March 3, 1999

Mr. President, I won't take a great deal of time. Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and others have talked about many of the specifics of the bill before us--the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. I just want to take a few minutes to thank my colleagues for all their work on this bill.

I am very pleased that one of the first legislative matters we are taking up this year is education. This is about as significant an issue in the minds of most Americans as any. There are a lot of other questions which are very important, but none that I think dominates the concerns of Americans regardless of geography or economic circumstance as education, particularly elementary and secondary education.

Later this year, we will take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, which contains the major federal programs to assist our schools. This bill requires reauthorization every 5 years. And this year is the year that we must reauthorize that basic fundamental piece of legislation that deals with the elementary and secondary education needs of America. So we will have a chance, I suspect, even then to review some of the issues that concern people. I had hoped that we could consider this initiative on Ed Flex as part of that larger bill given its relationship to those programs; however, I am still hopeful that we can include the review of this program in our work on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Today, as we gather here, in many parts of the country students are still in school. Fifty-three million students, more or less, went off to elementary or secondary schools this morning, from Hawaii to Maine. Of the 53 million, 48 million are in public schools and about 5 million are in private or parochial schools across the country. The vast majority, of course, attend our public schools. And most attending our schools today are doing well and their schools are good.

I think too often we focus our attention on the things that do not work. Partly it is because that is our job. And there are a lot of gaping holes in the education reaching students across this country in the ability to learn and the opportunity to learn. But in many, many communities across this great country we find schools that are filled with learning and blessed with qualified, motivated teachers, and enriched with excellent resources from libraries to computers.

In recent years, more and more schools have joined these elite ranks. More schools are enjoying the benefits of these wonderful technologies; more schools have adopted strong and challenging standards-based reform strategies; and more fine, well-educated people are entering the teaching ranks.

But our job, as I said a moment ago, Mr. President, is not just to point out the things that are working well. If we are to improve our schools, we must also focus on the problems and how to encourage real solutions to these problems. And that brings us to this bill. It will bring us to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as well.

Let me just share some statistics with my colleagues, briefly here, on the state of education in America.

The GAO estimates that one-third of all of the schools in the United States are in need of basic repairs and renovations. Two-thirds are in good shape. That is the good news. But still fully a third of them are in poor shape and in need of repairs and renovations.

Just to give you one example, in my home State of Connecticut, Mr. President, there was a study done on school conditions in the city of Waterbury, CT. I live in a very affluent State, but there are pockets of real poverty in Connecticut. It is a dichotomy of affluence and poverty living in a relatively small piece of geography. Waterbury, CT, has some very fine and affluent neighborhoods. But like many of our cities, there are parts of it that are not doing as well economically. Last year, in Waterbury, they found that 500 fire code violations occurred in our schools over the last five years--500 fire code violations.

Another statistic, nationwide, 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds participated in preschool programs.

Eight percent of second graders were detained in kindergarten or the first grade. Second Graders--it is hard to imagine why someone would be held back at that level. One could maybe see it later in the elementary grades, but by the second grade almost 10 percent are being held back.

Nearly 15 percent of middle and high school teachers in the United States do not minor or major in the area of their main teaching assignment. Again, we have 85 percent who do. But there is a growing number, about 15 percent, who are being asked to teach at the secondary school level in a curriculum that they have not

received a significant formal education.

We see, as well, that 86 percent of 18- through 24-year-olds have a high school diploma. That number, again, is getting better. But is still too high. And is way too high when one looks at some of the sub-populations of students; over a third of Hispanic Americans are dropping out. This is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States and one-third of them are dropping out of school.

At the end of the 20th century, Mr. President, we are going to have to do better in all these indicators if we are going to compete effectively.

So I am pleased we are turning our attention to education today. But let's not delude ourselves. The bill that we are talking about here is not the answer. I respect immensely the authors of this legislation. I have a high regard for them and the motivations which caused them to propose this legislation, particularly my good friend from Oregon, who had a long and distinguished career in the other body, and who cares about young people and their educational needs, and our colleague from Tennessee, and others who are a part of this legislation. But I want to raise some of the concerns that some of us have about this bill and am hopeful that we can work through some of these issues in the coming days.

