet teachers and
teachers can meet parents, town hall meetings on education.
When they walk into that room, they do not just talk about, well, we
need better funding. They talk about how we can improve the quality of
education. ``How can I get involved, Congressman, as a parent? I want
to be more involved in the education of my child and the future of my
child. I want to work with my child's teacher.'' It is amazing things
that happen in town hall meetings. This caucus will bring those things
to the forefront.
So I want to urge Members on both sides of the aisle, let us talk
about it. We talk about peanuts. We talk about cotton. We caucus for
gas and oil. We caucus for almost every issue in this country. Let us
caucus for education.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman has captured, has given me a
response that hopefully will be heeded to by the bipartisan nature of
this Congress and certainly for years past. I think it is extremely
important that we raise education to the level that every child has an
opportunity to access this door opener, this key to opportunity.
I applaud the concept of having a caucus that talks about policy
issues that are not necessarily budget-driven and can, for example,
emphasize the fact that public schools have a very viable role because
they educate those children who would least have an opportunity.
{time} 2100
Also I would mention to you that you are right when it comes to
working on issues that help education. We find many aspects of our
legislation that are not education-directed having educational impact.
The telecommunications bill that was passed I am gratified to say to
you as a member of that conference committee, there was an insistence
that this new superhighway have direct direction into our schools and
our libraries. The Education Caucus can certainly be part of directing
or discussing how best to insure that all of our schools have access to
the superhighway and all of our libraries and all of our youngsters
have that kind of access.
Also questions about how we do public-private partnerships, such as
the program that you have, where the focus is to tell a child that
they, too, can succeed and to engage them in the political process, can
be a byproduct of the education caucus.
The overall byproduct, in addition to these questions of policy, I
hope will be even a bipartisan effort as to what a budget really should
look like, that says that we together believe education is important,
as you have said, and I certainly have seen, among many of our
colleagues. It would allow that kind of discussion before the heat of
the discussion of an appropriations period and authorization period or
the final act of the budget.
So I am looking forward to the further progress that will engender
ideas from Members of Congress, will encourage further debate on how to
utilize the educational system to help all of our citizens.
I think job retraining is a part of this whole education question. I
think the training of those who we are encouraging to go from welfare
to work is part of this education. Education is, again, the door
opener, the even playing field.
If I might throw in an aspect of education, we will need to discuss
in a bipartisan manner with our colleagues just how we deal with the
access to institutions of higher learning, where we do not have attacks
on the opportunities for institutions of higher learning to seek to
diversify their student body under the guise of an affirmative action
program that seeks to bring in students from all walks of life, which
we should applaud, because that is giving or providing education for
all of our children. Even with that very, if you will, spirited aspect
of this Congress, this question of affirmative action, even that I
think can be discussed in a bipartisan manner as relates to education
and insuring that the doors of opportunity are open to our youngsters
all over this country.
So I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana again. I cited statistics
from my districts. There is no doubt that the 18th Congressional
District desires to be in the forefront of educational reform,
educational bipartisanship, with the direction of uplifting our
children. I would hope as we do that, we would find the appropriate
funding line that would make sure that we do speak with strength, to
ensure we are able to provide that opportunity for our children.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Again I want to thank the gentlewoman for
joining me tonight in this special order. I will simply close by saying
we have had a lot of finger pointing on issues, issue like education. I
think it is high time for us to stop pointing fingers and start working
together to try to bring a solution to a real problem, because there is
a problem. There is a problem in a country when you find yourself
spending more money on jails than you do schools. There is a problem
when you have kids who walk into classrooms and walk down the street or
drive down the highway and find their schoolhouse is in worse condition
than the jailhouse. There is a problem when the jail is in better
condition than the school. There is a problem in the country when the
air conditioner at the school does not work, but the air conditioner at
the jail works. There is a problem when the jail ceilings never leak,
and the school ceiling leaks every time it rains. There is a serious
problem in America, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and there always be a
problem, as long as we look at education as only a local issue, and not
sit around the table and talk about how we can improve it.
