[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2750-H2757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I start today by talking about
the person whose name I carry and the reason I have such a long name on
the board. That name is Millender, Juanita Millender-McDonald. It is
because of my father, Reverend Shelly Millender, who taught us that
education is important, that we must have a quality education in order
to challenge the world that would be before us. And so, Mr. Speaker,
tonight I rise with several of my colleagues to discuss the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act known to
us as ESEA.
This act is an act that is of immense importance to our children and
the future of our Nation. The education of our Nation's children is an
issue of paramount concern. As Members of the House of Representatives,
it is imperative that we remain focused on our national priorities of
raising standards and providing special assistance to children in need
to ensure that all students are prepared to face the challenges of the
21st century. Globalization has brought us into a more competitive
world where the challenges of technology will dominate the economic
relations among world nations. If all of our children are not prepared
to face these challenges, our great country will not continue to lead
the world in the vital areas of economy and technology, and also in the
critical areas of democracy and political participation.
We must, Mr. Speaker, guarantee quality school facilities, quality
teachers, smaller classroom sizes and gender equity in technology so
that all of our children, both boys and girls, are able to face these
new challenges.
I stand with some of my Members who are on the floor today as we
recognize America's teachers. As a former teacher, I know the
importance of teachers and their leadership to the classroom, but more
importantly their leadership for the future, for our future, America's
future because they are guiding our children who will be the leaders of
tomorrow. Some of them will be the Members of Congress. Therefore, we
must instill in them not only the moral standards, character building,
but also quality education, quality education that comes from good
teachers. I stand today in that salute and recognize the importance of
teachers in this whole process.
In the 106th Congress, the authorization of Federal aid to many
education programs covered under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act known as ESEA is expiring. These bills have passed through the
House in a piecemeal approach to reauthorizing major ESEA programs. It
is expected that the final piece of the ESEA puzzle, H.R. 4141, will be
coming to the floor soon. H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunity to
Protect and Invest in Our Nation's Students Act, also known as the
OPTIONS Act, amends ESEA programs regarding education technology which
is part of title III, the safe and drug-free schools and communities
that is couched within this title III. It also amends title IV, and the
education block grant which is title V.
I am deeply concerned, however, Mr. Speaker, with title I of H.R.
4141, entitled the transferability. Transferability is essentially a
backdoor block grant program which would allow Federal funds intended
to target technology, teacher training, school safety and after-school
care needs to be used for any purpose deemed educational regardless of
its relevance to the core mission.
[[Page H2751]]
When we look at, Mr. Speaker, technology we think about the digital
divide. The urban and rural areas both are in dire straits because of
the lack of high technology to our students in both the urban and the
rural areas. When we look at teacher training, Mr. Speaker, we look at
those persons who will be guiding and directing our students through
this 21st century, and indeed it is critical that we focus on
professional development as an ongoing core of teacher training.
School safety. We do recognize that children must be in an
environment that is conducive to learning and, therefore, school safety
is vital for this training. After-school care cannot just be left up to
the schools now. It should be the community, it should be churches and
all others who are getting involved in after-school care programs.
These are very vital, very critical areas in the holistic education of
our students.
Title I of H.R. 4141 allows States and local educational agencies to
transfer funds between ESEA programs after receiving funds for specific
purposes. I would like to draw attention to that, because we can ill
afford to have moneys that should go for one program specifically for
that purpose to be transferred to another program. That is the whole
notion of this transferability clause. Under title I, local education
agencies can transfer up to 30 percent of one program's funds to
another without any publicly documented rationale.
That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to really train our
teachers, educate our students, have a school that is conducive to
learning and have targeted technology that is applied for all students,
then we must not have this transferability clause that will snatch
funding from any program one deems important to transfer these funds to
another program. In other words, if the funding has gone to the State
specifically for a purpose and a program, then we should not be allowed
to transfer up to 30 percent or any percent on a program that was not
initially funded by this body.
If a local education agency receives State approval, then 100 percent
of those funds can be transferred between programs. In such cases, the
State is not required to establish criteria for these decisions or
document their approval. Again, it would not be up to the State, it
would be up to the legislation that we apply here on the floor, and
this is why I believe that H.R. 4141 does a great injustice to this
country's young people, our students.
{time} 1930
Block grants, whether by law or de facto, and despite their
popularity, do more harm to education than good. In fact, by pouring
Federal funds into general State operating funds, we are not able to
guarantee that the needs of all children are served, particularly the
schools and the students with the most need.
Again, I reiterate, those students are the students who are in the
urban schools like my schools, in the Watts area, in the Compton area,
and the Linwood area and the Wilmington area. Those are the schools
where there are the students with most needs, and also in the rural
communities where those students are falling behind in technology.
Transferability, as mandated in Title I of H.R. 4141 increases the
odds that ESEA money will not reach urban, minority students for much-
needed educational programs. A study done, Mr. Speaker, by the General
Accounting Office in January of 1999, reported that Federal funds are 8
times more likely than State funds to target disadvantaged students.
