[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1983-S1989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will be discussing two critical areas as
we address the education of our youth in this country. Those two areas
are flexibility and accountability. Discussing this topic with me will
be Senators Chafee, Bond, Craig, Voinovich, Gregg, Hutchinson, and
Collins.
The issue that we will discuss is called Ed-Flex. Specifically, it is
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The shorthand
version is ``Ed-Flex.'' That is the way it will be referred to, I am
sure, over the next several hours and the next several days as we look
at this particular bill which I expect to come to the floor next week.
Let me begin by discussing what Ed-Flex is so people will know what
we are talking about. It is really pretty simple. Ed-Flex is a State
waiver program that allows schools and school districts at the local
level to obtain or have the opportunity to obtain a waiver to carry out
and accomplish a specific educational mission, but with flexibility
free of Washington red tape, free of the administrative regulatory
burden which too often--and we hear it as we travel across the State
again and again--shackles them in terms of meeting those specific
goals. These regulations are often well intentioned. We create them
right here in this room in Washington, DC, and then we expect them to
fit every local community. They simply don't fit. That is No. 1. That
is what Ed-Flex is.
No. 2, we as a country recognize we are failing our children today in
terms of education. We are trying hard, teachers are trying hard, local
schools are trying hard, but we simply are not doing the job that our
children deserve in preparing them for the next millennium.
Ed-Flex allows every State the option of participating in a
demonstration program which has been enormously successful; this
program was first established in 1994 and expanded in 1996. So we have
a track record. Right now Ed-Flex is in 12 States. What this bill does
is strengthen the accountability provisions and then gives all 50
States the opportunity to participate in Ed-Flex to help our States, to
help our localities.
Education is primarily a local issue. That is where these decisions
should be made. Washington must give these localities, these schools,
these school districts, the flexibility they need in order to innovate,
to do a better job, to do what they know is best.
Let me cite some examples that really make it clear to people. They
understand Ed-Flex is a State waiver program that allows schools and
school districts to accomplish goals free of red tape. Here are some
examples:
In Maryland, Ed-Flex reduced class size for math and science students
from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. It has cut it in half. They wouldn't have been
able to do it without Ed-Flex.
In Oregon, Ed-Flex allowed high schools and community colleges to
work together to provide advanced computer courses to students who
would otherwise not be able to receive this technical instruction.
A third example: In Kansas, waivers provide all-day kindergarten,
preschool for 4-year-olds, and new reading strategies for all students.
It would not be possible without Ed-Flex.
It is common sense. It is bipartisan. It is a plan that has been
supported by every Governor in this country. It is one that we are
going to move ahead, doing the Nation's business in a bipartisan way to
accomplish what I believe is one of the most important goals before us,
and that is to improve education in this country.
[[Page S1984]]
Now, that describes the flexibility, innovation, and creativity. The
accountability is an important issue, because if you strip away
Washington red tape, you have to be accountable. Accountability is
built strongly into this bill. It is even tiered-in so that you have
local accountability, State accountability, and Federal accountability
to make sure that those missions are accomplished.
At the local level, schools have to demonstrate why this waiver is
necessary, what the objectives will be; they have to have specific,
measurable goals.
At the State level, there must be in place an accountability system
in three ways: You have to have content standards, No. 1; No. 2, you
have to have performance standards; and No. 3, you have to have
assessment standards. Backing that up at the Federal level, the
Secretary of Education is required to monitor the performance of
States, and in fact the Secretary can terminate the State's waiver
authority at any time.
So we have a three-tiered approach to accountability.
Ed-Flex expansion has passed twice in the Senate Labor Committee. It
has the support of 38 Senators from both sides of the aisle. It has the
support of the National Governors' Association. It has the support of
the Democratic Governors' Association. The Secretary of Education and
the President have all called for Ed-Flex expansion.
Last year, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex. It has already gone
through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee this year.
We need to keep the bill clean and simple. There will be an unfortunate
tendency to put a lot of amendments on the bill and attach your
favorite education bill. We have an opportunity to have a bill passed
in this body next week, passed by the House of Representatives within a
couple of weeks, and at the President's desk within 6 weeks. It is a
simple message: Congress cares about education.
Congress respects local control, local innovation, local creativity.
