[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1187-S1188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TESTIMONY OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON TO THE SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, 
                      LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that my testimony of January 
26, 1999, in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, regarding education reform be printed in the Record.
  The testimony follows:

       Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the 
     invitation to testify here today. You have a significant task 
     ahead--the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act. Today I will share what I believe is the 
     proper role for the federal government in education policy.
       When the original ESEA legislation passed in 1965, it 
     included just over 30 pages. Today it is more than 300 pages 
     long. The federal government has, with the best of 
     intentions, vastly increased its role in the education of our 
     children. What do we have to show for it? Virtually nothing.
       The results of the Third International Math and Science 
     Study were reported last year. Our high school's graduating 
     seniors did not fare well. 12th grade students from the 
     United States earned scores below the international average 
     in both science and mathematics. In fact, the United States 
     was outscored by 18 other countries in mathematics, coming in 
     just ahead of Cyprus and South Africa. Verbal and combined 
     SAT scores are lower today than they were in 1970.
       For the last 35 years, Washington D.C.'s response to crises 
     in public education has been to create one program after 
     another--systematically increasing the federal role in 
     classrooms across the country. While the exact number of 
     federal education programs is subject to dispute, a report 
     released last year by the House Education and the Workforce 
     Committee found more than 700 such programs.
       A review of the ``Digest of Education Statistics'', 
     compiled by the Department of Education, shows that the 
     federal government funds a multitude of federal education 
     programs spread across 39 departments and agencies. Although 
     the Digest shows that funding for these programs totaled 
     $73.1 billion in 1997, it does not provide a list of the 
     programs included. When asked, the Department was unable to 
     provide a list.
       One year ago, Dr. Carlotta Joyner of the General Accounting 
     Office testified before the Senate Budget Committee Education 
     Task Force. She informed us about 127 At-Risk and Delinquent 
     Youth programs administered by 15 departments and agencies; 
     more than 90 Early Childhood programs administered by 11 
     departments and agencies; and 86 Teacher Training programs 
     administered by 9 departments and agencies.
       The failure of these programs has not gone unnoticed. The 
     federal government's largest education program, Title I, was 
     developed as a part of the original ESEA in 1965 to narrow 
     the achievement gap between rich and poor students. Chester 
     Finn, in a recent article for the Weekly Standard, notes that 
     despite pouring $118 billion into Title I over the past three 
     decades, it has been unable to cause any significant 
     improvement in the achievement of these needy children. 
     Furthermore it is difficult to establish, as Dr. Finn also 
     notes in his article, that the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
     program has made schools either safe or drug free; that the 
     Eisenhower professional development program has produced 
     quality math and science teachers; or that Goals 2000 has 
     moved us any closer to the national education goals set a 
     decade earlier.
       Such clear and compelling statistics demonstrate that, 
     despite our best intentions, the federal government has 
     failed to create a coherent set of programs that address the 
     varied needs of children around the country. I submit to you 
     that we have failed because we do not and can not possibly 
     know and understand all the challenges faced by school 
     children today.
       Who does know best? It's simple. Our children's parents, 
     teachers, principals, superintendents and school board 
     members know much better than we what our school children 
     need in their own communities. Even within my own State, the 
     needs of children in Woodinville, Wenatchee and Walla Walla 
     differ greatly. Those working closely with our children 
     should be allowed to make more of the vital decisions 
     regarding their education.
       This is not to say that the federal government should not 
     continue to target resources to needy populations. We can and 
     should hold States and local communities accountable for 
     results. But we must not begin from a point that immediately 
     ties their hands and strangles innovation.
       It is time for the federal government to try something new. 
     I'm sure many of you have heard the success stories I have 
     about innovative education practices taking place in the 
     Chicago Public Schools. Paul Vallas, the CEO of the Chicago 
     school system, recently addressed an audience here in 
     Washington, D.C. to discuss the reforms he's instituted that 
     have done so much to turn his school system around. When 
     asked by former Secretary of Education William Bennett what 
     the most important power was that he'd been given, Mr. Vallas 
     replied, ``The flexibility to allocate our resources as we 
     see fit.''
       In 1995, the Illinois legislature gave that flexibility to 
     Mr. Vallas and the Chicago system by combining all state 
     education programs into two grants--one for special education 
     and one for everything else. The legislature allowed Mr. 
     Vallas and the Chicago School Board to decide how to allocate 
     their resources.
       A request for similar authority has been made recently by 
     the Seattle School district, in this case to the federal 
     government. Seattle has asked the Department of Education to 
     waive several Title I rules and regulations so it can reform 
     its schools' funding system. It wants to provide a system of 
     open enrollment, in which students can enroll in public 
     schools of their choice. Schools in the district would then 
     be ranked by concentration of poverty. Those with more than a 
     50% concentration of poverty would receive Title I funds, and 
     could use those funds on a school-wide basis. Although the 
     funds would be used to address the needs of all children in a 
     school receiving the funds, particular attention would be 
     given to those who require additional support in achieving 
     state learning standards. It is unclear, however, that the 
     U.S. Department of Education will allow the waiver necessary 
     to implement this innovative reform. The point is, Seattle 
     shouldn't have to ask.
       I have introduced legislation twice in the past two years 
     that would allow such innovative reforms to take place. 
     Although my amendment passed the Senate on each occasion, it 
     was removed in conference committee discussions under the 
     threat of a veto by President Clinton. I want to let this 
     Committee know that I intend to introduce legislation again 
     that will accomplish my goals of giving states and local 
     communities the ability to implement reforms that they 
     believe will benefit their students and provide them with a 
     quality education. It is, I believe, somewhat more flexible 
     than the similar and meritorious bills introduced by Senators 
     Bond and Hutchinson. To ensure that a

[[Page S1188]]

     quality education is available I believe we need to trust the 
     wisdom of those who spend each day with our children--their 
     parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school 
     board members.

                          ____________________