Let me close finally by just giving you some of the benefits of
education.
[[Page H5368]]
If you really want to do something about welfare in this country and
getting people off the welfare roll, then we really ought to do a
better job at educating people. If you want to decrease crime in this
country, and you really want to decrease crime, then we have got to do
something about educating people. If you want to get people to work and
get them off the unemployment rolls, then you have to do something to
educate people.
Everybody wins when we educate our kids. We lose when we do not. Over
80 percent of the people, Mr. Speaker, who are in jail are high school
dropouts. There is a nexus and relationship between education and
incarceration. We spend almost $30,000, $25,000 to $30,000, to
incarcerate a child, and only about $5,000 or $6,000 a year to educate
them. Welfare rolls, most of the people on welfare are high school
dropouts. So if we really want to improve the conditions of our
country, then we must invest in education.
I want to thank the Speaker for being so patient tonight. I want to
thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I want to thank the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Furse, who has worked so hard on the issue of
education and who is one of the whips of this caucus. I also want to
thank the gentlewoman from California Ms. Pelosi, who has been working
hard on the issue of education. Finally I want to thank the cochair of
this caucus, Senator Wellstone, who has been a very strong champion of
education for our children in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials for the Record.
Education Caucus Membership
Rep. Mike Bilirakis, Rep. David Bonior, Sen. John Breaux,
Rep. George Brown, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. Robert Cramer,
Rep. Peter DeFazio, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Anna Eshoo,
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, Rep. Chaka Fattah,* Rep. Vic Fazio,
Rep. Cleo Fields,** Rep. Victor Frazier, Rep. Martin Frost,
Rep. Elizabeth Furse, Rep. Sam Gejdenson, Rep. Sam Gibbons,
Rep. Gene Green,* Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Sen. Bennett
Johnston, Rep. Bernice Johnson, Rep. Tim Johnson, Rep. Joe
Kennedy, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Rep. Bill Luther, Rep. Carrie
Meek, Sen. Moseley-Braun, Rep. L.F. Payne, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
Rep. Lynn Rivers, Rep. Bernard Sanders, Rep. Tom Sawyer,*
Rep. Jose Serrano, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. John Spratt,
Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Bob Torrecelli, Rep. Edolphus
Towns, Rep. Robert Underwood, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, Rep.
Maxine Waters, Rep. Curt Weldon, Sen. Paul Wellstone,** and
Rep. Albert Wynn.
* Indicates membership on the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee.
**Indicates Co-Chair of Education Caucus.
Testimony of Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the National
Community Education Association Before the Education Caucus, May 16,
1996, Panel Discussion
Senator Wellstone, Representative Fields and Members of the
Education Caucus: Thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony regarding the state of education in our country. I
am delighted that the caucus was formed and has such a
diverse membership.
I am Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the
National Community Education Association. The invitation from
Rep. Fields asked that I provide the Caucus with some of my
thoughts on the systemic deficiencies contributing to the
education crisis in this country. The task we face today is
formidable. The world has changed, and children have changed.
If you have any doubt of that, walk through most any high
school in this country, and you will definitely feel like you
have entered another world.
If we are serious about systemic change in education, then
I believe what we follow the old adage. The main thing to
remember is to remember the main thing--children--not the
teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, the
business community, or the politicians, but, the children. We
let children know that they are valued. We do not practice a
double standard wherein some children get the very best and
others are left to make-do with the left-overs.
Education has always been rooted deeply in the spirit and
in the community of this nation. Every morning, 40 million
children get out of bed and hurry off to 83,000 schools from
Bangor, Maine to Hawaii. An absolutely stunning achievement,
according to the Ernest Boyer, which we all too often take
for granted. This was not accomplished by a Washington
directive, but by local citizens who have committed
themselves to the audacious dream of the common school for
the common good.
The truth is, dreams can be fulfilled only when they have
been defined, and if during the decade of the 90's quality
education would become a mandate of the nation, then I am
convinced that all of the other goals of our country would in
large measure be fulfilled.
