[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3671-3673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from 
Tennessee for his hard work and the good work he has done on the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. This has been a task of 
assembling the right components that were acceptable to a broad range 
of interests and reflecting the capacity of States and local 
communities to make good decisions. I think the Senator has done an 
outstanding job. I am pleased to have the privilege of being a 
cosponsor of this bill.
  Under this legislation, the State of Missouri, my own State, as well 
as every other State in the Nation, will no longer have to come to 
Washington on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis to ask for relief from a 
myriad of Federal education statutes and regulations. Instead, Missouri 
will have the authority to waive regulations that hinder our schools 
from providing an excellent education for our students.
  Now, I know that the occupant of the Chair is a former Governor and 
had a lot of involvement with individuals in the education effort which 
is focused at the State level. I remember those days well from my time 
as Governor. It is most satisfying to try to do something to advance 
the performance of students. We understand that when students perform 
well and have great skills, it elevates the potential they enjoy for 
the rest of their lives.
  It was always a tremendous matter of concern to me--and I am sure to 
the occupant of the Chair--how Federal administrative burdens impeded 
the efforts of States rather than accelerated their capacity to help 
students perform. I think most Governors and former Governors we talked 
to would agree that Federal mandates and requirements associated with 
Federal programs can hinder a State's flexibility and, as a result, 
they cut into the dollars that could be spent on students. They end up 
being spent on bureaucracy--not just bureaucracy here in Washington, 
but a corresponding bureaucracy to deal with the Washington bureaucracy 
that has to be established and maintained in the States.
  In response to the question of whether we should impose Federal 
education standards from Washington, Governor Whitman of New Jersey 
said, and I think she said it well,

       What you see now is a huge waste of money on bureaucracy. 
     The more government strings that are on these dollars, the 
     more difficult it becomes to deliver education. If the money 
     that the Federal Government now puts out is too finite and it 
     says you can only spend it for this or for that, that money 
     won't go toward helping students learn, and that's what we 
     want.

  I agree with the entirety of the statement--``helping students learn, 
and that's what we want''--and the last line should be the motivation 
for every one of us not only in the Senate but across America. I simply 
couldn't agree with Governor Whitman more.
  States and local schools need more flexibility in how to spend 
education dollars, to spend them in ways that will help students learn. 
They are in the best position to make decisions about the education of 
students. I have to believe that being on site adds value to one's 
capacity to make an accurate diagnosis or assessment of what is needed.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which will provide States and 
local schools with the kind of flexibility they need to improve 
education and to elevate student performance.
  One of our Nation's highest priorities is to ensure that our children 
receive the kind of challenging and rigorous education that will 
prepare them for success. By building a strong educational foundation 
that focuses on the concept of high academic excellence, we will 
prepare students to make important career decisions and to become 
lifelong learners. The habit of education should extend beyond school. 
As a result, their lives will be enriched.
  We in Congress should develop and support Federal policies that will 
promote the best education practices in our States and local schools. 
We have learned from reports and studies that successful schools and 
successful school systems are characterized by parental involvement in 
the education of their children. They are characterized by parental 
involvement and local control, and they emphasize basic academics and 
make resources available to the classroom. These are the ingredients 
needed to elevate educational performance.
  It is with this in mind that we should stop and ask ourselves whether 
the current Federal education laws contain the elements that further 
our goal of giving our kids a world-class education. The unfortunate 
answer to that question is, our current laws don't do that; the answer 
is no. A number of our Federal education programs contain a plethora of 
regulations and restrictions that hinder States and local schools, 
hinder their ability to tailor and design what is needed in the local 
circumstance to advance the opportunity for students to learn. Whenever 
they hinder and obstruct that opportunity to tailor and design the 
right system, they waste the education dollars.
  Frequently, education dollars that Washington directs in terms of how 
to spend them are wasted because the how-to doesn't meet the need of 
the students and the school district.
  While the Federal Government has played an important but limited role 
in providing funding for education, it has also played a conflicting 
role by attaching so many conditions and strings to Federal dollars 
that it costs States and local schools a lot of time and resources to 
comply with all the rules and regulations.
  We have heard much about the paperwork burdens created by the Federal 
education rules and regulations. The Federal Department of Education 
requires States and school districts to complete over 48.6 million 
hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This is a 
statistic that is mind boggling. That translates into the equivalent of 
25,000 employees working full time just to do the paperwork for States 
to get their own money back to educate the students, which the State 
cares enough about to work hard to make sure that they are trying to 
elevate the students' performance.
  We heard that in Florida it takes 374 employees to administer $8 
billion in State funds, while it takes 297 State employees to oversee 
$1 billion in Federal funds--6 times as many per dollar. So that to do 
the paperwork and create the paper trail and all the paper involvement, 
to be a recipient of Federal funds, it takes six times as many 
employees as it does to follow a dollar of State funding in Florida.
  We know it takes a school nearly 20 weeks, 216 steps, to complete a 
discretionary grant process within the Department of Education. The 
Department has boasted that it has streamlined the process, because it 
used to take 26 weeks and 487 steps from start to finish; now it is 
only 216 steps in the bureaucratic jungle. With this bureaucratic maze, 
it is no wonder we lose about 35 cents out of every Federal education 
dollar before it reaches the classroom.
  If I were to give my children a dollar and, before I got it from my 
hand to their hand, I took 35 cents out of the dollar, they would know 
the difference. We tell ourselves that we are doing great things for 
education, but before the dollar reaches the student, 35 cents is taken 
out of the dollar. They know the difference. The difference is felt. 
And then sometimes we are telling them it has to be spent in a way that 
doesn't elevate student performance.
  Current Federal laws, of course, can also be inflexible, requiring 
the Federal education dollar to be spent only for a narrow purpose, to 
the exclusion of all others. This type of inflexibility hurts schools 
that have needs other than the ones prescribed by the Federal 
Government. A recent example was the $1.2 billion earmarked exclusively 
for classroom size reduction for the early elementary grades. What a 
noble aspiration. But it wasn't what a number of schools needed. 
Governor Gray Davis of California recently described how the

