[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1116-H1136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support. This amendment
seeks to strengthen the efficiencies in the Ed-Flex program identified
in a November General Accounting Office Report. This report of the GAO
said that the ability of the existing Ed-Flex program to enforce
accountability is suspect. GAO said that the States are not setting
required goals for increased student achievement and little is known
about the actual impact of waivers.
Part of the rationale for the enactment of this demonstration program
in 1994, and it was 1994, Mr. Chairman, when I was still chairman of
the subcommittee; part of the rationale for the enactment was that we
will be able to gauge the impact of waivers on student achievement.
This is not presently possible. The Miller-Kildee amendment,
accountability amendment, seeks to address these issues.
Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require States who
wish to participate in Ed-Flex to have the system of standards and
aligned assessments as required in Title I in place. This amendment
will mean that States participating in Ed-Flex will be able to
accurately measure student performance and also produce disaggregated
results based on categories of at-risk student populations. Without
this type of information in place, we will not be able to accurately
measure whether the student achievement is going up over time and
particularly how it is going up with particular groups for whom this
bill has been targeted in the rest of ESEA.
Our taxpayers who are the investors in education in this country want
to know and have their right to know how their money is being used and
whether that money is being used successfully. I think we have an
obligation in spending those dollars that we require that assessment
make sure that that money is being spent effectively. I urge all our
Members to adopt this amendment. This amendment to my mind is such a
perfecting amendment, my colleagues will not only gain power in this
bill for education, but we will find a real bipartisan bill emerging
from this House.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, and I guess I rise reluctantly, to oppose this
amendment, but in a sense of the bill we are dealing with I cannot be
that reluctant. The concept of putting all of these things in place;
that is, content standards and performance standards and assessments
that are aligned with the performance standards is clearly the way we
are supposed to go in this country. I have absolutely no doubts about
that whatsoever, and I think we should do it, just as there are other
things are being discussed on this floor today about which I also feel
good that we should be doing. The question is what should we be doing
in the education flexibility bill.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many people listen to the chairman,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and, as my colleagues
know, if somebody can repudiate this, hopefully not on my time, but on
their time, I would welcome them to do it. But it is my understanding
that when we are talking about the final assessments, that there is not
one State in the United States at the present time which has its final
assessments in and approved by the Secretary. I do understand that the
chief State school officers say that there are 17 that are ready to go
and they just have not submitted them. Fine. That leaves 33 who are not
there, and only 21 States have their performance standards done.
Why? The reason is that in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, where this would be a very applicable amendment, in that
particular act they do not have to have this completed until the school
year 2000-2001, and yet we are taking this education flexibility bill
in which we are trying to get States the ability to work with the local
school districts to get around some of the Federal bureaucratic things
that we have done, and we are getting an amendment like this, which is
all of a sudden taking an incredibly overwhelming, almost crushing
responsibility of getting these ready a couple years in advance or they
will not be eligible for education flexibility.
That is a mistake. I mean there is nothing wrong with the amendment.
There is nothing wrong with the intent of the amendment. There is
nothing wrong with any of the positions that the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) or anybody else has taken here today.
But it is very wrong to even think about attaching this particular
amendment to this bill though it is my hope that maybe the statement
has been made and this particular amendment can be withdrawn because it
just is so ill fitting with the legislation before us.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have put a great deal of accountability in this
bill to the extent that we can. There must be annual reports submitted
to Congress. The Secretary has to approve State applications. The
Secretary conducts performance reviews of State performance. We have
done it at the State level. They must have specific and measurable
performance goals required to monitor local waiver recipients annually
and hold them accountable for performance. We must provide public
notice and opportunity for comment when waivers are approved. We must
submit an annual report to the Secretary and States must submit an
annual report to the Secretary that summarize the student performance
and types of waivers granted and that at the local level local
applicants must send specific and measurable performance goals as part
of an overall reform effort. They must track the performance of schools
and groups of students affected by waivers, and waivers are subject to
termination, the performance declines, against objectives for 2
consecutive years.
Why did we put that into this particular bill? Because in the GAO
report they said there has to be more accountability and more
assessment, and so we have started that process here. But we do not
leapfrog over to the demands which are in the gentleman from
California's amendment which are final assessments which simply are
ready and are going to cut most States out of Ed-Flex.
This is a killer amendment of killer amendments, as far as I can
ascertain, and again I honestly ask somebody to try to rebut what I am
saying, if they are able to do that at some point in this discussion.
But I thing we are making a mistake even considering this amendment. We
are close to the universal agreement that this is a good bill. The only
question is what amendments are we going to adopt. This is not one that
we should adopt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing
forward this bill along with my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I
think it is a good bill and one that I am very pleased that we have on
the House floor today. I unfortunately have to join the gentleman in
rising in opposition to this amendment because I do think it would gut
the primary benefit that we receive from this bill, which is
essentially to extend to 38 States the possibility to be able to
participate in this waiver program that addresses the one problem that
I hear over and over and over again when I talk to educators in my home
State of Indiana. They tell me that they cannot focus 100 percent of
their time on teaching their children and developing policies and
curriculums that will make our schools the best in the world because
they have to worry about rules, and regulations, and paperwork, and
policies coming out of Washington that do not always make sense for
their school.
One of my wife's best friends, a young teacher named Brenda Wilson,
teaches in the gifted and talented program in Pendleton Schools, and
she told me they thought about abolishing gifted and talented programs
because
[[Page H1117]]
they could not fit it into their budget priorities when they met all of
the different requirements in the federal programs, and that would be a
sad day if that happened.
So I rise in strong support of this bill and would urge my colleagues
to vote no on the amendment.
H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, is our first
opportunity this Congress has to reform our nation's troubled education
system.
It is bipartisan legislation that the Education Committee passed by a
vote of 33 to 9.
ED-FLEX is a step in the right direction for families who are
concerned about the education of their children.
Why are families concerned? Because they worry, as you and I do,
about poor reading skills--whether their child is reading at grade
level and failing math and other test scores. And they care, like so
many of us in this body, about the values their community holds dear
and wishes to pass on to the next generation through education.
Why can't states fix these problems today? One of the reasons is that
states have been saddled with prescriptive, top-down, Washington-knows-
best approach to education that stifles local common sense and
excellence.
H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, satisfies many
of the problems families are concerned about. Specifically, H.R. 800
allows parents to have greater input and local education agencies more
control over the education priorities that matter to them. Twelve
states have been eligible for this, but currently, Indiana does not
have the freedom to use federal categorical aid on how they wish to
support locally-designed, comprehensive school improvement efforts.
They are one of the 38 who need this bill. This bill makes all 50
states eligible for greater State and local flexibility in using some
federal education funds. It allows waivers from federal mandates,
regulations, and requirements that rob local education agencies of
their ability to solve the problems they see every day.
The complaint I hear from teachers and school administrators in my
district over and over again is that federal mandates get in the way of
school's ability to serve their students in the most effective way
possible. Ed-Flex would address these concerns by allowing states and
local school districts greater flexibility in using federal education
funds in exchange for greater accountability.
National test scores place Indiana 44th out of 50 states on the SAT,
and 40 to 60% of Hoosier high school students are failing basic math
and English on the ISTEP tests we have in Indiana.
Because of this, people in my district want relief from the federal
mandates that have a stranglehold on education in Indiana. I have
discussed this legislation with teachers, administrators and parents on
my Education Advisory Committee, and they support this bill.
They support it because, even in our most rural communities,
different schools have different needs. Our teachers and administrators
are full of ideas about how to improve education programs and how to
best serve their students, but in many cases they cannot because of
bureaucratic requirements. This bill will give them the flexibility to
act on these ideas.
Can we do better? Should we allow states the chance to do better?
Should we give parents more opportunity to help their kids learn?
Of course we should!
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 800, the
Education Flexibility Partnership Act, and give families more control
to improve the education of their children.
{time} 1600
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment and I
rise as a supporter of the underlying bill because I believe that the
Kildee-Miller amendment significantly strengthens the underlying bill.
The underlying bill here is one in which we say to States and
localities that if they truly believe that they have a more creative
and powerful way to achieve the goals set forth in various Federal
education initiatives, then try them; if they can do better than the
orthodox way of doing things, then we applaud them and support them.
Implicit in that proposition is a measurement of whether the States
and localities are, in fact, doing better by trying the flexible
approach. I know that the words are in this bill that would measure
whether the States and localities are doing better, but as the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said earlier today,
educational bureaucrats in particular are masters at spinning words
about what they are doing. They are not always so good about providing
measurements.
I would submit that it would be technically within the definition of
a meaningful evaluation under the statute if the chief school officer
of a State submitted the following annual report about his or her
waiver schools: We have spoken to every teacher in every school
district and assessed their evaluation of the success of our waiver
program. Each of those teachers has reported to us that each of their
students is doing better than they were before in reading, language,
arts and math. That is a specific measurable evaluation of how well the
schools are doing. It is also utterly worthless, because it does not
measure.
It makes four mistakes. It permits words rather than numbers. We need
measurable, quantitative measures to figure out whether students are
doing better under the waivers. It permits us to talk about States and
not localities within those States. An aggregate State average may well
show improvement but it would mask continuing deficiencies in districts
with special challenges and communities with special needs.
It permits States to talk about groups of students without
disaggregating or breaking out particular subcategories of students who
have particular barriers of discrimination, of poverty of other reasons
that they may not perform as well their peers.
Finally, it lets States report on process rather than result. We had
64 seminars last year; we sent out 321 bulletins; we had 5,422
meetings. That is all data. It is performance data. It can be
characterized as that, but it tells us nothing about whether these
students are performing better than they were under the regular
orthodox programs.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) are putting the school districts to the test
and saying if they think they can do better, we will give them that
opportunity with our money, with Federal money, but prove it; prove
that they are doing better. Give us numbers, not words. Break it down
by school districts, not in the aggregate State level. Tell us about
groups of students, African American students, poor students, Hispanic
students, female students, others that may have particular problems.
It requires States to talk about results, not processes.
If we are investing in a company and the chief financial officer of
the company says we had a great year, we had six meetings of the board
of directors, we added 12,000 new employees, we had a lot of new work
on our employee manual this year, but does not tell us how much money
they made, what their sales were, we would not invest in that company.
This Ed-Flex bill, without the Miller-Kildee amendment, is an
invitation for educational bureaucrats to blather us to death.
The Miller amendment says put your results where the money is. It
will strengthen the Ed-Flex concept. It should be adopted because it
demands those at the local level to give their very best to the
children who depend on them.
This is a good bill that could be made much better with the adoption
of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I urge both Republican and Democratic
supporters of the bill to support this amendment as well.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Ed-Flex is wonderful for Wisconsin, my
home State, and for our country. Unfortunately, this amendment is anti-
flexibility. As proponents of this amendment discuss, it demands local
control, it demands our local school board members, our local
educators, do what they do in Texas.
The law of Texas is great for Texas but the law of Wisconsin should
be better for Wisconsin. I believe that we have to go down the road of
having more flexibility for our local schools.
As I have talked to parents, school board members, educators and our
superintendents, I ask them time and time again, what is it that we can
do in Congress to help them educate our children best? They tell me the
same thing: Cut the red tape. Give us the freedom to do what we know
works best.
I was written by a constituent of mine, a guy named John Bechler, who
is a very active member in our Kenosha
[[Page H1118]]
School District. He is on the Kenosha Unified School District board,
and I would like to quote a few things from the letter from Mr.
Bechler, our school board member. He said, ``Did the Federal Government
ever ask school districts what they needed most or did they just assume
one approach fits all?''
The answer is no. They assumed that one approach fits all. I am
concerned that even today Members from other States are attempting to
dictate education policy for my district's public schools. This
amendment seeks to dictate education policy from other States on to our
local public schools.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot have bureaucrats in Washington or in other
parts of the country blindly deciding that programs that work in Los
Angeles or Detroit or even in Texas must also work in southern
Wisconsin. This is simply not true.
John Bechler and his fellow school board members all across this
country should be asked, what works? We should then let them make the
decisions, and this very important piece of legislation begins the
process of returning decision-making power to the local level.
John concluded in his letter to me saying that I would hope the
Federal Government would allocate the education funds to the local
school districts and allow the local school boards to determine what is
the best use of funds to achieve quality education.
I could not agree more. Mr. Chairman, this is what educators
throughout my district are saying. They are saying enough of the
cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all public relation driven education
policies. This legislation gets us toward the movement of giving more
flexibility to our local school districts.
This amendment is anti-flexibility. I applaud the efforts of the
members of the committee to produce the amendment, but it does go
against the grain. We need more local control. I believe that the
educators in our local school districts know best how to solve the
problems in our local school districts. After all, they are there on
the front lines of the fight, improving our education standards.
I believe we should vote against this amendment and vote for the Ed-
Flex bill. It is a move in the right direction.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the authors of the
amendment, who I deeply respect, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and also
to applaud their amendment.
I think that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I already
have much of what they are requiring in their amendment in our bill. I
do not know how many times it has to be said, and then say it again,
about assessments or measurement or accountability or termination, if
it does not work. We do not need to get into the bureaucratic and
legislative babble and blather that the people here are talking about
not wanting to repeat. We do not want to get into that.
I applaud the authors of the amendment for the following reasons,
because they are concerned with what we try to get at and is the very
heart and soul of this legislation, and that is the nexus between
increased flexibility and reliable accountability. We do not want to do
that with new paperwork. We do not want to do that with handcuffing our
local parents and teachers. We do not want to do that with more
mandates coming from Washington. We want to do it by one rope of
accountability to student achievement, and we want to be able to
measure that student achievement.