Six years ago, in 1993, we enacted the Ed-Flex Demonstration program in the hopes that it would spur school reform in our states. It was a very tightly written program with just 6 states participating. We quickly expanded that to 12, recognizing 6 States probably was not a good enough laboratory to get some decent results back to determine whether or not this new waiver authority would prove to be worthwhile.

Ed-Flex was a major departure in education policy. We were allowing, for the first time, officials to waive Federal regulatory and statutory requirements. That is not a minor thing. I mean, we are responsible to see to it that the dollars, the Federal dollars that go to education, are going to be spent well and wisely.

Now, I don't question that we can get heavyhanded, and too bureaucratic. We are all painfully aware that can happen. But to allow state officials to waive statutory and regulatory requirements is a significant departure. It is one thing to modify, to amend, to drop certain regulations, but to allow a complete waiver of statutory and regulatory requirements was a dramatic departure from our education policy.

We included protections in the law at the time. The Secretary would have to approve applications for this waiver authority. Only States with strong standards-based reforms in place were eligible, and waivers could not override the intents and purposes of the laws or civil rights and other certain basic protections. But the idea was for flexibility in return for results. So we passed overwhelmingly this demonstration program.

But it was for a demonstration program--a test. Well, the results are not in. That is one of the difficulties here. It is not that anyone has studied this and said they are bad, they are just not in. We do not really know. It may be very good, or it may not--but raising the legitimate concerns about it is not inappropriate.

Texas is the only State, the only one, by the way, out of all 12 States, that has actually been giving us some details on how they are performing. Most others cannot produce, unfortunately, any results about student achievement results they have achieved through school reform and the Ed-Flex demonstration program.

The General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed Ed-Flex and found little in the way to suggest that Ed-Flex is making a difference. Now, it may. Again, I find myself in a situation of hoping it does. I supported the demonstration program not because I anticipated it to fail, but I did it because I anticipated it to work. But I feel I have a sense of responsibility to the people of my State--that it is their dollars, in a sense, that are going to this--that I can look them in the eye and say why we are now going to pass legislation permanently establishing this. But if you ask me the question, `Do I have the empirical evidence which draws the final conclusion that in fact this can work?' I have to say, no, not yet.

Now, maybe it will come in, but it is not here yet. And so I hope my colleagues understand that those of us who are raising these questions are doing so with a deep sense of optimism that this will work, but also a deep sense of concern that we do not have the information yet to make these final conclusions.

While we don t know much about results, we do know a little about how this authority is being used. Seven of the participating 12 states have granted 10 or fewer waivers. The vast majority of waivers requested are about loosening title I requirements for targetting the neediest students. But generally, the finding suggests there is little being done with Ed-Flex that is not being done directly with the Secretary with his own waiver authority.

We hear anecdotes from Governors about how it is promoting creativity and spurring reform--but the evidence we have on how it has been used really do not back this up in the most states. But I have never had a Governor or mayor yet that wouldn't like to get all statutory and regulatory requirements of the Federal Government eliminated; that doesn't come as a great shock. They would like us to write a check, give it to them, and get out of the way. That is how Governors and mayors think. I find it interesting that in States, when State legislatures or mayors ask Governors for similar waiver authority, I usually find the Governors are far more resistant to waiver authority at the local level than they are in asking us for it. It is where you are in the food chain in terms of your willingness to support waivers from regulation.

At any rate, we hear a lot of anecdotes from Governors and State education leaders about Ed-Flex changing the mentality of their systems and motivating school improvement efforts. I am for this. I hope it works. But I think we need to ensure that students are served by these changes. That is why we have the accountability amendments.

Senators Kennedy, Reed, and I will offer two simple amendments that I believe get to the core of improving accountability. These build on the changes that we were pleased to see the managers include the substitute bill they offered earlier today. Our staffs have been working together for weeks to beef up the accountability in this bill. I believe we have made good progress, but must do more.