And we, by passing this bill, demonstrate to the American people that
we can work together in the interest of our children, preparing them
for that next century, the next millennium. Let's untie the hands of
local government. Let them do the jobs they are entrusted to do. Ed-
Flex is a modest bill, but an important first step at administrative
regulatory simplification with strong accountability built in. I look
forward to the Senate's consideration of this bill next week, again,
with strong bipartisan support.
I thank the Chair. At this juncture, I will yield to my distinguished
colleague from Rhode Island. I will yield to colleagues, and they can
take from my time as we go forth over the next 45 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the manager of this
legislation. I rise in support of this legislation introduced by the
Senator from Tennessee, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Last
week, while the Senate was in recess, I spent time in Rhode Island
talking with educators about Ed-Flex. I had a group of educators from
our schools come in; principally, they were principals of our schools.
As a result of those conversations, I became a cosponsor of this
legislation, Ed-Flex.
First, it is important to point out what it is not. It is not a block
grant proposal. Senator Frist's bill, which will be the next order of
business, as I understand it, next week, expands a demonstration
program, as he pointed out, for six States where it was created in
1994. Now, 2 years later, it is expanded from 6 to 12 States. This bill
would permit all 50 States to benefit from it.
Now, what is this bill? Ed-Flex allows State departments of education
to apply for waivers of Federal requirements for State administrative
programs. Examples of these programs are: the title I program, the
Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, and the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Program. The States must agree to waive any corresponding State
regulations for these programs. If we are going to waive the Federal
regulations, we are going to waive the State regulations as well. The
States must have made demonstrable progress in creating and putting
into place the challenging statewide content standards. In other words,
States must have a place in statewide school reform, and that is what
this is designed to do.
One of the best examples of how Ed-Flex can benefit schools was
offered by an elementary school principal in my State when I talked to
him last week. He noted that for several years, his school district's
emphasis had been on raising achievement in math and science.
Professional development had been squarely focused on math and science,
and students in his school were showing the results through increased
test scores. Now he would like to be able to use the funds he receives
from the Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, which is targeted to
math and science--he wants to use it for professional development in
reading, have his teachers become better reading teachers. Ed-Flex
would allow him to do that. Absent Ed-Flex, he could not use these
professional development moneys for anything except science and math.
He could not use it for reading. This permits this legislation to be
used with this flexibility.
Since enactment of Goals 2000, States and school districts have been
working hard to develop schoolwide reform plans that will improve the
quality of education for all children. I believe this legislation will
help give schools the needed reforms that they seek. It has, as was
mentioned, strong bipartisan support. A companion bill, I understand,
is moving through the House, and the President has indicated his
willingness to sign it. So this is a hopeful sign for all of us, and I
think it is excellent legislation. I commend it to my colleagues.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague
from Tennessee for his great leadership.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Ed-Flex because it gives
States and local officials in 12 States now greater freedom from
regulation in the use of Federal education dollars. We need to expand
that. This is moving in the right direction. It is not all the way
there. They should be encouraging innovation, creativity, and
flexibility on the local level in regard to education. We should not be
handcuffing teachers, principals, and others from trying to do what is
right for the kids in their schools.
I think expanding Ed-Flex is a step in the right direction of putting
our Nation's children first and not the red tape and bureaucracy.
Ed-Flex is a step in the right direction because it moves in the
direction of putting decisionmaking back where it belongs, on the local
and State level. It proposes consolidating funding and removing the
strings that Washington has put on.
My colleague from Rhode Island has talked about his meetings with
local educators in Rhode Island. Over the last 2 years, I have met with
principals, teachers, superintendents, parents, and school board
members in every section of my State. It is amazing what they tell me
when I ask them about how our Federal programs are helping them. They
say, ``They are burying us in red tape. We have to hire people to write
grant applications, and to try to play `Mother May I' with the Federal
Government. We are taking away time from our task, which should be
educating our children and providing them with a quality education.''
They say that too many of them--if they fight and finally get a
competitive grant for 3 years, that grant runs out and then they are
faced with taking away money from their basic programs of providing
quality education to fund a Federal program that was stuffed down their
throats.
At our best count, we have about 763 Federal education programs. I
challenge every single one of my colleagues to go back home and ask the
educators: Do you really need 763 different Federal prescriptions? Are
they really helping you educate your children? I can tell you that the
response from my State is overwhelming, and I believe it will be from
your States as well.