Let me point out, first of all, before I get into some of their
arguments, the legislation of myself and the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) is tougher than current law. We incorporate some of the
recommendations from the GAO on eligibility, where we have changed to
have this tougher eligibility from Goals 2000 to now Title I
eligibility. We have tougher assessment tools than current law and we
adopted tougher language in our committee on termination.
We do not want to go so far, Mr. Chairman, as to rip out the very
flexibility that we are trying to extend to our States.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) talk about reliability assessments, and I
agree with that. We need to have reliable assessments. On page 6 of the
Castle-Roemer legislation, we talk about assessments, and I quote on
lines 12 through line 19, developed and implemented content standards
and interim assessments and made substantial progress, as determined by
the Secretary, toward developing and implementing performance standards
and final aligned assessments, and it goes on.
They talk in their amendment about being able to measure and get
results on disaggregated data.
On page 10 of our bill, Mr. Chairman, we specifically talk about
measuring. My good friend from New Jersey was talking about measuring
these things, and we say on page 10, the State's objectives are, one,
specific and measurable; two, measure, again measure, the performance
of local educational agencies or schools and specific groups of
students affected by waivers.
That is the disaggregated data. Those are the specific, different
economic, racial, various groups of students that are going to be
affected by this legislation and potentially by a waiver. We asked to
have that measure.
Thirdly, we get at, on page 13, the termination; that after 2 years
if you have significantly declining scores one is terminated from the
program and one has to reapply for a waiver.
Those are tough accountability standards, tougher than what we have
in current law, but we do not want to overreach, Mr. Chairman. We do
not want to take away the very flexibility that we are extending to the
States when we say we want to give you added flexibility and we are
going to hold you accountable to those students doing better in their
classrooms.
I come back to the example of Maryland that I talked about in my
opening statements. When they had that waiver authority for success for
all, reading for all, schoolwide reform programs, scores went up in
Kent County schools in Maryland. African-American scores went up in
those schools.
So I think that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I have
really tried to craft this delicate nexus, this delicate and sensitive
balance, between accountability for taxpayer dollars and increased
flexibility to our States, and while I applaud the authors of the
amendment, I would encourage us to stay with the underlying legislation
and support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, exactly 3 weeks ago tomorrow, I presided over my last
board of education meeting as chairman of the State Board of Education
of Georgia, so probably from a contemporary standpoint I am closest to
the effects of this legislation and the proposed amendment than anyone.
I do oppose the amendment, but I oppose it because I think the
previous speaker, the coauthors, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), have done an
outstanding job of ensuring that there is accountability without
ensuring that the babble that was referred to that went from the local
systems up does not also come from the Federal Government down.
In the final amendment that the committee adopted in the legislation,
which was referred to by the previous speaker, there is the greatest
accountability of all. That accountability is that if a system for two
successive years is declining, their waiver is withdrawn.
{time} 1615
Now, I understand school people about as well as anybody else. We
spend $5 billion State dollars a year in Georgia, and we appropriate it
to local systems. I got appointed to the State Board of Education in a
unique circumstance. The governor fired the entire board that he had
appointed about 2 years prior to my service here. He did because they
were fighting, they were raising accountability, they were
micromanaging schools, and Georgia was hurting and Georgia was
declining.
When he put in a new board, he asked us to do the following. He said,
give
[[Page H1119]]
them the chance to succeed or fail, just make sure if they fail, you
take away the latitude that you have given them.
This legislation does not just require a waiver of Federal rules, it
requires a waiver of State rules as well. No waiver can be granted from
the Federal level if it is also granted at the State level. And if we
understand how local boards of education work or how the system works,
what in fact happens is a local board of education has to first approve
the request before it goes to the State Board of Education and before
the Federal Government approves it. Now, that is a lot of
accountability. It is a lot of accountability for the merits of the
request and the intent.
The last point I want to make is not that I am opposed to
accountability by any measure; I am not. But I think the authors have
ensured and the committee ensured that it was there.
I want to just for a second close with why flexibility is so
important. Children are taught in classrooms by teachers, not by
Congressmen, not by boards of education, not by State boards of
education. Our children are uniquely different from Montana to Georgia,
from California to Michigan. In the programs affected by this
legislation from Title I to technology, there are differences as broad
in my State from one end to the other as there are in your State to my
State. We are opening the door, I think, to a great opportunity, and
that is to challenge our States to do better and say we trust them, and
if they fail, we will pull it away. There is no greater accountability,
and there is no more greater testimony to where education really takes
place than to grant flexibility back to where it all begins: in the
classroom where a teacher deals with one child at a time, trying to
build the future of our country through an improved education.
I urge the adoption of this bill, but not the adoption of this
amendment. The authors have put in the accountability. The flexibility
our systems need will bring about the progress all of us hope for.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Kildee
amendment.
One thing should be very clear in this debate. Flexibility is not an
end, it is a means to an end. I think some of my colleagues get so
wrapped up in the notion of flexibility that they think that that is
really the problem.
The problem is educational attainment. We got into this business
because in the recent international tests, we found American students
scoring below the international average, and we said we need to get
serious about improving educational performance by all American
students.
We are prepared to spend $50 billion over the next 5 years to address
this problem. But the issue is not just flexibility, the issue is also
accountability. How can we assure that the money we spend actually
results in improved performance?
Now, I am from one of the 12 States that had this experiment. I am
from Maryland, and Maryland officials, the Superintendent of Schools
for the State of Maryland supports the Miller-Kildee amendment, because
we understand that we must have stringent accountability. Not just
accountability in name, and not just accountability in rhetoric, but
accountability with real teeth. There are several things that need to
happen. There needs to be some specific assessment, goals and
assessment vehicles. We use a set of tests in the third, fifth and
eighth grade to accomplish this objective.
Now, I hear my colleagues saying, well, each State is different. That
is true. We do not tell the State how to do it; what we tell the State
is, you present us with a plan, your plan, for how you want to achieve
these results, and I emphasize results. What are going to be your
goals, and what are going to be your mechanisms.
Now, some people say, well, we can pull the plug in 2 years. Well,
that could be 2 years of wasted money if we do not have stringent
assessment tools, goals and mechanisms on the front end, and that is
simply all the Miller amendment is saying, is that we need to be
serious about accountability, because we are spending the taxpayers'
dollars, not just for some elusive goal of flexibility, but for some
real, tangible performance results.
Second, the Miller-Kildee amendment says that when we spend this
money, it has to benefit all students, not just some students, or not
just the overall aggregate. We need to know what black students are
doing, what Hispanic students are doing, what poor students are doing,
what female students are doing. It specifically says, you must
aggregate your data so that even if your State is making progress, we
want to see how female students are doing in math and science, we want
to see how Latino students are doing in specific subject matters; are
African-American students learning to read with the money the Federal
Government is spending.
So this is not an outrageous or an intrusive amendment. It is a
perfecting amendment that takes the concept of flexibility, which I
support, and says, we need to get serious about flexibility.
I believe the Miller-Kildee amendment addresses these concerns in an
effective, nondestructive way and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would repeat one more time that if this
amendment had been part of the Goals 2000 legislation, Maryland would
not have been eligible to participate.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about flexibility. We have had 40 years of
bureaucratic control and union control of education. We are number 20,
20th in the world, for math and science. We are a Nation with the
resources, more Ph.D.s, more technology, better technology than any
other country in the world, but yet we are falling behind. We want to
give the States and the local school districts the flexibility, not to
tie them down.
When we talk about accountability, in the crux of this whole debate,
the gentlewoman a minute ago said, we need to control how the dollars
are spent. That is the whole issue. And their statement is, that they
do not trust the States to account for the students that my colleague
just talked about a minute ago. We do trust the States. We do trust the
school districts. Because if anyone knows about an African-American
student or a Hispanic student or young women or young men, it is the
local teachers, the administrators, the community that knows, not a
bureaucrat sitting here in Washington, D.C. And this is the heart of
the debate: when we talk about accountability, look at why most of us
fought against Goals 2000 when many on that side of the aisle tried to
put government regulations in a well-meaning bill that was crafted
before.
There were 24 ``wills'' in Goals 2000. It means to comply under legal
language, and a speical board in each school district had to look at
the local Goals 2000 plan. It had to go to the superintendent. The
superintendent had to send it back to the board. The board then sent it
to Sacramento where there was a big bureaucracy. That big bureaucracy
had to send that bill to Washington D.C. to the Department of
Education. The bureaucracy there had the paperwork going back and
forth, and that costs a lot of money and ties people up. And that means
more wasteful government control in the name of ``accountability.'' By
contrast, we on this side of the aisle, just said, let us send the
money to the States. Let them do a Goals 2000, without all of that
paperwork, without all of that government control. Big difference, I
say to my colleagues.
Look at charter schools. The NEA fought tooth and nail against
charter schools, which are an attempt to take off many of the
burdensome regulations. Charter schools ahve been a big success. Look
in Washington, D.C. We fully funded charter schools, we fully funded
the public education system. We got another superintendent that wanted
to make change, Arlene Ackerman. And guess what? We had 20,000 students
beg to come to summer school in one of the worst school districts in
the United States, because they wanted to learn, not because they had
to, because we are trying to improve flexibility.
But let us look at other controls. We on this side of the aisle
wanted to give flexibility to the States and in this
[[Page H1120]]
case, Washington, D.C., under the President's goal to have more school
construction. The gentleman and I talked about this the other night. If
we want to give the State flexibility, let them waive Davis-Bacon,
which costs 30 to 35 percent more for school construction. Let the
unions compete with private contractors, and let the schools save the
30 percent for other construction or to upgrade their schools. But no,
there are some here that want the union control, the government
control. That's wrong. That is why we are opposed to this amendment.
That is why we are opposed to all of these amendments. We want the
flexibility to go forward with it.
I have 3 school board members that came to me along with 3
superintendents. They went to school for 8 days to see if they are in
compliance just with the Federal regulations, not even the State
regulations. They are going to get audited. Five phone books of
regulations. They had to hire a lawyer. It costs $130,000 to see if
they are in compliance. That is what we are trying to get rid of, I say
to my colleagues. We want the schools to be able to have the
flexibility to do it better.
Look at Alan Bersin, a Clinton appointee, now Superintendent of San
Diego City Schools. I am going to help Alan Bersin because he is
sitting in there trying to clean up San Diego city schools. Look at
Gray Davis, the new governor of California. He is trying to identify
the schools that are not working within California. He has a big job,
but I am going to do everything I can to help Gray Davis. But Federal
regulations and the unions are trying to stop him. He wants to support
the principals, make them the captain of their ship, so that they can
fire or get rid of people that they do not think are performing. But do
my colleagues know who is stopping that? Federal regulations and
bureaucracy.
Alan Bersin said, his number one problem is special education because
of the regulations that are killing the schools. Trial lawyers are
ripping off the money, just like they did in the Superfund, and he
cannot change it. He is having a difficult time, and we need to help
him.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, men like Gray Davis, our new governor,
and Alan Bersin in San Diego, are trying to do the right things and get
through the bureaucracy and get more flexibility into the school
system. We need to support them.
I heard the word ``bipartisan.'' The President will sign this bill as
it is, and the saying is, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Because
by ``fixing it,'' in the way some on the other side want, we are going
to increase the Federal regulations in the name of ``accountability.''
We do not want to do that. We want to help these kids. Let us go
forward and let us do a good job.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I think the gentleman who has just spoken and all of the people in
this room will agree with me that at least 90 percent, or more than 90
percent of the funds we use to run our public schools with are State
and local controlled. We are talking about less than 10 percent of the
total funds. We are talking about flexibility on less than 10 percent
of what we use to run our schools with, and if we have 10 percent of
the funding by the Federal Government, it means the Federal Government
only has about 10 percent of the control, if there is any control at
all.
So the American people should understand that the whole flexibility
argument is based on a phoney hypothesis. Our schools are in bad
trouble, bad shape. We are 20th in the international arena because the
States and the localities have not done a good job, and the Federal
Government wants to participate. They only want to participate. They
are not willing to put up even 10 percent. It is less than 10 percent
participation. What we are talking about here is an attempt to destroy
the Federal Government's role totally. We are back to where we were in
1995 with a call to abolish the Department of Education. It is just
another approach. It is a more sanitized approach to destroying the
Federal role in education.
The New York Times today has said what I said in the committee. They
said it in much more succinct terms. The wise thing to do, this is an
editorial of March 10, today, the wise thing to do would be to put Ed-
Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the
entire elementary and secondary education act.
What we are doing here is stampeding. Education, there is an
emergency in America on education. It deserves a serious response from
Congress. What we are doing here is not a serious response. This is a
stampede to push us into a political posture. We want to open the door
for block grants. That is what we are doing today.
{time} 1630
It is trivializing the legislative process, because we have on our
agenda for this year the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965. That is on our agenda. Why can we not
wait, as the New York Times says we should, and I agree? Why can we not
wait?
The New York Times editorial also says, ``The Ed-Flex expansion being
debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no
intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they
do.'' Correct.
The New York Times starts its editorial with the following: ``The
achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a
challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity.
Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a
vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing states to use
Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational
purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest
districts, which have traditionally been underfinanced by the states
and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least
prepared students.''
Why did the Federal Government get involved in education? Lyndon
Johnson, what was his argument when he started the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965? That we would help the poorest
students in the poorest districts.
What Ed-Flex does is provide money for greedy Governors who have
shown by the way they have handled the welfare reform money that they
do not intend to spend money for exactly what it is intended for, they
want to have the freedom to use it in various ways that do not
necessarily focus on the poorest people for which the funds are
intended.
We have a continuation of an effort to destroy the Federal
partnership. The Federal Government only wants a role. We want to make
certain that the national security, the national interests, are
protected by having the most educated populace we can have.