The first amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed and me will ensure that accountability is resulting in student achievement. Improving the performance of students is what this is all about. I am rather surprised we have been forced to offer what we think is a very common sense amendment, rather than having it just agreed to and accepted. I understand we continue to work on this and am hopeful that we will be able to resolve this without a vote.

The second amendment ensures involvement of one of the key players in school reforms, parents and the larger public. The Reed amendment ensures that parents and other local leaders can comment on applications for waivers and that these comments are given consideration.

Again, I would hope that parental involvement is one of the things all of us can agree on. In Head Start, we require that parents be involved from volunteering in classrooms to parent planning boards, then make key decisions about their community programs. We get about 80 percent parental involvement with Head Start programs. What has been terribly disappointing to me is that by the first grade parental involvement drops to about 20 percent. It immediately drops, which is terribly disturbing because there is no better way to increase a child's performance in education than to have a parent involved--visiting teachers, talking to them, going to the schools, learning what the child is supposed to be learning, involved in school governance and reform.

The requirement we would add would ensure that interested parents could be engaged in this process. I hope our colleagues would be supportive of that since it fits in with the growing concern among all Democrats and Republicans that parental involvement needs to be expanded rather than contracted. The Reed amendment does not give parents or others veto power. That is not the point. It gives them the power to comment knowing their comments will be considered, which is not too much to ask. It says their comments should be available and included in the application

for waiver authority.

These are simple changes that broadly improve the accountability of this bill.

We will also have the opportunity to consider several other important education initiatives--not to belittle the importance some have placed on this Ed-Flex bill, but I have never had one parent or teacher or student raise it with me.

I have heard from many concerned about class size, districts looking for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 teachers will reach them. Class size is a critical issue to families all across the country, whether in a rural school in Idaho, or urban school in Connecticut. Parents know that class size matters--how many teachers teach how many students, how well educated they are, and are these buildings that these kids are supposed to be learning in, in good shape. We also hear a great deal about the readiness of children to learn when they enter school. We hear about aftershool.

My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has an interest in this. My colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts will recall last July when this specific bill was in committee, I offered an afterschool amendment to this proposal--which I hope to be offering in this debate. My colleague from California has an interest in this subject matter, as well.

Eighteen years ago our former colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, and I did the initial legislation on afterschool programs in the dropout legislation. Over the years I have been deeply involved in trying to reduce this afterschool problem, of the difficulties that occur with the lack of afterschool programs. This is an issue that many people in this country would like to see us do more about.

I think most of my colleagues are aware of this, but this chart points out when juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes. The spike is around 2:30 or 3 o'clock. That is the peek time of violent crimes among young people. The hours between 2:30 and 6:00 is when we see the largest percentage of violent juvenile crime.

It is not uncommon for communities to have curfews. Invariably the curfew suggests some time after 9 or 10 o'clock at night. In fact, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night is a relatively calm period of time. It is 2:30, 3 o'clock, 3:30, 4 o'clock--when kids are home from school, but parents are not--which is the critical time period. We are told by chiefs of police and others that violent crime among young people is on the increase. Afterschool programs, putting efforts into this, is something that we think would make a great deal of difference.

I hope to offer an amendment on my own or with Senator Boxer or others to deal with this issue.

Mr. President, Ed-Flex may make a difference in some States. Frankly, in my view the jury is still out for the reasons; I hope the jury comes back with good results and good reports on this. We think the accountability amendments will help here.

But this legislation on its own is no substitute for what our schools need and what parents and students across this country are demanding. I am hopeful that during these next several days we can have a real discussion on education and improve this bill with the addition of some critical timely initiatives.

I am happy to work with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member and move through these issues in an orderly way. I thank both Senators for their leadership. I commend my colleague from Tennessee and my colleague from Oregon for their fine work on this amendment.

I appreciate, again, the motivations that have given rise to this legislation. I think we can make it a better bill and add to it some of the elements that we think will strengthen the educational needs of all Americans by some of the suggestions I have made here and that others have made this afternoon. I yield the floor.