[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      CONCERNS REGARDING EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, education is to be one of the new 
administration's top priorities, and I commend them for this. I would 
like to express two major concerns I have in regard to education that I 
hope the President and Secretary Paige will take into consideration.
  First, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and I started a Smaller 
Schools Initiative within the Department of Education. We were 
fortunate enough to secure $45 million in funding for this program last 
year and $125 million this year. This money is supposed to be for 
grants and assistance to school systems to help keep small schools open 
and/or reduce the size of some very large schools.
  At a smaller school, a young person has a better chance to make a 
sports team, serve on the student council, lead a club, be a 
cheerleader or excel or stand out in some other way. Also a student at 
a smaller school can get more individual attention, and not just feel 
like a number in some education factory. Actually, very large high 
schools sometimes breed Columbine-type situations, because while 99.9 
percent of students can handle big schools, a few always feel like they 
have to resort to strange or even dangerous behavior to get noticed.
  Three or four years ago I read an article in the Christian Science 
Monitor saying that New York City's largest high school had 3,500 
students, and then it was broken down into five separate schools and 
their drug and discipline problems went way down.

                              {time}  1015

  Augusta Kappner, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education wrote 
recently in USA Today that ``good things happen'' when large schools 
are remade into smaller ones. She said, ``Incidents of violence are 
reduced; students' performance, attendance and graduation rates 
improve; disadvantaged students significantly outperform those in large 
schools on standardized tests; students of all social classes and races 
are treated more equitably; teachers, students and the local community 
prefer them.''
  Students are better off going to smaller schools even in older 
buildings, as long as they are clean and well lighted, than they are to 
very large centralized high schools even in brand-new buildings.
  We have done a good job reducing class sizes in most places, but too 
often we are making a very bad mistake in making students go to very 
large schools.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the so-called teacher ``shortage'' is a 
special interest shortage aided by the government. We would have no 
shortage at all if we simply could give local school boards the 
flexibility to hire well-qualified teachers, even if they had never 
taken an education course. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that a 
Ph.D. chemist, for example, with many years experience in the field 
cannot be hired over a 22-year-old with a bachelor's degree simply 
because of a few education courses.
  I realize that there are special interests which want to limit or 
restrict the pool of eligible applicants for teaching positions, but 
this is harmful to our children; and it will become even more harmful 
in the next few years if we allow this to continue. Local school 
boards, or preferably even principals at schools, should be allowed to 
hire the best-qualified teachers, even if they never took an education 
course. Many people are well qualified through advanced education and/
or experience to teach, but the government, because of special interest 
pressure groups, will not allow them to be hired.
  A few years ago, two small colleges in my district almost went under. 
Fortunately, neither one did. But it is ridiculous to say, for 
instance, that a Ph.D. political scientist or English professor with 20 
or 25 years' teaching experience at the college level cannot teach in 
high school or even elementary school if their college went under just 
because they had not taken an education course. Local school boards 
should be allowed to consider an education degree as a real plus if 
everything else is basically equal. But they should not be forced to 
hire a less-qualified teacher simply because one spent more time 
studying and/or working in the subject they are to teach rather than 
taking a few education courses.
  If local school officials were allowed to hire the most qualified 
person, even if they did not have an education degree, this artificial, 
government and special interest-induced teacher shortage could be wiped 
out very quickly; and most importantly, our children would get a better 
education. We should immediately give local school boards the authority 
to give alternative certification to people who are well qualified 
through education and/or experience in the field, even if they never 
took an education course.
  The next time anyone says something about a teacher shortage, we 
should just say, remove the artificial, unjustified, harmful 
restrictions in the State law and this problem will be solved very 
quickly.

                          ____________________