What the majority in this Congress is seeking to do is what they
sought to do in 1995, get rid of the Federal influence. It is only a
tiny influence. The American people should understand that we are
talking about less than 10 percent funding, less than 10 percent
control. The States and the local governments are in control, and they
have all that flexibility with the 90 percent of the funding that they
put up. They have maximum flexibility.
With all that flexibility, they have not been able to keep up with
the demands for modern education. The Federal Government needs to be
involved because education is our primary means of guaranteeing the
national security. We have a Navy which floated an aircraft carrier,
and could not find enough personnel to run the high-tech carrier
because they were not available. We need an educated population. We
cannot leave it up to the States. They have not done a good job. The
States should at least be willing to partner with the Federal
Government.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone that the
law says that at the local level, they will use the money for the most
educationally disadvantaged youngsters.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
[[Page H1121]]
I move against this amendment, I am in opposition to it and I
vigorously want to oppose it, not because I doubt the sincerity or
intent of the message. My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Major Owens) has spoken very eloquently about his beliefs.
But I would simply ask that Members not confuse the idea of
accountability with Federal mandates and government control. The
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 provides our teachers and
our local school systems the things that they need, that flexibility
within accountability to provide the education.
As I travel through my districts in North Carolina, and I have to be
careful not to go back through my own career in public education, which
was delightful, so delightful I probably did not achieve as high marks
as I should, but I remember those principals and those teachers that
worked from morning until night to give me the chance to learn about
math, about science.
I think of Jessie Blackwelder in Concord, who took over a school that
was suffering real problems. She got on the phone and called me up. She
said, get a couple of dump trucks over here. We need to clean this
place up. She started calling parents. She said, we need books. We need
help. We need new desks. We need you over here. We need local support.
We need those of you who know this community and these students to pour
out your heart and soul into our education system.
What keeps this from happening so many times is the Federal
Government, with more mandates shutting down this creativity, shutting
down this support, this enthusiasm, this involvement between parents,
teachers, grandparents, school boards, and those that are empowered and
entrusted.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman give us one example of
what he means by the Federal Government interfering with one's ability
to be flexible with parents and run the schools?
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience as a legislator in
North Carolina, and one who has run Statewide, that each time I move
into a district, regardless of whether it is the east or west, time and
time again a Federal mandate for paperwork, to make it in the simplest
terms, takes away from that classroom teacher's time that she could be
spending with her children to fill out forms and endless paperwork.
This is one of the clearest examples.
Mr. OWENS. I would ask the gentleman, classroom teachers do
paperwork?
Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir.
Mr. OWENS. Classroom teachers do the paperwork for the grants?
Mr. HAYES. Classroom teachers, superintendents, principals. It is
just too much of their time that is spent meeting Federal requirements
which are not productive, and I think this bill does a fabulous job of
giving them their time back to spend it in their classrooms with the
children.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is not a question of flexibility, it is a question that we need more
paperwork reduction.
Mr. HAYES. I have lost the gentleman's train of thought, but I
appreciate the gentleman rising to talk about that.
Mr. Chairman, my point is that accountability flows from local
involvement. Accountability comes from parents and teachers and school
boards being involved. It does not come from the Federal Government
imposing itself upon our local education system.
Again, I oppose this amendment. I vigorously support the Education
Flexibility partnership. It is a commonsense proposal that will help
stop the one-size-fits-all mentality that comes from Washington and the
Federal Government. The bill addresses the basic fact that what works
in New York City unfortunately does not always work in Rockingham,
North Carolina.
Our Nation's future rests on the quality of education that our
children receive. There is nothing we can do in this Congress that is
more important than ensuring the quality of education in our public
school system.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time listening to parents and
teachers in the Eighth District of North Carolina. What I have learned
from these conversations is that the best new ideas and innovations
come from the districts, and not from Washington. Unfortunately, it is
the Washington bureaucracy that stifles the creativity at the local
level.
Mr. Chairman, we have before us today a bill that helps cut the
Federal red tape which hinders excellence in public education. This
amendment works against the Ed-Flex bill, requiring more Federal
mandates for local education.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Goodling, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hayes was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the American people know that Republicans
and Democrats have some differences on the issue. They accept that. But
what they do not understand is why we do not move forward on the issues
when we do agree.
The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 has the support and
the endorsement of all 50 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike,
from all areas of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is time we passed this
bill. It was intended to empower the people who are the true innovators
in public education, our local folks, our parents, our teachers.
Do not let those who are opposed to this flexibility speak out and
hurt this great bill. Join me in a strong vote of confidence for our
parents and teachers. Support the Education Flexibility Partnership Act
of 1999 and oppose this amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wanted to tell his
friend, the gentleman from New York City (Mr. Owens) that the great
mandate that the gentleman really wants to tell him about, which is a
100 percent mandate, which destroys his school district from hiring new
teachers, destroys his school district from reducing class size,
destroys his school district from building new buildings, destroys his
school district from maintaining the existing buildings, is the 100
percent mandate from Washington, D.C. called, called ``special
education.''
That is the mandate that the gentleman wants to tell the gentleman
from New York City about, because oh, my, if he got that 40 percent of
excess costs, he could do anything under the sun in his district. He
would get millions of dollars. He would get $1 billion or more every
year. That is all he needs.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I just did not want to be that hard on my
good friend, the gentleman from New York.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mrs. Mink of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate I
have wondered exactly where I was; whether we were really debating the
reality.
I rise in support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I believe it
strengthens the basic legislation. I do not feel enacting H.R. 800 is
necessary, but I believe that the Congress is probably hellbent in
moving in that direction, and if we are going to do it, then it seems
to me that accepting the Miller-Kildee amendment would signal to this
country that we are not prepared to abandon the very core necessity for
title I, ESEA.
I happen to be one of the few legislators here who served in 1965,
when the great debate on how Federal aid to education was going to be
provided to our communities and our States, led to Congress enacting
P.L. 89-10. It was preceded by 25 years of agonizing debate on how to
structure this kind of federal assistance to our public school systems.
From that time to now we are still struggling with this issue with
mounting frustration coupled with our agony that our school systems
still cannot produce quality education where all of our children
achieve, based upon reasonable standards and assessments,
[[Page H1122]]
which must be a part of any legislation we accept.
PL 89-10, which is Title I of ESEA is part of this Ed-Flex
legislation. Title I is geared to the idea that the very poor in our
society live in districts that cannot afford to educate their children
as they are able to in wealthier, richer districts in our country. We
need to understand that the strength of this Nation, indeed our
national security, is dependent upon lifting the educational
performance of all children, wherever they live, whatever their
economic background. And if we do this as a Nation, we rise and we
achieve, and our society can accomplish all of the complex exercises
that we have to engage in in order to prosper as a Nation, to be the
leader of the world. So we fashioned Title I.
I want this body to understand that the Title I allocation of funds
is based upon a head count, a census, a determination of where the poor
children are located. We have a count that is provided to the Federal
Government, and based upon this head count of poor children, of the
poverty children of America, a formula is created and the money is
distributed to the States and local agencies based on the number of
poor children that live in a school district.
This money belongs to the poor in these communities. It belongs to
the poor children in our communities. We have no right to count the
poor children in this country, base a formula for distribution on the
poor, and then when it comes time to determine how to spend this money,
which is based upon a computation and calculation of these poor
children, allocate it in ways that are flexible and could exclude the
poor. This is pure manipulation, exploitation of the children for whom
this legislation was designed. That is my basic difficulty with the
legislation that is now called ``flexibility''.
We want to be flexible. We do not want to engineer all this heavy
bureaucracy on the local communities. But remember, the Federal funds
are something less than 7 or 8 percent of the total amount that is
spent in our school districts. Ninety-three percent of the funding for
education in our school systems is locally raised by the local
communities or by the States. The Federal Government only puts in 7 or
8 percent. There is no monstrous bureaucracy here engineering the
public educational system to the detriment of our children. It is a
small contribution, and because it is so small, the Congress is
determined to make sure that that small amount is spent for the benefit
of the poor children for whom it was legislated. That is the heart of
this debate.
The Miller-Kildee amendment says before we waive requirements to
direct the money to the poorest of these communities, let us make sure
that the States come up with a plan that sets down the assessments, the
criteria for achieving these goals, so that in the end, these States
can come forward and say, the poorest of our children benefited. Their
test scores must show this. These assessments by our impartial entities
must determine that the poor have actually benefited.
That is all that we are doing under the Kildee-Miller amendment, and
I urge this House to accept it before enacting a bill that nullifies
the purpose of Title I.
{time} 1645
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and she knows this, yes, the money does go
down based on poverty. However, when the money gets to the schoolhouse,
it is based upon educationally disadvantaged. That is what the law
says.
I would ask the same question that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller) asked several times in committee, only I would say it a little
differently. He has said over and over again, ``What have the taxpayers
gotten for $120 billion? We should know.'' I say, ``What did the
children that we wanted to help the most get for that $120 billion?''
That is the question.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise reluctantly but
necessarily in opposition to the Miller-Kildee amendment. I believe
that this amendment would be a killer amendment and would underscore,
unfortunately, the loss of this great Ed-Flex legislation. The
President has suggested that he supports Ed-Flex. The 50 governors have
suggested they support Ed-Flex. I think we should not mix apples and
oranges on this occasion.
Frankly, there are going to be many opportunities for those of us who
want to see education and the fixing of what I believe is the despair
in our schools, fixing of the problems in our schools.
We are going to be dealing with the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Schools Act, and I think, at that time, we have a great
opportunity to stand up for smaller class, to stand up for construction
and doing away with some of the overcrowded conditions, to stand up for
voluntary testing.
I happen to support all of those worthy goals because I believe there
is no greater issue, no greater issue facing the American people and us
as problem solvers, as legislators, than making sure that our children
are adequately prepared for the 21st Century.
Our praise in the world depend on adequate education for our
children. Unfortunately, our schools are in disrepair and despair. They
are in despair because we are seeing, for example, in this great
sophisticated age, this Internet age, that more and more of our kids,
particularly in the inner cities, are not getting the kind of education
that they need because they are coming from poor districts, from
districts that do not have the wealth to meet these challenges.
So I believe that Ed-Flex is a very good piece of legislation. It
needs to be passed but unencumbered at this point by some of the other
worthy goals that we talk about here.
So I would urge my colleagues to think long and hard. If we do
nothing else in the 106th Congress, I would implore my colleagues, let
us dedicate ourselves to this most pressing problem, the problem where
our children are not learning, despite in places like my own suburban
Long Island districts where we are spending more money than we have
ever spent.
The scores are down. They are lower than they have ever been. SAT
scores are down. Why? Because we are not doing in our classrooms what
we need to be doing.
So I would hope that Congress, which understandably wrests local
authority, the States and local authorities must have policy-making,
decision-making authority that should never be compromised. But we in
Washington should do a greater job of standing by those schools. Yes,
we have got 7 percent of national effort helping our local schools,
over $120 billion.
But let us deal with some of the most outstanding problems, like the
idea of special education. We mandate upon the school districts that
they deal with special education, that they fully fund it. But we in
Washington are not sending the dollars. We are sending a very
embarrassing proportion of those dollars.
The first thing we ought to do as a Congress, 100 percent of funding
should come from Washington, because 100 percent of the mandate comes
from Washington. That is absolutely necessary. We need to do that if we
are going to provide for our schools.
We also need to, as has been suggested here, address the size of our
classrooms. We should do that but under another venue, as I have
suggested. We have plenty of time in this Congress to do it.
But to sidetrack the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, a most
important measure, a bipartisan measure authored by the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would
be wrong.
So I would urge my colleagues, let us deal with these issues. Let us
make the 106th Congress the place where we deal with these many
problems. We assist the State and local governments in meeting the
needs of our children, but let us not sidetrack Ed-Flex in that worthy
goal.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I
rise in support because it is about accountability.
[[Page H1123]]
This amendment says that States must show the progress or the lack of
progress that students are making from year to year. We are not telling
local schools how. We are asking them what. What are the expected
results? What are the measurement criteria?
The Miller-Kildee amendment requires States to show what they want
their students to learn and how they will measure if the students are
actually learning what they intended. In the State of Texas, this
information will be broken down by race, gender, and income, giving
special attention to the students who are the most at risk.
The funds that the Federal Government sends to the States and schools
are, as many of us have said today, and I have heard it on the other
side of the aisle, too, and I am grateful for that, these funds are not
enough. I would like to work with the other side of the aisle to put
together a plan to fully fund IDEA.
But whatever the funding, that funding is in place so that we will be
clear that there will be outcomes. The use of Federal funds is in place
to ensure that our children in America, all of our children, rich or
poor, black, brown, or white, girl or boy, has access to a good quality
education. I know this is what all of the supporters of Ed-Flex want.
The Miller-Kildee amendment makes this possible.
We still do not really know what the effects of the demonstration
programs will have on education. If we are going to extend waivers
further, we must have accountability. We must measure whether students
are learning in schools. We must measure that Ed-Flex has reached the
goal that States have intended. After all, in the end, is not the
purpose of Ed-Flex and all of our education programs to enable our
students to learn more?
Mr. Chairman, I want to vote for Ed-Flex, but do not ask me to
without accountability. I cannot do it.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. This amendment changes
the accountability standards of H.R. 800, and it does it in such a way
that it is so restrictive that really none of the States currently
participating in the Ed-Flex program would be eligible for waivers
under the Miller amendment. It also tells the States what their goals
must be, again decreasing flexibility.
The following example is the requirements that are in the current Ed-
Flex, and this puts exactly the kind of burden we need on schools and
exactly the kind of accountability that we really need without going
too far and returning to some of the old ways of doing things, the
mandates that we have had for years that really have not produced the
kind of progress that we really desire and I know all of us desire.
