[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7924-S7927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CRISIS IN EDUCATION IN AMERICA
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, you and some others in this body have
heard me say that the one experience that took me out of the private
sector and brought me back into public life was my term as chairman of
the Strategic Planning Commission for the Utah State Board of
Education. I was
[[Page S7925]]
happily serving as the chief executive of a very successful,
functioning corporation when I was asked to take that assignment in
public service. It brought me face to face with the current crisis in
education.
I have been interested in that issue ever since. I was interested in
this morning's Wall Street Journal where the following appeared. I
would like to call it to the attention of the entire Senate and,
hopefully, through the Congressional Record and C-SPAN, as wide an
audience as possible. In this morning's Wall Street Journal there is
the following article that I find incredible:
New York City's Cardinal John J. O'Connor has repeatedly
made the city an extraordinary offer: Send me the lowest
performing 5% of children presently in the public schools,
and I will put them in Catholic schools--where they will
succeed. The city's response: Silence.
In a more rational world, city officials would have jumped
at the cardinal's invitation. It would have been a huge
financial plus for the city. The annual per-pupil cost of
Catholic elementary schools is $2,500 per year, about a third
of what taxpayers now spend for the city's public schools.
Mr. President, I have had this debate with leaders of the Teachers'
Association in Utah. Members of the National Education Association do
not come to see me because they apparently know that I have already
come to the conclusion that something must be done to break the
monopoly that current teachers' unions have on the way education is
conducted in this country.
The author of this article goes on to tell us his own experience with
his own children. He tells us how he takes his children past the
Catholic schools every morning, to enroll them in what are considered
the best public schools in New York City. One day he decided he would
go in and see what was going on in the Catholic schools, to compare it
to what was happening in the public schools. He says, ``* * * I was
impressed. I sat in, for example, as fourth-grade teacher Susan Viti
conducted a review lesson on the geography of the Western United
States.'' He goes on to describe the things that were done, and then he
says:
I found myself wishing that my own son's fourth-grade
teachers at nearby Public School 87, reputedly one of the
best public schools in the city, were anywhere near as
productive and as focused on basic schools as Miss Viti. Both
my boys' teachers have wasted an enormous amount of time with
empty verbiage about the evils of racism and sexism. By
contrast, in Miss Viti's class and all other Catholic school
classes I attended, it was taken for granted that a real
education is the best antidote to prejudice.
Miss Viti earns $21,000 a year, $8,000 less than a first-
year public-school teacher. ``I've taught in an all-white
affluent suburban school, where I made over $40,000. This
time I wanted to do something good for society, and I am
lucky enough to be able to afford to do it. I am trying to
instill in my students that whatever their life situation is
now, they can succeed if they work hard and study.''
Mr. President, monopoly is a terrible thing, whether it is in an
economy or in an intellectual circumstance. Establishing a monopoly
that prevents people from looking for other ideas or other ways of
doing something is the best way to guarantee stagnation. What we have
in public education now is a monopoly, firmly enforced by the teachers'
unions and geared to prevent any kind of intellectual competition.
We have seen it on the floor of this Chamber. Again and again last
year, we tried to pass an appropriations bill for the District of
Columbia. Certainly, there is no place in the world that needs
appropriations more than the District of Columbia. Mired down in
financial disaster and management chaos the District needed that money
as quickly as it could come. Yet because we put into that bill the
opportunity for experimentation on just that situation described in
this morning's story in the Journal, there were people on this floor
who filibustered against that appropriations bill, willing to hold up
needed financial support for the District, all in the name of
preserving an educational monopoly for the teachers' unions.
Now, I have very good friends in the Utah Teachers Association who
come to me and say, ``It is unconstitutional for you to spend public
money on a private institution, particularly a private institution that
has connection to a religion.'' Mr. President, we crossed that line,
successfully, 50 years ago. All of us are familiar with the GI bills,
considered by many to be the most successful Government program ever,
the most successful expenditure of Government money to help people's
lives that has ever taken place in the history of the United States. I
have heard the GI bill being described thusly here on the floor by some
of my colleagues. What do we do in the GI bill? We say to individuals,
``Here is the money that we promised you to help you with your
education. Now you make the decision as to where that money will be
spent.'' Is it unconstitutional to someone under the GI bill to take
that money and go to the University of Notre Dame just because the
University of Notre Dame is affiliated with the Catholic Church? Is it
unconstitutional for you to take that money to go to Georgetown
University here in the District just because Georgetown University is
run by the Jesuits? Of course, not. We have long since come to the
conclusion that the money follows the student, not that it goes to
support the institution.
