<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:70996.wais]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 13, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/
house04.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-997 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
Vice Chairman Carolina,
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan Ranking Minority Member
Vice Chairman JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota KEN BENTSEN, Texas
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee JIM DAVIS, Florida
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
JIM RYUN, Kansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
MAC COLLINS, Georgia GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
GARY G. MILLER, California JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KAY GRANGER, Texas JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL III,
EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia Pennsylvania
JOHN CULBERSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina JIM MATHESON, Utah
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
MARK KIRK, Illinois
Professional Staff
Rich Meade, Chief of Staff
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 13, 2001................... 1
Statement of:
Hon. Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education.................................................. 5
Chester Finn, John M. Olin fellow, Manhattan Institute and
President, Thomas Fordham Foundation....................... 49
Lisa Keegan, superintendent, public instruction, State of
Arizona.................................................... 54
Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 61
Prepared statement of:
Hon. Bob Clement, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Tennessee............................................... 3
Hon. Ander Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 4
Secretary Paige.............................................. 8
Mr. Finn..................................................... 51
Ms. Keegan................................................... 56
Mr. Miller................................................... 63
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET PRIORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m. in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Nussle (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Nussle, Sununu, Hoekstra,
Bass, Collins, Fletcher, Toomey, Watkins, Hastings, LaHood,
Schrock, Culberson, Brown, Putnam, Kirk, Spratt, Bentsen,
Davis, Clayton, Price, Clement, Moran, Holt, McCarthy, and
Honda.
Chairman Nussle. Good afternoon. We call the full meeting
of the Budget Committee to order.
This is a hearing on the President's budget for education.
We are honored today to have with us the Secretary of
Education, Dr. Paige. Dr. Paige was confirmed by the United
States Senate as the seventh Secretary of Education on January
20 of this year, following the inauguration of President Bush.
We are honored to have you before our committee today to
talk a little about the President's budget, the budget for the
Department of Education and the budget for education in general
for our Nation. Part of my interest in this hearing certainly
as a representative of the Second District of Iowa, but also as
a dad with two kids in public school back home in Manchester,
as we speak, Manchester, Iowa, that is, and Mark and Sarah, I
think Mark is probably in his social studies half hour about
now, and Sarah, who is a special needs student, comes under the
jurisdiction of IDEA. So she is in her classroom as we speak,
but under her individualized education plan. She's probably
getting some extra reading assistance as we speak.
So education is near and dear to me, for personal reasons,
not only because of my job as the Chairman of the Budget
Committee, but also because as a dad, and there are many of us
here as parents or grandparents that are concerned about our
kids' education. We are honored to have you come before us
today to talk a little about that education.
Before I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, let
me just say that one of the things that we are so eager to hear
about are the new ideas that you and the President are bringing
forward for education. There is no question that we have seen
some, I'm not sure exactly what word you might want to use,
stagnation, with regard to education. We haven't seen the
advances that maybe the amounts of money that we've been
putting into it would necessarily suggest. We have this
assumption, I think, in this country, that the more money we
put toward something the better quality we are going to
necessarily get.
And as you know, both from your vantage point now as
Secretary, as well as your very special vantage point, having
run a school district and been a teacher, you can shed some
light, I hope, on exactly why we may not be meeting some of the
goals that we've been all trying to achieve.
The other thing I would just suggest after reading the
President's budget, and part of my questioning is going to be
in the area of IDEA. The Congress, over the last three sessions
now, in a bipartisan way, has been putting more resources
toward IDEA as a way to try and meet the responsibility that
was decided back in 1975, I believe it was, when IDEA was first
authorized, that said that the Federal Government was going to
try and meet 40 percent of the funding responsibilities for a
child in a special education setting.
I believe we're probably up to about 16 percent, but that's
not where we need to be. And one of the concerns that I would
just share with you in the President's budget is, how are we
going to continue meeting that goal, achieving the goal, and
meeting the obligations that we have in IDEA, especially.
So those are my areas of interest, and I look forward to
your testimony. With that, let me recognize the gentleman from
South Carolina, the ranking member, John Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
quickly add to your words of welcome my own. Dr. Paige, your
reputation as an educator precedes you to Washington. You are
highly spoken of by all who know you and have worked with you
directly. We are delighted to see you in your position.
We're also happy to see you here today to give us some more
information about the budget request. So far we've only gotten
the Blueprint for New Beginnings, and it's short on the kind of
detail we would like to see.
The Administration has announced that it will raise the top
line for education to $44.5 billion in its budget request for
next year. And that's good news, because it's an increase. But
the way we see it, and the way we calculated it, it's a bit
less of an increase than what was claimed. The claim was that
it is an 11.5 percent increase. When we include the advance
appropriation, which was included in last year's appropriation
for fiscal year 2001, when we include the $2.1 billion already
appropriated for 2002, the increase we get is about 5.7
percent, rather than 11.5 percent.
Now, I'm not scoffing at 5.7 percent. That's more than
discretionary spending in general gets in this budget. But it
pales in comparison to recent years. Over the last 5 years, we
have increased education appropriations by an average of about
13 percent a year. And last year, we plussed it up by 18.2
percent.
So we think we can do more. We think our surpluses afford
us the opportunity at the Federal level to help the local level
provide the kind of quality education America desperately needs
for the future. There are several programs that we're anxious
to hear about. The after-school program, for example, the 21st
Century School Learning Center Program has been very popular in
my district in places where the school districts have been
fortunate enough to win grants.
The class size initiative, with parents and teachers both,
it's a winner in my district. Whenever I talk about lowering
class size in grades 1 through 3 to 15 students, everybody
appreciates the potential in that. And there are lots of
districts, rural and urban, as you can well appreciate, coming
from your background, who need help with school construction.
And of course, IDEA is an account that we talk about a lot, but
have not yet begun to do a fair Federal share for. We'd like to
know how you will be able to get out of the $44.5 billion
you're proposing a fair and adequate funding for all of those
obvious needs.
Thank you for coming today, and we look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Nussle. All members, without objection, may put
statements in the record at this point.
[The prepared statements of members follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Clement, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Tennessee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for yielding to me. Good morning and
welcome to the Budget Committee, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Paige--
congratulations on your new position. I can appreciate what you're
going through in transitioning from an educational setting to
Washington; I was a college president before I came to Congress. But I
can tell you this--being a college president was a lot harder than this
job, at least most of the time!
As a former educator, current co-Chair of the House Education
Caucus and parent of two daughters who have always gone to public
schools, I am extremely concerned about the status of our schools. I
have always been a strong believer in our public school systems.
Improving the public schools in this country needs to be our top
priority. Simply put, schools should be free from drugs and violence
and an environment rich in learning and educational excellence. We need
adequate facilities, books and teachers both qualified and dedicated.
Research shows what parents already know--students learn best when they
are in safe, modern schools with smaller classes and 21st century
technology. The Federal Government has a responsibility to provide
states and localities with financial assistance for education. If we
are to continue to prosper economically and as a democracy, America
must have an education policy that provides opportunities for all of
our children to succeed.
Recently, a lot of attention has been given to the quality of our
public schools themselves. Simply put, we cannot expect our children to
get a 21st century education if their school buildings are outdated,
ill-equipped, and falling apart. I have visited numerous schools in my
district and seen for myself the poor conditions our teachers and
students are forced to suffer through--no air conditioning, asbestos,
closets converted to classrooms, outdated technology, and shared
facilities and resources. We must do better. I'm deeply concerned to
see that the President's budget framework guts school renovation and
construction funding. I would encourage this Administration to continue
to push for significant funding specifically for school construction
and renovation projects.
Being from Nashville, Tennessee, music has always had a special
place in my heart. I have been a longtime supporter and proponent of
music education. Research has shown that involvement in music programs
improves a child's early cognitive development, basic math and reading
abilities, self-esteem, SAT scores, self-discipline, ability to work in
teams, spatial reasoning skills, and school attendance. Also, children
involved with music education are more likely to graduate from high
school and attend college, and less likely to be involved with gangs
and substance abuse. The study of music and the other arts also
provides students with a sense of their cultural heritage. Later this
week I will be hosting the first Education Caucus briefing of the 107th
Congress with my colleague, Mr. Roy Blunt, on music education. We're
going to hear from some experts as well as some students about the
importance of music education. I would encourage both the
administration and this committee to support continued research into
music education as well as programs that promote music education in our
schools. Just as we would not think to cut math or science from our
curricula, we must not cut music education.
I am also very pleased to see President Bush recognize the
importance of character education in his recent address to Congress.
Americans are concerned about the steady decline of our nation's core
ethical values, especially among our children. Parents should be the
primary developers of character, but the role of education in
character-building has become increasingly important. Schools across
the country have begun to incorporate character education in their
curriculum in a variety of ways and are achieving real results,
including improved school climate, fewer behavior problems and even
higher test scores. Congressman Lamar Smith, of Texas, and I have
introduced H.R. 613, the Character Learning and Student Success (CLASS)
Act. Character education has become a national priority in the
education reform debate. I believe that the CLASS Act will bring
national attention to the importance and effectiveness of character
education and will help schools create positive learning environments.
I would hope that the administration would include the CLASS Act in any
character education initiative proposed.
As a former college president and parent of one child in college
and another set to begin in the fall, I know how important Federal
financial aid can be. The demands of technology and the global economy
are reflecting the importance of a college education. All too often,
the cost of higher education has been a deterrent to many who wish to
continue their education. We cannot afford to let higher education be
out of reach of those students who have the desire to further their
education. No student, regardless of socio-economic background, should
be deprived of something as priceless as an education. Federal
financial aid programs need to be adequately funded to help all of our
students continue their education. Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants, Pell grants, Federal work-study, Perkins loans, and graduate
education programs all need to be funded at higher levels. These are
all worthy programs that make a real difference in students' lives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to
highlight some of my priorities in education funding this year. I think
we can all agree that education is of the utmost importance not only to
this committee and this Congress but also to the American people. I
look forward to working with Secretary Paige to support educational
policies and programs that benefit all of our students. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ander Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Spratt, thank you for inviting Secretary
Paige to discuss the President's budget proposal for education with us
today. And, Secretary Paige, thank you for sharing your well-informed
advice on the President's top priority.
If I may say so from the beginning, you arrive here today as more
than the Secretary of Education for our new President. You are only
just removed from the front lines of education in Houston, Texas. And,
you know far more about what is needed to improve public education than
a simple political appointee in Washington, D.C. The advice you give us
is not academic, but real. This is why the President has entrusted in
you his number one priority; the issue he talks about most
passionately.
Similarly, when I have questions about how to improve our public
schools, I draw on my own experience as a product of a public education
and I talk to teachers, students, and administrators in the schools
today. The things that they tell me might surprise some of the
organizations that claim to represent them here on Capitol Hill.