When we think about the tremendous waste in time and bureaucracy with
4,500 people in the DOE, the bureaucracy overseeing them, and 13,000 at
the
[[Page S1985]]
State bureaucracies, those are dollars that are not going to the
classrooms. Who is accountable for education? Are we as a Congress? I
don't think so. I don't think anybody elected us to a national school
board. Ed-Flex is moving away from the concept that we have come to
Washington to be a national school board.
I say to you, to the President, and I say to the Secretary of
Education: If you want to run local education, run for the school
board, or be a superintendent or a principal.
Now, I hope we can pass this bill cleanly out of here and send it on
to the President, get it signed. Let's expand on this program. I will
tell you one thing for sure. If they start adding amendments to it, I
have something called a ``Direct Check for Education.'' Direct check
for education would put the money directly in the schools, not on the
basis of a complicated formula, but on the basis of average daily
attendance. I have explained that program to school districts
throughout my State.
I have a sampling of letters from school superintendents. I ask
unanimous consent that these may be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Harrisburg R-VIII School District,
Harrisburg, MO.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Senator Bond, The Harrisburg School District is in support
of ``Direct Check for Education'' proposed by yourself. The
Senator's office indicated funds available at $76.00 per
pupil. The funds from this ``Direct Check'' would
significantly enhance our educational offerings.
Sincerely,
William E. View,
Superintendent.
____
Rolla Public Schools,
Rolla, MO, February 9, 1999.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: As per your request, I have reviewed
your ``Direct Check'' proposal and am responding to your
idea. I am very interested in what you are proposing through
the ``Direct Check'' alternative. Our school district is, I
assume, fairly typical of many within our great state in that
we participate and offer many of the federally subsidized
programs. Through your ``Direct Check'' proposal, our
district will not only receive more dollars than it presently
does, but also have the latitude to utilize those dollars as
deemed appropriate by our Board of Education and this school
system.
I fully understand the potential turf issues that you face
with this ``Direct Check'' for Education proposal. I am also
cognizant of the bureaucracy that is affiliated with each of
these programs subsidized by federal education dollars. I am
most appreciative of and agree with your assessment that this
is substantive reform, and, therefore, our district would
gladly offer any assistance that we might. If there is
anything that we might do to further your ``Direct Check''
for Education proposal, please do not hesitate to ask. Again,
we very much appreciate your concern for public education and
this demonstration of a return to local control.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Ewing, Ed. D.,
Superintendent of Schools.
____
Carthage R-9 School District,
Carthage, MO., February 10, 1999.
Senator Christopher S. Bond,
Russell State Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: I appreciate the recent opportunity to
attend the news conference in Joplin, Missouri, concerning
your Direct Check proposal. Likewise, it was encouraging to
receive your recent correspondence concerning the proposal.
On behalf of the Carthage R-9 School District in Carthage,
Missouri, I want to express our strong support for the
proposal. It is our belief the plan will bring about equity
and benefit our students in numerous ways.
Your work to reform this payment process is highly valued.
If at any time our district can be of service to you, please
let us know.
Sincerely,
Kenneth C. Bowman, Jr.,
Superintendent of Schools.
____
Valley R-VI Schools,
Caledonia, MO.
Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senator,
St. Louis, MO.
Dear Senator Bond: I am writing to let you know that I
fully support your ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal.
After so many false promises by lawmakers regarding help for
education, your idea is one that I have hoped to see for many
years. It should truly be the job of local decisionmakers to
decide how funds are spent on each school. We do not mind
being held accountable for producing results when we have the
freedom to spend dollars as the local board sees fit. I
congratulate you for the stand you have taken on this issue.
I doubt it is popular among other lawmakers, because it will
no doubt rock the boat in some circles.
Again, thank you for this initiative.
Sincerely,
Larry Graves,
Superintendent.
____
Blue Springs School District,
Blue Springs, MO, February 8, 1999.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: I am writing in response to your
proposal to include a ``Direct Check for Education'' into the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
The Blue Springs R-IV School District overwhelmingly
supports such a proposal. The ``Direct Check'' proposal would
allow us, at the local level, to make the decisions we need
to make without the restrictions that are often applied at
the state and federal levels.
We encourage you to press forward with this initiative.
Sincerely,
Charles McGraw,
Superintendent.
____
Reeds Spring R-IV School District,
Reeds Spring, MO, February 9, 1999.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: Your ``Direct Check'' proposal does what
legislation should do. It puts the money where it can do the
most good. Leaders in local schools will be able to address
specific needs of students rather than conform to directives
from bureaucratic number crunches.