But there is monitoring required. Every year, States must monitor the
activities of the local educational administrators. Schools receiving
waivers must send an annual report to the Secretary. Two years after
being designated as an Ed-Flex State, States must submit performance
data as part of that report. After 3 years of being an Ed-Flex State,
the U.S. Department of Education can terminate a State's Ed-Flex status
after notice and opportunity for a hearing if it has failed to make
measurable progress toward its stated goals.
Also, the local education agencies and the school district's waiver
application must describe specific measurable goals for schools or
groups of students affected by waivers and must be part of the local
reform plan.
States can apply to be an Ed-Flex State for up to 5 years. When they
reapply for Ed-Flex status, the Secretary must review their progress
toward meeting the objectives described in their application. So I
think there is plenty of accountability in this bill.
Someone mentioned what the New York Times says and what they want to
do, and they recommend a delay. Let me say this, my folks back home in
Kentucky do not read the New York Times. I think they should be more
concerned probably with the schools in New York City than they are
necessarily about those across the Nation.
I have had the chance of visiting a lot of schools in the last few
weeks, and I can think of two principals of elementary schools. One is
Edwina Smith and the other is Elaine Farris. They are in schools that
deal with primarily a lot of low-income students, a lot of
disadvantaged students.
When I talk to them, the teachers there, as well as the principals of
these schools, and some of the superintendents in the districts, they
want flexibility. They are tired of having mandates coming down without
the funding.
Yes, maybe it is only 6 percent, but what have we done? We have spent
$118 billion in educational dollars over Title I the last 34 years.
Yesterday, our 12th graders were out-performed in mathematics by their
peers in 18 other countries. Sixty percent of our children in urban
school districts failed basic tests on reading and math. Forty percent
of our Nation's fourth graders fell below the basic reading level.
So I think we really need to look and say, the way we have done
things in the past has failed. We do not need to return to that. I
think that is what this amendment begins to do is to return to old,
failed policies of government mandates, of 6 percent, the tail wagging
the dog, 6 percent, dictating what is to be done back in our States.
Yet we have seen in those States that have exercised the flexibility
given, which they would not have under this amendment, that they have
increased the progress of minorities, of the economically challenged
children.
So I think we need to oppose this amendment because it reduces
flexibility and goes back to some policies that have failed in the
past. It is a new day. I think we ought to start in new policies, in
new ways, the flexibilities, things that are proven to work here
recently, and give the opportunity of the flexibilities back to the
State to take this progress further so that we can see these low-
economic students achieve the kind of achievements that they can have
to renew their hope and allow them to be all that they can be.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment and
rise in support of this legislation. I think we all can agree that
local educators and parents are closest to our children and are closest
to the impact that our policies are having in the elementary and
secondary setting.
But here is another reality. When one goes to a bank to borrow money,
particularly when one looks like me, the bank asks for a business plan
or some other sources of income to determine if one can pay the loan
back. Provided one puts forth a good plan, they will loan one the
money.
Business people, when they own businesses and ask for money from
shareholders and ask for investors to invest, they have to present a
plan. If they are able to make a reasonable return on the person's
investment or the investor's investment, they will continue to have
folks invest in their plan.
What we are asking for here is even less. We are just asking for
States to put up a plan. It does not have to necessarily be a cogent
plan. But give us some sense of how they are going to go, what goals
they are trying to achieve, some sense of how they are going to
evaluate, how far they are coming, and where they would like to go.
That is all the Kildee-Miller amendment seeks to do. No new
regulations, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham),
my good friend. It does not strengthen the unions, I say to my good
friends on the other side. It does not line the pockets of trial
lawyers.
I have searched and searched and searched in the legislation for the
last half an hour to an hour to find out how this legislation could
line the pockets of trial lawyers, but I have yet to find out. But I am
open to a conversation if some of my friends on that side can identify
that.
We have paid a lot of lip service today to this notion of local
control. We have paid a lot of lip service to this motion that the
Federal Government somehow or another has come in and intruded and
trampled and usurped the powers of our local school boards and local
officials. Let us stop deluding ourselves.
We have heard speaker after speaker. The other side gets up and has
speaker after speaker. Virtually all of the education policy setting
authority in America rests with local authorities. One cannot deny it.
It is a fact.
Ninety-four cents of every dollar raised and spent on local education
on
[[Page H1124]]
education is raised and spent at the local level. When one criticizes
the Federal Government, and my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Fletcher), and I respect his comments about the New York Times,
they do not read them in Memphis either, they read the Commercial
Appeal, sometimes I wish they read the New York Times, but my friends
in Memphis, those folks that are graduating, those seniors that are
graduating who might have participated or benefitted from Title I
funds, Mr. Chairman, what about the 94 cents that were spent on those
children throughout their time in elementary and secondary schools. We
have to blame everybody if we are going to begin to point fingers.
{time} 1700
What Ed-Flex seeks to do is to give States the flexibility to make
these decisions. But I think it is rational, I think it is sensible to
ask them just to provide a plan as to how they are going to spend this
money. If the local authorities and local school boards had all the
answers, why are our schools falling down? Why are our kids dropping
out of school? Why do the international math and science tests over and
over and over again demonstrate our kids are failing?
We can argue all day, Democrat, Republican, unions, no unions,
lawyers, no lawyers, but the people that are losing are our children.
Sure, local educators and parents, give them the authority, but like my
colleagues, when I go home, what my parents and teachers and local
educators are saying we need to build new schools. We can debate how we
are going to do it. Let local authorities decide that. Let us provide
incentives for them to do it.
My colleagues cannot deny what this President has done, saying we
will end social promotion, we will provide monies to school districts
to hire new teachers and build new schools; if they close or address
under-performing schools, more money to build new schools. That is what
they do in the business community. That is what the Republican Party
has been yelling year after year after year.
I am only in my second term, 28 years old. I watched the Republicans
growing up. This is what the Republican Party has been talking about.
This is the Republican mantra. Why abandon it now?
All we ask for is that these school districts be held accountable. If
they do a good job, give them more money, I would say to my good
friends, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman. But if they do not, close
them. That is what taxpayers want, that is what shareholders want, that
is what we all expect.
All this partisan rancor, unions, lawyers, State authority, local
authority, Federal authority. The national government has a role in how
kids are being educated. These are our future workers, these are our
future congresspeople, our future pastors, our future teachers. We have
an obligation to ensure that kids are educated in Kentucky and
Tennessee and New York and Delaware, I would say to the former
governor, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). All we want on this
side, I think all we want in this body, is to ensure that Delaware is
doing a good job, that Tennessee is doing a good job, Nevada, Texas,
California, Michigan, New York. All we would like to do is see a plan.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller) are absolutely right. This is not about black
kids, white kids, or Hispanic kids. This is about children. This is
about a new generation of Americans. We have an opportunity in this
House to do something truly historic; reform Title I in a way that
gives States that flexibility.
But understand, Ed-Flex is not going to solve all of our problems. We
in this Congress must have the courage to do the right thing, and I
hope Democrat and Republican can find common ground.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Castle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ford was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would only hope we would do the right thing
in this Congress. We have our differences. I heard someone stand up and
say they want to support this bill because the President supports it.
There was something the President supported a few months ago that the
other side did not support, but I am glad to see we are on the same
page on this one. So let us do what is right for the kids.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. My only question, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have a
problem with anything the gentleman said, and he says it extremely
well, I might add, at any age, but I go back to the original question I
posed on this particular bill about an hour ago, and I do not know if
the gentleman was on the floor, but I pose it again, and if the
gentleman does not know the answer, somebody can answer over there at
some point.
My view is, based on what our knowledge is, that if the Miller
amendment passes, that we have only 21 States that have performance
standards in place and we have no States that have their final
assessments in place, and that means that no States will get education
flexibility. That is the problem.
It is also true that in the year 2000 and 2001 all these things will
be done under ESEA. I do not know how that can be repudiated. That is a
fact, not a wandering statement. I would be curious to hear the
gentleman's answer or anyone else's.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my reading of it does not
suggest that.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wants to
suggest that under his bill everyone is going to qualify. We know there
are about 17 States that are prepared to go. If a State is going to do
this right, let us not pretend like they are going to do it this school
year. They will be making applications for 2000, 2001. That actually
coincides with what we told them 5 years ago to be ready to do.
The fact is most of the States have not been ready because they
thought they could slide by again. That is what this accountability is
about saying enough is enough, we have made a decision, and we now want
standards of accountability that we can measure how the students are
doing. So there is nothing inconsistent with that at all.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. The bottom line is that they have to do these things by
2000-2001 anyhow under ESEA, and the gentleman is moving up the time.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman from Tennessee will
continue to yield to me, under the gentleman's waiver they do not have
to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Ford was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. The problem with the bill, and why we have
the amendment, is that under the gentleman's they do not have to have
it done, they have to make substantial progress toward it. They can
have interim assessments, so we will not be able to judge how the
progress is from year to year because we may have different assessments
on that, and we are right back into all the excuses why we cannot
finally find out how the children are doing, how they are progressing,
and whether or not this investment is worth making or not. That is the
difference.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that under ESEA all
the things the gentleman is talking about have to be in place by the
school year 2000-2001 one.
Right now, although 17 schools may be ready for it, right now none
have
[[Page H1125]]
their final assessments in place, a lot of them do not have their
standards in place. The gentleman is saying that they cannot have Ed-
Flex at all.
We are saying Ed-Flex is a relatively simple bill. We have worked
with the gentleman and put a lot more accountability in here than was
in before, which the GAO report wanted, but now I think the gentleman
is extending it to a level that none of us want to live up to.
I give the gentleman credit for a good presentation, but I was
wondering if we really have to go forward with the amendment. I think
this amendment would be counterproductive to those of us, including
maybe the gentleman, who are supporting the underlying bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is not counterproductive at all. The question is are we going to fish
and cut bait. We all talk about we do not want social promotion of
children; I do not want social promotion of school districts in States
that are not prepared to meet the standards. And the standards ought to
be that they can tell us whether or not children are in fact making
advancement and on achievement and meeting the goals of that State and
whether they are not.
So far what we have found out from the pilot program, we have not
learned from the pilot program, is that essentially 8 out of the 10
States could not tell us that. Could not tell us that.
Mr. FORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank both the
gentlemen. I would just close by simply saying that I hope perhaps we
can work this out in the interim here. And I would hope if we cannot, I
say to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), I do not think anything is wrong with asking
these local school districts that want this authority to rise up to the
occasion and to be able to live up to these standards today.
I would close by merely saying to all my colleagues in the Congress,
particularly on the majority side, the $100 billion infrastructure
problem we have in America, the Federal Government did not cause that
problem; the 2 million teacher shortage we have in America, the Federal
Government did not cause that problem. Let us work together to get the
job done. Support the Miller-Kildee amendment.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friend from Tennessee that
there is no question if they did not require a plan, if Castle-Roemer
did not require a plan, I would not support it. If they did not meet
what the GAO said they needed to meet, I would not support it.
And when the gentleman says if they do not produce, kick them out,
that is what the legislation says. They have 2 years to show, and they
better show. They better produce. And then at the end of 5 years, this
secretary down here says, they are out.
So everything that the gentleman wanted in the bill is in the bill,
and that is why I can support the bill.
Mr. DeMINT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against
the amendment as well. Ed-Flex is a great bill, and the amendment takes
the flex out of the whole bill.
This bill does what I think we have been talking about for years. It
begins to take dollars, decisions and freedom out of this House and
moves it back to houses in our districts. It restores freedom. To me,
this bill, flexibility, means more freedom, and I believe that the true
accountability comes to teachers and parents and local communities.
Last week I had the opportunity to help present an unprecedented
fourth national blue ribbon award to Spartanburg High School in South
Carolina. This is the only school in America that has won this four
times. So my discussions with the principal, administrators and
teachers were very interesting to me, because it seems the Federal
regulations that we think are helping to build our schools are, to
them, just obstacles that they have to dance around to do what they
know really works.
When I talked to the superintendent, he said, quit funding 5 percent
of these programs and demanding 100 percent of the control. We have
talked about the fact that it is just 10 percent, and that is right,
over 90 percent of the funding for these schools comes from local
school districts. But when we tie them up with the type of amendment we
are talking about today, this type of control invades all aspects of
our public school system.
I had a chance to visit Berea Elementary School in Greenville, South
Carolina. They had a brand new school. They do not want the Federal
Government to build them a new school; they want some new technology.
But we will not know what they need from here.
I had a chance to walk up the steps with the class from Berea on my
way in here today. They are probably watching what we are doing right
now. They know that we cannot manage their school from here, and after
meeting their principal, I am glad that Ed-Flex will help to keep us
from trying.
I also visited an elementary school that had an old building but
plenty of teachers. We cannot decide for them that they need more
teachers when they need something else.
I have a son who was playing on a JV basketball team in a public high
school. They practiced for about 2 months, but then they had to cancel
their game because the girls JV team had not been able to schedule
enough games to match theirs and they were afraid of Federal
regulation. It is just a little bit, but it invades every aspect of
management.
I have learned as a quality consultant that one of the biggest
obstacles to quality improvement, that we talk about here for
education, comes from multiple levels of authority. There is no way we
will ever have quality education in America with local control, State
control, and Federal control. This bill recognizes that we need to send
dollars, decisions and freedom back to the people who are truly
accountable.
It is really a little insulting, I think, to think that we are more
accountable here than governors and mayors and county councils and
school boards. Actually, we are a lot less accountable because we can
hide here away from them and they cannot blame any one of us. We are
not talking about accountability with this amendment, we are talking
about control, control that we need to relinquish.
I have to take special exception to this idea that our local
governments and our States have not done a good job with education. If
we track education and our test scores since the Federal Government got
involved in the 1970s, there is a direct relationship to the fall of
our test scores and the increase in funding from the Federal
Government. With every dollar we send them, we send more control.