Why are we putting this in the hands of the State when this has been
documented by GAO, that the funds will be targeted more for
disadvantaged students in coming from the Federal as opposed to the
State?
The report further concluded that Federal monies helped to close the
gap in spending between the richest and poorest districts. Currently,
local education agencies that receive Federal money are required to use
the funds on specific populations and for specific purposes. No more,
no less. The transferability clause of H.R. 4141 will allow local
education agencies to use Federal funds in any way they like, resulting
in the possible exclusion of funds for programs that serve
disadvantaged students in low-income districts.
We know that is not right, Mr. Speaker. We know that we cannot look
to any local education agency to apply the funds that should be
documented in legislation from us. We just give them that autonomy to
transfer 30 percent of those funds to any program they deem important.
Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to think that funds earmarked for the
improvement of our education system's core mission can be used for
virtually any purpose. Transferability makes this prospect a reality
and it is likely to have a negative effect on teacher training, school
safety, and education technology.
Under H.R. 4141, we run the risk of diminishing our present emphasis
on teacher training that is critical to maintaining a high standard
among our schools. Under H.R. 4141, schools can decide to use funds
targeted for upgrading and improving teacher quality for other
purposes. Funds that could be used for teacher recruitment and
certification may also be transferred to other programs.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me tonight a gentleman who we all know was
the superintendent of public instructions in the State of North
Carolina. He has come tonight because we are both rather stunned by
this H.R. 4141 and its adverse impact on the education of our students.
Let me now present the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for yielding, and I thank her for putting together this Special Order
tonight, and for her leadership on this issue in the House. It is an
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about this critical issue
of education for our Nation. When we talk about that, we talk about our
children. I often wonder, having served at the State level in North
Carolina for 8 years where I saw the funds coming, the Federal funds,
and let me remind our colleagues and the people who might be listening
this evening that when we talk about Federal funds, they only represent
about 7 percent of the total money spent in this country on education.
Is that insignificant? No. Is that the only amount we can have? Well,
let me explain to folks that if we go back to the 1960s, it was about
15 percent.
So it is not a magic number, it is just a number that we live with
today because the money has been cut over the years. Did that money
make a difference? Absolutely, because it was categorical money. Folks
tend to forget that in the 1960s, we decided math and science were
important in this country after Sputnik. We put the resources in, and
did it make a difference? Absolutely, it made a difference. It gave us
a lead in science and technology that we are enjoying the benefits of
today. Our public schools responded, and so did our universities.
Now, why people need to have movement of funds from one category to
another in that is very easy. There is not enough money in them. If
there is enough money in those categories, they would not need to steal
from staff development for teachers and for teacher recruitment and
those dollars that are badly needed. It is important that those dollars
be there, because I think the Federal commitment, as the gentlewoman
has pointed out, is so critical. It says that it is important to this
Nation.
Here just today we have stood on this floor and talked about how
important our teachers are, and now we have a chance to decide that we
are going to turn words into actions.
Mr. Speaker, I said today, words are cheap, talk is cheap. We ought
to walk the walk instead of talk the talk.
I happen to have a son who teaches the fourth grade. If we paid
teachers the minimum wage, we would be raising the salary of teachers
in this country, because they put in an awful lot of hours they are not
compensated for.
I think a lot of folks think of teachers working from maybe 7:30 or 8
o'clock to whatever time is school is out in the afternoon. What they
do not realize is those teachers grade papers in the evenings, they
take children on field trips on the weekends, and here we are arguing
about a few dollars. It is a lot of money in terms of what schools get,
but if we look at it in terms of the whole Federal budget, it is not
really a great deal of money. But a
[[Page H2752]]
few dollars at the classroom level where teachers are makes a big
difference.
We have colleagues here who want to say well, it is just where the
teacher is. No, we need people for staff development. We need people in
the principal's office, we need people in the central office, because
someone has to coordinate all of this. We need people at the Federal
level. I know when I was State superintendent, I depended greatly on
the Federal office of education for research and development monies,
and yes, for those grant monies. So it does make a difference that we
have those monies in those categories.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that we want to talk about taking it
away, and that is really what we are talking about. Any way we cut it,
we are going to take it away from some of the most needy children in
this country, the very children that we want to raise the threshold for
and make sure that in the 21st century, they have a chance to make it.
We talk about the digital divide, and I will talk about that more in
just a moment. But the digital divide is nothing compared to the divide
that we are going to have for the children who do not have the
opportunity to learn to read, and reading is fundamental; that do not
learn to do math early, because many of the children show up at the
public schools in this country who have not had the opportunity before
they get there for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being poverty.
If there is one thing that we can classify, it reaches across ethnic
lines, no matter whom they are, a child who shows up from poverty is a
child more likely to be behind in school and have a difficult time. If
we do not give children a good education, we relegate them and the
future generation to poverty.