For instance, to listen to some, Federal funding specifically to
finance school construction is the most important initiative Congress
can undertake. But, just last month, I met with a group of school board
members from my district who had a different view on that issue.
Despite persistent prodding from others in the room, they stated
unequivocally that more money for school construction is not their top
priority. If the Federal Government is going to lend them a financial
helping hand, they would much rather apply it elsewhere, like teachers'
salaries.
Not long after that, when I met with school administrators and
school board members from another county in my district--one that is
less urban and amongst the fastest growing areas of the state--I found
that it wasn't so much that they need more money for school
construction, but that they want a change in the way that school
construction is financed.
The flexibility that the President's education proposal provides to
local school districts and to states is one of the most important
aspects of his plan. As my example above implies, even between
neighboring school districts, needs and interests can differ. The
contrast is even clearer between states. A rural state in the Midwest
is unlikely to have the same education policy as a mixed-urban state
like Florida with its large population of non-English speaking
students.
By consolidating the Federal grant programs and cutting much of the
red tape that binds those dollars, the President acknowledges that
states and school districts can have different, yet equally valid
ideas. What matters is not the method, but the results.
I also support the President's proposal to require our schools to
be more accountable to the parents and children they serve. It is not
too much to ask that schools live up to the same standards that other
professional institutions face every day. In fact, we should demand it
on behalf of our children. Yet, we demand more of our local banks than
of our schools. The term ``bankers' hours'' used to be more than just a
saying; it used to be a reality. But, today, we have options that allow
us to bank 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by phone, Internet, and ATM.
Technology, innovation, and a healthy dose of competition have helped
banks to meet the needs of a faster-moving society.
Similarly, our children live in a different world than that in
which we grew up. Technology, innovation, and a healthy dose of
competition can help our schools better meet the needs of our children.
The President's proposal encompasses all of these principles. He asks
more of our schools, but he gives them the resources to meet these
higher goals.
The President proposes a whole new way of thinking about K-12
education, and, frankly, I'm excited at the prospect of playing a role
in this revolution. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
and with my colleagues on this committee, to ensure that the
President's top priority receives the funding it needs to succeed.
As I've said so many times already before this committee, the
surplus does not absolve us of our responsibilities. We still must make
tough choices about our priorities. But putting funding for the
President's bold education proposal at the top of our list is not a
hard choice to make.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Secretary, your entire statement as
written will be in the record. You may summarize or proceed as
you wish. We're very pleased to have you here, and look forward
to your testimony. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. RODERICK R. PAIGE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
Secretary Paige. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a short
statement.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of No
Child Left Behind, President Bush's plan to strengthen our
elementary and secondary schools. And especially to close the,
what I think to be, inexcusable achievement gap and to discuss
the President's 2002 budget for education.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my full testimony be entered into
the record, and I'll make a brief summary to the committee.
I'm pleased and proud that President Bush has made
education his top priority. He's announced No Child Left Behind
in his first week as President, and he's given the Department
the highest percentage increase of any Cabinet-level agency in
his first budget. Our commitment to providing a first-class
education to all children is clear. I look forward to working
with each of you over the coming months as we make the changes
needed to reach this important goal.
Before I get into the details of the President's proposal,
however, I'd like to make a few observations. First, No Child
Left Behind is, as the President described it, a framework from
which we all work together, Democrats, Republicans and
Independents, to strengthen our elementary and secondary
schools. This means that we're open to your ideas on how to
meet our shared goals.
Second, No Child Left Behind builds on existing efforts to
improve quality education for all children. We're not asking
States and school districts to drop everything they've been
doing and start over. But we're asking them to pursue more
vigorously the kinds of changes they've already undertaken.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the need for real change
in America's schools. While the 1994 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act moved in the right
direction, it did not go quite nearly far enough. If you doubt
that the present approach is broken and needs fixing, just
consider the achievement gap that exists between disadvantaged
and minority students, the focus of the Federal programs in the
first place, and their more advantaged peers.
For example, on the latest national assessment of
educational progress, in fourth grade reading, 73 percent of
white students performed at or above the basic level, compared
to 40 percent of the Hispanic students and only 36 percent of
African-American students. Federal education policy is not
accomplishing its goals, despite an investment of more than
$130 billion and the creation of hundreds and hundreds of
categorical programs over the past 3\1/2\ decades.
More often than not, in fact, it is the bewildering array
of Federal programs, regulations and paperwork, that get in the
way of promising State reforms and local reforms. These
bureaucratic controls promote a culture of compliance, not real
accountability, nor a cultural performance.
We would like to stop funding failure and promoting a
culture of compliance and start building a culture of
accountability and achievement for our system. To do this, we
need to bring to Federal education programs many of the
strategies that work so well for States and school districts,
such as increased accountability for student performance, a
focus on research-based practices, reduced bureaucracy and
greater flexibility, and better information to empower parents.
No Child Left Behind provides a blueprint for accomplishing
this goal, a blueprint that we believe should guide the
upcoming Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization. To provide the resources needed to implement
his blueprint, the President's budget for fiscal year 2002
includes $44.5 billion in the Department of Education. This is
an 11.5 increase in budget authority, an increase of $2.5
billion. Or if we want to figure it another way, 5.9 percent
increase over 2001 program level.
This budget reflects the President's commitment to a
balanced fiscal framework that includes more reasonable and
sustainable growth in discretionary spending, also protecting
Social Security, and for repaying a large portion of the
Nation's debt, and for tax relief for all Americans.
The core of the President's proposal is a requirement for
annual State assessments in reading and mathematics for all
students in grades three through eight. I can tell you from my
own experience that there is no substitute for annual
information on how well students and schools are performing.
Students in good schools made remarkable progress during these
early years, and we cannot afford to wait 3 or 4 years to find
out that some students are falling behind.
Where there are problems, they must be discovered early and
addressed immediately. Of course, that can only be accomplished
with current information that you can receive through annual
testing.
The important thing about testing, of course, is what you
do with the results. We would start by helping teachers learn
to use data effectively, using data to diagnose student
deficits. Secondly, we can use data to require accountability
for schools, school districts and schools. School districts
will use these results to make sure that all schools and all
students are making adequate progress yearly.
We could also use assessment results to strengthen Title I
accountability by requiring rapid identification of schools
that need improvement, as well as greater assistance from
States and school districts to help turn around low-performing
schools, which can only be identified if we have test data. If
such schools fail to improve, they should be subject to more
comprehensive measures, such as an intensive professional
development program or even reconstitution as a public charter
school. And students should be given the option of attending
another public school not identified for improvement or
correction.
If despite these efforts, however, a school fails to make
adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years, we should
permit its students to use Federal funds to find better
education at a higher performing public or private school, or
to obtain supplemental educational services from a public or
private sector provider.
The President also is proposing a system of rewards for
States and schools that make significant progress in closing
the achievement gap while States that fail to improve their
performance would be subject to losing a portion of their Title
I administrative funds. Taken as a whole, these proposals
reflect what I believe to be a strong consensus that States,
school districts and schools must be accountable for assuring
that all students, including disadvantaged and minority
students, meet high academic standards.
At the same time, we recognize it is unfair to demand
accountability without enabling success. This is why the other
components of the President's plan, No Child Left Behind, are
aimed at giving States, school districts, schools, teachers and
parents the tools and flexibility to help students succeed. For
example, we would lower the poverty threshold for Title I
school-wide programs from 50 percent to 40 percent, thereby
enabling students, enabling thousands of additional schools to
use Title I funds to upgrade their entire school.
We would coordinate educational technology programs to
reduce the paperwork burden of submitting and administering
multiple grant applications serving nearly identical purposes.
We would consolidate overlapping and duplicative grant programs
and let States and districts decide how to use that share of a
single grant resulting from this combination of Federal funds.
In each case, the new flexibility provided States, school
districts and schools is appropriately balanced by performance
agreements that will ensure that program purposes are achieved,
particularly for our poor and minority students living in high
need districts. We also would create a charter option for
States that would offer freedom from current requirements
placed on categorical program funds in return for submitting 5-
year performance agreements that include specific and rigorous
goals for increasing student performance. States would be
sanctioned for failing to comply with the performance
agreements, and would lose their charter if student achievement
did not improve.
In conclusion, the education reform proposals contained in
No Child Left Behind, combined with the President's 2002 budget
for education, support a comprehensive vision for closing the
achievement gap and improving the quality of education for all
Americans. I urge you to give these proposals your careful
consideration, and I stand ready to respond to any question
that you might have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Roderick R. Paige follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Education
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of No Child Left Behind, President
Bush's plan to strengthen our elementary and secondary schools and
close the achievement gap, and to discuss the President's 2002 budget
for education.
I want to begin by noting how troubled I was by the recent
shootings at Santana High School in Santee, California. Violence is
threatening to become endemic in our schools, and we must work much
harder to recognize the warning signs and prevent future incidents. No
Child Left Behind includes proposals designed to strengthen the ability
of schools and teachers to prevent violence in our schools, and would
provide flexible Federal resources to help make our schools safe and
drug-free. Ultimately, however, parents, students, and teachers must
learn to heed the warning signs of violent behavior, to take the threat
of violence seriously, and to take appropriate action before a student
shows up at school with a gun.
Turning now to the subject of this hearing, I am pleased and proud
that President Bush has made education his top priority. He announced
No Child Left Behind in his first week as President, and he has given
the Department the highest percentage increase of any Cabinet agency in
his first budget. Our commitment to providing a first-class education
to all our children is clear, and I look forward to working with each
of you over the coming months as we make the changes needed to help
reach this goal.
Before I get into the details of the President's proposals, I want
to make a few observations. First, No Child Left Behind is, as the
President has described it, ``a framework from which we can all work
together--Democrat, Republican, and Independent--to strengthen our
elementary and secondary schools.'' This means that within the context
of principles like State-determined high standards for all,
accountability for results, choice for parents and students, and
flexibility for schools and teachers, we are open to your ideas on how
to meet our shared goals.
Second, No Child Left Behind builds very deliberately on existing
efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels to use standards,
assessments, accountability, flexibility, and choice to improve the
quality of education for all of our children. Indeed, the President's
proposals are the logical next step following the changes made in the
1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). We are not asking States and school districts and schools to
drop everything they are doing and start over, but to pursue more
vigorously the kinds of changes they are already making.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the need for real change in
America's schools. While the 1994 reauthorization took some tentative
steps in the right direction, it did not go nearly far enough. If you
doubt that the present approach is broken and needs fixing, just
consider that nearly 70 percent of inner-city fourth-graders are unable
to read at even a basic level on national reading tests. Or that our
high school seniors trail students in most industrialized nations on
international math tests. Or that nearly one-third of our college
freshmen must take remedial courses before they can begin regular
college-level coursework.