Respectfully,
Dr. Bill Wheeler,
Superintendent.
____
Kirbyville Public School,
Kirbyville, MO.
Senator Christopher Bond,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: ``Direct Check'' is one small ``step''
in the right direction. Sending tax money back to the people
it came from has never been a bad idea. Eliminating federal
and state bureaucratic taxpayer payrolls has always been a
good idea but appears to be an impossibility.
Local boards of education should be held accountable for
the quality of public education programs within their own
communities. If state and federal governments want to support
programming efforts through certification standards, a simple
process that ties certification to funding would seem
appropriate. If student performance is the primary indicator
used for certification, it shouldn't require multi-billion
dollar bureaucracies to manage the process.
Public education in America is in serious trouble.
Solutions to the problems will require a comprehensive
approach from every level, i.e., federal, state and local. I
applaud your leadership with this effort at the federal
level.
I encourage you to look for different funding approaches
for public education. The local property tax is a very useful
tool, but it has been extended beyond its limits. State
funding is also very useful and has been a lifesaver for many
Missouri Schools. However, the ``Big Dogs'', i.e., the
industries that produce ``adult'' products, when used as
directed can kill, have been allowed to advertise their
products over airways owned by the federal government without
regard to the collateral damage to the minds of our youth.
Public education should not be required to spend taxpayer
money to remediate problems cause by these irresponsible
industries that target the youth of our nation as future
addicts of their products. It is my understanding that the
top five contributors to the nations two political parties
are: the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, the movie
(media) and music industries and trial lawyers. Local
taxpayers should not be the only responsible agent for the
costs associated with drug education, violence prevention,
sex education and character development programs for public
schools. If the ``Bid Dogs'' are going to play the game they
should have the opportunity to pay for the dance.
Sincerely,
Lonnie Spurlock,
Superintendent
____
Webb City School District R-7,
Webb City, MO, February 4, 1999.
Senator Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: Please accept my enthusiastic support
for the ``Direct Check'' education initiative you are
sponsoring. It is my opinion that a program of this nature is
long overdue. Those of us who have spent a career in
education have repeatedly experienced the jubilation of
anticipation that arose from promises made by the Federal
Government toward education. Unfortunately, however,
excitement was then always tempered by the reality of the red
tape that accompanied the promise. As the result, frustration
was generally the only product forthcoming.
[[Page S1986]]
It is my opinion that one size does not fit all in
anything, especially education. I would welcome your program
and see it as an opportunity for real improvement of results
that would arise from federal dollars that flow toward
education. You can count on me as a supporter of your
efforts.
Sincerely,
Ronald Lankford,
Superintendent.
____
Pemiscot County
Special School District
Hayti, MO, February 5, 1999.
Senator Bond, As a school administrator, parent, and
taxpayer, I would like to commend your Direct Check efforts
and offer my support in its passage.
I must remind myself daily that, even though some decisions
appear to be more easily made from our Central Office, the
best decisions are those that are made from the source of
need.
The Direct Check concept would allow the decisions about
utilizing education funds to rest in the hands of our
constituents without losing some of the funds in state
administrative procedures. I feel confident that our Board of
Education indeed represents the wishes of our constituents
and frequently engages in dialogue with parents and students
to determine educational needs.
Thank you for your efforts. Please don't hesitate to
contact me for additional support.
Nicholas J. Thiele,
Superintendent.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the direct check for education doesn't block
grant education funds; it doesn't affect title I or include vocational
education, special education, or Eisenhower Professional Development;
it just says send the money directly back to the school districts,
eliminating the time spent reviewing grant applications and the
paperwork burden. It replaces a cumbersome and costly process with a
resource of flexible funding.
Do we need 100,000 new teachers? In many small school districts, they
figure it comes out to about .16 students for their entire district, or
.1. How do you hire .16 teachers? Some districts may need to use that
money to pay more so they can keep good teachers. This would allow them
to do it. Some of my colleagues say you will take power away from the
States and the States ought to be running it. I say the State
regulations can still stay in effect, but the accountability is going
to be at the local level.
We have school boards that we elect to take care of our educational
needs and to make sure that our children get a quality education. I
have a really radical proposal: Let's go back to the old system where
school boards are responsible through the superintendents and
principals and teachers and allow them to use the good ideas. We have
lots of good ideas up here, and we ought to offer those voluntarily and
say: Here is a good idea; do you want to try it?