That is what public education is about in this country. America is
really the one place in the world that says, no matter where one comes
from, we give them an opportunity to step up to this great smorgasbord
we call public education, if one is willing to work for it. But if
America is going to seize this opportunity of a new economy in the 21st
century, Congress must provide national leadership in this vital
effort. We cannot capitulate now. The one time we have a chance to make
a difference, we ought not to just lay down and play dead.
I have often said, there is a big slip between the lip and the hip,
and that really comes with a lot of talk and not a lot of resources to
get the job done.
Across this country, the American people are crying out for a greater
investment in education. I have been in probably many schools, maybe
more than most people in this body, having been superintendent, and I
go back regularly. I have never had a child, the truth is I have never
had a teacher to ask me who paid for something in the school, whether
it was local, State, or Federal. They just know they do not have
enough. There are surveys after surveys that tell us that teachers take
money out of their pocket to make sure they have resources in the
classroom for their children.
Now, I am here to tell my colleagues tonight that is not right. Here
we are arguing about a few dollars that we are going to send to help
make education better for the poorest of our students, because those
are the ones the teachers take money out of their pockets for. They are
the ones who are there that we are not paying as well as we ought to.
I told someone today, my colleague may have overheard it, when we go
through the grocery line in the check-out and pay for our groceries,
because the teachers are not paid like they should be, in my opinion,
they do not have a check-out that says, if you are a teacher, come
through this line, and if you are a millionaire, come through this
line. We all go through the same line. We ought to recognize that. If
we truly value what our teachers do, and I do, I think we have to do a
better job, and I think folks are expecting us to do it.
The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, has to join
with us to make it happen. We have to stop arguing about those things
like school vouchers. Every year they want to talk about school
vouchers. That is not the answer to the problem. Because if that were
the answer, we would have all been on board a long time ago. All that
is is a way to take money off the top and deny those most-needed
students their opportunity.
We can talk about all we want in saying, well, competition is what we
need in schools. We have 53 million students in school in America this
year, and 94 percent, roughly, in this country, and in some States it
is higher than that, it is 95, 96 percent, they are in the public
schools. So the key is for us to use what resources, to use the kind of
influence and support we have to help all of our children do better.
I think our schools are doing a far better job today than they have
ever done, for all of our children. There is no question about that. No
one can tell me that is not true, after looking at the data and look at
the data across years. But the challenge we have is what we have done
last year or 5 years ago is not good enough. It will not suffice in the
high-tech economy we find ourselves in, competing with the world. We
cannot drain off resources from our public schools and leave our
children behind, condemned to a bleak future of failure.
As we work in this Special Order tonight, I hope we can share with
the American people that our commitment is to our public schools, it is
to make sure that every single child has an opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have done in this country is make
sure that children, try to make sure that children show up ready to
learn. We can tell a difference in a child who comes from a background
who has not had those opportunities, if he just had one year of Head
Start, good Head Start or preschool.
In North Carolina, as my colleagues well know, our governor has
worked with the general assembly and they are now putting in a
prekindergarten program. They call it Smart Start. We had some when I
was superintendent that we used Federal monies for that, and it makes
all the difference in the world. It is a public-private partnership,
and in some cases, we are working with other groups. But for the
children who have not had that enrichment, who show up at school who do
not know their colors, who have not been read to when they were little
folks, it makes all the difference in the world. It helps the teacher,
when we have 26, 28, and in some cases, 30 children.
I often remind folks that Fay and I were fortunate. We have 3
children. I would have hated to have had 26 of them, trying to teach
them. Some days it was tough with 3. People do not realize what it is
in that classroom. Teachers are liable to stay in that classroom. If
they want to go to the bathroom, they have to get relief. There are not
many jobs like that today. I think we need to honor them and respect
them.
Mr. Speaker, our job here in Washington ought to be talking about how
we can make it better, not create situations that are barriers to those
teachers, and the teachers are the ones who really understand the
problems the children have. They do not want the money to be taken away
from staff development. Education may be the only place I am aware of
where we tell teachers that they have to continue to get recertified,
and they to pay for it themselves. Most businesses that I know of pay
for their employees to go to get continuing training.
We are starting to do a better job, but we are not there yet where we
are paying for all of them. I think if we honor education and we care
for our children and our teachers, we ought to be about doing those
things. Our schools can do better, and they will with our help, but
only if we are willing to help.
{time} 1945
We need to foster a greater connection, I think, between students,
teachers, parents, and the broader business communities, one of the
points we were talking about earlier.
If a community gets involved, it is amazing what happens to students.
One of the things you talked about earlier that are so important, we
have to reduce class sizes. But if we talk about reducing class sizes
on the one hand and take away staff development for the teachers and
the training opportunities they have, all of a sudden we are working
against ourselves because we are saying, well, this worked well but we
are going to take that away and put it over here.
[[Page H2753]]
What we really need is to enrich and help that whole system. We need
staff development for teachers and administrators. We need to make sure
that when we are looking at roughly 2 million teachers we are going to
need in the next few years, we ought to be looking for ways we can
energize and put money out there. We did it in the sixties when we
wanted to do math and science. We are going to have to do it again if
we honor and believe in education.
