[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 102 (Friday, June 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H7003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1400
                               EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this 
evening to bring information before this body about the current status 
of education in our Nation.
  I had the distinct pleasure of speaking before the Committee on 
Education recently during Members Day regarding No Child Left Behind, 
NCLB, and its reauthorization. But I felt compelled to come to the 
floor as well to join with my other colleagues and reiterate my concern 
with the current state of education in this country and what I hope to 
see come out of this year's reauthorization.
  Now, I share with all my colleagues here in Congress the ultimate 
goal of providing a high-quality education for every child in America.
  Surely, we can do better than what has been done so far. What, then, 
should we do? I have looked at past reauthorizations of ESEA, and I 
noticed a troubling trend. With every reauthorization, now problems are 
identified with American schools. With every reauthorization, the 
solution proposed by Congress is for the Federal Government to become 
more involved with education.
  So, with this reauthorization before us, I have to ask, what has this 
interference wrought? Back in 1983, a famous report entitled ``A Nation 
At Risk'' said that America had fallen dangerously behind the rest of 
the world in education. Today new studies say many of the exact same 
things.
  According to the National Center For Education statistics, for 
example, in 2003, U.S. fourth graders were outperformed by their peers 
in 11 countries, including four Asian countries and seven European 
countries. U.S. eighth graders were outperformed by their peers in nine 
countries. Yet, as a percentage of GDP, we spend more money now on 
education than at any time in our Nation's history. In fact, we spend 
more in the United States on K through 12 education than the 
Philippines, Saudi Arabia or Sweden spend on everything in their 
countries.
  Our problem is this: We have increased Federal paperwork which 
requires increased taxpayer dollars to pay for increased administrative 
staff. But we have decreased teacher flexibility. We have decreased 
accountability to parents and decreased student performance.
  So for this year's reauthorization, I am proposing something 
different. Very soon, I will be dropping in legislation that will allow 
a State to in essence opt out of the majority of the requirements of 
NCLB, but at the same time, allow those taxpayers in the States to keep 
their education funding through what we call a refundable tax credit.
  I understand this is very different than what some other Members were 
proposing. But I feel that only by allowing the States and local 
governments to bear the burden of education accountability, 
accountability on that level, will we ever, as a Nation, make the 
progress that we need to make in the classroom so that we can stay 
competitive in the twenty-first century.
  I recently held a town hall meeting back in my district about No 
Child Left Behind. Every person in that room had something negative to 
say about the administrative requirements in the program in general. At 
one point in the meeting, I asked how many people there had contacted 
and met with a local teacher or principal or school board member 
regarding their problems? Nearly everyone in the room raised their 
hand.
  I then asked the question, how many of the people in the room here 
met with somebody in the State capital or in the New Jersey Department 
of Education about their concerns? About half the people raised their 
hands. I then asked, well, how many of you have had contact with 
someone from the U.S. Department of Education in Washington? Only one 
person raised their hand.
  My point is this: By transferring the requirements for NCLB in 
Washington, we are moving the accountability for education further away 
from the parents, the teachers, the school boards, to where it belongs. 
It belongs close to the parents, the students and the educators in the 
local school boards.
  In addition, the reporting requirements under NCLB have created 
basically a confusing system, a system that ends up punishing our best 
schools. One of the high schools in my district is consistently cited 
in publications in the State as one of the top-performing schools in my 
State. This very same school was placed on an early warning list 2 
years after NCLB was instituted.
  This was not an underperforming school. Every year, nearly 100 
percent of the kids graduate and they attend college. The average 
combined SAT score for the students in that school was around 1,100. 
Fourteen AP courses and tests were offered and so on. So it is a great 
school. And, yes, it is on the warning list.
  So I worry that while trying to meet the requirements of NCLB, 
students attending this high school will actually be held back by 
burdensome regulations rather than pushed to excel at already high 
standards that the school had previously set for them.
  I am certain there are many other schools in my counties in my 
district in my State and across the country, which is why we need a 
change to NCLB.

                          ____________________