And across all levels there is an unacceptable achievement gap
between disadvantaged and minority students and their more advantaged
peers. For example, on the latest National Assessment of Educational
Progress in 4th grade reading, 73 percent of white students performed
at or above the basic level, compared with just 40 percent of Hispanic
students and only 36 percent of African American students.
Our system of elementary and secondary education is failing to do
its job for far too many of our children--a failure that threatens the
future of our Nation, and a failure that the American people will no
longer tolerate. It is just as clear that Federal education policy is
not accomplishing its goals, despite the investment of more than $130
billion and the creation of hundreds of categorical programs over the
past three decades. More often than not, in fact, it is precisely this
bewildering array of Federal programs, regulations, and paperwork that
gets in the way of promising reforms at the State and local levels.
These bureaucratic controls promote a culture of compliance, not real
accountability measured by improved student achievement.
It is time to stop funding failure and promoting a culture of
compliance and start building a culture of achievement and
accountability in our education system. To do this we need to learn
from States and school districts across the country that have made
remarkable progress in turning around failing schools, raising student
achievement, and closing the achievement gap. We need to bring to
Federal education programs many of the strategies that have worked so
well at the State and local levels: increased accountability for
student performance, a focus on research-based practices, reduced
bureaucracy and greater flexibility, and better information to empower
parents.
No Child Left Behind provides a blueprint for accomplishing this
goal, a blueprint that we believe should guide the upcoming
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. To
provide the resources needed to implement this blueprint, the
President's budget for fiscal year 2002 includes $44.5 billion for the
Department of Education, an 11.5 percent increase in budget authority
and an increase of $2.5 billion or 5.9 percent over the 2001 program
level. This budget also reflects the President's commitment to a
balanced fiscal framework that includes more reasonable and sustainable
growth in discretionary spending, protection of Social Security,
retiring a significant proportion of the national debt, and tax relief
for all Americans.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
President Bush believes that the Federal Government can, and must,
help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers. The primary means toward this goal is to spend the $9 billion
Federal investment in Title I more effectively and with greater
accountability.
Our proposal would build on current law by adding science and
history to the existing requirement for States to set high standards in
reading and mathematics for Title I students. State assessments would
continue to be required only for reading and math, but would be
conducted annually from grades 3-8, instead of the current law
requirement for testing only twice during these critical formative
years. The President's budget will include funding to support the
development and implementation of these new assessments. Current
requirements for testing students in grades 10-12 would be preserved.
I can tell you from my own experience that there is simply no
substitute for annual information on how well students and schools are
performing. Children in good schools make remarkable progress during
these early grades, and we cannot afford to wait three or 4 years to
find out that some students have fallen behind. Where there are
problems, they must be discovered and addressed immediately, an
approach that can only be accomplished with the information provided by
annual testing.
Contrary to complaints about ``teaching to the test,'' or too much
testing, I believe that teaching and testing are two sides of the same
coin that we call education. A major part of our current failing is
because we have been using only one side of the coin, based on the
flawed notion that we do not need to know where students are
academically in order to teach them. The reality is that there is
simply no other way to find out whether students are learning and
teachers are doing their jobs. Many who say that testing is the
problem, rather than lack of learning, are really suggesting that we
lower our expectations because some kids can't learn. I reject that
because I know from my experience in Houston that it just isn't true.
We need to set clear goals for performance and help our schools get the
job done. The alternative is to continue to rob millions of poor and
disadvantaged young Americans of their futures by failing to provide
them an effective education.
The important thing about testing, of course, is what we do with
the results. We would start by helping teachers learn to use data
effectively. Secondly, we would require schools to report assessment
results for all students to parents and the public. School districts
would use these results to make sure that all schools and students are
making adequate yearly progress toward State content and performance
standards, and that no groups of students are left behind.
Our proposal would strengthen the Title I accountability process.
Current law requires identification of Title I schools for improvement
after 2 years of failing to make adequate yearly progress. We would
identify schools for improvement after just 1 year of failing to meet
State standards. Roughly half of schools currently identified for
improvement have received no additional assistance from their State or
district. We would require States and school districts to provide
technical assistance grounded in scientifically based research. The
President's budget will provide additional funding for State and local
efforts to turn around low-performing schools.
If the school still has not improved after 2 years, it would be
identified for corrective action and subjected to more comprehensive
measures, such as implementation of a new curriculum, intensive
professional development, or reconstitution as a public charter school.
While such measures are underway, students would be given the option of
attending another public school not identified for improvement or
correction.
Only after all these efforts, and following three full years of
poor performance--during which time a student may well have fallen
behind a grade or two--would we use Federal funds to help that student
find a better education at a private school. We are proposing to permit
the use of Title I funds to help students transfer to a higher
performing public or private school, or to obtain supplemental
educational services from a public- or private-sector provider.
The President also is proposing a system of rewards for success and
sanctions for failure at both the State and local levels. Once
accountability systems are in place, a new fund will reward States and
schools that make significant progress in closing the achievement gap.
At the same time, States that fail to put in place the required
standards, assessments, and accountability systems, or that fail to
make adequate yearly progress and narrow achievement gaps, would be
subject to losing a portion of their Title I administrative funds.
Taken as a whole, these proposals reflect what I believe is a
strong consensus, both within the Congress and among the American
people, that States, school districts, and schools must be accountable
for ensuring that all students, including disadvantaged students, meet
high academic standards. At the same time, we recognize that it is
unfair to demand accountability without enabling success. This is why
the other major components of No Child Left Behind are aimed at giving
States, school districts, schools, teachers, and parents the tools and
flexibility to help all students succeed.
EMPOWERING PARENTS WITH CHOICES
President Bush believes that one of the best ways to improve
accountability in our schools is to give parents the information and
options needed to make the right choices for their children's
education. This is why, for example, our accountability proposals
include school-by-school report cards and give students in failing
schools the option of transferring to a better school. In addition, the
President's budget would expand educational choice through $150 million
in new funds to help charter schools acquire, construct, or renovate
educational facilities. We also are proposing to expand the limit on
annual contributions to Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $5,000.
Parents would be able to withdraw their funds tax-free to pay
educational expenses from kindergarten through college.
EXPANDING FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING BUREAUCRACY
The Federal Government has recognized in recent years that it is
possible to achieve better results by reducing regulations, paperwork,
and bureaucracy and giving States and communities the flexibility to
create their own solutions to problems in areas like education, health
care, and protecting the environment. In education, for example, the
1994 ESEA reauthorization greatly expanded eligibility for Title I
schoolwide programs, which permit schools enrolling at least 50 percent
poor students to combine Federal, State, and local funds to improve the
quality of education for all students. Congress also created and
expanded the ED-Flex Partnership program, which gives participating
States the authority to waive Federal statutory and regulatory
requirements in exchange for greater accountability for improving
student achievement.
No Child Left Behind would build on these earlier efforts to expand
State and local flexibility in the use of Federal education funds. For
example, we would lower the poverty threshold for schoolwide programs
from 50 percent to 40 percent, thereby enabling thousands of additional
schools to use Title I funds to upgrade the entire school. We would
coordinate education technology programs to reduce the paperwork
burdens of submitting and administering multiple grant applications
serving nearly identical purposes. We would consolidate overlapping and
duplicative grant programs and let States and districts decide how to
use their share of the single grant resulting from this combination of
Federal funds.
We also would create a Charter Option for States that would offer
freedom from the current requirements placed on categorical program
funds, in return for submitting a 5-year performance agreement that
includes specific and rigorous goals for increased student performance.
This Option is intended for States on the cutting-edge of
accountability and reform in education, those that have already
established tough accountability systems and demonstrated real gains in
student achievement. States would be sanctioned for failing to comply
with their performance agreement, and would lose their charters if
student achievement did not improve.
President Bush's 2002 budget also would expand flexibility by
giving States the authority to redirect the $1.2 billion provided for
school renovation in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. In addition to
renovation of academic facilities, States would be permitted to
allocate even more of their 2001 school renovation funds to special
education and educational technology than is currently allowed. For
2002, the President is proposing to redirect these resources to other
priority programs to help States meet their most pressing needs,
including special education, turning around low-performing schools, and
accountability reforms. While renovation and construction are needed in
many areas, the limited grant funds will not make a significant dent in
a problem that the National Center for Education Statistics has
estimated would cost at least $127 billion to remedy. Instead, I
believe State and local governments must take responsibility for
financing school repair and construction. The President proposes to
help school districts meet these demands by allowing States to issue
tax-exempt private activity bonds for school construction and repair.
SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENT IN KEY AREAS
Other proposals contained in No Child Left Behind are aimed at
supporting State and local efforts in specific areas like reading,
teacher quality, math and science, safe schools, and technology.
Our Reading First program would invest $900 million in
scientifically based reading instruction in the early grades, with the
goal of creating comprehensive, statewide reading programs to ensure
every child is reading by the third grade. The President's budget also
includes $75 million to help prepare young children to read in existing
pre-school programs.
Our Title II Grants for Improving Teacher Quality proposal would
consolidate the Class Size Reduction and Eisenhower Professional
Development programs into a flexible, performance-based grant program
for States and school districts. The President is requesting $2.6
billion in 2002 funding for the new consolidated program. Most of these
funds would be used to strengthen the skills and knowledge of public
school teachers, principals, and administrators. The program also would
support innovative teacher recruitment and retention practices,
including bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas and in
high-poverty districts and schools. In return for the flexibility
provided by the program, States and districts must use Federal funds to
promote effective, research-based classroom practices, ensure that all
children are taught by effective teachers, and disclose to parents
information about the quality of their child's teachers.
The Title V drug and violence prevention and education program
would turn the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program and
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program into separate State
formula grants for before- and after-school learning opportunities and
violence and drug-prevention activities.
The new, streamlined grants would reduce administrative burdens,
give school districts greater flexibility in developing programs that
address school safety--a major concern of parents and students alike,
and support improved academic achievement. Participating States would
be required to develop a definition of a ``persistently dangerous
school,'' to report on school safety on a school-by-school basis, and
to offer both victims of school-based crimes and students attending
unsafe schools options for transferring to safer schools. The President
also would expand the role of faith-based and community organizations
in after-school programs, and his budget would triple funding for
character education to $25 million in 2002.
Our grants for education technology proposal would consolidate
several existing and duplicative technology programs and reduce
paperwork and other administrative burdens while directing more funds
to the classroom. Funds would be targeted to high-need schools,
including rural schools, and could be used for a wide range of
activities, including the development or purchase of software, wiring
and other infrastructure, and training teachers to use technology
effectively in the classroom.