I happen to believe very strongly that I would not be here in the
United States Congress if it had not been for public education, and I
would say to the bulk of the Members, neither would they. They should
not forget from whence they came. I would not be here. If we had been
in the process of vouchers and all these other things, I would not have
gotten the kind of education I did. I went to the public school, and
whatever the most affluent child in my community got, I had the
opportunity to get. That is true of most of the people in this body.
We should never forget that. We should not deny that opportunity for
any child in America, no matter where they come from ethnically nor
where they come from economically, because who knows, who knows, one of
those youngsters may find the cure for cancer or any other number of
diseases. Eventually they may be in this body making some of the same
decisions.
We have a tremendous challenge. We need a national commitment. We
need that commitment to the notion that parents in America have the
right to expect that their children will have the best teachers in the
world, and we cannot have, attract, nor retain the best teachers if we
do not support them. It is one thing to get them there. It is equally
as important to keep them there with pay, respect, and support.
That means staff development. That means when they need help, we
respond; that we honor what they do, rather than criticize what they
do. That bothers me greatly when I hear Members in this body do that. I
was pleased today that we passed a resolution, but I will repeat one
more time, now that we have said the words, we need to walk the walk.
We need to have an education bill that bespeaks of how important
education is in America for every child. Whether he lives in the
richest suburbs or the poorest inner city or the most isolated rural
parts of America, he should have the opportunity for an education.
I think block grants and vouchers are not the way to go. We would
ultimately waste the ability of children in this country. We must make
sure that every neighborhood school in America works.
I thank the gentlewoman for putting together this special order.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. He is
steeped in experience. As a former State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, he recognizes and understands the importance of quality
education, and he understands the barriers that are there with our
children. They already come with a set of barriers, being poor and
having unskilled parents. Then to further those barriers by not giving
them the quality education is just absolutely an atrocity, in my book.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this
issue.
I have another Member who is a leader in education who is on this
floor just about every night talking about the inadequate education,
given the funding that we do not get, but is busy pushing the whole
notion of school construction and quality teacher training so that we
can have the quality education that is sorely needed for those 53 to 54
million students.
I yield to none other than the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding to me. I want to congratulate her and applaud her insight in
focusing on a very serious facet of the education bill that is going to
be coming to this floor soon.
I serve on the Committee on Education, and I have had to live with
this for a long time. To have Members who are not on the committee
understand what is going on and offer to give us some help in this
crucial area is very uplifting. It is good to hear that we are going to
be prepared to fight the fight on the floor which we fought in the
committee and we lost.
The crux of the argument that is being made tonight is that we should
not take the Federal monies that are appropriated primarily to help the
poorest students in the poorest communities and water that down, spread
it out to communities which may need money for education, but we should
not give them additional funds for education at the expense of those
who have the greatest need.
The original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was
to provide additional help for the poorest school districts and for the
poorest students in those school districts.
We have had a doctrine of flexibility and super flexibility, and
various names have been assigned to it in the past 6 years by the
Republican majority. But what they are attempting to do is Robin Hood
in reverse. What the Republican majority wants to do is take the money
from the poor and spread it out to the others who need it less.
The irony of it is that they have better choices. We can all rejoice
that we can make choices now which are very different from that and at
the same time address the needs of any area that has educational needs.
We have a surplus. We have a surplus. A lot of people do not want to
talk about it here in Washington. It is the most important factor and
development in the last 10 or 20 years. Instead of talking in terms of
a deficit, there is a Federal surplus. Why do we have to rob the poor,
therefore, to spread the Federal funds out to cover needs in some other
district?
I do think there are other needs. Nobody has spoken more often here
on this floor than I have in favor of the Federal government taking a
larger role in funding for education. The Federal Government's role now
is around 7 percent of the total funding. Most funding for education
comes from the State governments and from the local governments. The
Federal government has a small role. The Elementary and the Secondary
Education Act that we are talking about today is about $8 billion of
Federal funds, $8 billion out of a huge budget for education, when we
add the State and local government contributions.
Clearly, if we go back and read the law it is still there, the
findings in the preamble to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
that clearly the Federal government did not meet all the needs of
everybody in education. The reasoning was that we should help those
districts which have the needs most, help the poorest students, to
relieve some of the burden from the State and local governments doing
what they should have been doing all along, giving the kind of help
these districts needed.
The pattern is across America that those who need it most get the
least. The pattern of State government is that they neglect those who
need it most because they are the ones who have the least amount of
power. It is a power situation. The pattern over the years has been
State government always neglects the needs of the poor, whether it is
health care or education or any other need.
The Federal government has stepped in in the interests of national
security, in many cases. In World War II, they found when they had to
draft large numbers of young men that they were basically unhealthy,
suffered from poor nutrition, any number of problems that led to the
generation of concerns at the national level about health care.
We later on got the beginning of health care programs in terms of
Medicare, Medicaid, and various other funding for hospitals and well
baby clinics because it was understood that we cannot leave that to the
States because they do not deal with it, and there is a need, there is
a national security interest, in having a healthy population.