Would it be unconstitutional for the city of New York to take
Cardinal O'Connor up on his offer and say we will give you the 5-
percent lowest students, we will give you the 5-percent worst problems
we have, allow the money to follow the students, and let you take care
of it for us? No, the constitutional precedent has been firmly
established. What are they afraid of? They are afraid of saving money?
They are afraid of doing better by the children? No, they are afraid of
the political retaliation of the teachers' union.
The article goes on to describe that retaliation in some detail. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is no issue that we face in this
body more serious than the challenge of educating our young people.
That is not a cliche. That is a statement of our primary survival
challenge of the future. Talk to CEO's, talk to personnel directors
around the country, and they tell you more and more the primary
challenge we have long term in this country is maintaining a work force
that can survive international competition. Talk to many of these CEO's
and they tell you that more and more of their budget is going to pay
for remedial learning skills for their new hires. They are hiring
people who cannot read the instructions that they are given to carry
out their work. They are hiring people who cannot figure enough to even
make change in a retail situation.
Recognizing that the schools will not teach these people to read and
figure, they are beginning to allocate more and more of their corporate
dollars to give this kind of education themselves. It is potentially,
as I say, Mr. President, the single most important issue we face. I
think with the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has become the long-
term survival issue for the United States. Yet we allow ourselves to
insist that the status quo, producing these kinds of results, is what
must be maintained at all costs. We allow ourselves to say we will not
even experiment with a voucher system that might challenge the present
monopoly. We will not even allow an educational system that is willing
to try and experiment with 5 percent of the kids who are doing the
worst in our Nation's largest city, to see what might happen with that
experiment.
What are the teachers' unions afraid of, when challenged with the
opportunity to have an experiment of this kind? They are afraid of
people like Miss Viti, described in the article, demonstrating to all
of the world the bankruptcy of the present circumstance. Education is
the only place I know, Mr. President, where professionals--and I
consider teachers to be professionals--are willing to accept less money
in order to avoid working for public payroll. In every other
circumstance, the professionals earn more money when they get out of
the public payroll. Lawyers in private practice earn more than lawyers
who work for municipalities and State governments and the Federal
Government. Doctors in private practice earn more than doctors who work
for the Public Health Service. But in education, teachers earn less who
work in private schools than those who work for the public. Why do they
do it? Because as Miss Viti says, ``I wanted to do something
[[Page S7926]]
good for society. I am lucky to be able to afford to do it.''
Mr. President, I will return to this from time to time. I am not on
the appropriate committee for a variety of reasons which we understand
around here. The committee assignments come by virtue of the State that
you represent and the interests that you have in seeing that State is
properly represented. But I could not pass the opportunity to call to
the attention of the Senate this incredible statement in this morning's
paper, whereby the Nation's teachers' union, working through its
affiliates in New York State, have denied the lowest 5 percent of the
city of New York the opportunity to try something new, and have thus
condemned those 5 percent to a continued future of bleakness and lack
of opportunity.
A final demonstration of this, Mr. President, again, from the
information contained in the article comparing what happens in New York
City schools--the public schools that are spending three times as much
as the Catholic schools--in terms of the results. Here is the
conclusion that comes from the New York State Department of Education.
This is not a conclusion that comes from the managers of the private
schools, the Catholic schools. This is the conclusion that comes from
the New York State officials themselves:
Catholic schools with 81 percent to 100 percent minority
composition outscored New York City public schools with the
same percentage of minority enrollment in grade 3 reading . .
.
In grade 3 reading, they were 17 percent better; in grade 3
mathematics, 10 percent better; in grade 5 writing, 6 percent better;
in grade 6 reading, 10 percent better; in grade 6 mathematics, 18
percent better.
A Rand Corp. study compared the performance of children from New York
City's public schools and Catholic high schools and came up with these
statistics. Again, this is not from the Catholic school system itself;
this is from an outside observer known for its excellence and its
objectivity, the Rand Corp.:
Only 25 percent of the public school students graduated at
all . . .