All of these proposals adhere to the core principles of No Child
Left Behind by expanding flexibility, reducing bureaucracy, and
increasing accountability. In each case, the new flexibility provided
to States, school districts, and schools is appropriately balanced by
performance agreements that will ensure that program purposes are
achieved, particularly for poor and minority students living in high-
need districts.
OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES
The details of the President's 2002 budget for education will be
released on April 3. There are two priorities, however, that I would
like to mention briefly today. The first is special education. We
remain committed to helping States meet their obligations under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the President's budget
will provide increased funding for the Part B Grants to States program.
The second priority is funding for Pell grants, the foundation of
Federal student financial assistance for postsecondary education. The
2002 budget includes a $1 billion increase for Pell grants to raise the
maximum award for all students and provide more need-based grant aid to
low-income college students.
CONCLUSION
The education reform proposals contained in No Child Left Behind,
combined with the President's 2002 budget for education, support a
comprehensive vision for closing the achievement gap and improving the
quality of education for all Americans. I urge you to give these
proposals your most careful consideration, and I stand ready to answer
any questions you may have.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your
testimony.
First of all, let me hit head-on this whole issue about
percentages and increases. I've heard some criticism in the
media, and I want to allow you the opportunity to take it head-
on. This is the way that I see the math.
Under the President's proposal, the Department receives
$44.5 billion in budget authority in this coming fiscal year
that we're about to budget for, up $4.6 billion from the $39.9
billion in fiscal year 2001. So $44.5 above the $39.9. I don't
care what appropriation bill you're talking about, that at
least from what I can see looks to me like the kind of increase
that was suggested at 11.5 percent.
Now, I understand there's this little game that gets played
called advance appropriations, and there are some who play the
game a little bit better than others. But I think that it's
widely believed that advance appropriations is somewhat of an
irresponsible way to budget. We can have that debate at another
time. But the bottom line is that that may skew somebody's
belief about what the percentages are.
This increase, and this is really my question, isn't it
true that this increase, however defined, comes not only as an
increase for 2002 but it comes on top of a Department budget
that has averaged about 13 percent over the last 5 years? I
mean, I understand that every time we talk about these
percentages, we look kind of in a vacuum and we say, well, it's
only this or it's only that.
But I really believe we've got to start looking at these
budgets in a little longer term perspective. Over the last 5
years, we have increased, rightfully so, I'm not arguing that
the percentages for our kids in education have not been
appropriate, but it's been 13 percent. So when we build an
additional now 11.5 percent on top of it, I mean, that's real
money.
I think what you're suggesting to us is don't just look at
the percentages, let's talk about accountability, what are you
doing with the money.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely.
Chairman Nussle. And so how would you respond to this whole
percentage debate that is out there right now?
Secretary Paige. I would agree with you completely. There's
an 11.5 percent increase in budget authority. However, on a
program level, that translates to a 5.9 percent increase. You
can make a case for both figures. The difference depends on how
you count the dollars. The Government counts dollars, as all of
us know, in several different ways.
But our view is not so much how much we increase or how
much additional resources, but what those resources return to
us. We think there are many things that need to be done with
this program that don't require dollars as we would have.
We know that more is necessary. And we think that more is
being provided. But there are many things that we need to focus
on, including what returns are we getting for the dollars that
we are spending. Because if those dollars are not coming back
to us in terms of returns, student achievement increase, of
what value are the dollars?
So our focus is on effectiveness of the program, and that's
what we're trying to provide for now.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Secretary, IDEA is one of the
bipartisan issues that this committee and this Congress has
worked on over the last 5 years in particular. I can personally
identify members on both sides of this committee table up here
that have very serious personal interests in this program.
Over the last 5 years, we've been able to increase the IDEA
special education funding by about 23 percent annually over
these past 5 years that we're talking about. The President's
budget indicates that IDEA will receive an increase, but there
is no amount in the blueprint that has been specified. It says
that full funding, while it is still an objective, certainly
will not be met by any budget that I've seen right now.
It does allow for what is called redirection of $1.2
billion in fiscal year 2001 money appropriated for school
renovation, making these funds available to the States for
school renovation, technology incentives, or special education.
Would you explain that portion of that part of the blueprint?
And in particular, you've also testified, as I understand it,
that you're concerned about the definitions. You're concerned
about the way that children are often labeled or identified,
which I share your concern. I'm interested in your perspective
on both those issues.
First, how does the President and how do you intend to fund
special education in this budget, number one, and number two,
what reforms would you suggest to this committee that maybe we
could assist you with in the budget we're about to write?
Secretary Paige. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The President and
I look forward to working with Congress to increase funding for
IDEA. We're proud of the progress Congress has made since 1996
in increasing the Federal share from 7 percent to 15 percent to
about 16 percent now in fiscal year 2001.
Substantial increases, but not nearly enough, I can promise
you, based on my experience of 7 years leading the seventh
largest school district in America. We can say with great
conviction that this is a very serious problem, and serving
students eligible under IDEA sucks off dollars from other
program functions in the district.
So we agree completely that increased funding for IDEA is
appropriate. But we also know that programmatically it needs
some adjustment. For example, of approximately 6 million
students served, ages 6 through 21, who are being served now
across the United States, estimates as high as 51 percent of
those students are there because of their designation of
learning disabled. We believe, and we have substantial evidence
to support this, that as much as 80 percent of those students
who are identified as learning disabled are actually there
because they've never learned to read properly. They've never
been taught to read.
So we believe we can make a case that although the funding
is at the level it is now, that many of the dollars that are
there are being used ineffectively. Because these dollars are
serving students who shouldn't be identified in special
education in the first place.
So then we believe we can also make a case that those
dollars in this budget supporting No Child Left Behind which
are targeting early reading and Reading First Programs, may
even be able to be counted as dollars supporting, reducing the
number of students who are going to be eligible for service
under this law.
We believe that we need additional funding. But we also
believe that we're not going go fund our way out of this
crisis. What we need to do is take a careful look, thoughtful
people jointly, all parties involved and all stakeholders, in
how we can improve the functioning of the law. Now,
reauthorization comes up next year, or is it the year after
next--in 2003. And we're preparing now to develop a framework
under which we can join with other thoughtful people who are
interested in this issue to see if we can improve it. Because
it's not a matter of how many dollars, it's a matter of the
quality of service that we're providing students and how many
students we are providing services for. We can improve this.
But I don't want to narrow our concern to how many dollars
we put into the program.
Chairman Nussle. Well, in conclusion, I can't argue with
your suggestion that some reforms may be necessary. I will say,
however, just for the record, and this is just one member
speaking, but I am much more interested in making sure that the
obligations that we have already agreed to are taken care of
before we start thinking about or inventing new ideas and new
programs.
I would hope that while 2003 is the current reauthorization
time frame that if you have any thoughts on reformation of the
program, reformation of the principles or the definitions, that
they be forwarded as soon as we can. Because in the meantime,
funding is driving this issue, as you know. I'm acting like I
know more about this than you do. You've lived under this as an
administrator. I know you do know that.
But this Congress, and I'm just reporting to you, Mr.
Secretary, that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, has spoken
many times on special education. I believe the signal that we
have sent to the administration is, we want to take care of
that issue almost as much or before we start tackling some new
ideas. So our budget that we're putting together is going to
take that into consideration.
I would just hope that anything we can do to expedite the
reforms under IDEA, if there are those that are suggesting
that, count me in as a partner. I'd love, and I know there are
many here on the committee that would enjoy working with you on
that. Count us in as partners. We're ready to work and do the
heavy lifting that it takes to put something like that through.
But time is of the essence, as far as I'm concerned.
Secretary Paige. May I just add that there will be
increased funding in this year's budget for IDEA. The level of
increase, however, is yet to be determined. I suppose we'll
know that about April 3. So I don't want to give you the
impression that there won't be increased funding. There
definitely will be increased funding.
However, our information suggests that it takes somewhere
in the neighborhood of $11 billion to $11.5 billion on top of
what we have now to reach the 40 percent level, depending on
how we define 40 percent. So clearly we are not going to leap
tall buildings in a single bound, we're going to get there
incrementally. So there will be some additional discussion
about that.
We're simply saying that in the final analysis, where I
know we must keep our promise and must move toward that, but
also, we need to serve students better. We think those students
who are truly disabled, we're having dollars serving students
who just need to be taught to read, so in some ways, we're not
serving those students well. That's the reason for the
suggestion about the overhaul.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you very much.
Mr. Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. Thank you very much.
When we look through this budget, given the attention that
was given to education in the last election, we were sort of
reminded of the old Biblical adage that where your treasure is,
there also is your heart. I'm not talking about you, I'm
talking about the administration. I don't have any doubt where
your heart is when it comes to education, Dr. Paige.
But that's why we're looking for how much additional money
is actually being provided here, and the first page of the two
pages we get in this blueprint of the budget simply states that
we're providing $2.5 billion or 5.9 increase after correcting
for the distortion of advance appropriations. That's how much
new money there is for next year, $2.5 billion. The other money
is already appropriated. And while as I said, 5.7, 5.9 percent
is a welcome increase, it's a long way from what we've been
accustomed to, and it's a long way from what the actual needs
of American students are.
The second frustration we have in looking through this is
we get two pages of detail. And we're wondering, where does
that $2.5 billion, $2.4 billion get allocated? What's going to
happen to Title I? What's going to happen to IDEA and special
education? What's going to happen to a couple of programs that
we've found very successful in our school districts, like the
After-School Program, the 21st Century Learning Center Program,
and the class size initiative? Is there enough here to
accommodate all those programs, or if not, what's going to take
a hit? What can we expect when we see the budget detail come
that accompanies this scant outline that's been sent up here?
Secretary Paige. Thank you. I wish I was able to provide
more detail for you. The final numbers won't even be available
to us until the third of next month, at which time those
numbers will be made public.
But our approach to this has been a little bit different,
and maybe there could be some second thoughts about that. But
our idea was to provide a framework around which we could have
discussions about the details. So we think those details are
going to be fleshed out and discussed, and even the budget
amounts. What is going to result is going to be a number that
we all agree on, or at least the majority agrees on.
Mr. Spratt. Well, when do you think we'll have the detail?
Because we're going to mark the budget next week.
Secretary Paige. April 3.
Mr. Spratt. Well, that will be after we've marked our
budget up here. So we're sort of marking in the blind, given
the schedule we're on right now. Because we don't know whether
this amount of money will accommodate what, or what you have in
mind squeezing in order to divert funds into something else.
Could you give us some idea of what likely funding levels are
going to be, for example, for IDEA and ESEA, Title I?
Secretary Paige. Without the details of that, sir, I can
simply say that the numbers will be increased. I don't know the
levels of that increase. I don't have that information now. I
won't have that until the third.