We start by making sure that our children are fed, healthy,
cared-for, guided and loved. We make sure that they do not
have to walk through flying bullets, step over dead bodies,
broken glass, drug paraphernalia and boarded up and decaying
buildings to get to school. We let them know that they do
count by putting them in school buildings that are warm and
safe, not deteriorating, not rat-infested. We give them books
that are current and high-tech equipment that is in good
repair.
We let them know that they are expected to achieve high
levels. We do not ``dumb down'' the curriculum. We expect our
teachers to be dedicated and supportive of all students. We
let the teachers know that their task is one of the most
important in this world. We support teachers in their efforts
to help every child reach his or her potential. We also
expect accountability from all school personnel as well as
from parents. We do this at the local level, building by
building. We stop experimenting with school reform models
that work in one place and not another. We expect each
community to design its own reform efforts and to do so with
input from families, teachers, students and other community
members. We expect entire communities to be responsible
for their children. not just the schools. And, we do not
``write-off'' the kids who are in trouble or considered
at-risk.
We start as this committee has started--by sitting down
around a table and asking, ``What can we do to help our
children?'' We let go of turf issues, our own agendas, and
look for a way to bring together all of our resources in
order to provide for our children the start in life and
education that they and this country so desperately need.
Secretary of Education Riley has made the first steps toward
this effort with his Family Involvement Initiative. He has
convened school, business, religious and community
representatives in order to find ways in which we can all
work together to support and nurture our children.
We are inclusive, not exclusive. We view the school as a
delivery site for all educational, social, and health
services. These services are delivered by the social and
health professionals. We do not expect classroom teachers to
do those tasks for which they are not trained. We keep the
school building open after school for child care so the 30-
50% of our children who now go home to empty houses do not
need to. And we open the school early in the morning for
before school child care. We protect our children from
neighborhoods that would destroy the scant amount of hope
they may have.
We provide lifelong learning for the families of our
children so they are prepared to work in today's working
environment and be flexible enough in their training that
they can adapt to the changes occurring so rapidly. By
guaranteeing the quality of our work force, we also guarantee
a level of economic security for our families. I don't
believe that as a nation we can afford to do any less. Every
institution and community has an ethical and educational
obligation to commit itself to create a safety net for
children. Schools cannot do the job alone.
If we expect all children to be well prepared for school,
we simply must have families and communities that first give
love then support to their children. We must prepare our
parents for parenting. We must teach them how to nurture
their young and how to raise healthy, contributing members of
a community.
Does this sound impossible? It is not. We have schools and
communities such as these all across our 50 states. They are
called community schools and they have been functioning for
the past 50 years. In New York they are also called Beacon
Schools. They are learning communities that spread their
influence community-wide. Do they work? Yes. Do they cure all
the problems. No. But, through local decision-making and
collaboration, they go a long way towards addressing
community needs. They make a difference in the quality of
life of their local communities and in their schools.
We can do this if only we remember the main thing--and that
is to remember the main thing--Children and their future, for
it is really our future as well. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak to you today, and would be pleased to respond to any
questions the caucus may have.
Remarks of Joel Packer, Senior Lobbyist, National Education
Association, May 16, 1996
Thank you for the opportunity to address the historic first
session of the Congressional Education Caucus, which we hope
will help to restore the tradition of bipartisan leadership
on Capitol Hill for children and education. Coordination and
cooperation across party lines are essential to strengthening
public education in America and providing every child with an
excellent opportunity to learn. Those goals are central to
the mission of the National Education Association, and I know
they are shared by everybody in this room. I want to offer a
few thoughts on how this caucus can work effectively to
strengthen education, and briefly outline NEA's education
agenda.
First, let me tell you about the NEA. We represent over 2.2
million educators, including both elementary and secondary
public school teachers, higher education faculty, and
education support personnel ranging from school bus drivers
to cafeteria workers to custodians. In addition, we have both
student members and retired members. NEA conducts research on
school finance, sponsors the National Foundation for the
Improvement of Education, which is dedicated
[[Page H5369]]
to improving student performance, works to improve teaching
and learning through many projects including Learning
Laboratories, Mastery in Learning program, Teacher Education
Initiative, and Keys to Excellence for Your Schools;
maintains a Professional Library for educators, and actively
promotes quality public schools at both the Federal and state
level through our 13,000 local affiliates.
