[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9-S11]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBUTE TO CLAIBORNE PELL
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on January 1, Claiborne Pell died.
Claiborne Pell was a Senator from Rhode Island, the longest serving
Senator from that State, a Senator whose name is known by most college
students and by most people who care about education in America because
he was largely responsible for helping to create in 1973 what we now
call the Pell grant, a Federal scholarship that follows students to the
college of their choice. It was originally called the Basic Educational
Opportunity Grant, but Pell grant is a lot easier to say. It is a
remarkable success in our country. He deserves to be remembered for
that success.
I knew him as a staff member when I came here with Senator Howard
Baker, who was here just a few hours ago as we were sworn in. That was
42 years ago. I knew him as Education Secretary in 1991 and 1992.
The American higher education system is, at a time when we worry
about some of our institutions, one of our great secret weapons in
America, one of our great strengths. One reason for that is because of
Federal grants and loans.
It all started not with the Pell grant but just at the end of World
War II with the GI bill for veterans. It was a college scholarship.
Actually, it was an educational scholarship the veterans could spend
wherever they wished, and the ``wherever they wished'' point is the
important point because many of those men and some women who came back
from World War II used their GI bill money to go to high school. Some
used it to go to college in other countries of the world.
No one said you can't go to the University of Delaware or you must go
to Notre Dame or you can't go to Brown University or you can't go to a
Historically Black College. The GI bill for veterans followed the
student to the college of that student's choice.
It was not universally popular. The president of the University of
Chicago, Mr. Hutchins, said at the time that it would create a campus
full of hobos because college at that time was for a very limited
number of Americans.
At the end of World War II, only 5 percent of Americans 25 and older
had completed at least 4 years of college. But today, according to the
most recent figures, that figure is six times that. Nearly 30 percent
of Americans have completed 4 years of college.
First, the GI bill after World War II, then the Pell grant in 1973,
then the various loans the Federal Government allows for students. So
today, 60 percent of the men and women who go to American colleges and
universities have a Federal grant or Federal loan to help them pay for
college.
It is never easy to afford college. The average tuition at a 4-year
private school is about $25,000 today, and you add to that your living
expenses. It is important to remember that an average tuition at a 4-
year public university is about $6,500, and the average tuition and
fees for community colleges is $2,400.
So Senator Pell, by his leadership and his work as chairman of the
Education Subcommittee of our Health, Education, and Labor Committee,
helped add to the legacy of the GI bill for veterans and helped make it
possible for so many Americans to go to college.
I wish to conclude my remarks and honor Senator Pell with a thought
about our future. I have always wondered why if the Pell grant was such
a good idea for colleges, why don't we try it for kindergarten through
the 12th grade.
We seem to overlook the fact that American students can choose their
college and the money follows the student to the college. It might be
Nashville Auto Diesel College. It might be Harvard University. But we
don't give the money to the school, we give it to the student to decide
where to go. That was a happy accident that happened with the GI bill,
and it was a happy accident that happened in 1973.
I remember saying to one distinguished Member of this body: You know,
the Pell grant is a voucher.
This Senator recoiled from that and said: I am opposed to vouchers.
I said: But you are not opposed to the Pell grant, are you?
And she said: Well, no, that is different.
I would argue that is not different at all. What we have done in
kindergarten to 12th grade is give the money directly to institutions,
and we, in that sense, create local educational monopolies and limit
the amount of competition in choice.
We can look at our experience with higher education and see how it is
generally considered to be by far the best in the world. We not only
have the best colleges and universities in the world, we have almost
all of them. Then we look at our system of kindergarten through the
12th grade.
The Presiding Officer has been Governor of his State. He worked hard
on charter schools. We have all tried many different ideas to try to
improve kindergarten through 12th grade, but we have never quite seemed
to be able to make it as effective as our success with higher
education.
That is why in 2004 I suggested on the Senate floor that we try the
idea of a Pell grant for kids. I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record following my remarks the remarks I made on the Senate
floor on May 17, 2004, about Pell grants for kids.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, to summarize them, they were simply
this: Why not look to the example of our higher education system and
try it with kindergarten through the 12th grade? The Pell grants for
kids I proposed was to give every single child from a middle- or low-
income family a $500 scholarship that would follow them to the school
or other accredited academic program of their choice. These would be
new Federal dollars so no district would see its share of money from
Washington cut, and it would give less wealthy families many of the
same choices that families with money already have.