Mr. Spratt. Well, you were saying just a minute ago, you're
obviously not going to leap whole buildings in a single bound.
I liked that phrase. But we don't expect you to be Superman,
but for example, the class size initiative. One of the reasons
we've seen substantial percentage increases in recent years is
that each year, the President has been able to extract an
increment to this budget specifically for that class size
initiative. Can we expect to see that funded, so that we will
indeed approach the goal of having 100,000 new teachers, so we
can reduce class size in grades 1 to 3 to no more than 18
students?
Secretary Paige. Sir, as superintendent, I enjoyed the
benefits of the categorical funding for our class size
reduction in a school district with approximately 300 schools.
I would like to make an example. We know that all things given,
smaller is better. We would all like to have smaller class
sizes.
But we think that it is a mistake to believe that smaller
class sizes in and of itself translates into improved student
achievement. It does not. There are so many other factors
impacting on that that have equal weight as class size
reduction. Keep in mind, I would like to have it, smaller is
better if everything else is even, which it is not.
For example, if you have a very effective teacher with a
class size of 40, and you make the classes smaller by half, by
dividing with another teacher, so each one has 20 students,
unless you can replicate that very effective teacher for the
second class, what you've done is disadvantaged some of the
students who left and went. And the only ones who are
advantaged are the 20 who stayed.
So then I would have preferred actually to have the
advantage of using some of those dollars that I was prohibited
from using to get improved teacher effectiveness, for example,
to be able to send teachers to professional development
programs. So there will be additional funding there----
Mr. Spratt. The program allows that if you've attained your
class size ratios, does it not?
Secretary Paige. I'm sorry?
Mr. Spratt. The program allows the use of this money for
professional development if you've attained the 18-to-1 ratio?
Secretary Paige. If you were able to do that, but in most
cases, you were not. So the flexibility would be appreciated to
use those dollars in a way to gain efficiencies that you and I
both seek. In this budget, that would be $2.6 billion that
would be for teacher quality. Now, the professional on the
scene can decide to use those dollars to reduce the class size
if they think that's the best thing to do. I would be able to
use those dollars to provide professional development for the
teachers, if they decide that's the best thing to do.
The sum and substance is that it is there to improve the
quality of instruction, which we believe is what you seek in
narrowing the number of students for an individual teacher.
Mr. Spratt. So does this mean there will be less money, or
the money will be spread over more purposes, it will be less
categorical?
Secretary Paige. There will be more money, but there will
be more latitude provided for the use of those dollars.
Mr. Spratt. One other question at the other end of the
spectrum. The President in his campaign came out for increasing
the Pell grants, which went up to $3,750 last year, on to
$5,100. Are we within reach of that? Will your budget be able
to move us significantly in that direction?
Secretary Paige. The Pell grant program I think will be
increased by $1 billion.
Mr. Spratt. And what will that likely take the individual
ceiling to, per student?
Secretary Paige. The original idea was to have front
loading by raising the level to $5,100 for the freshman year.
After some consultation with the higher education community, it
was decided better to look across the board with this funding,
which reduced the amount from $5,100 to a smaller amount, and
I'm not sure what that amount will be. April 3.
Mr. Spratt. Are you saying you would reduce the per capita
amount but change the eligibility requirements so that more
students are eligible?
Secretary Paige. The original idea was to increase the
funding level from $3,750 the freshman year to $5,100.
Mr. Spratt. Yes, sir.
Secretary Paige. But it would revert to the $3,700 for the
junior-sophomore, junior-senior year. Considering the advice of
the higher education community and those who know, that
philosophy shifted somewhat, and now, the same amount of money,
instead of being spent all on the freshman year is now spread
across 4 years.
Mr. Spratt. I understand what you're talking about. Yes,
sir. Good.
Thank you very much. Let me let others ask questions. We
appreciate your responses.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Sununu.
Mr. Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary Paige. I very much appreciate your
testimony and do want to emphasize the importance of IDEA and
special education funding and the degree to which we appreciate
President Bush's focus on the program and, of course, an
emphasis on strengthening funding and strengthening
flexibility, but also your recognition that the program itself
needs to work better for those parents that have children with
special needs, and that we need a program that doesn't divert
funds into legal costs or administrative costs, but that
actually brings dollars into the classroom and meets what is in
fact the largest unfunded mandate we have in the Federal
Government.
So I wish you good luck and express my willingness to work
with you as we try to strengthen funding for special education,
make the program work better for parents and students that
really do have strong and pressing needs.
Second, I want to express my thanks for your simple
recognition that we do need to set priorities and recognize
that a good idea isn't always the best idea or the top
priority, and in particular, on class size, that you may well
put students at disadvantage if you simply reduce class size
without dealing with the need for a quality teacher, for other
enhancements, infrastructure, training, technology, all of
these things could be at least as essential, if not more
important, to a student's education than just reducing class
size.
I was struck by the precise words used in the previous
questioning, that emphasized that funding could be used for
improving the quality of teachers, but only after a certain
ratio had been hit. That would suggest that the good teachers
would only be available to students once you have cut up your
classrooms, divided all the students without dealing first with
the issue of human resources or teacher pay or testing,
whatever might work most effectively at the local level.
I think it would be a terrible mistake to push and push and
push for some arbitrary goal without dealing with education
priorities in their proper context and without recognizing that
local input. That's something that you obviously have done in
your experience as superintendent. It appears clear that
President Bush is willing to do that and to recognize that we
can't just set an arbitrary goal without understanding how the
different elements of education reform work with one another.
Finally, I'd like to touch upon and ask you about
flexibility, this idea of local flexibility in ensuring that
it's parents, teachers, students at the local level that are
setting the priorities and deciding what's most important for
improving education for them, again, whether it's teacher
quality or training, technology, or class size reduction. There
are over 200 programs in the Department of Education, and I
think that number carries with it enormous costs on a couple of
levels.
First, there is your administration and the cost of
employees and staff and time, overhead necessary to understand
and manage those 200 or more different programs. But there's
also the bureaucratic cost at the local level, to have a grant
writer full time or half time in a smaller school district, or
multiple grant writers in a larger district that are marshaling
all of these different applications. That's expensive, very
expensive to maintain.
President Bush appears to have recognized opportunities for
consolidation, for reducing the number of funding streams to
support education reform and priorities on the local level. I
think in particular in areas of training and technology we've
seen a proliferation of programs in the last few years. Could
you address for the committee what you see as the greatest
opportunities to bring this explosion in program numbers under
control, consolidate funding streams and get the program to the
local level where it can do the most good?
Secretary Paige. Yes, sir, and thank you.
We believe that Congress wants very badly these dollars
spent as they intend for these dollars to be spent. As going
about that by writing regulations that would guide that and
would require that specific type of use. Whereas we think
that's laudable, from the practical end of it, we can see that
in many cases your very intent has been thwarted by the
accumulation of just piles and piles and piles of regulations.
What it does is prompt a culture of compliance as opposed
to a culture of performance. So success begins to be measured
by whether or not you followed the regulations and guidelines.
In many cases, you've lost, to some extent, the focus of what
you're trying to accomplish in the first place. We believe that
Congress' intent can be carried out by establishing a system of
accountability, by very clearly defining what the result should
be and asking for that result to be measured and evaluated.
There are many opportunities for consolidation inside the
more than 200 different programs that we have just in this
Department, which we could expand by looking at programs both
in Health and Human Services and sometimes in Justice and other
places. Competing with each other, conflicting with each other,
bumping into each other, causing havoc.
The system's response to increased regulations is
bureaucracy. So as you promulgate policies and rules, the
system responds by building up bureaucracy to protect itself
from it. So what we would like to do is change that whole
culture to a culture of performance which says, here are the
resources, here is what we want to result from those resources,
here's how we're going to measure those resources. And if our
goals are not accomplished here, or the consequences or
rewards.
It's somewhat of a culture shift, but I believe that
somewhere in the middle here, this situation of increasing
categorically approaching this issue can be changed to a
broader, more consolidated initiative.
Mr. Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Bentsen.
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased, Mr. Secretary, to welcome you here as well.
The Secretary is a constituent of mine, and the school
district, of which he was a very successful superintendent,
overlaps both my district and Mr. Culberson's district. We were
sorry to see him go, but we expect better things from him now
at the national level. We think the President made a very wise
choice in bringing him up here.
Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions for you. I want
to follow up just briefly on Mr. Sununu's question. I think
you're right with respect to the concerns of compliance, but
you also hit on a point that is often overlooked. I appreciate
the fact that you did that. We in Congress have a fiduciary
responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that their funds are
spent as they should be spent. And I think that the
administration is generally on the right track with that,
perhaps trying to move from a compliance-oriented goal to a
performance-oriented goal.
I do have one concern, and you don't necessarily need to
answer this, but I would like you to think about it. In using a
performance oriented goal and then if the school or the
district does not meet the performance, even if there may be
malfeasance, and I know we don't like to talk about things such
as that happening, but we have to be responsible for that, to
then say somehow you're going to drain resources out of it
because they didn't meet the performance goal, that they may
well not have complied at all, may not be achieving the goals
you want to achieve or Congress wants to achieve. So I would
hope you would take a look at that.
I want to go back to the question of IDEA funding. I have
to say, I hope I'm not revealing any confidences here, I can
remember on a couple of occasions, one in particular, sitting
between you and your predecessor at a lunch in Houston where
you were quite specific and quite adamant that you viewed
special education funding as perhaps the worst unfunded mandate
Congress ever imposed. I think we had a very long conversation,
actually I was just in between the conversation, between you
and Secretary Riley, on that issue.
I, as well as a number of others, have followed our
colleague Mr. Bass' lead in a bill that he's probably going to
bring up with you, H.R. 737, which he has introduced, which
would establish both a per student formula for funding IDEA as
well as a plan to achieve the 40 percent Federal funding of it.
I would be eager to hear your comments on that particular bill.
I know that when you testified before the Senate the other week
regarding the Hagel bill, you raised some concerns on behalf of
the administration on having an absolute figure. The funding in
this bill would be on a per student basis, so I think it might
meet your goals in particular with the goal of the early
reading initiative on the part of the administration, which
might lessen the number of students who are in the learning
disability category.
Although I would also reference testimony the other week,
by Dr. Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development of the NIH, in which he said in commending
the administration on that program, that if successful, the
learning disability levels could be reduced by about two-
thirds, and even using your figures, that would still leave 4-
million-plus kids in the special education.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Bentsen. And still, if we're only funding at 18 percent
as opposed to the 40 percent, we are still far below where we
should be. So I would be eager to hear your position and the
administration's position on trying to achieve a goal of per
student funding basis to eventually get us to 40 percent,
whether it's in the form of Mr. Bass' bill that I'm one of the
original cosponsors of, and many members of this committee are,
or some other basis.