It is important to put today's challenges in historical
perspective. Over the past few decades, most of the landmark
education legislation was passed by strong bipartisan
majorities. Many of these bills were championed by Republican
leaders in the House and Senate, and many were signed into
law by Republican presidents.
To cite a few examples, over twenty years ago, in the
summer of 1975, the Congress passed legislation guaranteeing
a free appropriate public education to children with
disabilities. The bill passed the Senate 63-10, while the
House margin was 375-44. Even this year, in the Senate the
IDEA reauthorization is a true bipartisan effort, with
legislation sponsored by Sen. Harkin (D-IA) reported
unanimously by the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee.
The Elementary/Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in
1987 by a vote of 401-1. This bill included Title I, as well
as bilingual education. The Senate vote that year was 97-1.
Vocational Education, was reauthorized in 1989, with the
House bill passing 402-3, and the Senate acting by a
unanimous 96-0. The following year, Head Start was extended
by a 404-14 House vote. Higher education programs have also
enjoyed this broad bipartisan consensus. The Higher Education
Act was reauthorized in 1992, by a 419-7 vote in the House
and a 93-1 vote in the Senate.
And just a few weeks ago, many Republicans joined Democrats
in restoring over $3 billion in education funds that had
earlier been cut from the FY 1996 appropriations legislation.
So there is ample precedent for the bipartisan work of this
Caucus.
As all of the public opinion polls have shown this year,
the American people have put education at or near the top of
their priority list of issues. Indeed, voters also recognize
the importance of the Federal role in education, with upwards
of 90% of Americans opposing cutting Federal aid to
education. And their focus on education crosses party lines.
In a USA Today poll this January, for example, education led
voter concerns and vied closely with deficit reduction as a
concern among Republican voters. Senator D'Amato was right on
target when he recently commented that American voters ``did
not vote to cut education.''
I want to make it clear to this group that NEA's goal for
the coming years is to build a bipartisan pro-education
majority and to work with leaders from both parties who want
to strengthen public education. We are very grateful for the
hard work of Democratic leaders on our agenda this year, but
we also thank mainstream Republicans who courageously stood
up for education and we hope and expect that more will join
your ranks in the coming years.
A bipartisan education caucus could play an important role
through a variety of activities ranging from sponsoring
briefings for Members and staff, preparing objective reports
on education issues, providing analysis of proposed education
legislation, and serving to advocate the needs of children
and education through testimony, floor speeches, introduction
of legislation, and sponsoring of floor amendments.
Let me briefly outline our legislative agenda for the
balance of 1996.
Ensuring adequate funding for children and education. While
the deep cuts advocated by many in the House leadership were
largely rejected in the final FY 96 appropriations bill,
education programs were still cut by $450 million. This is on
top of over $600 million in cuts that passed as part of the
FY 95 recession bill. Thus, since the beginning of 1995, over
$1 billion has been slashed from education. Both the FY 97
House and Senate budget resolutions fail to invest in
children and education, since they provide no growth to
compensate for inflation, 20% enrollment increases at the K-
12 level, or rising college costs. Indeed, the House budget
would slice over $1 billion from the FY 96 levels, and again
attempt to eliminate Goals 2000 education reform, bilingual
and immigrant education, Perkins Student Loans, State Student
Incentive Grants, and many other important programs. Indeed,
even a freeze over six years results in cuts of at least 17%
from FY 96 levels.
Extending and Strengthening the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act. NEA strongly supports
reauthorization of IDEA, with provisions to increase local
flexibility for schools to properly discipline seriously
disruptive students, strengthen professional development, and
provide adequate resources to ensure that appropriate
services are provided to children with disabilities.
