[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 8 (Monday, March 1, 1999)]
[Pages 275-278]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the National Governors' Association Meeting

February 22, 1999

    I know we're beginning a little late, so I will get right into my 
remarks and try to truncate them a little bit so we can have the maximum 
amount of time for discussion. Let me begin by saying that Hillary and I 
were delighted to have you here last night. We had a wonderful time. 
This room is in a little different condition than it was last evening, 
but I hope both events will prove to be enjoyable.
    Let me say that I have been a participant in one way or the other in 
every Governors' meeting since 1979, for 20 years. I had the privilege 
of serving with 150 of my fellow Americans as Governors over a 12-year 
period. One of the best has passed away in the last few months, Governor 
Lawton Chiles of Florida. And I wanted to mention him both because he 
was an important member of the NGA and because he had the good sense to 
go from Washington back home, instead of the other way around.
    I wanted to thank Governor Jeb Bush for his proposal to set aside 
some of the tobacco settlement money in Florida for the foundation named 
in Governor Chiles' name, for

[[Page 276]]

the benefit of the children of the State. Those of us who knew and cared 
for Lawton are profoundly grateful for that. And I wanted to mention 
with the remembrance of him because he gave so much of his life, and the 
older he got, the more he gave to the future of our children. I know we 
have a lot of things to do today, but I'd like to spend my few moments 
talking about the education of our kids.
    As I said in my State of the Union Address, the prosperity the 
Nation now enjoys gives us a rare opportunity and, I believe, a profound 
obligation to do more to ensure the education of all of our children. At 
a very important time, we have, as Secretary Riley never tires of 
saying, the largest school population and the most diverse one we've 
ever had. We have more overcrowded schools and more old and disrepaired 
schools than we have ever had. And we have more opportunities to seize 
the benefits of the well-educated population than we have ever had.
    The budget that I sent to Congress this month, after the State of 
the Union, calls for spending $1.4 billion to help States and school 
districts hire new and better trained teachers. That's a 17 percent 
increase over the budget I signed last fall, and it moves us 
considerably closer to our goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers over the 
next 7 years--now the next 6 years. It calls on Congress to pass our tax 
proposal to build or modernize 6,000 schools, which is a huge problem in 
many of your States. It triples our budget for after-school and summer 
school programs to $600 million. That's enough to help local schools 
keep a million children in the schools and off the street during the 
hours when parents work and juvenile crime soars.
    I had an interesting discussion last night with Mrs. Leavitt and 
Mrs. Kitzhaber about the importance of keeping young people in school, 
later in the school day. It includes new funds to stay on track to hook 
all our classrooms up to the Internet and to reach our goal of 3,000 
charter schools by the year 2000.
    I think it is very important that we invest more money, as we have 
more children, and as we are going to have to replace a large number of 
teachers who will be retiring, and make sure that they have been 
adequately prepared. But I think it's also important that we candidly 
assess how we invest the money we are now spending. The Federal 
Government already is investing $15 billion a year in public schools. 
This year we have to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. I believe we should change the way we spend the money we are 
already spending. I don't know how many times I've heard Governors say 
that over the last 15 or 16 years about State funds.
    The idea behind the ``Education Accountability Act,'' which I will 
send to Congress next month, is to say after, now more than 15 years of 
education research and efforts since the issuance of the ``Nation At 
Risk'' report, and the 10th year after the Governors and President Bush 
issued the ``Goals 2000'' report, it is time for the Federal Government 
to invest in those things which Governors and school districts and 
principals and teachers and students and parents have proved are 
critical for raising student achievement, which is the theme of your 
conference.
    It says that school districts accepting Federal money must end 
social promotion, turn around or shut down failing schools, ensure 
teachers know the subjects they're teaching, have and enforce reasonable 
discipline codes, and empower parents with report cards on their 
schools.
    I say again, we did not dream up these ideas in Washington. We 
learned them from North Carolina, where Governor Hunt has led the way in 
improving teacher quality with performance assessments, incentives for 
veteran teachers to become even more proficient, a strategy to turn 
around or shut down failing schools; in Pennsylvania, where Governor 
Ridge is improving school safety with effective discipline codes; in 
Delaware, where Governor Carper is putting an end to social promotion by 
insisting that students pass State tests before they move to the next 
grade; in California, where Governor Davis has asked the legislature to 
turn around failing schools with a new accountability plan; in Michigan, 
where Governor Engler is supporting greater accountability by requiring 
school districts to send parents report cards. And I could mention every 
Governor in this room in some specific or another because these ideas 
represent the best practices in