In my State, about 50 percent of the paperwork has to match only
about 5 to 7 percent of the funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Goodling, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeMint was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, in my State they tell me, with only about 6
to 7 percent of their funding coming from the Federal Government, that
the Federal regulations count for about 50 percent of the paperwork.
This is what we are trying to do away with, and adding regulation,
restrictions and more reports to this bill is not going to help.
The real threat to our education system is coming from us, because
the innovation, the trials are being hindered by them trying to keep up
with our paperwork and our regulation. I believe that we can secure the
future of every child in America if we recognize that freedom does work
when it is in the hands of parents and teachers and local communities;
when we give more local control.
This bill has the accountability that we need to make sure that we
have the plans to match the Federal dollars, but it does not have
control that is out of proportion to the funding that we are sending
back to the States. I hope all of us will think and vote against this
amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment, and I
do so because I believe that we must try and
[[Page H1126]]
create equal educational opportunity. We must try and make education
available for all of the Nation's children, no matter where they live,
no matter where they come from, and no matter who they are.
Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of the schools in the City of Chicago's
public school system receive and use title I funds to support the
educational needs of disadvantaged children. This means that 80 percent
of the schools in the Chicago public school system have over 50 percent
of their children from low-income families. We have a responsibility to
ensure that these children, that each and every one of them have the
greatest amount of educational opportunity that we can provide from all
levels of government, whether it be State, local or Federal. That is
why I cannot support the Ed-Flex bill as it is.
{time} 1715
Ed-Flex in its current form lacks the efficiency and accountability
needed to protect what took decades to correct. The Ed-Flex bill will
allow local school authorities to redirect funds from special
educational programs as well as dismantle professional development for
teachers. In fact, this bill may exempt schools and districts from
complying with Federal standards that have been set for student
performance.
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that there have been 12 demonstration
programs, and yes, my State, the State of Illinois, is one of them.
However, these States have not been totally examined. Therefore, I am
not sure that all the potential implications of a nationwide expansion
are really known.
Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of this Congress as we
approach a new millennium to ensure that our Nation's children are
educated with whatever resources are needed. And so I call upon us to
build a new era of equality for all Americans, an era where African
Americans, Latinos, poor children, Native Americans and other
minorities who have long lived with the highest poverty schools and in
the highest poverty communities will have guaranteed access to
resources to try and catch up, to try and come from behind, to try and
realize the potential that they have, to try and know that before
resources that perhaps are not as greatly needed are put in other
places and in other areas, that they would have access to those
resources.
And so I appreciate the concept of flexibility. I appreciate the
latitude that teachers, principals, and administrators need in order to
do the work that they have set out to do. But I do not believe at this
time that we can risk these greatly needed resources missing their
mark. Therefore, I would urge all of us to vote in favor of the Kildee-
Miller amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) has mentioned that under the Miller-Kildee
amendment certain districts would not qualify. But those districts who
do not meet the requirements of the Miller-Kildee amendment by the
school year 2000 do not lose their Federal dollars. They only fail to
achieve that flexibility which must be linked to accountability. There
is no loss of Federal dollars at all, but we say if you are going to
have flexibility, we have to have accountability. The Kildee-Miller
amendment does not penalize them by taking away their Federal dollars,
it merely does not give them the flexibility unless there is a nexus
with accountability.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Flexibility and accountability must go hand in
hand.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. I want to make sure that everybody understands. Nobody
said anybody loses money. What we said is you lose the opportunity to
participate. That is what you lose. You do not lose money. No one ever
said you lose money. You lose the opportunity to participate. That is
what you lose.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this
amendment, as if it were passed we would have to change the name of the
Ed-Flex bill to the Education Inflexibility bill because, of course,
that is exactly what happens here.
I was a former public school teacher, I was the regional director for
the U.S. Department of Education for 11\1/2\ years, and I have
certainly experienced firsthand the Federal Government's bureaucratic
overregulation of our country's educational system.
While I was with the U.S. Department of Education, we published a
document called ``What Works'' in which we identified all of the
activities, all of the programs that apparently had some positive
impact on the educational experience of children. What we also could
have done, however, is write another book that was called ``What
Doesn't Work.'' We could have identified the hundreds of elementary and
secondary education programs at the Federal and State level, thousands
of Federal program administrators and State agencies, millions of hours
of paperwork requirements produced by the Department every year. We
could have identified all of those things as being examples of what
does not work and we could have pointed to all of the children who had
not learned as a result of all of this bureaucratic intervention.
We know what does not work. It is fascinating to me, because I have
been a strong supporter of school choice programs, including vouchers
and tuition tax credits. I have said what the gentleman from Tennessee
said a little bit ago. I was astounded, as a matter of fact, to hear
the gentleman from Tennessee use this very language when he said that
he wants schools to either do a good job or be closed. Public schools,
he was talking about. He wanted to see that kind of accountability. He
wanted to make sure that if they were not operating and actually
producing the kind of educational experience that would be best for the
kids, that they would close. Those were his words. Great words.
Absolutely accurate words.
Mr. Chairman, that is one of the reasons why I can support this
Education Flexibility Act and oppose this amendment, because in fact
there are a lot of things happening around the country today that do
give pause to public school administrators and teachers in the realm of
choice because we now know what works, we now know that charter schools
and giving parents the ability to make selections from a wide variety
of educational opportunities works. We know that works. And so there is
accountability in the public school system today. The only reason why
we are seeing as much concern expressed on the part of public school
administrators today is because in fact there is a little more choice
in the system. So I certainly support the concept of choice, and I
support the ability of schools to make a lot of decisions here because
in fact there are consequences if they do not make those correct
decisions. Children do go other places. That is okay. We can watch and
see what exactly is going to happen here. I certainly hope that we do
not pass the Miller-Kildee amendment as it will, as I say, change the
whole concept of this bill to the Education Inflexibility Act.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
just wanted to mention in relationship to Chicago, for instance, the
beauty of what is happening there, if they are going to be successful,
is the fact the State said, ``Hey, all these years you have failed the
children in Chicago. Now, Mr. Mayor, you take over. Forget the State
regs, forget all these things. You take over.'' They did not say, ``You
must have in place everything you are going to do, Chicago,'' because,
of course, this was all new to them. But they are putting everything in
place. And from everything we can gather, what they are doing is
helping children. All these years they did not help children in
Chicago. And so the State said, ``Forget us. Forget these regs. Make it
work. Make it work your way, but we want the children to learn, to do
better,'' and it appears that they are having success. Flexibility is
what they gave them.
Mr. TANCREDO. Also, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it has been my
experience that for ages now we have been debating whether or not we
should have any confidence in the local administrator, in our local
schools, in the local teachers who confront our children every single
day. Really what this bill does is it tests that theory.
[[Page H1127]]
My friends on the other side of the aisle, I know, believe that
people in the system are doing their level best, that everybody is
trying as hard as they possibly can.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Tancredo was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. TANCREDO. Does anyone really believe that a majority of the
teachers out there, a majority of administrators out there today are
looking for ways around doing a good job? That they are trying to
figure out what they can possibly do not to have children succeed? In
fact, we know that is not true, that in most cases, in 90 percent or
more certainly of the cases out there, everybody is working as hard as
they possibly can to make sure that children learn.
Something is wrong in the system. We are going to give people the
ability to address those problems and come back to us and say, ``Here
is how we can make this work. You gave us the freedom, here is now what
we have been able to show as the success.'' That is all we are
suggesting happen here, give them the freedom to make this thing work.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it really amazes me that
there is more in common with our commitment to education than maybe the
voices on this floor would seem to acknowledge.
I applaud the Miller-Kildee amendment, and I believe that if we were
to pause for a moment, we would find more opportunity to agree to this
amendment and to have this amendment passed and to move on to do what
is best for our children.
Let me simply say to the parents of America, and ask the question
whether you would agree or disagree, and the children, with this very
simple proposition. The Miller-Kildee amendment simply says that if we
are going to waive requirements issued by the Federal Government on
educational excellence, then the States must have in place a viable
plan for how student achievement will be assessed. Nothing more,
nothing less. It simply says that if you are going to move forward to
change requirements to enhance the educational standards of our
children, tell us how you will still maintain student achievement.
Everybody seems to get it. I do not know why some do not. The New
York Times said that the Miller-Kildee amendment provides the answer to
the threat of impoverished schools. What it says is that simply there
is a gap between affluent and disadvantaged children and it is a
challenge in the American education system to bridge that gap. This
amendment to what we have all come to accept as a reasonable
understanding of the educational leaders of our respective States, that
they do know education, I do have a degree of confidence in what they
do, but what is wrong with maintaining the fact that they must be
accountable?
I am somewhat puzzled again about this whole accusation against the
Federal Government, that it should not be in education. I agree it
should be a partner, not someone who dictates to our local communities.
But I am gratified that the Federal Government moved into this whole
idea of the educational realm in looking at math and science issues and
saying that we needed more money to provide for professional
development for our teachers, for Title IX when there was a discussion
about parity between boys and girls and providing dollars to ensure
that boys and girls had equal athletic opportunities and other
opportunities. What is wrong with that?
And might I simply say, in a time in our country where many went to
segregated schools, unequal schools, I am gratified for the, if you
will, involvement of the Federal Government. It is interesting to note
that the Federal funds are only 8 percent. However, in underprivileged
and rural communities, Federal funding, especially under Title I, can
account for almost a third of a local school system's budget. We must
ensure that those moneys continue to go to those school districts in a
manner that helps those students achieve. There is no accusation to my
friends on the other side of the aisle. But there is a recognition that
there is nothing wrong with the amendment that says be accountable,
prove to us if you do a waiver that you will in fact be doing the right
thing for our children.
Let me say, finally, my home State of Texas has been very successful
in implementing the Ed-Flex program, but it has adopted rigorous
standards that makes sure that all students, including minority and
economically disadvantaged students, rural students, urban students,
receive the benefit of Federal funds. For instance, Texas school
districts that waive Federal regulations must still show that 90
percent of the African-American students, 90 percent of the Hispanic
students and 90 percent of the economically disadvantaged, that means
all of those who find themselves in a position where they have to go
over a hurdle to learn, they must show that those students are
improving in their studies.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to show America
that we can work together. The Miller-Kildee amendment clearly says
that all we want is accountability.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) a question, if I could. There was a comment made that this is
an inflexible amendment, that his amendment is inflexible, and I
believe that this gives more flexibility. To me it provides flexibility
to the extent that it helps us be accountable.
Mr. KILDEE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I think it is a reasonable
amendment. The amendment really is patterned basically on the structure
that Texas put into place. Texas is the most successful State so far.
We were just asking them, if we are going to give them that
flexibility, which we will give them, we are not going to deprive them
of their money, that they have to have some accountability. Texas was
willing to give that accountability. I think our flexibility amendment
is very flexible.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the proof
is in the pudding. This is a good amendment and we need to pass it.
I rise in support of this Amendment, which requires that state and
local school districts that are able to obtain waivers under this bill
must closely monitor their students to make sure that at-risk
populations are continuing to achieve academically.
This amendment substantially improves this bill, because it prohibits
school districts from taking the additional discretion given to them
under the Ed-Flex program, and using it to further disadvantage
children from minority and lower-income families.
Federal funds are scarce and highly sought after by the states, but
they make up only 8% of all education spending. However, in
underprivileged and rural communities, federal funding, especially
under Title I, can account for almost a third of a local school
system's budget. We must make sure that if federal funding is to be
had, that it should be used to benefit all students, and not just a
select few.
Federal funds often help finance necessary supplemental programs that
substantially improve the quality of education in all regions of the
country. These supplemental services include remedial math and reading
classes, and career counseling. All schools need these services, and
this amendment guarantees that all schools will receive them.
My home State of Texas has been very successful in implementing Flex-
Ed because the State has adopted rigorous standards that make sure that
all students, including minority and economically disadvantaged
students, receive the benefit of federal funds. For instance, Texas
school districts that waive federal regulations must still show that
90% of the African-American students, 90% of their Hispanic students,
and 90% of the economically-disadvantaged students are improving in
their studies.
This type of self-imposed criteria should be lauded, and hopefully
they will be emulated by all the 50 states if this bill is passed.
However, because we cannot rely on each state to do so, this amendment
is necessary if we are to pass H.R. 800. I hope that you will all
support it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kildee-Miller amendment.
But I wanted to say at the very beginning that I have known both of
those gentlemen for many years as a staffer and as a Member and while
we may have disagreements as to how to implement
[[Page H1128]]
education policy, never in my career as a staffer or a Member have I
ever seen Members more committed to the interest of kids than the two
authors of this amendment.
{time} 1730
I disagree with how they do that, and I think that sometimes they
want to do what is best not only for their own kids, but other kids,
but their heart is right, and it is important when we are debating
things to understand those fundamental principles that one can disagree
and still want to have what is best for education.
This is not just about process. This is about what is the best way to
educate the kids in America, and is it best through the Federal
Government or moving it closer to the parents?
But I want to go through this amendment in particular.
In the third clause it says the assessment information is
disaggregated by race, and ethnicity, sex, English proficiency status,
migrant status and social economic status for the State, each local
education agency in each school unless it does not meet the statistical
reliable information level.
Now it is important here, as we have been arguing whether this is
flexible or inflexible, but let us just think about all these different
standards: race, ethnicity, sex, English proficiency, migrant status
and social economic status. Now I understand the value of
accountability, and I understand about the value of having information.
But here we are not block granting everything; it is only within the
limits of small changes within certain programs. After all, this is a
bill backed by every Governor and by the President of the United
States.