Opposing back door block grants under the Local Flexibility
and Empowerment Act. While NEA supports increased flexibility
for local schools to administer Federal education programs,
we believe that legislation now pending in Congress (HR 2086/
S 88) would undermine Federal education programs, allowing
for education dollars to be siphoned off for other purposes,
and weaken or remove accountability and important
standards for program quality and access for disadvantaged
children.
Stopping efforts to punish immigrant children. NEA strongly
opposes the so-called Gallegly amendment, which passed the
House as a part of the immigration bill (H.R. 2202), that
would allow states to deny public education to illegal
immigrant children. Not only would this proposal unfairly
punish children for actions of their parents, it would create
significant paperwork and administrative burdens on both
local schools and parents of all children, who would have to
document and prove the immigration or citizenship status of
their children.
Preventing expansion of Federal courts control over local
schools. Under legislation advocated by the Christian
Coalition, known as the Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Act (H.R. 1946/S 984) parents would be granted unlimited
right to sue schools in federal court over virtually any
decision of their local school. Discipline policies,
selection of textbooks, curricula content, and other local
decisions would all be subject to litigation by parents, with
Federal courts deciding local educational policies. Not only
would this bill gut the authority of locally elected school
boards, it would also lead to teachers' efforts to report
possible cases of child abuse and neglect being deemed an
interference with parental rights.
In addition to these issues, NEA is fighting to ensure that
secondary and postsecondary students continue to receive
needed vocational education services, to oppose the
imposition of private school vouchers, to protect the school
lunch program from block grants, and to protect needed health
care services for children through Medicaid.
Looking beyond 1996, we are planning to work with the new
Congress that takes office in 1997 on new initiatives for
education. Like many of our coalition partners, we have
several pro-active strategies we are now discussing and
developing to address such pressing issues as school
infrastructure and technology needs. Our vision for all
children is a vision of safe schools, active learning,
advanced technology, and modern classrooms. Our vision
includes keeping the things that are working well in schools
and scrapping those that are not. Our vision includes a
public education system where every person in the community
has a voice and a role, in ensuring that tomorrow's schools
serve tomorrow's students.
We plan to bring this group into that collaboration. The
next four years will bring us to the year 2000--a major
benchmark for American education. We look forward to working
with you to make this a very productive and forward-looking
time for education in the United States Congress.
Testimony of Angelica Santacruz, National HeadStart Association,
Education Caucus, Hearing on May 16, 1996
Congressman Cleo Fields, and members of the Education
Caucus. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify today about the Head Start program and the National
Head Start's Association's (NHSA) vision for including all
eligible children in Head Start.
I would like to applaud Congressman Fields for forming a
bipartisan Congressional Education Caucus to address the
issues confronting the current education system. It is time
to meet the challenge together and include early childhood
programs in the process. In terms of providing children in
poverty with a fair chance to start equally in school, Head
Start has proven it works over 30 years. However, there are
issues that must be addressed: increasing funding to service
all eligible children who need Head Start; providing services
that meet the needs of today's families; and providing
leadership to build a more coordinated and effective system
of services for children and families through collaboration
and research.
head start
Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive services
including health, education, social services and parent
involvement to more than 14 million children and their
families. Today, Head Start serves over 750,000 children in
approximately 1,433 grantees, reaching low-income children in
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and the Pacific territories.
Head Start serves children ages zero to five, with four-
year-olds comprising 62 percent of its population. More than
13% of Head Start enrollment consists of children with
disabilities.
The basic goal of Head Start is to bring about a greater
degree of social competence in children of low income
families. The Head Start program is a developmental approach
to helping children achieve social competence. To the
accomplishment of this goal, Head Start objectives and
performance standards provide for: The improvement of the
child's health and physical abilities; the encouragement of
self-confidence and self-discipline; the enhancement of the
child's mental processes and skills with particular attention
to conceptual and communication skills; the establishment of
patterns and expectations of success for the child; an
increase in the ability of the child and family to relate to
each other and to others; and the enhancement of the sense of
dignity and self-worth within the child and his family.