As one example, across our country we see art and music lessons cut
in schools. As budgets get tight, they are the first things that are
cut. The kids who go to the schools from the areas that have less money
from property taxes and less money from sales taxes are not able to
have the art and music courses. If they had a $500 Pell grant for kids,
they might take it to an afterschool program for art or afterschool
program for music, or the parents might get together and go to the
school the children attend and say: Look, there are 20 of us with these
$500 Pell grants. We will all come here if you hire an art teacher part
time or a music teacher part time. It would give parents some consumer
power, it would give children opportunities, and it would give schools
with less money more money.
This is an idea I hope we can seriously consider as we look ahead to
the future of American public education. We should recognize that there
are a great many school districts with children who have less money and
less of a tax base than others and that we have had a wonderful example
with the GI bill for veterans and with Pell grants in colleges and
universities.
So why not try it in a limited way to see if it would help improve
opportunity and education in kindergarten through the 12th grade as it
has in college.
My main purpose today is to honor Claiborne Pell. He served 36 years
with distinction. He contributed greatly to the opportunities of
education in America. He did it with dignity, and he did it with
intelligence. We respect
[[Page S10]]
him, we miss him, and we honor his legacy.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
A half century after Brown v. Board of Education, education
on equal terms still eludes too many African-American school
children. Secretary of Education Rod Paige has called
America's persistent racial achievement gap ``the civil
rights issue of our time.''
By the 12th grade, only one in six black students and one
in five Hispanic students are reading at grade level. Math
scores are equally disturbing. Only 3 percent of blacks and 4
percent of Hispanics test at proficient levels by their
senior year. By another standard, about 60 percent of
African-American children read at or below basic level at the
end of the 4th grade, while 75 percent of white students read
at basic or above at the end of the 4th grade.
There is still a huge achievement gap among African-
American children and white children. The No Child Left
Behind Act's system of standards and accountability is
creating a foundation for closing the gap. But funding
disparities between rich and poor--too often minority
children attend poorer schools--school districts remain a
stubborn contributor to inequality. Between 1996 and 2000,
poor students fell further behind their wealthier peers in
seven out of nine key indicators, including reading, math and
science.
These outcomes cry out for a different model, one that
helps address funding and equality without raising property
taxes; that introduces entrepreneurship and choice into a
system of monopolies; and that offers school districts more
federal dollars to implement the requirements of No Child
Left Behind with fewer strings--in other words, more federal
dollars, fewer federal strings, and more parental say over
how the federal dollars are spent.
Does this sound too good to be true? I would suggest it is
not.
Look no further than our nation's best-in-the-world higher
educational system. There we find the Pell grant program,
which has diversified and strengthened America's colleges and
universities by applying the principles of autonomy and
competition. This year, $13 billion in Pell grants and work
study and $42 billion in student loans will follow America's
students to the colleges of their choice. This is in sharp
contrast to the local monopolies we have created in
kindergarten through the 12th grade education, where dollars
flow directly to schools with little or no say from parents.
That is why I am proposing Pell Grants for Kids, an annual
$500 scholarship that would follow every middle- and low-
income child to the school or other accredited academic
program of his or her parent's choosing. These are new
federal dollars, so no district would see a cut in its share
of Washington's $35 billion annual appropriations for K-12,
and increases in funding for students with disabilities would
continue. Armed with new purchasing power, parents could
directly support their school's priorities, or they could pay
for tutoring, for lessons and other services in the private
market. Parents in affluent school districts do this all the
time.
Pell Grants for Kids would give less wealthy families the
same opportunities--an example is the Holiday family in
Nashville, Tennessee.
Raymon Holiday is a 6th grader who recently won the
American Lung Association of Tennessee's clean air poster
contest. I was there when he won the 10-speed bicycle you get
for winning this poster competition. I met his father, an art
major, and his grandfather, a retired art teacher. They told
me his great-grandfather was a musician. So you can see where
Raymon Holiday gets his instincts. His grandfather, the
retired art teacher, lamented to me that art classes are
usually the first to go when school budgets are cut. With
Pell Grants for Kids, in a typical middle school of 600
students, Raymon might be one of 500 middle- or low-income
students who qualify to receive a $500 Pell grant. His middle
school would see a $250,000 increase in funding. Raymon would
be assured of art lessons.
The Pell grant model also encourages great American
entrepreneurship. Enterprising principals, like Raymon's
principal, might design programs to attract parental
investment: advanced math classes, writing workshops, after
school programs, English lessons--whatever is lacking due to
funding constraints.
Surveys continue to show that while Americans are concerned
with the state of public education, most support their own
child's public school.