There is now a national security interest in having a population that
is well-educated. Nothing is clearer than the fact that brain power now
drives the world in terms of the economy. If we move to the military
sphere, any area of activity among governments or in governments
requires a tremendous amount of brain power. Educated people are our
best resource.
What we are proposing here and what the gentlewoman from California
has
[[Page H2754]]
pinpointed is we are proposing a very dangerous and deadly move. We are
moving in the wrong direction at a time when the budget surplus permits
us to give more aid to education. If we want to help other areas beyond
the poorest of the poor, then we could just add money to the budget and
cover the additional areas.
No, at a time when we can do that, we are proposing to take the money
away from the poorest of the poor and give it to the other areas. Why
not, at a time like this, dedicate more of the Federal budget to
education?
Let us stop for a moment. The American people should listen closely
to what is happening. Between the time that Congress recessed and the
time we came back last week, the estimates of the budget surplus went
up by $40 billion.
The estimate now is, the most conservative estimate is that this
year's budget surplus, the amount of money we will take in in terms of
taxes, revenue, versus the amount of money we have spent, the surplus,
the leftover money, will be no less than $200 billion, $200 billion.
The projection is that over the next 10 years we will have about the
same or more, $200 billion per year for 10 years. We are talking about
a $2 trillion surplus over a 10-year period.
Why are we in an atmosphere of that kind? Why are we, with
opportunities of that kind, going to rob or take money from the poorest
of the poor and give it, spread it out for the rest of the schools?
That is mean-spirited, it is insensitive, and it is shortsighted.
We should rise to the moment. We have a golden opportunity, every
legislator here, everybody in government has a golden opportunity to
rise to this moment when we have abundant resources. We have had to
make decisions for a long time based on the fact that we had a deficit.
There was not enough funding. Now we have the funds. Where is our
conscience? Where are our consciences? Where are our hearts? Where are
our souls when it comes time to make decisions with resources that we
have been blessed with?
Instead of the generosity and charity spirit prevailing, just the
opposite is happening. We choose to take what we have allocated for
education for the poorest of the poor and to give it to those who need
it less, spread it out.
Sandra Feldman, who is the president of the American Federation of
Teachers, has put it well in a recent article that she has in several
papers.
The legislative term for what is happening she says some people call
a block grant, but she calls it a blank check. ``The result would
probably be the disappearance --or at least the radical weakening--of
programs designed to guarantee funding for critical national objectives
like safe schools and lower class sizes.''
I am quoting from Sandra Feldman's article, Mr. Speaker, and I will
include the entire article for the Record.
The article referred to is as follows:
Commentary on Public Education And Other Critical Issues--A Blank Check
(By Sandra Feldman)
People in Hartford, Connecticut, have good reason to be
proud and pleased. For a number of years, students in this
poor, urban school district ranked academically lowest in the
state, but things are changing. A new superintendent, working
with the AFT local, used Title I money (federal funding
targeted specifically to educationally needy children) to put
in place a proven program called Success for All. And this
year, the district celebrated significant improvements in
math and reading test scores.
This is just one story among many in which children are
doing better because their schools receive federal funding.
But if a measure that Congress is currently debating becomes
law, there will be fewer of these success stories.
The so-called Straight A's bill would allow states to lump
together federal funding now devoted to programs that are
proven to help children learn--as well as programs that help
keep schools safe and drug free and enhance learning
technology--and give the money to the states to use in any
way they choose.
The legislative term for this is ``block grant.'' But it
should really be called ``blank check.'' The result would
probably be the disappearance--or at least the radical
weakening--of programs designed to guarantee funding for
critical national objectives like safe schools and lower
class sizes.
Guranteed Funding
The biggest of these programs, Title I, reaches 11 million
disadvantaged kids--though in fact many more could use the
kind of help it offers. Title I money goes directly to the
districts and schools where it's most needed, and it pays
for, among other things, extra teachers and programs that
help students master reading and writing and achieve higher
standards. Over the years, as Title I has been improved and
focused on proven programs, student achievement has improved,
and in some cases, such as Hartford, Title I has been a big
factor in turning around entire schools and even school
districts.
It is possible that the states would carry on Title I and
other programs that are working--but it's very risky. The
reality about block grants is that they allow state
governments to spend the money any way they want to. And of
course, they have their own priorities, their own pressures
and demands to answer to, which do not necessarily include
needy children.
This is not to say the states aren't good at lots of
things. Most have been working successfully to raise student
achievement. But it has been the targeted program funds of
the federal government that have spurred most of them on.
States have never done a good job of making sure all children
get their fair share of the education pie. Schools in poorer
communities have always been underfunded. Poor children, who
need more than other children, have always gotten much less.
