[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.

                          ____________________