[[Page 3672]]

inflexibility of this initiative is hindering his State's ability to 
direct Federal funds to areas where they are most needed. Governor 
Davis said:

       We need to have the flexibility to apply those resources 
     where we think they could best be used.

  He went on to say:

       For example, I was just with Secretary Riley, our U.S. 
     Secretary of Education, for 2 days last week in California. 
     And Secretary Riley was telling me about the $1.2 billion 
     that was appropriated to reduce class size to 18 in the first 
     3 grades. Now, in California, we are already down to 20 
     students per class size in K through four. So that money, 
     which is supposed to be earmarked to the area where we have 
     pretty much achieved the goal, would best serve our needs by 
     reducing class size in math and English at the tenth grade 
     level, because we have just started to use a high school 
     graduation exam.

  Here is a State wanting to elevate the performance of students, with 
a massive Federal program directed at an area where they have already 
addressed the problem, but it is ineligible to be used in an area where 
they need help. We should really understand this. That is why we are 
proposing in this Ed-Flex program a massive new capacity on the part of 
States to use money where it is needed, to use money to help get the 
dollar all the way to the student, and not take 35 cents out of the 
dollar when it is on its way from the folks in Washington to the 
classroom where the student studies.
  Another example is found in title I, which authorizes aid for the 
education of disadvantaged children. Some of the rigid standards in 
this program can result in a school losing its ability to provide 
intensive services to students on a schoolwide basis because it fails 
by 1 percentage point to have the requisite number of children below a 
certain income level. Such policies fly in the face of one ingredient 
for educational success, one vital ingredient: local control.
  Fortunately, there is a current Federal policy that has helped 
provide more flexibility and relieve States of regulatory burdens that 
are associated with otherwise inflexible education dollars. Under the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program, the Department 
of Education has delegated its authority to 12 participating States to 
grant individual school districts waivers from certain Federal 
requirements that hinder States and schools in their efforts to improve 
their education programs. Under Ed-Flex--this proposal, not just for 
the 12 States, but for all 50 States--school districts do not have to 
march up to Washington each time they want to ask for a waiver. 
Instead, they can get the waiver from their own State.
  The Ed-Flex program, as it is called, has reduced paperwork burdens. 
That sounds good, to reduce paperwork, but when you take the expensive 
paperwork out of the equation, more of the resource reaches the 
classroom. Sure, it is good to reduce paperwork, but it is even better 
to deliver the resource to the site of learning, where students learn.
  For example, in response to a perceived need, Texas schools have been 
able to direct some of their Federal funds from the title II Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program, which is targeted primarily for 
science and mathematics, to reading, English language, arts, and social 
studies. If you need help in English and the arts and social studies, 
why not be able to focus the attention there?
  In Howard County, MD, Ed-Flex authority has allowed schools to 
provide additional instruction time in reading and math to better meet 
the needs of their students. Well, you mean a program that serves the 
needs of the students instead of serving the plan of the bureaucracy? 
What a good program.
  These are all States that have been allowed, in the 12-State pilot 
program, to have this kind of flexibility--it is interesting that they 
are moving resources to help students. Oregon used its waiver authority 
to simplify its planning and application process so that its school 
districts can develop a single plan that consolidates the application 
for Federal funds. Well, that is great. Instead of spending more money 
on paperwork, we are making resources available to the classrooms where 
students study and achieve.
  In Vermont, they have reported that the greatest advantage of having 
Ed-Flex is the ability of schools and districts to gain waivers without 
having to go directly to the Department of Education. The fact that the 
State can grant waivers with a minimum of redtape encourages schools 
and districts to ask for waivers they might not otherwise have asked 
for. You see, the intimidation factor of Federal regulation is one that 
is hard to assess. But here is the State of Vermont basically saying 
they were lacking creativity in their schools and people didn't bother 
to try to ask for the waiver. They went ahead and did what Washington 
said, in spite of the fact that it may not have been best for students, 
because they had been intimidated. The process was too complex. The 
desire to get a waiver may never have been really strong enough to get 
them past the Federal bureaucracy. But the schools are now doing 
things, trying things, delivering help to students, meeting needs at 
the site of learning, rather than meeting the appetite of the 
bureaucracy.
  Other Ed-Flex States have used the waiver authority to include all 
school improvement resources in a single 34-page plan rather than 8 