The President just came up with a whole new series of standard things
he wants to do for every school district in the Nation. They may well
be good ideas. If you were a school superintendent, they might be just
the thing to do. Let's suggest to them that these are things they might
want to require. They may have a different way of going about it. I am
willing to take the chance on putting that money in the hands of the
people, the local educators who know our kids, know kids' names, and
know their problems.
I believe Ed-Flex is a tremendous step in the right direction. I urge
that we pass it without amendment. If we do start amending it, I am
going to give my colleagues an opportunity to vote on sending the money
directly back to the schools. Let's be radical, and let's do something
that can make a difference.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is
recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Missouri and
others who have spoken on the floor in relation to the legislation that
we will begin to debate next Tuesday, I believe, Senate bill 280. We
are calling it the Ed-Flex bill because of a demonstration project that
has now gone on in 12 other States in our country where school
districts have demonstrated that, given the flexibility to move dollars
around, they can accomplish great things for the young people they are
responsible for educating.
So for the rest of our country, I think the Senator from Missouri and
I want to see a similar kind of flexibility.
What does it mean? It is very clear what it means. It means that when
it comes to educating the young people of our country, we basically
trust parents a great deal more than we trust bureaucrats.
For a long time, we felt that the promotion of education in our
country would come only if you could have a national department of
education, and from that would flow all good things to the rest of the
country, and they would serve as the leaders to project our States and
our school districts into the dynamics of improving our public
education system. We found out that while there is a department of
education necessary on occasion, that the real energy comes from a
local school district, or a State, or a group of parents who do not
like what they see, or the direction their children's education is
heading in, and they want to make changes.
I am not at all opposed to public education. How could I be? I, my
wife, and all of our children are the products of the public education
system. And we are very proud of it. In Idaho we have a very good
public education system that could be a great deal better. The Governor
of the State of Idaho, former Senator here in this body, just elected,
has recognized in our State that one of the greatest needs is in the
area of reading. Should he be allowed, along with local school
districts, to shift to more concentration on reading from the first
grade through to the fourth or fifth grade? If that is what Idaho
needs, that is what he should be allowed to do. Even within that
context, in some school districts in our State reading has already been
a higher priority, and those students are doing better.
In the State of Texas, which has been able to operate under this
demonstration project that we now want to send nationwide, the students
there are outperforming others, because once again school districts are
allowed to focus, to target, and on their standardized test scores they
are moving up faster than they are in other States.
In Maryland, students are receiving a one-on-one tutoring--again, a
demonstration on the part of the school districts that in Maryland they
needed to focus on reading. That one-on-one relationship might
otherwise be denied under the concept that a one-size education program
fits all which would not have allowed the students to do so.
There are a good many stories out there. It is from those stories,
those clear examples of understanding, that we bring S. 280 to the
floor. I think it has the kind of dynamics we ought to be involved in.
For some time we Republicans have recognized that bureaucracies just
don't educate. They burn up a lot of money. They direct a lot of very
well-meaning people sometimes in the wrong directions.
Where it works is when the money gets to the local levels where
parents, along with their educators, can determine what the needs are
in a given area. That, of course, has always historically produced one
of the most dynamic public systems in the Nation, in the world, and
that is our public education system, stalled out in a good number of
years simply because it did not have the flexibility to respond.
At this level we are going to put more dollars into education. We
believe that is a high national priority. Unlike those of the past
where money should have come from the State and local units, we are
committed in our opportunity of surplus years to put some of those
dollars into education, and in so doing, we don't want them to get hung
up here where 25 or 30 percent will be spun over into bureaucratic
inertia. We want them to flow directly to our units of education at the
local level.
Ed-Flex, Senate bill 280, offers us that opportunity. We begin to
debate it next week. I hope we can have strong bipartisan support in
what is an extremely valuable initiative.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senate 280,
a bill to extend educational flexibility to all of the 50 States.
One of the nice things about becoming a Member of the U.S. Senate is
that I am going to have an opportunity as a Member of Congress to
promote some of the programs I lobbied for while I was mayor of the
city of Cleveland and
[[Page S1987]]
president of the National League of Cities, and programs that I
promoted as Governor and chairman of the National Governors'
Association.
