[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12580-S12581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the very important 
issue of education.
  I am very disappointed that some Democrats in Congress and those in 
the White House have chosen to demagogue and politicize education as we 
attempt to wind down our legislative year. These Democrats would like 
for the American people to believe that Republicans just don't care 
about education and that we are refusing to spend more money to improve 
our educational system.
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Since I took office in 1995, I have seen a 27 percent increase in the 
amount of money this Congress has appropriated for education. In 1994, 
we spent $24.6 billion for education. For fiscal year 1999, we have 
proposed to spend $31.4 billion--exactly, I might add, that the 
President requested for discretionary spending. Historically, the 
federal commitment to education has risen from $23.9 billion in 1959 to 
over $564 billion in 1996. As a percentage of GDP. educational 
expenditures have risen from 4.7 to 7.4 percent over the same 
timeframe.
  For many Democrats, more money and more federal education programs 
are the answer to our Nation's education woes. Over the last few days, 
we have heard Democrats lament how Republicans have held up all of the 
Democratic efforts to provide funding for school construction and to 
reduce class size.
  For these Democrats, more money is a surrogate for the structural 
reform that American education needs. Structural reform, change--this 
is what these Democrats fear. Instead, their response to crisis is more 
money and another federal program.
  The last thing that we need is another federal program. Through my 
work as the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Education Task 
Force, I discovered that there are approximately 552 federal education 
programs. The Department of Education administers 244 of these 
programs, and EVEN IF you count only those ``providing direct and 
indirect instructional assistance to students in kindergarten through 
grade 12,'' the GAO found that there are still 69 programs.
  Among these programs, overlap is pervasive. In my office, we call 
this chart the ``spider web chart.'' This chart, prepared by the GAO, 
shows that 23 federal departments and agencies administer multiple 
federal programs to three targeted groups: teachers, at-risk and 
delinquent youth, and young children. For early childhood, for example, 
there are 90 programs in 11 agencies and offices. In fact, one 
disadvantaged child could be eligible for as many as 13 programs.
  In addition, the effectiveness of many of these programs is doubtful 
or unknown. The GAO has expressed concern that the Department of 
Education does not know how well new or newly modified programs are 
being implemented, or to what extent established programs are working. 
The efficacy of Title I also remains uncertain.
  Lastly, it should come as no surprise that so many programs and so 
much confusion comes at great cost. Critics of the education 
establishment note that although federal funds make up only 7% of their 
budgets, they impose 50% of their administrative costs. As one concrete 
example, Frank Brogan, Florida's Commissioner of Education, has 
reported that it takes 297 state employees to oversee and administer $1 
billion in federal funds. In contrast, only 374 employees oversee 
approximately $7 billion in state funds. Thus, it takes six times as 
many people to administer a federal dollar as a sate dollar.
  Brogan went on to say:

       We at the State and local level feel the crushing burden 
     cased by too many Federal regulations, procedures, and 
     mandates. Florida spends millions of dollars every year to 
     administer inflexible, categorical Federal programs that 
     divert precious dollars away from raisin student achievement. 
     Many of these Federal program typify the misguided, one-size-
     fits-all command and control approach. Most have the 
     requisite focus on inputs like more regulations, increasing 
     budgets, and fixed options and processes. The operative 
     question in evaluating the effectiveness of these programs is 
     usually: How much money have we put into the system?

  Cozette Buckney, Chief Education Officer, of the Chicago 
school system echoed the sentiments of many state and local officials:

       Excessive paperwork is a concern. Too many reports, the 
     time lines for some of the reports, the cost factor involved, 
     the administrative staff just do not warrant that kind of 
     time on task. That is taking from what we need to do to make 
     certain our students are achieving and our teachers are 
     prepared.

  Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation to help with this 
regulatory tangle and untie the hands of states and localities. Our Ed-
Flex expansion bill would expand to 50 states the enormously popular 
``Ed-Flex'' demonstration program that has already been ``field-
tested'' and proven successful in 12 states.
  Ed-Flex frees responsible states from the burden of unnecessary, 
time-consuming Washington regulations, so long as states are complying 
with certain core federal principles, such as civil rights, and so long 
as the states are making progress toward improving their students' 
results. Under the Ed-Flex program, the Department of Education 
delegates to the states its power to grant individual school districts 
temporary waivers from certain federal requirements that interfere with 
state and local efforts to improve education. To be eligible, a state 
must waive its own regulations on schools. It must also hold schools 
accountable for results. The 12 states that currently participate in 
Ed-Flex have used this flexibility to allow school districts to 
innovate and better use federal resources to improve student outcomes.
  I would also like to add that educational flexibility should extend 
beyond teaching techniques, curricula, and the rest of what happens in 
public school classrooms. It should reach to the management of those 
schools. One of the most important lessons about the prospective 
changes in education operations is the realization that decentralized, 
on-the-spot leadership by principals and other administrators is 
crucial to the success of a school.
  Unfortunately, many of America's school systems are frozen into 
managerial patterns that reward conformity and discourage independent 
leadership. American business has had to make structural adaptations to 
meet the challenge of the world market and international competition. 
Top-heavy managerial structures have given way to more flexible--and 
therefore more responsive--ways of engaging the work force in team 
efforts. The result has been greater productivity and enhanced quality.
  That is a good example of the kind of adaptation our schools can 
make, to free up the enormous resources of talent and commitment both 
among teachers and in the ranks of administrators at all levels.
  Republicans would like to stick with this strategy of untying the 
hands of

[[Page S12581]]

states and localities and giving states and local school districts more 
flexibility. Rather than create another 2 or 3 entitlement programs 
that are prescriptive and inflexible, we believe that we should allow 
states to use additional federal monies in whatever manner the state 
determines the additional money can best be used.
  For some states, this may very well be for school construction. For 
others, it may be for hiring more teachers. But for others, it may be 
for wiring every school, or for putting more computers in the 
classroom. Some states may decide that they need the money for teacher 
training, to improve the teachers that they already have in the 
classrooms.
  The point is--how do we in the federal government know better than 
those in the states and local communities--and parents--what their 
students need the most? The answer is that we don't.
  Some in Washington argue that by allowing states the flexibility to 
use federal money in the best way state officials see fit removes 
accountability from the equation. But to whom are state and local 
officials more responsive--the sprawling federal bureaucracy or local 
teachers, parents and residents?
  This Congress has actively addressed federal education. We had 
lengthy and thoughtful debate on a variety of education initiatives 
during consideration of the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts bill. 
We passed the Coverdell bill to allow parents to save more of their own 
money for use in paying educational expenses including, but not limited 
to, computers, school uniforms, tutors, textbooks or tuition.
  The President vetoed the Coverdell bill.
  This Congress has passed the Higher Education Amendments and made 
great strides in improving teacher quality.
  Just a few days ago, we passed the Charter School bill to support 
charter schools which are given more flexibility and freedom from 
burdensome state and federal regulations. I am encouraged by the 
success of charter schools in the states that have them, and remain 
hopeful that when all 50 states have increased flexibility with Ed-
Flex, that similar gains may be seen in the regular public schools. If 
charter schools are successful, we must give our regular public schools 
the same freedoms and opportunities to improve student achievement that 
we have given charters.

  In closing, my colleagues have heard me many times discuss the poor 
state of our American education system. In recent international 
comparisons, we have performed abysmally--scoring in the middle of the 
pack or at the very bottom depending on the age category and subject 
tested.
  Washington should not, however, rush to address this crisis by 
creating new programs with new mandates on parents and teachers, 
schools and localities. The last thing that our schools need is more 
bureaucracy and federal intrusion. Instead, what Washington should and 
can do is to free the hands of states and localities and to support 
local and state education reform efforts. When localities find ideas 
that work, the federal government should either get out of the way or 
lend a helping hand.
  I applaud the efforts of those on both sides of the aisle who are 
fighting for education. This is not a partisan issue. Witness my 
efforts with Senator Wyden on Ed-Flex--a bill that is also supported by 
Senators Kerrey, Ford, Glenn, and Levin on the Democratic side and more 
than a dozen senators on the Republican side. Most of us here in the 
Senate are parents and we all want what is best for our children--and 
all children.
  But let's not let extremist Democrats, who are hostage to the old 
order, paint the Republicans as the Grinches who stole Christmas for 
America's school children. It is extremist Democrats, with their well-
intentioned but completely misguided approach of throwing more money 
into the federal education abyss and adding more and more programs to 
the already complex maze of federal education programs, who are short-
changing the future of America's students.
  The temptation for too many of us is to measure our commitment to 
education by the size of the federal wallet. But let's not just throw 
money at our problems. Let's not just create more of the same old tired 
education programs.
  Let's focus on results. Let's give parents and local school boards 
control of schools, and empower them to chart a course that improves 
student outcomes. Let's allow States to decide how they can best 
utilize increased federal resources.

                          ____________________