[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 53 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3280-S3284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the
floor today and speak with regard to the Educational Opportunities Act
we will be debating later today. The Educational Opportunities Act
represents an opportunity to make a striking change in education in
America. I will quickly go over what it is that this act with which we
are dealing will do.
Title I of the act is dedicated to helping disadvantaged children
meet the high standards of education that we seek to have them achieve.
Title II is dedicated to improving teacher quality throughout the
Nation.
Title III contains enrichment initiatives for our schools, including
initiatives such as the gifted and talented programs; the advanced
placement programs; help for neglected, delinquent, and at-risk
students; and help for each school to meet each child's unique
educational needs.
Title IV deals with developing safe and drug-free schools.
Title V deals with initiatives for educational opportunities,
initiatives that will involve opportunities such as taking maximum
advantage of the technology education we need to provide for our
children.
Title VI involves innovative education where we give flexibility and
power to the local teachers and parents to create innovative
educational programs in their communities that will help empower
students.
Title VII deals with bilingual education and language enhancement
acquisition so those who need to develop the necessary skills to speak
English can be given the assistance to do so.
Title VIII deals with impact aid, a form of aid critically important
for those areas where the Federal Government creates an additional
burden through its use of Federal property. And Title VIII deals with
Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaskan Native education, dealing with
specific needs throughout the Nation where we need focused efforts.
I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Jeffords for his
leadership on this bill. I also like to thank the ranking member,
Senator Kennedy, and all the members of the committee for their time
and efforts to bring forth a bill that invests in public schools and
offers our children an unparalleled opportunity for education reform
and a better education. I commend all for your endeavors in tackling
the tough decisions that face our schools and our children.
The pending ESEA bill offers students and parents a tremendous
opportunity for better schools and a better education. Perhaps our
greatest accomplishment in this bill is the reduction of Federal
regulations. While the Federal financial contribution is approximately
7 percent of total education costs, the requirements currently placed
on States represent a disproportionate burden in redtape and Federal
control.
Granting waivers to States, and allowing them to bypass complex,
confusing, and time consuming mandates, is one of the most important
things S. 2 does to help schools reach their full potential.
In exchange for increased State and local flexibility, the Education
Opportunities Act requires greater accountability for improving student
performance. By establishing high standards and demanding
accountability, this bill represents a great step toward ensuring the
academic success of all students.
Senator Gorton's Straight A's proposal also allows interested States
to consolidate up to twelve Federal formula grant programs in exchange
for flexible approaches that boost student achievement. The Straight
A's program gives States more flexibility in the use of Federal funds,
so long as it can be demonstrated that the flexibility is used to
achieve higher academic results for students.
Senator Gregg's efforts to promote portability should also be
commended. This child-centered approach establishes per-pupil amounts
to be used for supplemental services, such as tutoring. This change,
would for the first time, ensure that the money follows the student. No
longer will a school with title I students go without receiving funding
for the very students it is asked to educate.
As I have looked through this bill and reviewed the various
provisions, I am particularly pleased to see a number of measures I
introduced earlier this year in separate legislation have been
included. These bills focused on the growing needs of education in our
rural communities. Earlier this year, I introduced an education bill--
now title VI part B, the Rural Education Initiative--that would allow
school districts to combine the small amounts of funding they may
receive for specified programs, to accumulate a book of funds large
enough to address local priorities. The committee recognized the unique
challenges facing rural school districts by incorporating this
important provision into the bill before us today. The students,
parents, teachers, and administrators in Idaho appreciate your
commitment to small, and sometimes poor, rural school districts.
Regarding title VIII and the Impact Aid Program, I am pleased to see
legislation I authored earlier this year included in the bill. My
legislation recommended changing the formulas by which Impact Aid funds
are distributed to schools. This change, and other important changes in
the bill before us, reaffirm our commitment to those children in
schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal
presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers.
The Educational Opportunities Act also ensures that teachers are an
integral part of the effort to improve public education. The bill
recognizes that strong professional development for our teachers is the
foundation of our effort to facilitate improved student achievement.
Whether professional development is emphasized through technology
training, quality mentoring, or programs to recruit, hire, and train
certified teachers, all which I proposed in legislation earlier this
year, under this bill schools will have the flexibility to influence
education based on local principles and local successes. Nothing can
replace qualified teachers with high standards and a desire to teach.
Coupled with professional development opportunities, our teachers must
be equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their
classroom, and ultimately accelerate student achievement.