In Indiana terms, it is an itty-bitty flexibility. It is not a
flexibility like this or a big light. It is a little tiny flexibility,
and there becomes a question of proportionality here because there is
lots of information that we would like to have that would be useful. I,
for example, would like to have family composition information. I think
it would be helpful to know how kids are doing in two-parent families,
single-parent families. We all know that children of divorce,
particularly in those first periods, have a decline in educational
standards. Why not have a report to see what the kids are doing there?
How about mobility? Nobody has ever visited an urban school where
they are having trouble with their test scores, or even suburban
schools, but particularly highlighted in urban schools where kids are
moving between these different schools. Often they will move four times
in a given year. Maybe we should have data tracking kids by whether
they moved in 3 months, 6 months, 1 year or 2 years, and we might find
that that data has more meaning than a lot of the particular breakouts
here.
Now furthermore, the President's proposed policies on social
promotion and school uniforms where maybe we ought to have data on that
to see whether, if they put school uniforms in school, stop social
promotion, to see whether the President's initiatives are, in fact,
working, and maybe that ought to be part of it, so enough that we ought
to be passing a bill, we ought to have measurement standards.
Now the problem here is, is that in addition to this, let us look at
the actual terms. Ethnicity is a difficult statement here. How many
breakouts are we going to have? I have the largest concentration of
Macedonian Americans in my district. Does this mean that we have to
break it out by Macedonian Americans if there is a statistical reliable
subgroup, and how many years in the U.S.? I assume that that has a
technical meaning with larger subgroups, but the principle is still
there, and we argue that all the time in the census right now of forms
and even how to do ethnicity and background.
What about by subject matter? One Member from the other side of the
aisle came down to the floor and said that he would like to know how
math kids are doing by race.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could
support the gentleman's amendment. It sounds far too complex and
restrictive for myself, but the gentleman should go ahead, if he would.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.
But what about having science by sex? What about English proficiency
and social economic for reading? Because, in fact, the subcategories,
that would be useful information and really is information that is
useful in English proficiency if we do not know the differences by
whether they are a current migrant or whether they, in other words, we
start to multiply the variations in what is already there.
All of this is important data. Are we going to data the districts to
death?
Furthermore, in addition in this subsection 4(a)(A) it says that
there has to be assessment instruments in performance objectives for
every subgroup that is disaggregated. So that means, for example, if we
have female and male Macedonian American students by income, unless
they come in the current migrant status, then we would have to have
them in a different subgroup, and then we say this is giving schools
flexibility for this itty-bitty, tiny flexibility that we are seeking
here. This is a massive potential even without my proposed additional
information. This is a potential massive paperwork problem, and I urge
that we reject this amendment, but we in effect gut Ed-Flex.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Kildee, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague knows, the language that we
have in our amendment and the language which the gentleman quotes is
not new language at all. It is the language that is in the Title I
reauthorization of 1994, the standards that should be put in place, and
it is the language which is in the Texas model. So it is not something
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I dreamed up; it is
something that we voted on, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) voted for it in 1994, and it is the same language in the
Texas model.
Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to
point out is, is that while that may be true in a Title I massive
grant, the smaller the flexibility becomes, it becomes a
proportionality question, and, furthermore, I would suggest that if we
want to do this much detail, that is why we run for local school
boards, not become Members of the United States Congress.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but as we come to a
conclusion on this debate after almost 5 hours, it is and should be
fairly clear to all of us and certainly to the American people that the
American education system needs reform, it needs changing, it needs
improving, and I do not think we can get any disagreement at all from
Democrats or Republicans that that is a true statement. But, as usual,
we come down to how do we implement that, how do we achieve that goal,
and, as usual, we do have different ideas about how one might do that.
Today's bill is about being flexible. It is about allowing people
back home, who do very much understand the need for good training and
good education, people who actually know the names of some of the
children that we wish to educate, people who have a great deal riding
on the education system for their State, and indeed, and most
importantly, for our country. I listened to a debate a day or two ago
where it was pointed out, and I think it has been pointed out this
afternoon in numerous occasions, that all 50 Governors support this Ed-
Flex.
I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee),
and I do not really like doing that especially because of my respect
for Mr. Kildee, but I oppose all these amendments simply because every
amendment is based on taking away what we started out to do 5 hours
ago, which was to be flexible in our funding for education.
The 50 Governors that support this particular bill happen to be
Democrat
[[Page H1129]]
and Republican. My Democratic Governor in Georgia I am very confident
believes in education, and is very concerned about education in our
State and is going to make the right decisions to the best of his
ability. A lot of times some of the Governors, Republican and Democrat,
who are trying to make decisions about education back home cannot do so
because of the rings of red tape, and that goes back to the philosophy,
and maybe the basic difference in us here is the philosophy in many
people up here that only education, only the problems in education, can
be solved in Washington. Only we care. Nobody back home could possibly
care about our children, and their training and their education as much
as we care here in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, that is not the contest. The contest is not who cares
the most. The contest is what must we do in order to improve their
training and improve their education.
I think that the 50 Governors are right. I think there is
accountability in this in the sense that there is only one thing we are
asking the States to be accountable for: Are they better or are they
not? Have they improved, or have not they? And that is the question,
and if my colleagues have not solved that within 2 years, then they are
not eligible for Ed-Flex.
So with that in mind, let us give it a try. Let us see how we do. We
have given it a try in 12 States. Let us try all 50 States, and let us
look, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and see what
the results is. Let us look and see if the test scores are going up, if
they are learning better, if they are preparing for life through
education better, and if they are, let us do a lot more of this, and if
they are not, then let us draw back and say, well, maybe they care back
home in Georgia, but gosh, they just are not as smart as we are. We are
going to have to take back over.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to wrap up by indicating
what I said at the beginning of this entire debate, and I do not know
how I can say it any more sincere.
The well-intended legislation of the 1960s failed the very people we
wanted to help the most. We have to admit that. All the results
indicate that. Every study has indicated that. So what I am asking my
colleagues to do is we have lost 30 years. How many generations of
young children have we lost who have not gotten a decent education
because we would not admit that we had a problem? We always said if we
had more money, we could cover more children, and somehow or other
things would be beautiful. It did not work out.
Now that does not hurt us, but it sure does hurt all of those
millions of children that we had hoped that we could give them a good
start in education so that the life would be far better for them, and
that is why it is so important that the accountability that is put in
this bill is there.
I want to review that so that everybody understands exactly what the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer) have done. Accountability at the federal level, the annual
report to Congress; Secretary must submit a report to Congress of State
use of Ed-Flex waivers and their impact on student performances. The
Secretary on the Federal level approves the applications, Secretary
evaluates the State application for Ed-Flex and determines whether they
will receive Ed-Flex authority. The Secretary conducts performance
reviews. The Secretary must conduct a performance review of States with
Ed-Flex.
Then we go to the State level, accountability at the State level. We
must set specific and measurable performance goals. In order to qualify
States must set measurable performance goals, agree to hold schools and
districts accountable for performance. They are required to monitor
local waiver recipients annually. States must monitor local waiver
recipients and terminate waivers after 2 years of declining
performance.
Public notice and comment. States must notify the public when they
grant waivers and provide them with opportunities to comment. They must
submit an annual report. States must submit an annual report of how Ed-
Flex waivers have been used. This report must include information on
the types of waivers granted and how they have helped to implement
reform and improve student performance.
Now we get down to the local level. They must set specific and
measurable performance goals, specific and measurable performance
goals. They must track the performance of schools and groups of
students affected by waivers. The waivers are subject to termination if
performance declines against objectives for two consecutive years.
This is far more than any of the 12 at the present time are asked to
do, far more, and as I have said many times, they could not qualify any
of the 12 for the Miller-Kildee if the Miller-Kildee amendment were
part of that Goals 2000 proposal.
So again I plead with all of my colleagues. Think not about sound
bites, think not about politics. Think about how we have failed the
most needy children in this country and what is it we are going to do
to make sure that changes and make sure as we do, as I said as the
State does, with Chicago. They give them time to get everything in
place. It is a new ball game for them, but they are given that
opportunity, and, as I said, it appears they are working. It appears
that children are benefitting in Texas. It appears children are
benefiting in Maryland from this opportunity. Now let us give all 50,
and let us stick to our commitment which basically says all must be in
order by the school year 2000-2001.
Mr. Chairman, let us think strictly about children. Let us make sure
that every child has a golden opportunity for a good quality education.
{time} 1745
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding.
I would just say that I would follow on to what the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has said. We ought to learn from the 30
years. For 30 years, the Federal Government has been enabling very
sloppy tactics, a lack of accountability. We have simply evaporated on
accountability.
We ought to do it right this time, because we are making a dramatic
change in direction with respect to flexibility. I think it is the
right change to make, but we ought to be able to look our constituents
and parents and teachers and students in the eye and say that we have
in here public accountability, to try to assure that, in fact, we do it
right, because we have not done it right in the past.
I only wish that so many people who spoke against this amendment
would have in fact read the amendment because they characterized it in
so many ways it has nothing to do with what this amendment does.
I would ask, for the first time, to put teeth into accountability.
Let us find out how all of our children are not doing, it is not just
some of the children, and vote for the Miller-Kildee amendment. I urge
the passage of this amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise today in strong support of the Miller-Kildee
amendment, which ensures that meet our intended education goals:
improving public schools, improving student achievement, and making
sure our children are well prepared for the future.
Of the 12 states which are currently participating in the Ed-Flex
pilot program, only Texas has set specific numerical criteria for
student achievement. The GAO found that many participating states have
only vague objectives that don't allow us to measure how students are
progressing under the program.
The Texas plan has shown results. It has allowed the state the
flexibility to identify problems and allocate resources where they are
needed the most. School districts which have received waivers have made
tremendous gains on state tests. This is the essence of Ed-Flex--the
flexibility for states to make their own plan while showing measurable
improvement in our student achievement that proves to parents that this
money is being put to good use.
[[Page H1130]]
Democrats believe that local school districts should have flexibility
when they administer federal education programs. But we also believe
that flexibility should be coupled with accountability to ensure that
our teachers, students, and parents receive the support they deserve.
This Congress should: Authorize 30,000 more teachers on our way to
100,000; ensure that the neediest schools are protected; and hold
schools accountable for student performance.
We can't just turn this money over to states and say, do with it as
you will. States must set measurable goals and show progress in meeting
those goals. Vote yes on the Miller-Kildee amendment.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, Mike Ward, North Carolina Chief School
Official said before the Committee, we wanted Ed Flex as soon as
possible. This postpones it.
As a former county commissioner, I was able to see the actual effect
of federal funding of local education along with the rules and
regulations that tell you what you have to do and how you have to do
it. One size fits all--like it or not. Same for my poorest or richest
schools. Now we have a chance to free local schools from the
restrictions and red tape that go with not only federal but also state
monies. Let's keep it simple and Ed Flex does that.
Twelve states are currently able to waive certain federal education
regulations, giving schools within these states the ability to use
federal education funds to support innovative, comprehensive school
improvement measures. I feel that it is imperative that we give all 50
states such waivers--including my state of North Carolina--so that
students all across America may benefit from locally-designed school
improvements.
Only approximately six percent of the funds needed to educate our K-
12 students are provided by the federal government. However, countless
regulations and requirements are tied to the use of these funds. Again,
the education environment in each state and local school district is
different, so why should the federal government operate under the
assumption that one set of universal program requirements fits all
circumstances? States and schools must be flexible in addressing local
school matters and the federal government should aide in this effort
rather than obstruct positive reforms. And, for the record, H.R. 800
does contain provisions that ensure states are on the way to adopting
educational content standards, performance standards, and
accountability standards for local education agencies before being
granted waiver authority. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education
will conduct performance reviews and can revoke a state's waiver
authority if a state educational agency fails to make measurable
progress in meeting their stated objectives.
Like the existing 12 ``ed-flex'' states, North Carolina and every
other state deserves the right to participate in this program. As we
all know, education in this country is at a crisis point. We must let
go of limited thinking in terms of education improvement and let the
states and local governments use every tool at their disposal in
finding new solutions--including non-traditional uses of federal
education funds. We need to formulate some new thinking in education
and passage of this bill is one step towards that goal.
Some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have said
that they are in full support of this bill but feel it should only move
if it is part of the reauthorization legislation for the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act which we hope to pass in the upcoming months.
Well, if Congress were to wait for the ideal vehicle to move all
legislation, we'd never get anything done. And maybe as some people
look to the 2000 election--that's the point.
Two or three weeks ago the minority leader in the Senate said this
was the ideal bill to show how bipartisanship works and that probably
all 100 Senators would vote for it. Additionally, all 50 governors
endorse it. So what happened? Last week the minority decided to hold up
that bill in the Senate by offering partisan amendments. Does it appear
that our Democratic brethren have decided to stop all constructive
efforts in hopes to produce a ``do nothing Congress'' and in doing so,
gain control of the House and forget the needs of the country.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 228, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 39]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--228
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H1131]]
NOT VOTING--9
Becerra
Bilbray
Capps
Conyers
Frost
Hinojosa
McCrery
Minge
Reyes
{time} 1805
Messrs. Simpson, Hansen, Burton of Indiana, Ewing and Lipinski
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. Kaptur changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 39, on agreeing to
the Miller amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
amendment no. 2 offered by mr. castle
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
number 2.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Castle:
In section 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) (of H.R. 800, as reported),
strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
In section 4(a) (of H.R. 800, as reported), strike
paragraph (5) and insert the following:
``(5) Oversight and reporting.--
``(A) In General.--
``(i) Oversight.--Each State educational agency
participating in the education flexibility program under this
section shall annually monitor the activities of local
educational agencies and schools receiving waivers under this
section. Such monitoring shall include a review of relevant
audit, technical assistance, evaluation, and performance
reports.