Secretary Paige. Yes, sir. May I begin by thanking you for
your leadership and your assistance with the program structure
at the Houston Independent School District. You were a great
friend of our district, and we deeply appreciate that.
I also want to thank you for your personal friendship in
granting me access to Secretary Riley in the many meetings we
had about that. My idea about it as an unfunded mandate has not
changed. It is. And I was unable to comment further about the
bill because I don't know the details of it. I have not had a
chance to see the details of it and I don't want to make an
error before I have a chance to see it.
And it is not my argument that we should not have increased
funding for IDEA. We most certainly should. It is one of the
most painful things that is happening to superintendents and
teachers and principals down at the action end of this.
But there are other issues. Just creating that goal of
funding at 40 percent and going away is not going to make it
safe for democracy. There are a lot of problems. For example,
there are about 814 different regulations under this act. And
people are pulling their hair out, not me, obviously, because I
succeeded in doing that earlier----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Paige [continuing]. In trying to stay in
compliance with those rules. So we're simply saying that it is
a broader issue, we do need to increase funding. We also need
to keep our promises. But we also need to be aware of the fact
that there are other difficulties associated with this.
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Excuse my weak voice today. I think I got John Nagle's
wife's--Debbie Dingle's problem. Anyway, you're going to get
hit twice here, because I'm glad my friend from Texas was able
to bring up the legislative proposal he's been so kind to
cosponsor along with me involving the issue of IDEA. I'd also
like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of
the committee and also your remarks, Mr. Secretary, in which
you say we can't solve this problem overnight.
But I've got to tell you that all over this country right
now, school boards are meeting, school districts are meeting
and budgets are being put together. The special education issue
is tearing the heart out of public education in this country.
Now, you mentioned that there are indeed priorities for
programmatic reform within the system. And I agree totally with
you. But I've been here for 7 years now. And we've been through
one reauthorization that, when you get right down to it, did
very little to correct the programmatic problem in special
education.
So I've come to the conclusion that the only way we are
going to address both the funding issue and the programmatic
issue is through the budget process, initially through this
committee. That is to phase in the funding of special education
on a per pupil basis, as Mr. Bentsen alluded to. What this does
is, not only does it relieve the horrible funding situation
that exists in every community in this country, but it also
forces this committee and the Education and Work Force
Committee to reconcile the cost of the program to a budget
which does not happen today. Not only does that help with the
cost on a Federal level, but it also saves every single
property taxpayer in this country money that may be needlessly
spent.
If we fail to do this, we will have the debate every year
about 16 percent and 17 percent. And I laud the Congress for
increasing it so significantly. But I would hope, Mr.
Secretary, that you would take a very careful look at this
concept, because from a budgetary standpoint, of course, it
does reduce the discretionary spending level for education in
general. But it adds it, of course, on the mandatory side.
But what it will do is put pressure on this institution to
make this program work. It's been a good program, but there
have been some problems with it.
And you say that it isn't just a matter of dollars. Well,
there are programmatic problems, but it is a matter of dollars.
And there are small communities in this country where 20, 30,
40, 50 percent of their entire education budget goes to one or
two students. And we make the rules here in Washington, we make
the rules. We are responsible for that. And I've made it a
priority in the last 5 or 6 years to get the funding level up.
And $200 million to $300 million, as they say, just ain't going
to do it.
I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will look at this. I know
you understand the problem as well as anybody in this country
and that we can make this a priority in this administration's
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Chairman Nussle. OK. Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome again, Secretary Paige. I've had the pleasure of
being able to talk to you, I guess this is about my third or
fourth time now, between Education here, and just meeting with
us privately.
I want to go back to class size reduction, and I also want
to talk about after-school programs. I came here to Congress to
try to reduce gun violence in this country. I happen to think
that when we start talking about reducing class sizes, that's
one area to go. I do believe that we have to have qualified
teachers in every single one of those classrooms. But they have
to go hand-in-hand.
We know from talking to teachers across this Nation that
when they only have, I happen to think that we should reduce
class sizes, in the early grades especially, to 15. That's when
we see the most dramatic results, and all the research shows
that. But it also gives the teachers the opportunity to reach
out to those students that, not that they learn differently,
but maybe need some special attention. We've seen statistics
that show that that kind of works together.
The after-school programs, obviously working with kids that
don't have any place to go after school, would have a place not
only to learn, but to be fostered with people around them that
have knowledge. These are areas that we can work on. I hope
that when the budget comes out on April 3 that you will have
some input, that these are areas that are extremely important
to the children around this Nation. It used to be only inner
cities that we worried about gun violence. Well, that's not the
case any more. And as a nurse, I've always said, if you don't
take care of the cancer, it's going to spread. Well, it has
spread.
We have the opportunity to do something about this.
Education is going to be the forefront of working with an awful
lot of these students, because we have these kids, they're in
our buildings every day. So we have to make sure that they're
getting the special needs that they need.
Talking about kids with learning disabilities, I certainly
grew up with learning disabilities, my son has learning
disabilities. One of the things I've found out since being in
Congress, it's not so much that I have learning disabilities, I
actually learn differently. And I'm hoping that when we finish
up with funding for IDEA and everything else, we'll actually
say, these kinds learn differently. We don't have a disability,
we just learn differently. There are tremendous programs out
there that we can work on.
I brought Secretary Riley over to a school over here in
Washington, the Lab School. I hope that I can bring you over
there to show how they have individual programs for each and
every child. We can't afford it, unfortunately. But I have to
tell you, 98 percent of those kids, when they graduate, go to
college. I think that's a great testimony, so we can learn from
a lot of things.
So I hope when you go back and they start figuring out the
budget, think of the money that we will be saving on the long
end if we have the after-school programs, if we have the class
reduction, if we have the teachers in the smaller class. In the
long run, the more we invest in our children at the early age,
the amount of money on health care, on the programs for IDEA,
teaching these children to read, to give them self-confidence,
you can't even put a dollar price on that. You can't.
And those are things I'll be fighting for on this
committee, and on the Education Committee, and I would love to
work with you on those areas.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. And I yield back.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, and
thank you for your leadership in education. I'm very proud to
say, I'm one of three members of the House that voted against
IDEA, because I knew it was going to be a big, huge mess. And
it has been a big mess. And as a former superintendent, I know
that you know it's a big mess. It's a big, bureaucratic mess
that's ill-served the people that it was meant to serve. So I
make no apologies for voting against it.
One of the real important aspects of No Child Left Behind
that has been the most controversial is the notion of vouchers
that have, after a period of time, 2 or 3 years, school
districts don't achieve or live up to the standards that
parents should have an opportunity to maybe look elsewhere. I'm
curious, I know you did a lot of innovative things in Houston.
Did you have a voucher program in Houston?
Secretary Paige. We had a program of parental choice. We
didn't call it a voucher program, but we had private school
contracting. We contracted with private schools to deliver
educational services. And we made these schools available to
parents of students who were enrolled in low-performing schools
and whose students themselves were low-performing, could opt
out of that low performing school and attend another public
school, or they could attend a private school, as long as that
school was approved by the Texas Education Agency and the
Houston Independent School District.
Mr. LaHood. Were they given money to do that, then?
Secretary Paige. They were given money to do that, yes.
Mr. LaHood. How much money?
Secretary Paige. In our case, about $3,750, I think, per
year.
Mr. LaHood. Thirty-seven hundred and fifty dollars?
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. LaHood. Per year?
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. LaHood. What is the cost of educating a child in the
Houston system? I mean, how does that----
Secretary Paige. Houston school district, a little better
than $4,000, $4,500, something.
Mr. LaHood. So it was pretty close to the amount of money
that it costs to educate a child.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely. And the reason the entire
amount didn't go is we still kept responsibility for that
child, our supervisors still attended to see if the child was
progressing, and that child's scores counted on our
accountability.
Mr. LaHood. What percent of the parents opted to do this?
Secretary Paige. A very small percent of them opted to do
it, because we were concurrently working on our system, so our
schools were better. We believed that we could out-perform
private schools. We said we could provide them that choice,
because when they made the choice, they'd choose us because we
were better. In the last year of that program, of course, this
year, they're expanding it, they expanded it this year, there
were 173 kids who were eligible under that program. We wrote to
their parents to advise them that they were eligible. We wrote
letters to the private schools to advise them that these kids
were eligible, just to make sure that they would make a choice
on their own.
Mr. LaHood. The $3,700, did that come out of your budget?
State budget?
Secretary Paige. In Texas, we're funded on an average pupil
attendance. That was that amount of money.
Mr. LaHood. So you, rather than going to your district, it
went to the parents so they could then----
Secretary Paige. It went to us and we sent it to them.
Mr. LaHood. Did you send it in the form of a check or what?
How did they get it?
Secretary Paige. Sent it in the form of a check to the
school that we had a contract with.
Mr. LaHood. I see. Would you be willing to forego the term
voucher in lieu of a term that you used in Houston under a
system that seemed to work where very few parents opted to use
that system? The question is, the controversy is around the
term voucher. But it seems to have worked under a different
nomenclature in your district, where you came from. And it's
worked in other States under a different nomenclature, and
you've proven that it works.
Secretary Paige. Yes, we think so.
Mr. LaHood. Well, my question is, would you be willing to
forego, as the Secretary of Education, and try and persuade the
President that if the word voucher is the controversial part of
it, but the idea has standing because it's proven to have
worked in the Houston school system. I'm trying to help the
administration figure out a way to replicate what's worked in
Houston in a small way that didn't distract or take away from
the amount of money that you were able to do, because you were
doing a good job. You had charter schools and maybe you had
Edison schools. I don't know, you did a lot of different,
innovative things.
And if we challenged schools in America to be innovative
and do different, creative things, the vast majority of parents
will stay with those schools, as was the case in Houston.
I'm just wondering what you think about the whole idea of
the term voucher that seems to be so controversial.
Secretary Paige. Well, since that term was put in the
public lexicon, it's acquired a negative connotation. So we
don't have that term anywhere in No Child Left Behind. It
doesn't occur there.
Mr. LaHood. So you don't use it?
Secretary Paige. No.
Mr. LaHood. Under the President's plan, they talk about
this notion of giving school districts, or you do, talk about 2
or 3 years to meet certain standards. Where did you come up
with that notion? Is that about the amount of time that----
Secretary Paige. That was the current thinking of the group
that was deliberating at the time. Very frankly, I think a
period of 3 years, almost every case, the school will improve
to the point where they won't trigger that type of portability
issue.
Mr. LaHood. How long will it take them?
Secretary Paige. And even if it did, I think that the
number of students who would choose to move out of that would
be very small.