As I close, I would like to clarify one position that I have heard
misstated, not only during this debate, but in various forums on
education reform. Some have expressed the unwillingness of Republicans
to adequately fund education initiatives like many of those we are
debating today. Some individuals have gone so far as to say that we
have proposed significant cuts. This is far from the truth. Last year's
consolidated appropriations bill included significant funding increases
for education. In fact, education was funded at $990 million above the
President's budget request and $2.4 billion more than fiscal year 1999
levels. While there is a clear disagreement on how to spend education
funds, I hope that we can proceed with an honest and accurate
discussion about the support for adequate funding.
[[Page S3281]]
If we put our differences aside and work together to pass this bill,
ESEA will be reauthorized for five years, with a price tag of nearly
$160 billion. In 1965, the original ESEA bill was enacted to close the
achievement gap between rich and poor students. I have yet to speak to
a Senator who is not willing to provide the funds to achieve this
worthy goal. But, I believe there are some Senators who share my
concern that we will continue to fund a system where the original goal
of this 35-year-old law is no closer to being met. Instead of narrowing
the achievement gap, we see the gap actually widening. Too many of our
students continue to perform at low standards, with many ranking near
the bottom of a list of 21 industrialized nations in many subject
areas. Continued Federal funding should be implemented with the goal of
closing the achievement gap, and rewarding successful schools, rather
than funneling money into failing programs. If our original goal
remains--closing the achievement gap--it is not unreasonable for
Federal funds to be tied to strict accountability standards.
Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act every 5 years. What we do now will significantly impact
the lives of all students. We cannot sit around any more waiting to see
if our old programs suddenly work. In 5 years, one child will have
completed his or her elementary career. Another will graduate from high
school and enter our increasingly demanding technological workforce.
Are we willing to let another 5 years go by before making real changes?
Are we willing to allow another child to be pushed through a failing
system? I am not, and that is why the provisions and initiatives
incorporated in this bill must be supported.
Education is the key that unlocks the future for our children, our
State, our Nation, and there is no higher priority. I support the
Educational Opportunities Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and I urge my colleagues to work together to
pass a bill we can all take pride in supporting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our vision
for the future, our vision for the future of education and why that is
important for the future. We have to provide a high-quality education
to the students of the United States in order for them to be able to
compete, for them to be able to grow, for them to be able to prosper
into our future. I think it is critical at this juncture that we in
this country talk about what that vision is of our future, that vision
of education in our future.
We are talking about a different model. We are talking about a
different way to go. We are talking about more innovation. We are
talking about more individual decisionmaking. We are talking about a
system which will allow students in that individual classroom, and
teachers and local boards of education and States, to make more
decisions about their future than they have had the freedom to make,
using education dollars, at any time in the past.
This is a model we followed previously. I think the correct model to
look at is welfare reform that this Congress, in 1995 and 1996, debated
and passed. It was major welfare reform legislation in that we went
from a federalized system of one-size-fits-all rules and regulations to
a State system. We set up some parameters and guidelines at the outset.
We said our objective was to get people to work and have the freedom of
the workforce and not continue to be strapped down in a system that did
not allow individuals to blossom. It was a system that confined people,
in many cases, to failure.
We said we were going to let the States innovate. We were going to
let the States work to help people more instead of having this one-
size-fits-all system. It has been a brilliant success in welfare
reform. Welfare rolls are down 50 percent. People are working and
receiving a check in the mail, and they are happy about it; they are in
charge of their future rather than thanking the Federal Government for
a small subsistence payment to mire them in poverty all of their lives.
It was innovation, it was opportunities, it was local decisionmaking,
and it has been wildly successful. We want to replicate that model in
education--local decisionmaking, innovation, individual opportunities,
and I think this is going to be wildly successful if we are given the
opportunity from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the
Democratic Party to allow us to move forward with this model of
education reform.
I hope we do not get hung up as we did last week on the marriage tax
penalty saying, to pass marriage tax penalty, we want to deal with
germane amendments, and then we were stopped by a number of nongermane
amendments on topics that were not relevant at all to the marriage tax
penalty. It appears we are starting down the same track.
We want to do something significant in education reform. We can do
it. We have the time, we have the floor, and we have the opportunity.
Or are we going to be stopped by things that simply do not pertain to
education at all?
The Democratic Party is going to have to decide whether we move
forward with an education bill or this is just another chance to block
major legislation and complain about a Congress that does not do
anything when there are those on their side of the aisle who seek to
stop us from doing anything.
In a vision of the future, I imagine a future in which a human being
actually steps onto another planet in our solar system, and I imagine
that the coming generations will look forward and say: We do not fear
cancer as a major threat to health. In fact, the odds may be pretty
good we both have a pretty accurate vision of opportunities in the
future.