Head Start works! Research shows that Head Start has had an
important impact on program participants. Positive impacts
include: Improving cognitive test scores, including reading;
reducing placement in special education; increasing self-
confidence and improving social behavior; improving health,
including better eating habits, decreasing anemia and
increasing immunizations received; improving parent
awareness;
[[Page H5370]]
and enhancing parent's employment and educational status.
issues
Head Start's record of achievements and experience in
providing comprehensive services to low-income children and
their families, makes it the perfect program to address these
new challenges and to help build a competitive and strong
country. Head Start has the potential to serve as a model of
comprehensive services, to reach large numbers of children
and families, to respond to a diversity of needs, and to
provide leadership in collaboration and research for
the entire early childhood field. Yet today, funding for
Head Start falls short and limits the program's ability to
meet its full potential.
Three conditions exist in Head Start that must be
addressed. First, to be effective in the future, the program
must continue to provide good early childhood services.
However, Head Start faces threats to program quality.
Second, in the upcoming years, Head Start must be expanded
to serve all eligible children and must be flexible enough to
meet the diverse needs of children and families, particularly
demands for full-day centers. Presently, Head Start serves 20
percent of zero to five-year-olds. The demand for Head Start
is still tremendous.
Third, as the largest early childhood program, Head Start
must provide leadership to the entire early childhood field.
It must help develop a coordinated delivery system, ensure
adequate community services for low-income families,
encourage the continuation of comprehensive services as
children move on to the public schools and develop new
knowledge to improve practice and policy. There is increasing
concern that the progress made by children in the Head Start
program may be lost when there is not continuation of
comprehensive services in the school. At the federal and
local levels, there has been a lack of collaboration between
Head Start and federal programs serving low-income families.
The Administration of Children, Youth and Families (ACYF)
has put considerable effort into improving the transition of
children as they move to kindergarten through the Transition
Project. Although these efforts have been useful to the
initial adjustment of children as they enter school, there is
a need for schools to become much more involved with
families.
Despite the challenges, Head Start has accomplished major
early childhood services. The following are some of Head
Start's ultimate highlights: The Child Development Associate
(CDA) programs; Home-based services; Bilingual-multicultural
approaches; Indian and Migrant Head Start Programs; Resource
Access Projects provide training and technical assistance to
programs; Early Start provides services to zero-to-three
year-olds; Performance Standards; and Quality Improvement.
Congress and the Clinton Administration must remember that
Head Start is an investment. President Clinton has proposed
for Head Start for fiscal year 1997 $3.981 billion. The
National Head Start Association urges Congress to consider an
appropriations bill that moves toward the goals of both the
Bush and Clinton Administrations to expand Head Start to
guarantee services to all eligible children by the year 2000.
Testimony of Jerry Lewis, J.D., Before the Congressional Education
Caucus, May 16, 1996
Senator Wellstone, Congressman Fields, Members of the
Education Caucus, I very much appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today. My name is Jerry Lewis and I am the
Director of Intensive Educational Development at the
University of Maryland-College Park. In that capacity I am
responsible for two of the Federal TRIO Programs sponsored by
the University. These include the Ronald E. McNair Post-
baccalaureate Achievement Program and the Student Support
Services Program. I am testifying today on behalf of the
National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations
(NCEOA).
Before sharing my brief remarks on post-secondary
educational opportunity as it relates to low-income students
in America, I want to take a moment to applaud your efforts
in establishing this Caucus. The federal role in assuring
educational opportunity has become increasingly questioned in
recent years. Moreover, even those who articulate support for
education often do not back their words with dollars. Your
active advocacy for education is deeply appreciated.
Post-secondary Education Opportunity Is Declining
There is presently extensive evidence on the growing gaps
in educational attainment between children from upper-income
families and children from low-income families. As reported
in Business Week, utilizing Census data, Thomas Mortenson
demonstrates that a child from a family in the bottom income
quarter (family income below $22,000) has only an 8% chance
of graduating from college with a Baccalaureate by the time
he is 24. In contrast, a child from a family in the top
income quarter (income above $68,000 per year) has a 79%
chance of attaining the Baccalaureate at this juncture. Thus
individuals from upper-income families are more than ten
times as likely to graduate frown college by the time they
are 24 than are individuals from low-income families.