Way back in 1991, we did a study in the State of Ohio in regard to
our department of education to find out if there were ways we could
change its direction. One of the things we discovered was that there
were all kinds of reports that needed to be filed. What was astounding
is that half the reports that were being filed by school districts were
to the Federal Government and the Federal Government was only
participating to the extent of about 6 percent of the money that was
being spent in those school districts.
So at that time I came to Washington and I met with Lamar Alexander,
who was at that time the Secretary of Education, and said to him that
something had to be done about this. At that time he started to put
some things together. I think he may have coined the word ``Ed-Flex.''
Also, Secretary Riley, an enlightened former Governor, realized that
the Department of Education could be of help to the States. They
extended the right to local State secretaries to grant waivers to local
school districts where they wanted to use certain Federal programs for
different purposes.
Prior to--we have to put this in perspective--Ed-Flex, if a local
school district had a Federal program and they wanted to use it
differently, they had to go to their respective State capital, kiss the
ring of the superintendent of education, and then that superintendent
of education would have to go to Washington and do the same thing.
So Ed-Flex basically says to those States that want to participate,
if you put together an overall plan of how you are going to in your own
State eliminate a lot of excess regulations, if you will put together
an overall plan on how you intend to take these Federal dollars and use
them better to really make a difference for the kids in the classroom,
we will allow you the authority that we have in Washington to grant
those waivers to the local school districts--in Ohio, 611 of them.
One of the really unique things that came about as a result of Ed-
Flex in our State was that every school district had to prepare eight
reports to the State department of education for Federal money, and
then they would submit eight to the Federal Government. Today, they
only provide one report to the State, and the State provides one to the
Department of Education.
I think it is important also to point out that Ed-Flex is just the
beginning of education reform in the 106th Congress. I would like to
congratulate my colleagues on the Republican side and on the Democratic
side for their willingness to allow Ed-Flex to be the first step in
education reform in this session of Congress.
We all know that there are different ideas on how we need to reform
education. The President has his ideas and some of us have a little
different idea. You have heard from Senator Bond of Missouri about his
program.
Many of us believe that the first thing we ought to do before we
reauthorize elementary and secondary education is to inventory the 550
education programs that the GAO says we have or the 760 that the
Congressional Research Service says we have and figure out what we are
doing there, get rid of the ones that are not working, consolidate the
money or save it, put it into a block grant, and send it back to the
States and local governments so they can do a better job with the money
we are making available to them. In other words, be a better partner
with State and local government because they have the major
responsibility for education in this country.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can't
come up with a program that is really going to make a difference for
our boys and girls throughout the United States of America.
In Ohio, this program has only really been in existence for 2 or 3
years, and there are some who say, why aren't you doing a lot more with
it?
One of the things that needs to be emphasized is that school
districts are interested in moving forward and taking advantage of Ed-
Flex, but they are being very careful about when they ask for a change
in the waivers and use the money differently because they want to make
sure, if they ask for a change in the waiver, in fact they are really
going to make a difference for the kids. They don't want to do this
just to go through the motions.
In our State, we have testing in the fourth, sixth, and ninth grades,
and we have a tough high school proficiency test. One of the things we
are trying to do is to bring up the test scores in those first two
tests, fourth and sixth grade. Through the use of Ed-Flex, we have been
able to allow a local school district to use the Eisenhower
professional grant money in a different way than is required under the
Federal statute, and they are taking that money and putting it into
emphasizing reading and social studies. We have seen, as a result of
reallocating those resources, a marked improvement in the students'
performance on their fourth- and sixth-grade proficiency tests.
I would love to see the rest of this country take advantage of this
Ed-Flex Program so that they can do the same thing for their boys and
girls. So I strongly urge that we pass this Ed-Flex legislation, as I
say, the first phase of our education reform program.
I would like to underscore one other thing. One of the most important
things the Congress of the United States did was to reform the welfare
program in the United States of America. Prior to that reform, it was
an entitlement program. We came and we lobbied Congress and said change
it to a block grant, give us the flexibility so we can make a
difference for our customers, the recipients of the welfare program.
We have seen a dramatic change in what is happening in our welfare
program. For example, in my State we have 560,000 fewer people on
welfare--a 60-percent reduction since 1992--because we have given the
people closest to the customer the power and the authority to make a
difference in their lives.
We never would have had welfare reform in the United States if it had
not been for the fact that waivers were granted to the States prior to
welfare reform and, as a result of that, Governors were able to show
that with flexibility we can really make a difference in people's
lives.
