[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12358-S12359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A PARTNERSHIP IN EDUCATION

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to say in view of the comments 
that were just made, the Eisenhower Program, I ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts, that dealt with math and science as I understand it?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. That was a program that we put into place during the 
Eisenhower administration.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. As I recall, it was done on an overwhelming bipartisan 
basis.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct again.

[[Page S12359]]

  Mr. SARBANES. It was designed to improve the quality of math and 
science teachers in the classroom. Now we are being told we are trying 
to direct where the funds should go. The first point I want to make is 
that this has a long pedigree coming right from the Eisenhower 
administration.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SARBANES. Yes, I will yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think it is very interesting. The comments made by the 
Senator from the State of Washington suggested an enormous percentage 
of the funds which were being appropriated at the Federal level were 
spent on administration. I have in my hand an April 1998 report by the 
Secretary of Education that was requested by appropriators from 
Congress that is based on data from States, the Coopers & Lybrand 
financial analysis model, and GAO reports, completed this summer, which 
I think should be part of the Record on this debate, and it says:

       One-half of 1 percent of the Federal funding for elementary 
     and secondary education programs is spent on Federal 
     administration.

  One-half of 1 percent.

       States retain on average an additional 2 percent. The 
     remaining 97.5 percent goes to local school districts.

  End of quote from the report. To suggest that it is 50 to 60 percent 
cost of administration really doesn't square with the facts given us in 
this report.

       Across more than 20 major State formula programs, States, 
     in fiscal year 1995, retained an average of only 4 percent of 
     the money at the State level; they distributed the remaining 
     96 percent to school districts and other recipients, such as 
     colleges and universities. For the program under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the percent retained 
     at the State level was even lower--about 2 percent. For Title 
     I, the largest Federal elementary and secondary program, 
     States retain only about 1 percent of the funds. . .
       The Department uses a very small portion of our 
     appropriation for Federal administration. In fiscal year 
     1999, we will expend only about $87 million to administer 
     some $20 billion in elementary and secondary programs; these 
     funds come from a separate Program Administration budget 
     account, not from funds appropriated for grants to States or 
     school districts. Even with the addition of related research, 
     leadership, and operations costs, the Department spends only 
     the equivalent of about 0.5 percent of elementary and 
     secondary funds for Federal administration.

  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for his intervention. That is a 
very important point. Because the critics stand up and say it is all 
going to administration. Now we learn 2.5 percent of it, Federal and 
State, as I understand it from the Senator, is going to administration. 
I think we need to underscore that.
  I want to come back to this notion that we are trying to direct where 
the money should go and somehow that is a departure from past practice 
or hasn't in the past, at least, had strong bipartisan support.
  It is clear that math and science is one of the critical areas. I 
earlier asked the Senator, wasn't this whole education emphasis 
important to the U.S. competitive role in the world economy. We can 
look at what other countries are doing, and we know the kind of 
investments they are making in math and science. We started with the 
Eisenhower administration, and that, I think, was at the time of 
Sputnik that that program was energized to try to improve the quality 
of math and science. We had some successes, but there has been a 
relapse, there has been a lapse back, and one of the programs that was 
cut, as I understand it from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which 
he is emphasizing we need to restore, is this program to improve the 
quality of the math and science teachers in the schools all across our 
country. Is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, absolutely correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it seems to me--and the other program, I 
take it, is we have a deterioration in the physical quality of many of 
our public schools in the Nation. Young children are going to school in 
circumstances that no one would tolerate. In fact, I understand some of 
these schools do not meet ordinary building standards. And there are 
serious problems in that regard.

  Once again, we are trying to emphasize a program. Of course, another 
aspect of what the President is pushing for is more teachers in the 
classrooms so we can have smaller class sizes, which most people agree 
is extremely important in the lower grades where we are trying to teach 
reading and we first introduce young people into their education.
  In fact, I ask the Senator, what is the situation with respect to 
overcrowded classrooms across the country?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct in his general summation of 
the approach of the President. And that is: One, to have smaller class 
sizes; two, to upgrade and modernize schools; three, to have an 
effective after-school program; four, to enhance the quality of 
teaching in the classroom; five, to ensure that we are going to have 
access to the new technology and that that is going to be available in 
the public schools so these children are going to be able to move 
ahead; six, to raise academic standards for all children; and then 
seven, to try to get the encouragement to those students to go on to 
higher education.
  That is all part of the partnership, among the local community, the 
States, and the Federal Government. This is not just a singular effort; 
this is a partnership. And when you eliminate the Federal assistance in 
that partnership, you undermine critical support for improving 
education that is so important to families and their children.
  Mr. SARBANES. If I recall the chart that the Senator earlier 
displayed on juvenile crime, it peaks in the hours I think between 
about 3 and 8 p.m., which makes the after-school programs extremely 
important.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maryland has 
expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 15 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and will take my time 
later because some here need to go ahead. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has up to 30 minutes 
under the previous order.

                          ____________________