``(ii) Reporting.--The State educational agency shall
submit to the Secretary an annual report on the results of
such oversight and its impact on the improvement of education
programs.
``(B) Performance data.--
``(i) State reporting.--Not later than 2 years after a
State is designated as an Ed-Flex Partnership State, each
such State shall include, as part of their report to the
Secretary under clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), performance
data demonstrating the degree to which progress has been made
toward meeting the objectives outlined in section 3(A)(iii).
The report to the Secretary shall, when applicable, include--
``(I) information on the total number of waivers granted,
including the number of waivers granted for each type of
waiver.
``(II) information describing the types and characteristics
of waivers granted and their relationship to the progress of
local educational agencies and schools toward meeting their
performance objectives; and
``(III) an assurance from State program managers that the
data used to measure performance of the education flexibility
program under this section are reliable, complete, and
accurate, as defined by the State, or a description of a plan
for improving the reliability, completeness, and accuracy of
such data.''.
``(ii) Secretary report.--The Secretary shall--
``(I) make each State report available to Congress and the
general public;
``(II) submit to Congress a report, on a timely basis, that
addresses the impact that the education flexibility program
under this section has had with regard to performance
objectives described in paragraph (3)(A)(iii). The Secretary
shall include in the report to Congress an assurance that the
data used to measure performance of the education flexibility
program under this section are complete, reliable, and
accurate or a plan for improving the reliability,
completeness, and accuracy of such data.''.
{time} 1815
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is offered by myself, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the cosponsor, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
This is a relatively simple amendment. I will take very little time
to explain it. It pertains to oversight and reporting requirements, as
sort of a follow-up on some of the earlier discussions about GAO.
It strengthens accountability by clarifying reporting and oversight
requirements. It ensures that when States monitor the performance of
local waiver recipients, they use all information available to them to
hold them accountable for using Ed-Flex to improve students'
performance.
It clarifies what States must submit to the U.S. Department of
Education in their annual Ed-Flex reports. States need only to provide
performance data and information about the types and characteristics of
the waivers granted. No unnecessary burdensome paperwork requirements,
just what Congress needs to evaluate the success of the program and how
it is helping reform at the local level.
Finally, it will enable Congress to better understand how Ed-Flex
waivers are being implemented, a concern raised by the GAO. It requires
States to provide an assurance that their data is complete, reliable
and accurate, which is in accordance with standard accounting
procedures, and it clarifies that the Secretary should report the
information they receive to Congress and the general public on an
annual basis.
Included in this report will be an overall assessment of the impact
of Ed-Flex waivers on student performance. That is the heart and soul
of what this amendment is.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the coauthor of this amendment. I
support this amendment very strongly. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) originally came up with this language in committee that
was modified and hopefully improved on by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
We believe it is very important to get good information about how
these waivers are being used. We believe it is very important to get
specific information, and not just accumulate a phone book, but get
specific data, for instance, on how the Ed-Flex waivers are being used
for the Eisenhower Program.
And if a particular program is still keeping scores up and they are
still using the waiver, but their science and math scores are
maintaining as high or if not higher than the rest of the State, we
want them to share that information with other States that are applying
for the waiver.
So we strongly support this language. We thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller) for the discussion we had on this in our
committee, and I would propose to my good friend, the gentleman from
Delaware, the coauthor of the amendment and the bill, that we have a
unanimous consent agreement at the present time to limit the debate on
this particular amendment, which is an agreed-to amendment, to just two
or three speakers, maybe just the managers of the bill, and then move
on to the Scott amendment, which is an important and substantive
amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the gentleman's
offer, but I have the chairman of the committee standing here. Maybe I
should get his wise advice.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. I think that would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman.
Basically, after the last discussion we had for hours and hours and
hours, no one should oppose this, since it strengthens accountability
by clarifying reporting and oversight requirements. So I would think it
is a unanimous vote, and if the gentleman needs a recorded one to see
that it is unanimous, the gentleman can ask for one.
Mr. ROEMER. No, we do not want a recorded vote.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I realize there is a time problem here. We
have one or two people who want to speak. Can we have two speakers of 3
minutes, or something of that nature?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent now that we have
two speakers; that the gentleman has 5 minutes of debate and we have 5
minutes of debate, and we would yield back our 5 minutes on this
particular amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Yes. I would agree to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Delaware?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me restate it, 5 minutes on each side?
Mr. ROEMER. That is correct.
Mr. GOODLING. On this amendment?
Mr. ROEMER. That is correct. Then we would move on to our side, and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would be eligible to offer an
amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. That is 5 minutes total for our speakers?
Mr. ROEMER. Five minutes on each side, and we would probably yield
back our 5 minutes.
[[Page H1132]]
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request, as the Chair understands
it, is 5 minutes on each side for this amendment and any amendments
thereto.
Mr. ROEMER. No, just this amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Just this amendment, and amendments to this amendment,
yes. Sorry.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what the Chair said.
Mr. CASTLE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. For this amendment and any amendments thereto, 5
minutes on a side, the time to be controlled by the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues from the other
side. I came to this debate fully expecting that there would be a
donnybrook and battle. I think it has been a very healthy debate,
showing differences on the issues itself. It did not get personal.
There was very little partisanship that went through. I think that is
very, very good.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee). Of anybody I have worked with in Congress, both when he
was my chairman on the committee and then when I was his chairman on
the committee, there is no other one on the other side of the aisle
that I have ever worked better with on education issues.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Chairman.
I think it is constructive that earlier this afternoon the
Pennsylvania delegation met with Governor Ridge, a former member here.
The first question that our Governor asked is, When are you going to
move this Ed-Flex bill? We absolutely have to have it.
This is what he said was the primary reason, that 40 percent of the
bureaucrats working in the State Department of Education are employed
filling out Federal forms, only to qualify them for 7 percent of their
total educational package.
So the notion that the Castle amendment, joined in with the Ed-Flex
bill, will give the Governor of Pennsylvania the opportunity to put
some of those 40 percent of the educational bureaucrats to work doing
something productive is reason enough for both the Castle amendment and
the bill.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I strongly support the Castle-Roemer amendment, and thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for his excellent contributions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Scott
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Scott:
In section 4(c) (of H.R. 800, as reported), after
``Secretary'', insert ``or a State educational agency''.
At the end of section 4(c)(1)(G) (of H.R. 800, as
reported), strike ``and''.
After subparagraph (H) of section 4(c) (of H.R. 800, as
reported), insert the following:
(I) in the case of a school that participates in a
schoolwide program under section 1114 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, the eligibility requirements
of such section if such a school serves a school attendance
area in which less than 35 percent of the children are from
low-income families; and
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, historically, when it comes to educating the
most difficult and challenging portions of our society, it has always
been the Federal Government that has been forced to act because of the
States' inability or unwillingness to act.
For example, it was the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs.
Board of Education which forced States to provide an equal education
for African American students.
It was Congress, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, which required States to afford free and appropriate education to
children who are physically and mentally challenged. For low-income
children, Title I was fashioned by Congress to focus resources on a
population whose needs were not being met.
Today it seems that we are prepared to abrogate our responsibility to
make sure that those who are in need of educational services continue
to receive focused Federal educational assistance. In the name of
increased flexibility, the bill before us allows States and school
districts to shift targeted Federal educational assistance away from
the most educationally and economically disadvantaged students.
This amendment, which I am offering today with my colleague, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), guarantees that we will continue
to focus on children most in need of assistance.
Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we would allow schools to shift
funds designed to improve educational opportunities for those who are
economically and educationally disadvantaged in favor of those who are
not in as much need. The purpose of Title I is to focus funding on low-
income students, because we recognize that they are educationally at
risk and because we recognize that the States were not addressing these
needs. Funds must be focused on those children who are most at risk.
But there is an exception to those who are in schools where the
majority of the students are poor. In those schools, Title I funds can
be used for school-wide programs, not targeted purposes. Although the
funds are thereby diluted, the dilution is offset by the administrative
efficiencies in the school-wide programs, rather than having to serve
only those children who are technically eligible for services, and not
others. This amendment will prevent schools with low poverty rates from
diluting the funding to the point where the needy students are not
helped at all.
Members of Congress should be reminded of why Title I was funded in
the first place, because States were ignoring the educational needs of
the poor. If we trusted the States to adequately fund the educational
needs of the poor, we would not have funded Title I in the first place.
Therefore, I offer this amendment to avoid unnecessary dilution of
Title I funds, and to maintain our commitment to those educationally at
risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and
I feel that this amendment is extremely important.
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was originally
written in 1965, it was clear that the performance of students at high
poverty schools was relatively low. The Federal Government decided to
commit resources to ensuring those schools receive program funds
specifically targeted to schools that had large numbers of children who
lived in poverty. That program is now called Title I, and it was
created to help improve the gap in achievement between low- and high-
income students.
We all know that today the gap of achievement still exists. That is
why it is important that we maintain our commitment to reaching out to
those schools in the form of targeted assistance. But under H.R. 800,
States are given the authority to allow schools to participate in
school-wide programs under Title I, regardless of their low-income
child percentages.
Let me give an idea of what Title I school-wide programs do and how
they are funded. Funds are currently given to individual schools with a
student population that is 50 percent or more below the poverty level.
They are able to use the school-wide funds to institute programs that
benefit all students
[[Page H1133]]
at a high priority school. Such examples include hiring more teachers,
instituting reform plans.
This bill will allow waivers to be issued to schools so they may give
these funds to any school, regardless of their poverty level. This is
wrong. Giving school districts the authority to use Title I funds for
school-wide programs at any school, regardless of the number of
children who are low-income, dilutes the purpose of Title I. It is
wrong.
Over the years, when the program first started, we had to demonstrate
75 percent of the students. It was dropped to 50 percent. Now we are
saying it is unimportant about the level.
Now we stand here today, about to vote on a bill that will give the
States the authority to waive this poverty level requirement and allow
schoolwide program funds to be allocated to schools that do not have
one child who lives below the poverty level. We can argue all we want
about the effectiveness of the Title I program over the years. But make
no mistake about it, Title I was created to give high poverty, low
performing schools a better chance at improving student achievement. We
cannot take away our commitment to these schools by allowing waivers to
be issued to schools that have low levels of poverty to be eligible for
Title I funds. Diluting Title I funds for school-wide programs so that
any school can use them defeats the entire purpose of the program. This
amendment will simply make sure that only schools with over a 35%
poverty rate are eligible for schoolwide project funds. It will keep
low poverty schools from capitalizing on a program meant for high
poverty schools. This amendment is consistent with the actions of the
Secretary of Education who has only issued waivers for schoolwide
programs to schools with poverty levels of above 35%. Without accepting
this amendment, we will find that we have spread the funds too thin to
see any real gains in achievement at schools using Title I funds for
schoolwide programs. And we will most certainly find that disadvantaged
schools will see less of the Title I funds originally created to bridge
the gap between high and low poverty schools. The Title I program was
created as a program for disadvantaged students. You can keep some
semblance of that intention if you vote for this amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Let me
explain why.
Over the last few years, as we have taken a look at education around
the country, we have visited a lot of different types of school
districts, but one constant remains, that people at the local level are
focused at meeting the needs of the kids in their schools. They want
more flexibility. Washington has stood in the way too often of schools
helping kids in their community.
What Ed-Flex does is it steps back and it says, we recognize that at
the local level the teachers, the parents, and the school districts are
best-equipped to make the decisions to improve the lives and the
education of their students.
If we take a look at the facts, Ed-Flex, in the 12 States where it
has been operating, has been helping and not hurting Title I students.
It just reinforces the direction here that says, let local people make
local decisions. We have had lots of cases where school-wide programs
have been more effective at improving student performance than
traditional targeted programs.
In both Texas and Maryland, Ed-Flex States, Ed-Flex has enabled
school districts in each State to improve the test scores of their
poorest children. In return for greater flexibility, both States have
produced solid academic outcomes.
An example, in Kent County, Maryland, a 60 percent poverty school
that utilizes Ed-Flex, it now has the third highest test scores in the
State. In Texas, through the use of Ed-Flex waiver authority for
school-wide projects under Title I, test scores of poor and
educationally disadvantaged students have increased significantly.
I think these are just a couple of examples of when we empower people
at the local level, they take that flexibility and they make the
decisions that are right for that school district and for the kids in
their schools.
{time} 1830
We saw that over and over again. Whether we were in New York, whether
we were in Cleveland, whether we were in Milwaukee, when we give the
flexibility, people at the local level embrace it and put together some
truly exceptional programs. They do focus on results, and they do focus
on the most needy students within their school districts.
We do not need Washington to dictate. We ought to place some
confidence in people at the local district. I think what we have seen
and the examples that we have out of Texas and Maryland show that that
is exactly what happens.
Some would argue that Ed-Flex shortchanges high poverty schools.
Again, that is not true. Since 1994, the year that both Ed-Flex and
schoolwide projects under Title I became law, the percentage of high
poverty schools receiving Title I funds rose from 79 percent in 1993,
1994 to close to 95 percent in 1997, 1998. Poor students are continuing
to benefit under Title I.
The question that we have is, when Governors, school administrators,
teachers, State boards of education, local boards of education, and
chambers of commerce, all experts at improving education, they all
support more flexibility for the States, why is it that we continually
see amendments here in Washington that are trying to dictate to them
what they should do?
We know flexibility works. Local school principals, local teachers,
local administrators like having the schoolwide option. The national
assessment of Title I shows that, by 1997, 1998, 82 percent of eligible
schools were using the schoolwide option, and an additional 12 percent
were considering implementing schoolwide programs.