Ed-Flex will give Governors and local school district people that
authority to change some of these Federal programs, these one-size-
fits-all programs, change them and make a difference for our
youngsters, and it will be a way we can show America that if you give
people closest to the kids, the parents, the teachers in the classroom,
give them the power and the authority to take those dollars and utilize
them in a way that is really going to make a difference in the lives of
our children, we will see the most revolutionary change and measured
improvement we have seen in this country in terms of our public
education system.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
I want to applaud my colleagues who have been in the Chamber speaking
of education reform, and my colleagues on the Republican side I think
have come forward with a very progressive and innovative reform program
for education. I know Senator Voinovich from Ohio led the way in
education reform in that State.
But Ed-Flex, providing those waivers for State educational
establishments to be able to avoid the kind of heavy-handed
bureaucratic mandates that are imposed upon them; the Dollars to the
Classroom Bill, which I am sponsoring, which would consolidate 31 of
those hundreds of education programs and allow new flexibility to State
governments in ensuring that 95 cents of every dollar get to the
classroom as opposed to the 65 cents that currently get there; and the
proposal to increase funding for disabilities programs, mandates that
we placed on local schools but have not funded, I think are all very
important ingredients to our education reform package which will truly
lead to improvement in education in this country.
(The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of the
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
[[Page S1988]]
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Voinovich pertaining to the introduction of S.
468 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed for not to exceed 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who
are sponsoring the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 which
would afford states important exemptions from burdensome federal
regulations. Indeed, the bill would expand a 12-state demonstration
program to all 50 states, and would allow for the waiver of statutes
and regulations that hinder State and local educational improvement
plans. I thank my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator Wyden, for
their leadership on this innovative legislation. It is, indeed, a
landmark bill that I am confident will improve the performance of our
Nation's public schools by placing the control back where it belongs--
in the hands of teachers, parents, school board members and the
administrators of local school districts.
I am delighted to join my colleagues as an original cosponsor of this
legislation, because I am confident that it will improve the academic
performance of students in my home State of Maine and in States across
the Nation. Our Nation's public school system is the foundation upon
which the American dream is built. Time and time again, we see that
education is the difference between poverty and prosperity, ignorance
and understanding.
There is no doubt that America's public schools are in need of a
boost, but not one that is dictated by the Federal Government in a
``one size fits all'' approach. Rather, we need a boost for our
Nation's schools; a boost conceived of and built from the bottom up by
the people who know best what our students need; namely, educators and
administrators at the State and local levels.
The Ed-Flex plan does just that by cutting the bureaucratic strings
that now entangle Federal education dollars. It would allow local
communities to spend Federal dollars as they think best, as long as
their programs accomplish the objectives of Federal guidelines.
In short, the Ed-Flex bill will help our public schools attain and,
indeed, in many cases exceed Federal standards without resorting to a
``Washington knows best'' approach.
I note, Mr. President, that this approach is totally contrary to that
proposed by the Clinton administration. The President wants to be the
Nation's principal. He wants to decide everything from promotion
policies to curriculum standards. That is not the approach that this
bill takes. Rather, this bill reflects our philosophy that those who
are most committed and best able to improve education are found at the
State and local level--our parents, our school board leaders, our
principals, and our teachers.
In Maine, our students rank near the top in many national tests. The
State Department of Education, the State's elementary and secondary
schools and the University of Maine have worked diligently to design
and use challenging statewide learning standards.
National test results show that these efforts have been successful.
Even more important, they demonstrate that a strong K-12 education
system designed and supported by State and local officials, school
board members, teachers, and parents can produce first-rate students.
And, indeed, I am very proud of the accomplishments of Maine schools.
Dozens of schools across the country have participated in the current
Ed-Flex Partnership Program. They have proven that test scores and
learning increase most rapidly when guided by locally designed
programs, not by Federal ones. We need to expand the Ed-Flex Program so
that students in every State can reap these same benefits.
Public schools in Maine and across the Nation have made a good-faith
effort to repair the deteriorated foundation of our system of public
education. There is, however, much more that needs to be done. Our
States cannot do it alone. They need assistance but not the dictates of
Washington.
The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 directly addresses
the need for change within public schools by putting the power to plan,
brainstorm, build, and implement back in the hands of State and local
communities. Expanding the opportunity for the Ed-Flex Program will
give every State the chance to experiment and innovate and to chart a
path for better schools. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this very important initiative.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair and welcome the Presiding Officer in
that very important position that he has undertaken. We all have had an
opportunity to do it in our careers.