At the same time, the ability of any worker to adequately
support his or her family without a college education is
declining. Today, median family income in households headed
by an individual with a college degree is $73,000 per year,
an increase in real dollar terms of 14% since 1973. At the
same time, households headed by individuals with only a high
school diploma have a median income of $41,000, a decrease of
20% in the same time period. Households headed by families
without a high school diploma have a median income of only
$28,000. Real median income for households headed by the
least educated individuals has fallen over 37% since 1973.
Addressing this Critical Issue
The Federal government has historically utilized a multi-
pronged strategy to support post-secondary educational
opportunity. Student financial assistance--grants, loans and
work--are made available to low and middle-income students so
that lack of financial resources does not prevent them from
enrolling and succeeding in college. Unfortunately, as the
following chart demonstrates, student aid has not kept pace
with inflation. While in the Mid-1970's the principal Federal
grant program--Pell--covered nearly 80% of the cost of
attending a public, four-year college, today it covers less
than 40% of that cost.
While student financial aid helps students overcome
financial barriers to higher education. TRIO programs help
students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to
college. Over 1,200 colleges, universities and agencies now
sponsor TRIO programs which enroll nearly 700,000 low-income
students who aspire to attend or are currently enrolled in
college.
As mandated by Congress, two-thirds of the students served
in TRIO must come from families with incomes under $24,000,
where neither parent graduated from college. Over 1,750 TRIO
Programs currently serve nearly 700,000 low-income Americans
between the ages of 11 and 27. Many programs serve students
in grade six through twelve. Forty-two percent (42%) of
TRIO students are White, 35% are African American, 15% are
Hispanic, 4% are Native American, and 4% are Asian.
Sixteen thousand (16,000) TRIO students are disabled and
7,000 are military veterans.
TRIO is made up of five programs. Three assist young people
and adults in learning about and preparing for college:
Talent Search, Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers.
Congressman Fields is himself a product of one of the
programs--Upward Bound at Southern University--and he has
often voiced strong support for TRIO.
In addition to their pre-college efforts, there are two
programs--Student Support Services and Ronald E. McNair Post-
baccalaureate Achievement Program--which serve
undergraduates. At the University of Maryland, for example,
each year Student Support Services provides counseling,
tutoring, and other support to over 350 students. These
services are made possible by over $350,000 in institutional
funds and $245,000 in TRIO funds. And this investment has
made a difference. For example, it has raised the graduation
rates of those minority students enrolled in Student Support
Services by over 70% over graduation rates of minority
students not assisted by Student Support Services.
evidence of achievement
I could speak much more than my allotted time, providing
evidence on TRIO's behalf. It is noteworthy, for example,
that:
Students in the Upward Bound program are four times more
likely to earn an undergraduate degree than students from
similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO.
Nearly 20% of all Black and Hispanic freshman who entered
college in 1981 received assistance through the TRIO Talent
Search or EOC programs.
Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are
more than twice as likely to remain in college than those
students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in
the program.
TRIO Programs are very effective and many students from
low-income families depend on these programs to succeed
academically in high school and college. In fact, since 1965
an estimated two million students have graduated from college
with the special assistance and support of our nation's TRIO
Programs.
I am more comfortable, however, citing individuals than
statistics. One has only to look at Congressman Fields--and
his three colleagues in the House who were also TRIO
participants--to learn of TRIO's merits. (Congressman
Bonilla, Congressman Watts, and Congressman Wynn were also
TRIO graduates.) One can turn to the nineteen freshmen in
Student Support Services' freshman class at the University of
Maryland who have grade point averages above 3.0 as a measure
of TRIO's achievement. One can look at our recent graduates
who came from D.C. Public Schools and single parent homes and
are now enrolled in doctoral programs in mathematics and
computer science to learn of TRIO's achievement. I am
confident each of you has also visited with TRIO students and
TRIO graduates and knows of TRIO's accomplishments.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today and
would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
____________________