Specious Arguments
Supporters of education block grants talk about giving
states the right to run their own school systems without
federal interference. They claim they are for ``flexibility''
and against the ``status quo.'' This is disingenuous, to say
the least. Virtually all of the Title I money already goes to
the local level, so what kind of flexibility are they talking
about? (Flexibility not to spend the money on what works?) As
for moving away from the status quo, that already happened in
a big way in Title I just four years ago. Strong
accountability requirements for district and schools
receiving Title I funds were added, and those requirements
have been the engine driving a lot of the academic progress
we've been seeing in the states.
Of course, there is a big remaining problem with the status
quo: There simply isn't enough federal education funding to
meet needs. One percent of the entire federal budget is spent
on K-12 education, in comparison, for example, with the 2.5
percent spent on transportation. No one denies that
transportation is critical, but is building highways more
than twice as important as educating our kids?
Americans want money spent according to need, not politics.
So why would Congress even consider turning the funding for
programs that serve needy kids into pork barrels for the
states? Straight A's is bad news for children, and people who
care about educational equity should call their members of
Congress to tell them so.
To continue reading from her article, quoting, ``The biggest of these
programs, Title I, reaches 11 million disadvantaged kids--though in
fact many more could use the same kind of help it offers. Title I money
goes directly to the districts and schools where it is most needed, and
it pays for, among other things, extra teachers and programs that help
students master reading and writing and achieve higher standards. Over
the years, as Title I has been improved and focused on proven programs,
student achievement has improved, and in some cases, such as Hartford,
Title I has been a big factor in turning around entire schools and even
school districts.''
``Supporters of education block grants talk about giving states the
right to run their own school systems without Federal interference.
They claim they are for `flexibility' and against the `status quo.'''
{time} 2000
This is disingenuous, says Sandra Feldman. This is disingenuous to
say the least, virtually all of the title I goes to the local level so
what kind of flexibility are they talking about? They are talking about
flexibility not to spend the money on what works.
As for moving away from the status quo, that already happened in a
big way in title I just 4 years ago. Strong accountability requirements
for districts and schools receiving title I funds were added, and those
requirements have been the engine driving a lot of the academic
progress we have been seeing in the States.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the examples that have already been made by
the Welfare Reform Act, where large amounts of money that were targeted
for the poorest of the poor, welfare people, has not been spent by the
States, and instead of them using that money for daycare and for job
training, where they have had choices, and sometimes even when they did
not have choices, they have channeled the money into other kinds of
general funds or road repair or whatever and not bother to use it for
the human resource needs that they have had.
Given that example, why should anyone think that giving the States a
[[Page H2755]]
blank check on maximum flexibility on education funds will mean that
they are going to spend them wisely on those funds? I would like to
conclude by saying there is a simple formula that I would like to leave
with everybody who cares about education in America. If we just take 10
percent of the surplus, 10 percent of the surplus each year, and devote
it to education, we could resolve all of these problems with a minimal
amount of distress anywhere.
We do not have to take it from the poor to give to the rich. We can
add money to the budget; that 10 percent would pay for construction
needs, infrastructure needs. It would pay for additional computers. It
would pay for a lot of different things like more teachers for the
classroom, 10 percent of the surplus is $20 billion. It is only 10
percent, but because the surplus is so large, it is $20 billion per
year.
With $20 billion per year, we can meet the capital needs in terms of
infrastructure and equipment, and at the same time, we can also meet
the needs in terms of improvements in education in other areas.
We have an answer, and the answer does not require us to be mean-
spirited and take away from the poor to give to the rich. The answer is
to add more money, 10 percent of the surplus should go for education,
and we can solve this problem.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much
for his leadership and the expertise that he brings to the table on
education.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). He has absolutely been stalwart in
bringing to this floor those education needs and some of the concerns
that are critical in the communities that have been underserved. We
thank again the gentleman from New York.
We have another education leader, I say, because he is on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, but he has also shown great
leadership in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I bring to now the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) for yielding to me. I commend her for giving us an
opportunity this evening to have a general discussion of the state of
education policy in the United States Congress and the all-important
work that we are trying to accomplish in reauthorizing the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, that is the Federal programs affecting
preschool and K through 12 and even afterschool activities that have
been reauthorized every 5 years, and this year it is up. I hope we get
it right.
Earlier today we did pass a resolution in this House in regards to
commemorating and honoring the teachers that serve our children
throughout the country. And I am very glad that we took a few minutes
this afternoon in order to do that, because, obviously, the studies
show that outside of the active, caring, loving, involvement of parents
in their own children's lives and especially the education, the next
important determinant of how well a child is going to succeed in the
classroom is the quality of the teacher actually working with our
children, and that is why I feel we cannot do enough in order to
support the teachers, provide them with the resources that they need in
order to accomplish the job and the tasks and the objectives that we
are calling upon them ever more so today to do.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that the turn of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act has not been a happy one. I mean the Federal
involvement in K through 12 education funding is roughly 6 percent to 7
percent. It is not a large chunk of the pool of money that is provided
to our public school systems throughout the country, but I feel it is a
very important piece of the pie, because it goes to targeted, high
need, disadvantaged students who are otherwise slipping through the
cracks, and through the history of ESEA, there was a consensus
developed throughout the Nation and in this Congress that the Federal
Government can be involved in a targeted fashion, filling in some of
those cracks, providing resources to the poor and disadvantaged high
need children in the country. Also, our involvement kind of sets the
tone as well and develops themes and develops priority that is we as a
Nation really should be working on; issues such as class size
reduction, one that hopefully is starting to pick up more momentum
State by State, school district by school district.