I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 5 minutes. I take it we
are in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
(The remarks of Mr. Breaux pertaining to the introduction of S. 469
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BREAUX. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
Are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business, and there
is a grant of 5 minutes per Senator.
Mr. GREGG. I thank you.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Ed-Flex bill we are
going to take up next week, which has been brought to the floor by
Senators Frist and Wyden and which is an excellent piece of
legislation, a commonsense idea. The Ed-Flex bill simply gives freedom
to the States to assist local school districts in meeting the
particular needs of their particular students.
As a former Governor, I was very frustrated when I would receive
Federal funds that were chock full of strings and Federal directions--
strings that limited the ability of local school districts to address
the educational needs of their students.
Had Ed-Flex been an option when I was Governor, schools could have
chosen whether they would use Federal funds to hire more math teachers
or instead if they wanted to use them to hire more reading teachers.
Those choices should have been dependent upon the particular needs of
each school.
They should have been dependent upon the particular needs of the
students. Instead, those choices were being made by the Federal
Government.
Under the current system, 38 States are prohibited from issuing the
type of waivers the Department of Education can issue under the Ed-Flex
Program. New Hampshire is one of those States. This means that someone
at the Department of Education who doesn't even know the name of one
student at, for example, the Rumford Elementary School in Concord, NH,
has more authority over whether the Rumford Elementary School principal
and the Rumford schoolteachers can decide
[[Page S1989]]
whether they need math help or reading help for that student than the
principals and the teachers have. It is difficult to fathom that some
of my colleagues believe that the Federal bureaucrat, however well-
intentioned, rather than a Concord school district principal or a
Concord elementary district schoolteacher or a parent is a better judge
of what a child needs in the Rumford Elementary School than they are.
It is hard for me to understand how we can turn to a Federal
bureaucracy to make decisions about local schools rather than have the
local schools make decisions about how the education should proceed.
This philosophy of Federal control over local education is insulting
to the principals, to the teachers, to the superintendents, to the
school board, to the parents. And more importantly, it is
counterproductive because it doesn't put the resources where we need
them. It doesn't help the student with the needs that that student has
been identified as needing by the local school district, but rather
with a set stringent regulated framework which has been determined by a
Federal bureaucracy.
Furthermore, this philosophy of Federal control is unjustified.
Twelve Ed-Flex States, in the words of Secretary Riley, have used their
authority to grant waivers ``judiciously and carefully.'' There is no
compelling reason to delay expansion of Ed-Flex authority to all the
States. In fact, Secretary Riley, President Clinton--both of whom are
former Governors--and the National Governors' Association support
expanding Ed-Flex to all 50 States. I congratulate the President and I
congratulate Secretary Riley for his support of this initiative.
With that said, Ed-Flex is a modest but important first step to
driving more flexibility and control to the locals, thereby giving them
the schools to improve education. However, it still leaves the bulk of
decisionmaking and control regarding Federal education programs in the
hands of the Department of Education rather than with the States and
local communities. I hope that later on in this year we will address
those additional regulations.
At this time, we are taking up Ed-Flex. That, at least, is a first
step and a positive step. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan, widely supported
bill with proven effectiveness. We should take this opportunity to
provide much needed flexibility to the States.
Finally, I take this opportunity to commend Senator Frist and Senator
Wyden for their diligent, bipartisan effort to expand Ed-Flex to all 50
States. They led the fight last year to ensure that all States benefit
from the increased flexibility and innovation that Ed-Flex provides. I
thank them for their efforts to bring Ed-Flex again to the floor of the
Senate.
I believe the very fact that Ed-Flex will be considered on the Senate
floor next week sends a clear signal to the American public that the
top priority of this Senate is education and educational programs that
are sensitive to the needs of the parents, the students, and the local
schools. Ed-Flex is proof positive that the Senate is prepared to hit
the ground running and promote proven educational reform measures such
as the expansion of the Ed-Flex Program. I hope that in a strong,
bipartisan manner we can work together to pass Ed-Flex and give the
Governors, the local schools, the parents, teachers, and the principals
this much needed tool which will free them from much unneeded Federal
regulation.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? How are
we operating at the moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business and the
general grant is each Senator speaking has 5 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I see the distinguished Senator from Maine is on the
floor, ready to speak. The statement may take me as long as 10 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________