Let me repeat that statistic, Mr. President. It is staggering.
Only 25 percent of the public school students graduated at
all, and only 16 percent took the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
By shameful contrast, the small ``elite'' of public school
students who graduated and took the SAT averaged only 642 for
those in neighborhood schools and 715 for those in magnet
schools.
Here is the shameful contrast: 25 percent of the public school
students graduated, and 16 percent took the SAT; and 95 percent of the
Catholic school children graduated, and 75 percent took the SAT's. The
Catholic school students scored an average of 815 on the SAT, compared
to 642 of the public schools.
Once again, Mr. President, let me stress that these are in schools
where the minority makeup is identical to the minority makeup in the
public schools. If there is ever a statistical case to be made for the
fact that we need to experiment with this kind of education and break
the monopoly that the teachers' union has established and is
maintaining on public education, this is it.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence. As I said, I will return to
this subject from time to time because I consider it the Nation's No. 1
survival issue in the long term.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1996]
Why the Catholic School Model Is Taboo
(By Sol Stern)
New York City's Cardinal John J. O'Connor has repeatedly
made the city an extraordinary offer: Send me the lowest-
performing 5% of children presently in the public schools,
and I will put them in Catholic Schools--where they will
succeed. The city's response: silence.
In a more rational world, city officials would have jumped
at the cardinal's invitation. It would have jumped at the
cardinal's invitation. It would have been a huge financial
plus for the city. The annual per-pupil cost of Catholic
elementary schools is $2,500 per year, about a third of what
taxpayers now spend for the city's public schools.
no idle boast
More important, thousands more disadvantaged children would
finish school and become productive citizens. For Cardinal
O'Connor's claim that Catholic schools would do a better job
than public schools is no idle boast. In 1990 the RAND
Corporation compared the performance of children from New
York City's public and Catholic high schools. Only 25% of the
public-school students graduated at all, and only 16% took
the Scholastic Aptitude Test, vs. 95% and 75% of Catholic-
school students, respectively, Catholic-school students
scored an average of 815 on the SAT. By shameful contrast,
the small ``elite'' of public-school students who graduated
and took the SAT averaged only 642 for those in neighborhood
schools and 715 for those in magnet schools.
In 1993 the New York State Department of Education compared
city schools with the highest levels of minority enrollment.
Conclusion: ``Catholic schools with 81% to 100% minority
composition outscored New York City public schools with the
same percentage of minority enrollment in Grade 3 reading
(+17%), Grade 3 mathematics (+10%), Grade 5 writing (+6%),
Grade 6 reading (+10%) and Grade 6 mathematics (+11%).''
Yet most of the elite, in New York and elsewhere, is
resolutely uninterested in the Catholic schools' success. In
part this reflects the enormous power of teachers' unions,
fierce opponents of anything that threatens their monopoly on
education. In part it reflects a secular discomfort with
religious institutions.
I myself have felt this discomfort over the years, walking
past Catholic schools like St. Gregory the Great, near my
Manhattan home. Every morning, as I took my sons to public
school, I couldn't help noticing the well-behaved black and
Hispanic children in their neat uniforms entering the drab
parish building. But my curiosity never led me past the
imposing crucifix looking down from the roof, which evoked
childhood images of Catholic anti-Semitism and clerical
obscurantism.
Finally, earlier this year, I ventured in, and I was
impressed. I sat in, for example, as fourth-grade teacher
Susan Viti conducted a review lesson on the geography of
the Western United States. All the children were
completely engaged and had obviously done their homework.
They were able to answer each of her questions about the
principal cities and capitals of the Western states--some
of which I couldn't name--and the topography and natural
resources of the region. ``Which minerals would be found
in the Rocky Mountains?'' Miss Viti asked. Eager hands
shot up. Miss Viti used the lesson to expand the students'
vocabulary: when the children wrote things down, she
insisted on proper grammar and spelling.
I found myself wishing that my own son's fourth-grade
teachers at nearby Public School 87, reputedly one of the
best public schools in the city, were anywhere near as
productive and as focused on basic skills as Miss Viti. Both
my boys' teachers have wasted an enormous amount of time with
empty verbiage about the evils of racism and sexism. By
contrast, in Miss Viti's class and in all the other Catholic
school classes I visited, it was taken for granted that a
real education is the best antidote to prejudice.