We know that this type of an approach works. We know that the
flexibility works. We know that, when we enhance the capability of
people at the local level within a set of parameters to improve
education, they make the right kinds of decisions. Let us leave this
decision making at the local level within those parameters and oppose
this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise at the end of this debate, when we have 15 or 20
minutes left in this 5-hour debate, to again salute my coauthor the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has worked so hard and with
so much integrity on this legislation. I have enjoyed working with him
very much on this legislation, and I hope to work with him in
conference on this legislation.
We have agreed virtually on everything over the last 8 months.
Accountability and how, in the sensitivity of enhanced flexibility, but
strong accountability, we work through that nexus and that synergy. I
think we have accomplished that.
We have worked through a host of other very, very difficult yet
bipartisan issues. This is the one issue that I come down in
disagreement with my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle). I come down on this on the side of the amendment of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
When we look at this bill and we see how we must maintain
accountability, we also have to maintain the integrity of Title I
programs. When we look at the genesis of Title I under the SEA Act of
1965, we look at why we formulated this program in the first place,
that different children come to school from different families with
different incomes.
Some of these children come to schools where they are eligible for
free or reduced lunch programs, where their parents or parent are
making under the poverty line. We put together the program that tried
to compensate some of these school districts that base their tax system
on State and local taxes, but they may have high poverty rates and may
have high percentages of children on free and reduced lunches.
The Title I program is specifically designed to help these children
that attend some schools in some of our inner cities where we do not
have adequate access to technology and computers, we do not have
adequate textbooks, textbooks are missing pages in algebra in science,
where we have children walk through gang-infested neighborhoods, and we
have to employ out of those funds in the school full-time police
officers. What about equal access to education for these children?
All the Scott amendment does, it says that we are going to try a new
way of delivering Title I programs, but there should be a floor as we
experiment here. The floor should be at 35
[[Page H1134]]
percent. I think the State of Michigan has voluntarily agreed to set
that standard at 35 percent.
We must, and I implore my colleagues on the other side, where
Democrats have come across the aisle today on several amendments to
join with Republicans, that Republicans join now with Democrats; that
we look at the genesis of Title I; that we maintain the integrity of
helping the poorest of the poor students; that we consider that some of
these children come from very different backgrounds and very different
incomes and very different families.
Some of these children do not get hot lunches and hot dinners and hot
breakfasts if it were not for our hot lunch and hot food program. They
would not have access to the kind of education that every son and every
daughter should have in this country if it were not for equal
distribution or fair distribution or the integrity of the Title I
program.
I encourage my colleagues not to let that floor be set any lower than
35 percent and support the Scott amendment. It maintains that integrity
in the Title I program. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
for offering this amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this as sincerely as I
possibly can. Sometimes we get awfully tangled up with numbers on this.
I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in so many ways
because we have worked together on a lot of different issues. But I am
perplexed by Title I.
I have watched Title I for many, many years in many capacities in the
State of Delaware. Quite frankly, while money goes into the system, I
have never seen a measurable output that would tell me that Title I is
actually doing better. Now one could argue it is, but it is all
anecdotal at this point.
We are now seeing under the Ed-Flex legislation, when schools are
going to schoolwide projects, which means that they take the whole
school and try to have a rising tide with respect to that school, that,
all of a sudden, the Title I kids are doing better.
I am not going to sit here and tell my colleagues this is the best
thing since sliced bread because it is not absolutely proven yet, but
it seems to be working. To put a floor on this and to say, if one does
not have 35 percent or more poverty, one cannot get a waiver in this
case I think would be a mistake.
I think we should let the local school district and the schools and
the States make the decision as to which way we should go. We have this
particular chart, which shows that Ed-Flex boosts student performance,
Texas uses flexibility to improve reading scores. It shows statewide
scores. Then it shows higher scores for Hispanic Ed-Flex schools, for
African-American Ed-Flex schools, and for economically disadvantaged
Ed-Flex schools.
So we actually can show, we can document improvement in State reading
scores in the State of Texas as a result of what they have been able to
do with Ed-Flex, with the schoolwide programs, and with the waivers.
I spent time in a school in Dover, Delaware, I guess 3 days ago now,
and talked to the principal there. We are not an Ed-Flex State, but she
is not sure about whether to go to something like a schoolwide program
at this point. That is fine. That is her decision. I do not have a
problem with that.
In Kent County, Maryland, right over here on the Eastern Shore, if
you go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, you drive through it, a 60 percent
poverty school there that utilizes Ed-Flex has the third highest test
scores in the Nation.
I do not know this, but I would imagine there are not too many Title
I programs across this country which can have documentation such as
that. They of course are using the schoolwide projects to carry out
what they have to do in order to help these young children.
The people who are doing this care a great deal. These are not people
who are trying to throw money away. As a matter of fact, in the Ed-Flex
bill, one cannot change the money. The money goes to the school
district. They get it, and they cannot give it away to another school
district. But they can make decisions in their school district, just as
Texas has done.
Maybe a school that is a little bit higher income can do better than
a school that is a little bit lower income, needs more help than a
school that is a little bit lower income, and, therefore, adjusts the
flow of their funds accordingly in order to accommodate those problems.
The governors, the school administrators, the teachers, the State
boards of education, the local board of education, and the Chamber of
Commerce, among others, have all looked at this and believe that it is
a positive step going in the right direction.
We also have plenty of accountability in this bill now thanks to some
of the discussion today and some of the things we were able to do in
committee. Indeed, we can make determinations if these programs are
working.
But, again, I am trying to discourage any amendments today, tonight,
that are going to, in some way, discourage flexibility. Of all the
areas that concern me the most, Title I is the one I am most interested
in seeing what we can do, to see if we can have documentable
improvement of our students in those particular programs.
The one thing that I see and which truly has worked is the schoolwide
programs which we have talked about here today. By the way, schoolwide
waivers and the Title I programs are almost the most sought after in
some ways of these various waivers under Ed-Flex as well, because a lot
of schools are seeing that opportunity.
I personally shy away from arbitrarily putting in some sort of a
floor and say, well, if one is below that then one cannot have the
schoolwide program. Others might argue, well, if one gets below that
level, one is going to have so little money one has to do it for
individuals or whatever it may be.
I do not necessarily believe that. I believe that educators in
America today are beginning to really understand that people in elected
office, parents, and people across this country are beginning to demand
better education. That is the best thing that has ever happened.
The next best thing that has ever happened is the fact that we are
taking this long to discuss a bill of this importance on the floor of
the House of Representatives. As was said at the very beginning, I hope
we do it once a week. I am not sure the staff hopes for that. But I
hope we do it once a week so we can improve the education of our
children.
I would hope, even though I want to help Title I in every way we can,
that tomorrow, when we vote on this amendment, that we would defeat the
amendment; after we have done that, that we would rally together to
pass Ed-Flex.
We have had a good debate on the amendments. I understand there is a
good chance it will pass in the other body tomorrow. They have worked
some things out apparently. The chairman has given strong support for
this. This is really an opportunity for us to join together to move
education forward.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott amendment and
wish to cite improvements in the District of Columbia as one good
reason this amendment is minimally necessary if we are really going to
pass this Ed-Flex bill at all.
I hope we will not throw poor children into a power struggle to get
money, Title I money, and that is what we are doing if we do not
safeguard this flexibility, if you will, for those who need it more.
If one asks any parent, any child, any teacher what could the
Congress most do that would help you, I do not think they would say
give us flexibility. I think they would say give us results.
I implore my colleagues to look at the question: If we are freeing up
funds, for what and for whom? No government spends money so well that
we should want to give it a blank check. If my colleagues do not think
much of the way the Federal Government spends money, I hope they do not
believe that the State governments are paragons of fairness and of
efficiency in spending money. The problem, as usual, is that one has to
watch government and to make sure government spends its money wisely
where it is most needed.
We have had an extraordinary thing to happen in the District of
Columbia,
[[Page H1135]]
a turnaround in test scores. Every grade, test scores have
significantly gone up. How do we do it? We did it by giving individual
attention to the children most in need, because they are with children
who are pulling down the test scores for everybody else.
{time} 1845
We did it by our Summer Stars program, where children were in classes
of 15 children to 1 teacher. We do it now with a Saturday Stars
program, with the children most in need going to school on Saturday for
special attention.
We have not spread the money all around the city and said that
whether the children needed it or not, here is some money. We do not
need to shoot in the dark, nor do we need to say, here is the bank,
come get it, and whichever of them are most powerful, and we know who
they are, they will be sure to get it.
Moreover, we have learned something finally about education.
Essentially we have learned that if a child is going to learn to read
at all, they had better learn to read in those early grades. It becomes
very, very difficult afterwards.
Who is having trouble reading? It is the 35 percent that the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would set aside
money for. Mr. Chairman, there is a direct correlation between test
scores and income. The evidence there is irrefutable. There is a direct
correlation between income and IQ. So we do know that if income, which
means access to education, goes up, that we do improve what happens to
a child.
The gap between the poor and the middle class is not going to erase
itself by ``flexibility''. If we want that gap to be erased, then we
have to make sure that at least some of the money is targeted where it
is most needed.
Why did we pass this bill in the middle of the war on poverty in the
first place? We passed it because there were children who were not
getting the attention that was needed. If we must pass this bill, and I
have grave problems with this bill, it seems to me that the other side
owes us some continuing guarantee that we are not simply blowing the
lid off of Title I, telling poor children that they and their parents
are now in the mix and may the most powerful and most outspoken win.
We have an obligation to, at the very least, if we must pass this
bill, to make certain that the flexibility that we all seek redounds
especially to those most in need.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and
I stand in support of the Scott-Payne amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Cummings, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Norton was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to
yield, I stand in support of the Scott-Payne amendment. And the reason
why, Mr. Chairman, is I would have been one who would have come under
Title I.
Many years ago I was placed in special education and told that I
would never be able to read or write. And as I look at this whole bill,
the safeguards are not there to address accountability. When the Kildee
amendment was defeated, accountability went away.
In my district, in many of my schools, most of the children are Title
I children, and I am very, very concerned about them. I would just ask
the House to support this amendment.
Title I is the federal government's way of assuring disadvantaged
children have the opportunity to receive the supplemental services they
need to succeed, school as reading and math. We must continue this
effort to close the academic achievement gap between disadvantaged
children and their schoolmates. Unfortunately, the Ed-Flex bill does
not include the safeguards to ensure that this happens. With the defeat
of the Miller/Kildee amendment this bill will go forth without
substantial accountability mechanisms in place. Moreover, the bill
itself will allow states to waive the current 50% requirement for Title
I. Conceivably, a school could use their Title I funds on a school-wide
project that did not take into account special needs of poorer
children.
My state of Maryland is one of the 12 states that is currently
implementing Ed-Flex, with measured statewide success. The majority of
children in my District of Baltimore City are Title I eligible. I have
serious concerns that with no accountability with regards to Title I
funds, monies could possibly be diverted away from disadvantaged
students. As my colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee pointed out in the earlier
debate, Title I funds can account for up to one-third of a local school
system's budget in a disadvantaged area. That is a lot of money with no
accountability.
That is why I stand here today to support the Scott/Payne amendment
which would require that only schools in which at least 35% of the
students come from low-income families may seek a waiver to use their
Title I funds to operate their school-wide programs. We must not reduce
targeted resources available to disadvantaged children. It is a risk we
cannot take. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me
in voting in favor of this amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is
entitled to 5 minutes, but under the rule, there is only 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman may have those 3 minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. I can do it in 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, first of all, indicate to the gentlewoman from D.C. that,
as a matter of fact, they are turning it around under present existing
law. There does not have to be a change. They are turning it around
under the 50 percent existing law that is there now.
Now, I have been wanting to, for many, many years, give the
gentlewoman an extra $12 million a year. I have been wanting to give
the gentlewoman from D.C. an extra $12 million a year. All the
gentlewoman has to do is help me. All she has to do is get the special
education funding that the gentlewoman's side promised 23 years ago,
and we would give her an extra $12 million every year. Boy, could the
gentlewoman ever reduce class size; could the gentlewoman ever do a lot
of repairs. She could do all sorts of things with that $12 million.
The important thing is that the changes are being made under existing
law. All the scores that have gone up in Texas have gone up under the
school-wide effort. That is the beauty of it. We are pulling everybody
up. So we do not need any changes because it is now working.
So, again, I would ask everyone to oppose this amendment, allow Texas
to continue to raise African American students 11.9, when the State
average is only 11.4; Hispanic students 9.4, the average is only 9.2;
the economically disadvantaged student, 10.3, the average is only 10.
They are doing all those wonderful things to help every youngster
improve their opportunity for a piece of that American dream. Math,
same story. Every one in the Ed-Flex schools have increased, and they
have done it with school-wide effort.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, things are improving under existing law,
finally. Finally, after 30 years in this program and 23 years in the
Head Start, and so on, those youngsters are finally getting an
opportunity to get a piece of that American dream.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
Amendment, which recognizes the need to utilize flexibility to
administer programs while protecting resources targeted to
disadvantaged children.
The Scott amendment would add a finding to the bill encouraging the
use of flexibility in administering Federal Education programs while
not reducing resources to schools with the highest concentrations of
poor children.
This amendment sends the message that flexibility and targeting of
resources should be coupled together in the effective administration of
Federal education programs. It also recognizes that the concept of
flexibility and targeting do not have to be at odds.
With this amendment, this body sends an important message that
targeting of Federal resources is vital to the success of disadvantaged
children, even in efforts to advance flexibility. Focus the use of Ed-
Flex in expanding flexibility that recognizes the need to target
resources.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which recognizes the
need to utilize flexibility to administer programs while protecting
resources targeted to disadvantaged children.
The CHAIRMAN. Time for consideration of the bill for amendment under
the 5-minute rule has expired.
[[Page H1136]]
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
will be postponed.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Fossella) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 800) to
provide for education flexibility partnerships, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________