Herman Smith, superintendent of schools in Bryan, Texas,
would welcome the $6 million that would accompany 13,500
eligible Bryan students--90 percent of his district. Bryan is
right next door to College Station, home of Texas A&M where,
according to Smith, their budget cuts are larger than Bryan
dreams of spending for new programs and personnel. Property
values there are double those in Bryan, as is the per-pupil
expenditure. Not surprisingly, Bryan's population is almost
half African-American or Latino, while College Station is
three-quarters white.
With 30 million American school children eligible for Pell
Grants for Kids, my fellow fiscal conservatives are probably
raising an eyebrow. But please listen. Every year, Congress
appropriates increases in funding for kindergarten through
the 12th grade. What I am offering here is a plan to earmark
most of these new dollars--aside from increases in spending
for children with disabilities--for parents to spend on
educational programs of their choice. Otherwise, we will
continue to invest in the same bureaucracies that have
disappointed poor and minority families for too long.
Pell Grants for Kids could be implemented gradually,
starting with kindergarten and 1st grade at an initial cost
of $2.5 billion. If the program had been in place during
President Bush's first two years in office, the extra $4.5
billion spent on K-12 education--again, not counting another
$3 billion for children with disabilities--would have
created $500 scholarships for all nine million middle- and
low-income students through the 3rd grade.
We have had 50 years to deliver an American education on
equal terms to all students. But a baffling commitment to the
status quo has prevented us from living up to Brown's noble
legacy. This anniversary presents the perfect opportunity to
inaugurate a new era, one that uses the strategy that helped
to create the best colleges to help create the best schools.
Let us start with Pell Grants for Kids and move on from there
``with all deliberate speed.''
I would like to make several additional remarks about Pell
Grants for Kids.
As I mentioned, the idea is a pretty simple one--
significantly new federal dollars, fewer federal strings, and
more say by parents about how the money is spent.
To give you an idea of how much money that would be, I have
taken a quick look at my home state of Tennessee. Tennessee
has 938,000 students in kindergarten through the 12th grade.
Pell Grants for Kids would be eligible to all those students
who are from families below the state median income. The
state median income for a family of four in Tennessee is
about $56,000. So for families who have an income of $56,000
or below, each of their children would have a $500
scholarship that would follow that child to the school or
other approved academic program of his or her parents'
choice.
In June I hope to introduce a piece of legislation,
hopefully with a bipartisan group of senators. In July, Sen.
Gregg and I have already discussed a hearing, which we will
have in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
And then perhaps next year, the President of the United
States might want to make this a part of his budget.
I believe it is time in this country to recognize we need
to give poor and middle-income parents more of the same
choices of educational opportunities wealthier families have
and that we may be able to do this without harming our public
schools. We have had, since World War II, scholarships that
have followed students to the educational institutions of
their choice, and they have done nothing but help to create
opportunity and create the best system of colleges and
universities in the world. I think we ought to use the same
idea to try to create the best schools in the world.
We estimate about 60 percent of all of Tennessee students
would be eligible for a $500 Pell grant. In some of the rural
counties where there are a great many poor children, it might
be 90 percent of the students. In other places--such as
Davidson County, Maryville, and Oak Ridge--it might be a
smaller percentage.
But all in all, there should be about 562,000 students in
Tennessee who would be eligible. This would bring an
additional $281 million to Tennessee for K-12 education, and
parents would have a say over how that money is spent.
Often when this issue comes up and we talk about spending
more federal dollars for local schools, the senators on my
side of the aisle get a little hot under the collar. We do
not want to spend any more federal money for local schools.
On the other hand, when we say let's give the parents more
say on how the money is spent, the collars get a little hot
on the other side of the aisle because they are reluctant to
give parents more choice.
This is a conflict of principles. It is the principle of
equal opportunity--giving parents more choices. But there is
another valid principle on the other side. It is called ``e
pluribus unum.'' We have public schools, common schools, to
teach our common culture, and we do not want to harm them. It
is a proper debate in this body to say--let's ask questions,
if we are giving parents more say, more choices. Will that
harm our common schools? And there is a proper way to ask in
this Senate: Can we wisely spend that much more money? This
is quite a bit more money.
Fully funded, Pell Grants for Kids programs would cost $15
billion in new federal dollars a year. It would add about
$500 to the $600 we now spend on each of the children in
America today from the federal government. Only about 7 or 8
percent of the dollars we spend on children comes from the
federal government. So it would be about a 70 percent
increase in federal funding for every middle- or low-income
child fully funded.
We are proposing to do this over a long period of time.