separate plans totaling 200 pages. Can you imagine that? If you can 
move the paperwork down in the direction of sort of manual operations 
from 200 pages to 34 pages, you will cut out that kind of paperwork and 
you are cutting out a wasted resource, and when you stop wasting, you 
can start delivering.
  I am sure this next item is of special interest to the occupant of 
the Chair, who served as the chief executive of Ohio. Reports indicate 
that Ohio used its Ed-Flex authority to significantly reduce paperwork 
in the schools. The education agency of the State also reduced its 
paperwork. This is great news to hear. Ohio is the State that reported 
at one time that 52 percent of all the paperwork--I think that is 
right; the Chair might correct me--required of their school districts 
was related to participation in Federal programs while the Federal 
dollars were about 5 percent of the State's total education budget. 
That means we are costing people a lot in terms of paperwork to get a 
very small amount of the resource. It is time we freed the system from 
the burden of paperwork so it can get moving forward to the task of 
helping students.
  States are finding that flexibility and regulatory relief they have 
gotten under the Ed-Flex program has caused increased student 
performance. Texas has found that its schools with Ed-Flex waivers made 
gains that match--and in many instances exceed--those as a whole in the 
State. And frequently those schools with the waivers were ones that 
were especially challenged.
  Because of the success of the Ed-Flexibility Partnership 
Demonstration Program, we need to expand this concept to every State in 
America. In my home State of Missouri, we don't currently have broad 
authority, the kind of authority we need to waive the Federal 
regulations that keep our schools from improving education programs. In 
the past few years, my State, as well as local districts in Missouri, 
have had to come to Washington on a number of occasions and ask for 
waivers of certain Federal education statutes so they could administer 
their programs in such a way that they can better serve their students. 
It doesn't make any sense for a State or a school district to keep 
coming to Washington time after time to beg for permission to help 
their students. It seems like we could agree that we would allow States 
to help their students.
  That is why I support the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 
1999, because it gives the States the authority on their own to grant 
to schools waivers of Federal statutes and regulations for many Federal 
education programs. States will also be expected to grant waivers of 
their own regulations which schools believe are barriers to improving 
education programs. This is a design--a conspicuous and conscious 
design--to deliver resources to classrooms where students learn and 
improve their performance.
  Around the Nation, Governors of both political parties have called 
for

[[Page 3673]]

quick passage of this legislation as it will allow educators to design 
and to deliver federally funded education dollars in ways that meet the 
needs of students. As a former Governor, I know how important it is for 
a State and its local school districts to have decisionmaking authority 
over educational matters. The closer the decisionmaking is to the local 
level, I feel, the better.
  States and local schools are in a better position to know what 
programs work in their community and elicit the necessary enthusiasm 
and response from their families which are being served.
  I also know that States want to show that their education reforms 
will actually improve quality of education. When I was Governor of 
Missouri, I also served as chairman of the Education Commission of the 
States--all 50 States, legislators, governors, school board officials--
the Education Commission of the States. During that time I emphasized a 
point. And it was this: We must insist that our reform programs create 
a current of educational improvement. We must show that reforms 
actually help our children learn more.
  Mr. President, I believe that Ed-Flex boosts educational achievement 
by allowing States to direct resources where they will get to the 
classroom and help students learn.
  So today I want to voice my strong support for the Educational 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Under this legislation, Missouri 
schools and schools across America no longer have to come to Washington 
to seek education waivers one at a time. But they will have more 
flexibility to administer federally funded education programs in ways 
that boost student achievement, and ultimately have as a result more 
capable students.
  States and local schools want more flexibility because they have the 
best ideas of what will work in their communities. And they want the 
ability to take that good news to the students of their schools. 
Important education groups in my State such as the Missouri State 
Teachers Association and the Missouri School Board Association have 
said that flexibility and local control are important goals in Federal 
education policy.
  The Ed-Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 helps to accomplish these 
goals. This bill, Ed-Flex, will ultimately help to improve educational 
opportunities for the children in my State and all over the country by 
reducing the Federal redtape involved currently with trying to comply 
with Federal rules and regulations related to educational programs.

                          ____________________