Even in my own home State of Wisconsin, we have had a very successful
SAGE program that has been in place for quite a few years. Last year,
the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee just did a comprehensive study
and analysis of the SAGE program, which is a pilot program throughout
the State, and the results were really stunning, as far as student
achievement and the benefits of class size reduction.
Mr. Speaker, as we speak to the administrators and the parents and
the teachers, those involved in the public education system, there are
certain things that they are calling upon from the Federal Government,
for State governments, even the local school boards to step in and to
assist them on, one of which is providing resources needed in order to
reduce class sizes so that we do have a better student-teacher ratio in
the classroom, which will help with individualized attention then to
students, so that the teachers can focus on a high-need students and
devote the attention that they need.
But it also adds to increased discipline and safety in our schools.
It should be a shared goal throughout the Nation. It should not be a
partisan issue. But, unfortunately, it has not become a major part of
the elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill, and I
think that is a little unfortunate. But hopefully we will have a chance
to correct that.
Another important piece of the ESEA reauthorization was something
that was passed by the House of Representatives last year, it is still
pending action in the Senate, but it was the Teacher Empowerment Act,
and that is the resources that we provide back to local school
districts in order to provide training and professional development to
teachers so they can enhance their skills so that a new generation of
teachers, who will hopefully be very well qualified and talented, will
be entering the classroom.
Lord knows that we see the real challenge that lies before this
Nation over the next 10 years. We are projecting about a 2.2 million
teacher turnover within the next 10 years, and this presents not only a
challenge but an opportunity. An opportunity to increase our
involvement and effort in improving the quality of teachers, attracting
young, bright, talented students into the teaching professions, asking
them to meet certain certification requirements so that we are getting
the best and the brightest into the classrooms dealing with our
children.
Mr. Speaker, we could have a new generation of teachers stepping in
who are very capable of meeting the needs of an ever-changing global
marketplace and a new economy that our kids have to find themselves in.
So we need to do what we can within the ESEA reauthorization to help
with the teacher training and professional development programs.
There was a provision that I got included in the Teacher Empowerment
Act which also provided resources for the professional development of
our principals and superintendents and administrators of school
districts, realizing that they play a very important role
quarterbacking the school districts, setting the tone and providing the
leadership of where a school district is going to go.
But I talk to a lot of teachers who feel a little bit discouraged
that there are not enough resources being provided for school
modernization needs, providing the infrastructure and the technology in
the classrooms, making sure that our kids have access to the technology
that they need, which can be an incredibly powerful new learning tool
at their disposal, but making sure the classrooms are wired, that they
are getting access to the software and the hardware and especially,
again, that there is professional development funding so that our
teachers feel competent and capable of integrating that technology
right into the classroom curriculum.
In light of that, I, along with other members of the committee,
offered an Ed-Tech amendment to a recent piece of the elementary and
secondary education bill, one which would provide
[[Page H2756]]
targeted funding exactly for this technology need in the classroom and
exactly for the professional development of teachers and also for the
integration of the technology into the classroom instruction and
curriculum.
Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected in committee. I think it
is short-sighted, given the needs of the global marketplace today. In
fact, just quickly, I had a very interesting lunch with Jim and
Bridgette Jorgensen, who are the cofounders of the AllAdvantage.Com
company. They started this company with two others, both of whom were
H-1B visa students. They have created 700 jobs in this country alone,
and they are expanding by leaps and bounds. But I was asking them about
the issue of having to expand the H-1B visa program in the country and
why it was necessary. And they said, in the short term it is necessary,
because in the short term we are not getting enough of our own kids
interested in math and science and engineering and computer science
classes so that they can step in and meet the growth needs of a lot of
these technology companies that are expanding incredibly fast, and
helping to create a 3 percent unemployment level in this country.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Committee on Education
and the Workforce made a very important point in passing. Since we are
paying tribute to teachers today, I just want to make certain that that
point does not get lost. That is that many teachers who are now
employed as teachers, as well as many students who are considering
teaching, they point to the abominable working conditions in the
schools. And one of the abominable working conditions that they cite is
the physical infrastructure, the fact that schools are in disrepair.
Schools have, in the case of New York, furnaces that still burn coal
and, therefore, they pollute the air. Respiratory illnesses not only
are there to be contracted by the children, but also by the teachers.
Schools are overcrowded, and that creates an atmosphere which
exacerbates the discipline problem. Schools are overcrowded, so they
force the kids to eat lunch in three or four cycles, so they have to
eat lunch very early.