Indeed, at this point in our Nation's history, in the wee hours of a
new millennium, we have tremendous potential to accomplish things that
until now have been unimaginable--eliminating cancer as a major health
risk in the country or going to other planets.
However, for the future to become how we envision it today, our
Nation's children must receive a first-class education. Over the next
couple of weeks, we will have a chance to address our visions for the
future in providing that first-rate education for our children.
When I say visions for education, I use the plural for a reason. When
Senators from both sides of the aisle close their eyes and envision the
future of American education, they often see very different results.
One vision about which we have heard quite a bit in the past few weeks
is the vision of the status quo. Some want to move into the new century
using the old model which spends education funds through specific
categories that the Department of Education sees fit. They will
continue to hold school districts accountable primarily for filling out
their paperwork correctly and on time.
In one sense, this model is very successful. This model has been
successful at creating programs. Currently, ESEA is comprised of over
60 different programs, each one specifically tailored to address a
problem or problems with public education that Washington perceives.
With 46 million students in approximately 87,000 public schools, it is
pretty impressive that we can figure out their needs so well from
here--one place.
The status quo model has also been extremely successful at holding
States, school districts, and schools accountable for filling out
paperwork. While the Government provides only 7 percent of local school
funding, it demands 50 percent of all school paperwork. Those are
pretty bad odds. In fact, some State education agencies devote 45
percent of their staff to administering the funds they receive from the
Federal Government. Quite wasteful.
This paperwork burden demands 49 million hours each year, or the
equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time on paper rather than
kids. Indeed, fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed by public
schools are teachers today.
Unfortunately, with all of its success over the past 30 years, the
status quo model has been a failure in one very important aspect, and
that is student performance. Many of the status quo programs have been
specifically targeted toward low-income students. Yet in the fourth
grade, 77 percent of the children in urban high-poverty schools are
below basic on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.
[[Page S3282]]
Problems with student performance are not confined to urban
districts. These problems have touched the lives of literally millions
of Americans. Since 1983, over 10 million students have reached the
12th grade without having learned to read. Over 20 million have reached
their senior year unable to do basic math.
The bill before us has in it a different vision for American
education. This new vision is the vision of innovation versus the
vision of status quo. Under this model of innovation, instead of
relying on Washington to assess the problems facing 46 million
students, we rely on the parents, teachers, and principals who know the
children's names. Instead of counting on the bureaucrats at the
Department of Education to figure out the needs of 87,000 public
schools, we leave it up to the school board members and State education
officials who can tell you about the neighborhood where the school is
located.
Under this model, we count on these people to identify the problems
facing our students and schools and to be innovative in finding a
solution to fix these problems.
This model has already started to work in places such as my State of
Kansas. Over the past 3 years in Kansas, we have seen Federal education
funds increase by over $21 million. However, when one talks to the
people who deal with the Federal education funds, they want to talk
about the success of consolidated planning, which Kansas implemented
under an Ed-Flex waiver.
Consolidated planning was a modest step which helped eliminate some
unnecessary bureaucracy and helped the State use Federal funds more
efficiently. More than that, it gave Kansans a taste of what can be
accomplished with a little innovation. I want to give Kansas and the
rest of the Nation more room, an incentive to be innovative. That is
why I support the bill before us today.
Under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and other colleagues
such as Senator Gregg, our committee was able to produce a piece of
legislation that takes very important steps toward the innovator model,
the first being the Straight A's proposal about which several of my
colleagues have already spoken.
In conclusion, we have had a taste of this in education, and it has
worked. We like the taste of it, and we like what it produces. We
experienced it in welfare reform, and we have seen enormous success.
Let's move forward with this innovation. Let's allow this opportunity
to blossom so our kids not only can envision but fulfill the dreams of
going to other planets and of curing cancer, but they need a quality
education to fulfill those dreams. I thank the Chair. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been listening with a great deal of
interest as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed
their views on education. I particularly commend my neighbor and
colleague from Kansas and my good friend from Idaho for their very
perceptive comments about education.
As I listen to the debate back and forth, it is clear we have two
very different approaches to education being championed. On the one
side, we have trust of local schools; on the other side, we have
mistrust.
On one side, we advocate local control; on the other side, they
advocate Federal control.
On our side, we say that parents, schools, teachers, and school
boards know best. On the other side, they say Washington knows best.
For me it is not a tough choice. This is not rocket science: trust,
local control, parents, schools know best. There is no question in my
mind.
I come to the Senate floor today to say--and I have said it before
and I will say it again--I spent my adult career working with parents,
teachers, and school boards in Missouri. I have watched them work. I
have watched their education decisions. I spent the last 13 years in
this body watching Congress debate issues and watching the Federal
bureaucracy administer programs.