[[Page 277]]

education reform today, proven in the laboratories of democracy at the 
State, city, and school district level.
    Many of you have proposed one or more of these ideas in your state 
of the State addresses. In his state of the State, Governor Engler 
endorsed all five of them and said he didn't understand how anyone could 
disagree. I'm with him.
    Some people already are trying to frame this debate here in 
Washington, however, in partisan or ideological terms, and try to force 
everyone to take sides, when I'd like to use it as an opportunity for us 
to debate, discuss, and come together.
    You'll hear some people say the Federal Government shouldn't be 
involved at all in public education, just send us the check, and we'll 
take care of the rest. In 1787 our Founding Fathers declared that all 
new territories had to set aside land for public schools, establishing 
at the birth of our Republic the principle that public education, though 
a State and local responsibility, is a national priority. In 1862 
President Lincoln created the land-grant college system. In 1917 Woodrow 
Wilson mandated vocational training in public high schools. In 1958 
President Eisenhower created the new program to help public school 
teachers improve math and science instruction in the aftermath of 
Sputnik.
    None of these Federal actions undermine the ability of State and 
local government to run their schools. Each was a necessary response to 
the challenge the Nation faced at the time. I believe we are at a 
similar moment of challenge today. And it should lead, I believe, in the 
direction of all the work that has been done by Governors since 1983 
toward what works to raise student achievement.
    Some will say the Federal Government should be giving States more 
flexibility, not demanding more accountability. I think it's a false 
choice and the Federal Government should be giving you more of both. You 
know from your own interactions that flexibility and accountability can 
achieve the right ends working with local governments.
    Since I've been here, our administration has cut regulations in 
elementary and secondary education programs by two-thirds, granted 357 
waivers so that States and school districts can have the flexibility to 
try new approaches. We don't have any business telling you whom to hire, 
how to teach, how to run schools. I have vigorously supported more 
school-based management and more flexibility for you. But let's not kid 
ourselves. We are not doing our children any favors by continuing to 
subsidize practices that don't work and failing to invest in practices 
that do.
    We shouldn't have a local option for schools to fail, year-in and 
year-out. Governors have recognized that for years. If you go back and 
read the ``Goals 2000'' statement, that--there's still a few of us 
around this room that were there back then--that the Governors hammered 
out with President Bush and his Education Department, and the allocation 
of responsibilities under that statement, it is clear that there has 
long been a recognition of our joint responsibility to raise student 
achievement. And I was thrilled when that became the topic of your 
endeavors this year.
    There may be some who say there's now no longer any need for the 
Federal Government to assist on these accountability measures, because 
States and school districts are doing it on their own. I have no doubt 
that these ideas eventually will spread to every State and school 
district in America. The question is, how long will it take to happen?
    Our Federal system, our laboratories of democracy, are great at 
inventing new ideas and testing them out. At least in the area of 
education, we're not so good at spreading the best of those ideas around 
in a comprehensive and timely fashion. It took over 100 years for laws 
mandating compulsory, free elementary education to spread from few 
States to the whole Nation. That pace of change might have been all 
right in the 19th century; it won't do for the 21st. We don't have the 
luxury of waiting and continuing to subsidize failure.
    Now, let me just give one example of that, and then I'll turn it 
over to your chairman. In 1986 the NGA issued a report called, ``Time 
For Results,'' with task forces chaired by Lamar Alexander, Tom Keane, 
Dick Riley, and me, urging the Governors to intervene in low-performing 
schools and school

[[Page 278]]

districts and to take over or close down academically bankrupt schools--
1986. In 1987 nine States had the authority to do that. In 1990 the NGA 
issued a report, ``Educating America: State Strategies for Achieving 
National Education Goals.'' In 1988, 18 States offered assistance or 
intervention in low-performance schools. In 1998 NGA policy supported 
State focus on schools and reiterated the 1988 policy that States should 
have the responsibility for enforcing accountability, including 
establishing clear penalties in cases of sustained failures to improve 
student performance. In 1999, 19 States have procedures for intervening 
in failing schools, 16 for replacing school staff or closing down the 
school.
    This is tough politics. I don't know that I could have passed this 
through my legislature. I do know that if we have the reauthorization of 
the Federal law this year and we're sending this out, and all we do is 
to say we ought to do what the NGA said we should do 13 years ago, that 
will accelerate the pace of reform in education, and I think it's a 
worthy thing.
    I hope we can pass it. I want to work with you. And it is not 
inconsistent with our shared commitment to better flexibility in 
education.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 10:05 a.m. in the East Room at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Governors Jeb Bush of Florida, 
James B. Hunt, Jr., of North Carolina, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, Gray 
Davis of California, John Engler of Michigan, and NGA Chairman Tom 
Carper of Delaware; Jacalyn Leavitt, wife of NGA Vice Chairman Gov. 
Michael O. Leavitt of Utah; and Sharon Kitzhaber, wife of Gov. John A. 
Kitzhaber of Oregon.