Basically, to add to the new money that we would appropriate
every year for K-12 and give most of that to Pell Grants for
Kids. This would create more equality in funding for poor
districts. It would especially help African-American and
minority kids. It would provide extra dollars to implement
the standards of No Child Left Behind, and it would introduce
for the first time into our K-12 system the principle that
has created
[[Page S11]]
the best colleges in the world--the idea of letting money
follow students to the institution of their choice.
Over the next several weeks, I will be discussing this with
individual senators. I have not prepared a piece of
legislation yet because I don't want to stand up and say:
here it is, take it or leave it. Let's say one team says no
choice and one team says no money, then we are back where we
were. I am looking for ways to advance the debate.
I don't believe we are going to be spending much more money
through the federal government in the same way we are doing
it today. A lot of senators, and I am one of them, do not
want to spend more federal dollars through programs that have
lots of federal controls. We have seen the limit of command
and control from Washington, D.C., with No Child Left Behind.
That program will work. But I don't believe we can expect to
give many more orders from Washington to make schools in
Schenectady, Nashville, and Anniston, Alabama and Sacramento,
better. That has to happen in local communities.
The right strategy is significantly new federal dollars
with fewer federal strings and more parental say about how
those dollars are spent. This does not have to be a
Republican versus Democrat idea. I am not the author of this
idea.
In 1947, the G.I. bill for Veterans was enacted. Since that
time, federal dollars have followed students to the colleges
of their choice. Today, 60 percent of America's college
students have a federal grant or loan that follows them to
the college of their choice.
When I was president of the University of Tennessee, it
never occurred to me to say to the Congress: I hope you do
not appropriate any money for children to go to Howard
University or Notre Dame or Brigham Young or Vanderbilt or
Morehouse or the University of Alabama. We give people
choices. Or put it another way, in my neck of the woods, what
if we told everyone where they had to go to college? What if
we said, Sen. Sessions, you have to go to the University of
Tennessee. We said to young Lamar Alexander: You have to go
to University of Alabama. Civil wars have been fought over
such things.
That is exactly what we do in K-12. We give people choice
and have created the best colleges in the world. We give them
no choices, and we have schools that we wish were better. So
the idea would be to try what worked for colleges here in K-
12.
I said I was not the only one to think of this. There was
the G.I. bill for Veterans--that was bipartisan--after World
War II; maybe the best piece of social legislation we ever
passed in the history of our country.
In 1968, Ted Sizer, perhaps the most renowned educator in
America today, proposed a poor children's Bill of Rights:
$5,000 for every poor child to go to any school of his or her
choice, an LBJ power-of-the-people, liberal, Democratic idea
at the time. In 1970, President Nixon proposed, basically,
giving grants to poor children to choose among all schools.
The man who wrote that speech for President Nixon was a man
named Pat Moynihan. He was a U.S. Senator. In 1979, he and
Sen. Ribicoff, two Democrats, introduced essentially exactly
the idea I am proposing today. In fact, in 1979 Sens.
Ribicoff and Moynihan proposed amending the Federal Pell
Grant Act and simply applying it to elementary and secondary
students.
At that time, when the Pell grant was $200 to $1,800, a 3rd
grader could get a Pell grant, or if you were a high school
student and you were poor, you could get a Pell grant.
Senator Moynihan said to this body in 1979: ``Precisely the
same reason ought to apply to elementary and secondary
schooling--if, that is, we are serious about educational and
pluralism and providing educational choice to low- and
middle-income families similar to those routinely available
to upper income families.''
This was the impulse behind the basic educational
opportunity grants program as enacted by Congress in 1972. He
was talking about Pell grants. It was the impulse by the
presidential message to Congress which I drafted in 1970
which proposed such a program. It is the impulse to provide
equality of educational opportunity to every American, and it
is as legitimate and important an impulse at the primary and
secondary school level as it is at the college level.
I am going to strongly urge my colleagues not to make a
reflexive reaction to this idea because, on the one hand, it
has too much money, or on the other hand, it has some choice.
Think back over our history and think of our future and
realize we have the best colleges and we do not have the best
schools. Why don't we use the formula that created the best
colleges to help create the best schools?
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks Sen.
Moynihan's statement in the Senate in 1980, and following
Sen. Moynihan's remarks, an article which I wrote for the
publication Education Next, which is being published this
week, entitled ``Putting Parents in Charge.''
This article goes into some detail about the Pell Grants
for Kids proposal. I look forward over the next several weeks
to working with my colleagues, accepting their ideas and
suggestions about how we improve our schools.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk (John Merlino) proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
____________________