When it comes to wasting money, it is not even close. It is not a
contest. It is a good thing that local schools do not operate as does
the Federal Government because local schools could not afford to.
Luckily, schools are far better at applying resources to the needs of
children in their schools. Unfortunately, the Federal bureaucracy has
been good at creating waste, misdirected priorities, red tape, and
unnecessary hassles and regulations.
As it is the case in other areas as well, our congressional zest to
provide assistance has become part of the problem--our good intentions.
And they are good intentions. Nobody questions the intentions. When the
Congress went about creating 765 programs, every single one of them was
a good idea. Unfortunately, it was at the wrong place. It was a good
idea in Washington, not a good idea at the local school level.
Our good intentions have become burdensome regulations, unfunded
mandates, mounds of paperwork, and unwanted meddling. We have created a
system where parents, teachers, and local school officials have less
and less control over what happens in the classroom.
Instead of empowering parents, teachers, and local school officials,
we have empowered the Federal Government and the bureaucrats. We have
been slowly eroding the opportunity for creativity and innovation on
the local level and have put a system in place where the Olympians on
the hill pretend to know what is best for the peasants in the valley.
We need to be bold enough to stand up and admit that these good
intentions have gone astray. Our good intentions are failing our public
schools and, most importantly, they are failing our children. Let's
recognize what we do not know in Washington has become obvious.
Washington does not always know best, especially when it comes to
micromanaging the education of children in local schools throughout
this country.
What is wrong with giving control of education to local schools and
to the States? What happened to everyone saying that education is a
national priority but a local responsibility? I firmly believe that is
true. If that were true, and the other side trusted those at the local
level, this debate would not be as controversial as it is.
What is wrong with letting classroom teachers, principals, and school
boards fashion plans to improve learning and achievement in their own
schools?
Back in my home State of Missouri, no one thinks the answer to
improving public education lies within the Halls of Congress or in the
granite buildings in downtown Washington's Department of Education.
Almost everyone I have talked to will say: Stay out of the way and
give the local schools the opportunity.
Missourians know, and I know, that the real solutions--the
laboratories--are the local schools when they are given the opportunity
to excel and not have to play the ``Mother, May I'' game with
Washington, DC.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep talking about class
size, afterschool programs, and numerous other programs. These will be
new programs, with new mandates, and new responsibilities for schools
directly controlled and regulated by Washington, smothered with reports
and regulations and redtape. Is this the direction we want to go? I do
not think so. This will only exacerbate the ``Mother, May I'' game.
As we debate ESEA today, I hope we will keep certain things in
perspective. One of those things is how much money the Federal
Government actually provides to the local school district and what
amount of Federal involvement is appropriate with the amount of funding
provided.
I have heard over and over again that the Federal Government provides
less than 10 percent of a local school district's budget. Yet the
Federal Government accounts for over 50 percent of the local school
district's paperwork burden. How can any of us justify this proportion
of Federal meddling and paperwork burden for less than 10 percent of
the district's funding? In my State of Missouri, on average, Federal
funding accounts for only 6 percent of the local school district's
budget.
My great State of Missouri has some wonderful teachers, principals,
superintendents, and school board members--some of the best in the
country. I cannot believe my colleagues are not
[[Page S3283]]
hearing the same thing from their constituents that I am hearing from
mine. If you are not, I suggest you are not listening. Go back and ask
them. They will tell you. However, just in case you have not heard, let
me share some of the things I have been told.
The Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools in Missouri said:
The amount of paperwork that the federal government causes
local school districts to engage in is often overwhelming.
That extra effort and time often reduces productive classroom
time and energy that could better be spent working directly
with children.
Mr. Berrey of the Wentzville R-IV School in Missouri said:
Limiting federal intrusion into decisions best left to
local communities is what I believe our founding fathers had
in mind.
From Neosho R-5, in Missouri:
The individuals working most closely with the students are
indeed the ones who can best decide how this money can be
spent for the benefit of students' education.
From the Superintendent of the Special School District of St. Louis
County, MO:
As head of a school district specializing in special
education, I fully understand how my district's financial
needs differ from other school districts' needs. In order to
best utilize the limited funds that are at my disposal, I
need maximum flexibility in determining how to put those
funds to the best use.
From the Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School
District in Missouri:
Without local control, the focus is taken away from the
needs specific to the children in each school system.
I think the Superintendent of the Taneyville R-II School District in
Missouri sums it up well:
I feel that the State and Federal government has tied our
school's hands with mandated programs and mandated uses for
the monies we are receiving. The schools are likened to
puppets on a string. Pull this string this way and the school
does this; pull it another way and the school does that.