Miss Viti earns $21,000 a year, $8,000 less than a first-
year public-school teacher. ``I've taught in an all-white,
affluent suburban school, where I made over $40,000,'' she
says. ``This time I wanted to do something good for society,
and I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it. I am
trying to instill in my students that whatever their life
situation is now, they can succeed if they work hard and
study.''
You might expect liberals, self-styled champions of
disadvantaged children, to applaud the commitment and
sacrifice of educators like Susan Viti. You might even expect
them to look for ways of getting government money to these
underfunded schools. Instead, they've done their best to make
sure the wall of separation between church and state remains
impenetrable. Liberal child-advocacy groups tout an endless
array of ``prevention'' programs that are supposed to stave
off delinquency, dropping out of school and teen pregnancy--
yet they consistently ignore Catholic schools, which nearly
always succeed in preventing these pathologies.
Read the chapter on education in Hillary Clinton's ``It
Takes a Village.'' Mrs. Clinton advocates an alphabet soup of
education programs for poor kids, but says not a word about
Catholic schools. Similarly, in his books on education and
inner-city ghettos, Jonathan Kozol offers vivid tours of
decrepit public schools in places like the South Bronx, but
he never stops at the many Catholic schools that are
succeeding a few blocks away.
Why are Catholic schools taboo among those who talk loudest
about compassion for the downtrodden? It's hard to escape the
conclusion that one of the most powerful reasons is liberals'
alliance with the teachers' unions, which have poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of
liberal candidates around the country. Two weeks ago I
attended the National Education Association convention in
Washington, a week-long pep rally for Bill Clinton punctuated
by ritual denunciations of privatization.
Before the teachers' unions rise to political power, it was
not unusual to see urban Democrats like former New York Gov.
Mario Cuomo support government aid to Catholic schools. Mr.
Cuomo's flip-flop on this issue is especially revealing. In
1974, when he first ran for public office, Mr. Cuomo wrote a
letter to potential supporters: ``I've spent more than 15
years . . . arguing for aid to private
[[Page S7927]]
schools,'' he wrote. ``If you believe aid is a good thing,
then you are the good people. If you believe it, then it's
your moral obligation, as it is my own, to do something about
it. . . . Let's try tax-credit plans and anything else that
offers any help.''
Mr. Cuomo soon learned his lesson. In his published diaries
he wrote: ``Teachers are perhaps the most effective of all
the state's unions. If they go all-out, it will mean
telephones and vigorous statewide support. It will also mean
some money.'' In his 1982 campaign for governor, Mr. Cuomo
gave a speech trumpeting the primacy of public education and
the rights of teachers. He won the union's enthusiastic
endorsement against Ed Koch in the Democratic primary. Over
the next 12 years, in private meetings with Catholic leaders,
Gov. Cuomo would declare that he still supported tax relief
for parochial school parents. Then he would take a completely
different position in public. For example, in 1984 he
acknowledged that giving tax credits for parochial-school
tuition was ``clearly constitutional'' under a recent Supreme
Court decision--but he refused to support such a plan.
Politically controlled schools are unlikely to improve much
without strong pressure from outside. Thus, the case for
government aid to Catholic schools is now more compelling
than ever, if only to provide the competitive pressure to
force state schools to change. And the conventional wisdom
that government is constitutionally prohibited from aiding
Catholic schools has been undermined by several recent U.S.
Supreme Court decisions.
sucker's trap
Since the powerful teachers' unions vehemently oppose any
form of government aid to Catholic schools, reformers are
often skittish about advocating vouchers or tuition tax
credits, fearing that will end the public-school reform
conversation before it begins. But to abandon aid to Catholic
schools in the name of public-school reform is a sucker's
trap. We have ended up with no aid to Catholic schools and no
real public-school reform either.
Catholic schools are a valuable public resource not just
because they profoundly benefit the children who enroll in
them. They also challenge the public-school monopoly,
constantly reminding us that the neediest kids are educable
and that spending extravagant sums of money isn't the answer.
No one who cares about reviving our failing public schools
can afford to ignore this inspiring laboratory of reform.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I assume we are in morning business. I ask
unanimous consent I may proceed for no more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business and the
Senator is recognized for 10 minutes, without objection.
____________________