Mr. LaHood. Well, I didn't ask any budget questions, but I
guess I wanted, this whole issue of education is so
controversial, and I just wanted to get those issues out on the
table. Obviously you were picked for this job because of the
district you come from, where you've had some success with some
of these issues. I assume you really believe that they can be
replicated around the country, particularly in some districts
that have not been successful.
Secretary Paige. I think many of those ideas would be the
best thing that could happen to especially disadvantaged
students in terms of closing the achievement gap.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Actually, Mr. LaHood, those are good
budget questions, and we welcome you to the committee. You and
Ms. Granger from Texas and Mr. Doolittle from California are
members that have recently been appointed from the
Appropriations Committee. We welcome and we look forward to
your service.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, welcome, Secretary. It's good to have a professional
educator at the helm. It must feel good to be in the driver's
seat rather than the passenger seat.
Secretary Paige. Sometimes it doesn't.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Honda. Well, you know, being a professional educator, I
think that the expectation becomes even higher, because people
will say, well, you should know better. So I think that in our
discussions in this committee, I know that there's a
disadvantage in the sense that the detailed budgets are not
fully prepared, and I'm disappointed, but that's the way it is.
And we have an outline which is not specific enough for us to
be able to have a good, hard conversation, but we can talk
conceptually, I suppose.
I've heard a lot about the terminology IDEA and special
education. Let me just digress for a second, if I may. We're
talking about heightened standards, which is an issue that's
sort of taken center stage in our ongoing national debate on
how to improve our Nation's public schools. As a former high
school teacher, as a principal, and as a board member, I agree
with the President and yourself, Mr. Secretary, that we must
hold our students and our teachers to high national standards.
However, it is essential that we understand that these
standards must be a two-way street, that if we expect our
students and teachers to meet their standards, then there is a
community standard that you are probably well aware of, as I am
well aware of, it's the principle of two ways that we have to
keep within our debate.
In the classroom, many of my students exceeded their
parents' expectation and their own expectation once they
learned that they had the confidence and respect of their
teachers and their peers. Therefore, we should consider some
important issues. Besides what we expect from our teachers and
students, we have to rightfully expect certain kinds of
standards from our community.
If we expect our teachers to provide the best instruction,
then we must empower them with the best teacher training. I
believe that you believe that.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Honda. If we expect our schools to perform at the 21st
century levels, then we must afford them the 21st century
technology. I believe you believe that. And I appreciate the
comment you made recently about separating e-rate from the
education budget, because it will allow it to have its mission
very clear and be very well directed. I appreciated that.
And if we're going to require students to meet and exceed
our own expectations, we demonstrate our respect for them and
confidence in them by providing them with safe, permanent
classrooms, that are not crumbling around their ears. I believe
that we had some open discussions around modernization and
construction monies.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. Honda. But that seems to, in the outline, in the
blueprint, seems to have been consolidated and redirected in
other educational funding. So I'm hoping that you'll be able to
see your way clear of providing some direction for
modernization and construction funding for local schools,
because local schools are in dire straits in that area.
It's been said that to whom much is given, much is
expected. So we as Federal officials have been given the great
responsibility of supporting our students and teachers to
educate our Nation. If our students and teachers are to meet
these expectations, we must demonstrate our commitment to them
by giving them the tools that they need to meet those
challenges. In some of the discussions we had around funding of
IDEA, of special education, I also support that idea, and I
think that separating special education out as a distinct
funding source or funding mechanism is going to be important,
in the sense that if we're talking about accountability rather
than compliance, then accountability will be clearer if we have
the separate funding, so that we know what the bang for the
dollar that we're getting.
We also will be clear on the number of dollars that we
freed up at the local level of general fund monies that have
been folded into meeting the needs of the children. And you as
a superintendent had made that comment about the mandates
without funding. So I think that that report back and the
accountability will show us here the amount of general fund
monies that could be freed up if we move toward full funding of
special education.
Then you mentioned also that 51 percent of our youngsters
have been identified as special education, and 80 percent of
them--did I get that wrong, sir?
Secretary Paige. Fifty-one percent are estimated learning
disabled. There are a lot of categories for special education,
one of which is learning disabled. We believe that better than
half of the students being served now are there because of that
designation.
Mr. Honda. Right. Then you also said that, you mentioned 80
percent were identified as not having reading instruction?
Secretary Paige. That they would not have been there if
their reading instruction had been adequate earlier on.
Mr. Honda. OK. One of the things that has happened at the
local level, when I was a principal, is that a lot of times the
process of identification at the local level becomes very
extensive because of the limited funds that are available to
the local districts.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Honda. So the process, they put off the full
identification, full testing of youngsters at early grade,
hoping that they will catch up at a later grade. Talking about
delayed development, things like that. If youngsters were truly
identified at an early age, perhaps we would catch those kids,
because we also know that 10 percent of our population has some
form of dyslexia, which affects performance in reading.
So it can be a very mild form or very severe form, but yet
we know these youngsters are very bright, because they're
bright and articulate, we say to ourselves, there must be
something else. Now, if we identify them earlier and expend the
money earlier, we could probably identify these youngsters and
help them earlier. So the percentages would have to be looked
at.
I don't want to condemn the teachers for not teaching these
youngsters. I think systemically we're not allowing them to
have that flexibility of identifying youngsters earlier. In
some districts, they have set aside a whole school where one-
third of the population will, are children that have been
identified with dyslexia of some sort, then they mainstream
them out. So I think that we could better spend our money if we
afford them the money earlier.
Then the last comment I'd like to make, Mr. Secretary, is
compliance and accountability. We've had this discussion before
about the ESEA funds and those programs, all these title
programs have accountability, they have compliance issues. When
we show that youngsters are going 6 months with 3 months of
instruction, with all the things they come with, the challenges
they come with, all those programs have that accountability
component. We call it compliance reports. And we have periodic
program quality performance tests, too.
I don't know why we're not taking that information as part
of the accountability, because that's what it is. We don't do a
good job if at the local level we don't show the district
office that there is growth through the infusion of Title I
monies. So I'm hoping that that information will be folded into
accountability so we'll avoid that paperwork that you talked
about. We can use the same information and put ourselves on the
line.
I don't mind doing that as a principal. I didn't mind doing
this. We could show with a lot of confidence there is growth.
But I don't know how much of that information goes on to the
Federal level in terms of accountability.
So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and
hopefully we can continue to work together and solve this great
national problem.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have had the privilege of working with you
as a member of the Texas House for the past many years that I
have represented West Houston in the Texas legislature. You and
I both come here to Washington as newcomers, and I can testify
for the listening audience, for the members of the committee,
that you are not only a man of absolute integrity, a man of
your word, you're not a theoretician when you're here
presenting this testimony to the committee, the concepts, the
core concepts. The President's education plan, which you
described here quite well, is to stop funding failure, to stop
promoting a culture of compliance, and start building a culture
of achievment and accountability. You've done that in the
Houston Independent School District.
I wanted in my questions, sir, to give you an opportunity
to describe for the committee, and for the listening audience,
a little bit about your work in the Houston Independent School
District, how big is the district, your experience there in
accomplishing these goals in Houston, and how educators across
the country who may be listening to your testimony can expect
to see real results from the President's education plan and
from the work of this Budget Committee, if we adopt what you
are suggesting here today.
Secretary Paige. Yes, well, first of all, Congressman, let
me thank you for your leadership in the Texas House, and your
assistance with creating an environment within which a district
like the Houston Independent School District could prosper.
The Houston Independent School District is the seventh
largest school district in the United States, with about
110,000 to 115,000 students, approximately 300 schools, and
approximately 13,500 teachers or so.
It is a district of essentially poor people, 73 percent of
which are eligible for free and reduced lunch. It is a district
that has transformed itself from a district with minorities to
a district of minorities, in that about 85 percent of the
student populations are from minority communities.
It was a district also focused on compliance. It was a
district that did not take responsibility for student growth.
It was a district that essentially was not performing very
well, and enjoyed very low public confidence in it.
I would like to credit the Board of Education as the
instrument of the change in the district, because they
permitted us to do many things that most districts would not
have done, by assigning principals private sector contracts,
and doing away with tenure.
In Texas, we call it the Term Contract Non-Renewal Act,
which essentially says that at the end of your term contract,
it is the school system that has got to prove why we do not
want to renew it; abandoning that and putting all the
principals on private sector-style contracts that liken their
tenure to performance; outlining very clearly what the
expectation for each school is, and for each classroom, and for
each teacher and for each student, and measure that result
frequently, and using it in the evaluation.
It focuses on training, or finding out where teachers have
deficits in providing the quality, course-specific professional
development, so that they can improve; and reaching out to the
community, the business community, the non-profit community,
the faith community, and converting the district from a
district of ``them and us'' to ``our'' district; and probably
most of all, shedding ourselves of the non-instructional things
like food service, a lot of the building maintenance, custodial
work, to private vendors who do that work much better than we
were able to do it, at a smaller cost.
Now there were a lot of things, Congressman. But in
general, what we did was set high standards for students;
measure frequently the accountability at all levels; expand the
choice for parents and those kinds of principles; not specific
programs, but just broad principles that go across the whole
system.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary, you proved in the Houston
Independent School District the core concepts of the
President's program to stop funding failure, stop promoting
culture compliance, and to focus on achievement and
accountability, that those things work at the local level. You
did that with the support of the Board of the Houston
Independent School District, and with the help of the State
legislature. I was happy to be a part of that.
Could you please describe for the listening audience, the
teachers, educators, parents listening to your testimony today,
if the Congress adopts the President's program, what specific
changes will they expect to see in Federal programs, that they
are experiencing a lot of frustration with today?
Secretary Paige. We think there will be a cultural shift,
because the amount of data that will be generated on children
will be visible to the public. Once the public sees this data,
the public has a way of insisting on improvement. So what it
does, it adds visibility to the system.
You see, in the first place, for most people, nobody wants
to be substandard. So just defining the standard, in itself,
drives movement toward improvement. So arranging it so that the
public can become a player in the improvement situation is a
powerful, powerful stimulant for change.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. Clement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your new position.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Clement. I am a former college president and I am co-
Chair of the House Education Caucus. I am a strong believer in
public schools.
I believe very strongly that we need adequate facilities,
books, and teachers, both qualified and dedicated. Research
shows what parents already know: students learn best when they
are safe, in modern schools with smaller classes, with 21st
century technology.
I am very concerned about the administration's framework
when it comes to what some might characterize as gutting school
renovation and construction funding.
I walk in public schools, and it horrifies me to see the
deterioration of public schools around the country. It disturbs
me greatly that we are not going to do anything about it. I
want to know from you, is that a priority, under your
leadership, or what do you think we can do, to solve that
problem?