Mr. Speaker, if we care about teachers, and I heard many
protestations on the floor today as to how important teachers are and
how much we care about them, if we care about teachers, then we ought
to give them better working conditions and I think we should not
overlook the fact that we have better working conditions in many plants
and industrial offices than we have in our schools for teachers. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is
a very important point. Even schools in my district in western
Wisconsin, especially in rural areas, are in need of repairs, and some
are emergency repairs. But the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has
offered a bit of a solution to this nationwide problem in a tax credit
for bond referendums issued for the sake of school modernization and
school construction needs.
I think it is a very important role the Federal Government can
provide by providing tax credits to local school districts, which will
save local school districts with the additional expense of having to
pay interest on those bonds that are being issued today. And so again,
another piece in the puzzle where the Federal Government can partner
with the State and local school districts in order to make it
affordable for us to be able to provide quality education facilities
for our schools.
The essence of passing a budget here in Washington is also about
establishing priorities. And if we want to be productive and meaningful
as far as our children's future is concerned, we should be building Taj
Mahals to our kids in the form of school buildings that they are going
to be proud to walk in and do the work and feel proud to learn in. It
would be a sure sign to our kids that the adults in their lives think
enough about them and their education that we are willing to invest the
resources that are needed to get this done and to get this
accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that our colleagues here in this body would
support the school modernization legislation that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed.
Let me just conclude by ending where I started and that is commending
the teachers for the hard work that they put in throughout the Nation,
and also commending the Vice President who had the courage to finally,
at the Federal level, to speak up and say if we are going to get the
teacher component of education right, we have got to talk about
compensation. We cannot be afraid about talking about adequately
compensating our teachers so that we can recruit the best and the
brightest in the teaching profession, so that we can retain good
quality teachers and not lose them to the private sector. And he has, I
think, a very reasonable realistic proposal in awarding teachers who
are going on and developing their professional skills with professional
development classes, receiving higher degrees of education, providing
bonuses to students who go into this subject area and obtaining their
higher level certifications that are now being implemented on a State-
by-State basis.
{time} 2015
This is something that, for too long, we have been afraid to talk
about, yet we see the wholesale abandonment in the teaching profession
by a lot of good teachers who would love nothing more than to stay in
the classroom and work with our kids, but who are being enticed in the
private sector with more lucrative job offers.
Again, it becomes a question of priorities with our budgets and as a
Nation of whether or not we are going to do right by the teachers and
award them and provide them with an adequate compensation level so that
they can make a decent living and take care of their own family while
doing something that they love and want to do, and that is, teach in
the classroom.
It has been said that good teachers have a form of immortality. That
is because their influence and radiance keeps on shining. I have had a
few very, very good teachers that touched my life as a kid growing up
on the north side of La Crosse, whether it was Mrs. Heillesheim or Mrs.
Stoker or Mrs. Mulroy or Mr. Trumain in the elementary school at
Roosevelt in La Crosse, or whether it was Mr. Knutson or Mr. Kroner,
Gary Corbiser, Mrs. Bee Small in the middle school at Logan. In high
school, there were so many good teachers who I had the privilege to
have teach me, whether it was Ernie Eggett, who taught me advanced
algebra or calculus; or Joe Thienes who made physics and chemistry
interesting for this student; Mr. Anderson, Mr. Markus, and Diane
Gephardt who taught me how to write; Ron Johnson who sparked my love
and interest in history that I carry with me even today.
I just want to conclude by thanking them, in particular, for the role
that they had in bringing me up because it did not necessarily have to
end up here in the Chamber of the people's House, the House of
Representatives. But for their influence and their concern about the
future and my life, as well as a couple of loving parents that I had
growing up under, it could have been a lot different for this kid on
the north side of La Crosse.
So tonight I just want to pay special tribute to those teachers who
had a major impact and influence in, and influenced my life.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, one can see the leadership that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) shows, and he shares with us in
showing how great teachers and quality teachers can bring about a
quality Member of Congress.
I suppose I started also in talking about the person who was
instrumental in my life, my father, because my mother died when I was
3\1/2\, and I was brought up by my father. This is why I carry the full
name of Juanita Millender-McDonald. But he was so absolutely so strong
on quality education.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4141 is potentially detrimental to
both the Safe and Drug Free School Act and the 21st century community
learning centers. Further, the national program on hate crime
prevention sponsored by the Safe and Drug Free School Act could lose
much-needed funds if this particular provision, that transferability
[[Page H2757]]
clause, passes in this ESEA reauthorization.
We can no longer, Mr. Speaker, tolerate violence, especially gun
violence that affect the lives of our students. We have seen that with
Columbine and the others.
So I plan to offer an amendment which repeals the transferability
clause in Title I of H.R. 4141 when it comes to the floor. I believe
that it is extremely harmful for the local education agencies to be
able to transfer funds between educational programs thereby weakening
the original mandate of those funds.
Again, Title I is for our poorest of children, the poorest of
schools. I have those schools in my district of Watts and Wilmington
and other places.
I say to all of us in this House, let us not forget the disadvantaged
student, the one who critically needs quality education.
____________________