School systems and communities are as different from one
another as individual people are different. What works for
one will not work for another.
These are the types of comments I have heard over the past couple
years. These comments led to the development of my Direct Check for
Education proposal that is S. 52.
As introduced, S. 52 took six Department of Education programs,
primarily competitive grant programs, and combined them and determined
that the funding would go out based on average daily attendance in
school districts. It would give school districts added flexibility.
I intend to offer an amendment that would allow us to try this as a
demonstration program.
I know it is hard sometimes to get Governors to support this concept.
But I stand here as a recovering Governor. I know that Governors and
States have the responsibility for welfare programs, State
transportation programs; but the responsibility for directly delivering
student education rests in the hands of those at the local level.
Let's give them the opportunity to demonstrate they can deliver.
States can still establish standards and requirements. They still have
the ability to control their local school districts. What I am saying,
with Direct Check, is to keep their hands out of the bureaucratic maze
that the Federal Government imposes on them. I hope my colleagues will
take a look at that proposal when I offer it.
Another area I am looking at very carefully is having an amendment on
Impact Aid. Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs,
dating from the 1950s, and is meant to compensate local school
districts for the ``substantial and continuing financial burdens''
resulting from Federal activities. These ``activities'' include Federal
ownership of land, such as military installations or Indian reservation
lands, as well as local school enrollment of children whose parents
work on Federal property. It is a Federal responsibility.
In my State, we have two outstanding military bases: Fort Leonard
Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. I would argue it is a quality-of-life
issue for our military and one we must address. I look forward to
working on it with my colleagues. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma
will be working on it.
I also offer my support, in advance, for an amendment I have been
working on for some time with Senators Stevens and Jeffords, along with
a number of our other colleagues, that focuses on early childhood
education and development.
While most of the debate this week will be about elementary and
secondary education--the years of what we might call ``formal
schooling''--the education and mental development of a child, however,
begins long before that child enters kindergarten. In fact, the
education and development of a child begins practically at birth. From
the experiences we have had in Missouri with parents and teachers, we
know that those first 3 years are vitally important. Giving the parents
the right tools to help that child get started can make a tremendously
important difference in the educational achievement of that child
throughout that child's educational experience.
The amendment the Senators from Vermont and Alaska will offer
recognizes these basic facts; that the education and mental development
and entire development of a child begins early in life. Through this
amendment, we hope to support families with the youngest children to
find the early childhood educational programs that can help those
families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we
all know their children need.
The amendment recognizes that if we want to do everything possible
for our Nation's children and their overall education, we need to focus
on the earliest years, as well as the years of formal schooling. We can
do this--and this amendment proposes to do this--by supporting and
expanding the successful early childhood programs and initiatives that
are working right now at the local level. I invite anybody to come to
Missouri to see how well these programs work.
I am pleased to say the amendment is based on the basic ideas and
principles set forth in legislation that I was pleased to introduce
several years ago with my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kerry.
Mr. President, it is my opinion that if we want to improve our public
education system to educate our children for a lifetime of achievement,
we must take the stranglehold of the Federal Government off the local
school districts and the States and give the resources directly to
those local school districts and States so they can do their job.
I look forward to supporting an amendment by my colleague from
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, which deals with some of the very serious
problems that the current IDEA imposes. Talk to any school official,
any schoolteacher, any school personnel in Missouri, and they will tell
you they are scared because the requirements of IDEA put other
students, teachers, and school personnel at risk from dangerously
violent students who sometimes carry guns and are sheltered by the
Federal regulations that come with the individual education program. We
should not have a Federal Government program that puts people
associated with schools at risk. We need to change the laws to protect
and nurture those with IEPs but not to expose those with whom they deal
to violence and perhaps even to guns.
In closing, we must empower parents, teachers, school administrators,
and school boards because education decisions can best be made by
educators, board members, parents, teachers, and local school officials
who know the names and the needs of the children in their schools. I
hope we will be spending our time debating education, not every issue
under the Sun that may come up as an effort to derail this vitally
important reform of our education system.
Our children deserve the reform this bill delivers. This ESEA bill
deals with one of the most important national priorities, and that is
education. It deals with it by moving the control and the
responsibility out of Washington and back into the real world where the
best decisions can be made. I look forward to working with my
colleagues.
I thank the floor manager, the chairman of the committee, for
allowing me the extra time. I look forward to continuing the debate and
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve
successful ESEA reform, with perhaps some of the bells and whistles
added that I have mentioned.
[[Page S3284]]
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
Mr. JEFFORDS. When does morning business terminate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business terminates at 11:15.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________