Secretary Paige. Yes, thank you; under our system,
schooling is essentially a State and local responsibility. The
Federal Government does have a role, however. That role is
providing resources, technical assistance, and help in
leadership initiatives.
Construction is an area that I think we will have to have
some more discussion about, to determine what part of this
matches with the Federal role. There is $1.2 billion set aside
for construction. We cannot be happy about that at all.
In 1998, according to a professional audit, $1.2 billion
was required to fix the Houston Independent School District;
just renovation, not new facilities. So it would not have been
a drop in the bucket, so to speak, in terms of the need for
construction in U.S. schools.
But there are some schools that the Federal Government has
a direct responsibility for. Those schools are schools that are
impacted by military installations that are nearby, and they
have to serve these military children. Indian schools are also
our direct responsibility.
These schools, I promise you, are in as bad a condition, or
maybe even worse condition, than the other schools that we are
talking about. So we believe we should first go there.
Mr. Clement. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am not totally
pleased with your response, but I do want to work with you
closely concerning that.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Clement. I am very concerned about our school
construction and renovation. I really think that should be a
higher priority of the Federal Government.
I also want to mention that Congressman Roy Blunt and I are
co-Chairs of the House Education Caucus. We are getting ready
to have a briefing and a conference on music education.
We feel very strongly that music education improves a
child's early cognitive development, basic math and reading
abilities, self-esteem, SAT scores, self-discipline, and
ability to work in teams, et cetera, and school attendance. I
would urge you to prioritize music and art funding in your
upcoming budget proposal.
I also want to mention to you, as well, about character
education. I was very pleased with President Bush's comments on
character education, recently. Americans are concerned about
the steady decline of our Nation's core ethical values,
especially among our children. I really feel like it will bring
down the violence that we have in the school system today.
Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas and myself have introduced
H.R. 613, the Character Learning and Student Success, or what
we call the ``CLASS Act.'' Character education has become a
national priority in the education reform debate.
I believe that the CLASS Act will bring national attention
to the importance and effectiveness of character education, and
will help schools create positive learning environments.
I would encourage you to include our legislation, the CLASS
Act, in any character education initiative that this
administration proposes. I think you will like it very, very
much.
I finally want to comment about financial aid. As I
mentioned to you, being a former college president, that is
very, very close to my heart.
We need supplemental education opportunity grants, Pell
grants, Federal work study, Perkins loans, and graduate
education programs. They all need to be funded at higher
levels. These are all worthy programs that make a real
different in students' lives.
What does the administration plan to do in the area of
financial aid for higher education?
Secretary Paige. There is going to be an increase in the
Pell grant program. I know that the number that I have right
now is $1 billion. We will know the details of that on the
third, but there will be an increase.
Mr. Clement. Mr. Secretary, I know you commented a little
while ago to Mr. Spratt, and I was a little concerned about
your response about how we would not have any numbers until
April 3, and I do not have the numbers, yet. I am not sure I
understand what you mean, ``I do not have the numbers, yet.''
I mean, are you going to get them from the staff, the OMB,
the Oval Office? I mean, how are we going to come up with those
numbers? It is real important for you, as Secretary of
Education, fighting for those education dollars, because those
kids need it.
Secretary Paige. You can count on me, on fighting for the
education program, as a whole, Congressman, and I will do that.
When I say that we do not have the numbers right now, I mean
the discussion is ongoing, and it is yet to be determined what
the specifics are. But we know now, at least $1 billion
increase in the Pell grant program can be counted on.
Mr. Clement. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Mr. Secretary, it sounded to me that you
left a job that was moving along very well to inherit a job
that needs a lot of work.
But at any rate, on a couple of comments that you had made,
I have to tell, I agree with. You had made the statement
earlier that public education is primarily the responsibility
of the State and local governments. I totally agree with that.
You also said that there is a role for the Federal
Government, from the standpoint of providing resources,
technical help, and so on. In my district in central
Washington, we are largely a rural district. Nearly 40 percent
of my schools, for example, are under 600 students.
Yet, the education funding is largely driven by a formula,
and the grants are largely competitive in nature. Both of those
work to the disadvantage of smaller districts, obviously,
because the formula would not justify more funding. The grants,
of course, based on a competitive model, make it pretty
difficult for smaller districts to compete.
What I would like to ask you is, the President's plan, if
it is implemented like you envision it, how would that help the
rural school districts, like those in my district?
Secretary Paige. It would help by taking many of the
categorical programs and consolidating them, especially those
that are overlapping and duplicative, and forming broader grant
programs for Federal funds, going directly to schools, school
districts, and to States.
In many small school districts, there is not adequate
funding to fund, say, a grant writer, a person who is there
just to develop grants, such as would be in the case of the
larger school system. That is going to be taken into account,
so that the access to these dollars from small and rural school
districts will be equal to the access for the other school
districts.
When the President says, ``No child left behind,'' he
includes small and rural school children, as well. So these
young people will be provided with the same types of access
that other urban school systems have.
Mr. Hastings. I have one other question, not related to
this. About 20 years ago, another legislator and I, when I was
in the State legislature, at the fear of creating more
paperwork, sent out a survey to a number of districts, large
and small, in Washington State, asking them to give us a cost
of compliance with paperwork. A lot of that was largely driven
by the Federal Government.
I forget the results of that, because it was nonscientific.
But the message that came back loud and clear was that there is
a huge, huge cost involved in that paperwork.
We have been attempting, in the last 6 years, at least as
far as the Federal involvement in education, to give power back
to the States and the local communities. With that idea in
mind, and if we are successful in doing so, and I hope we are,
would there be an effect on the number of employees within the
Federal Department of Education, here in Washington, D.C., if
we are devolving power, through them, back to the States?
Secretary Paige. Yes, there would be a definite impact on
that. Much of the categorical program costs result from
personnel. It has been estimated at that some State level
organizations, where States have the responsibility for the
compliance function in monitoring the progress of the schools
under those categorical grants, as much as 50 percent of the
personnel may be there exclusively to do that function.
Mr. Hastings. Good, well, that in itself, to me, is very,
very good news. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
Before we go to Mr. Davis, let me just take the Chair's
prerogative, and welcome a number of distinguished veterans,
who are visiting me from my district in Iowa and all across
Iowa. I would take that prerogative, and just welcome you.
We are talking about education, today. We are not quite
talking about the subject you came to talk about, but we will
get around to that. I appreciate you coming to Washington to
visit me today.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Paige. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Davis. You come to Washington heavily encumbered with
knowledge of the issues. That makes you a valuable addition to
the debate.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. I would like to first talk to you about the
testing issue. Testing, as you know, is a very powerful tool.
Like every tool, it can be successfully used and abused.
I will express to you my personal opinion that in Florida,
my home, we are having some serious problems with the
administration of the test.
It goes to two of the points that you have made. First, you
mentioned as a purpose of the test was to diagnose the student.
In Florida, that is really not the case, to the extent that it
needs to be.
I would further suggest to you that there is a tremendous
temptation for the politicians to use the test as a public
relations measure, in an irresponsible fashion.
So I really just want to urge you, as this debate goes
forward, to err on the side of caution, in terms of sending the
appropriate message to the States.
One, this test should be used for diagnostic purposes, as
testing was originally intended. Number two, we need to be very
careful about using the testing information in a responsible
fashion, as we communicate these results with the public.
Secretary Paige. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Davis. The second thing I want to bring up is school
construction. You have acknowledged the need to have a Federal
debate with respect to what our role should be.
I want to strongly urge you to consider the merits of the
Johnson-Rangel bill, an increasingly bipartisan bill in the
House, which you may already be familiar with, having served as
a school superintendent.
This bill jealously guards the prerogative of local control
to the school districts, while providing some very important
Federal assistance in the form of tax credits to districts like
the one you represented, and the district that I am from,
Tampa, that are just bursting at the seams.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. Davis. In my State, we are forced to rely upon raising
property taxes to fund school construction. Mr. Secretary, that
just is not going to happen. Property taxes are high enough
already, and you can only raise them through a referendum.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Davis. As we debate tax cuts, this is one important way
for us to help deal with one of the obstacles with class size
reduction, that I think you were probably alluding to earlier,
and that is the shortage of appropriate classroom space.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. Davis. In your testimony on page 10, you refer to a
proposal by the President to rely upon private activity bonds
for school construction.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. Davis. You have not talked about that, yet. I would
just like to mention to you that I think that may be a problem.
I do not think that either you or I would say that building
schools and keeping them is a private activity. It is certainly
a fundamental public responsibility.
I know in the school district that I represent in Tampa,
there is a concern that if we were to rely upon private
activity bonds, we would, in effect, be building special
schools, that private developers felt met their needs, but did
not necessarily meet the needs of our school children.
So I am very concerned that we may ultimately use private
activity bonds to deal with the construction problem, and I
would welcome any comments that you have on that, or the
Johnson-Rangel bill.
Secretary Paige. It is such a difficult and complex
problem, construction. Under a Department of Education study, a
couple of years ago, it was determined that there could be as
much as about $130 billion worth of needs out there.
This does not include, I think, new construction. Well, OK,
it is for growth; $1.2 billion was dedicated last year. We can
see how much of that problem is going to be solved by that.
So the administration suggested private activity bonds
primarily because we see other public facilities being
constructed that way: hospitals, airports, other construction
to serve public purposes are constructed using this strategy.
We wanted to investigate the potential for savings, in
terms of tax credits for school construction. So that is an
idea to be discussed. If there are some better ideas, we would
like to hear about those ideas.
But if there are $130 billion worth of need and $1.2
billion worth of resources, then we have got to make decisions
on where do we go and go get that part. There is going to be a
lot of need remaining, after we spend the $1.2 billion.
So that brings us to the question, is that the most
effective use of that $1.2 billion? That is the question that
we have to ask ourselves.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Secretary, I have been handed a document
that suggests that the $1.2 billion for aid for construction
that you have alluded to, under the President's proposed
budget, is being taken out of that funding source and being
used for special education or technology, instead.
Secretary Paige. No.
Mr. Davis. Is that correct?
Secretary Paige. No, that is not correct.
Mr. Davis. Good.
Secretary Paige. For the $1.2 billion that remains, the
flexibility is added to allow local decisions about whether or
not that portion of $1.2 billion will be used for construction,
or used for special education. They can make a decision on what
is the most effective use of the dollars.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Secretary, in the little time we have
remaining, to what extent do you intend to preserve the
prerogative of the States, as they develop the tests that I
alluded to earlier, to make sure that they put appropriate
emphasis on diagnosing where children are and how to help them
get to where they need to be, and otherwise administer a
quality program on their own terms?
Secretary Paige. Yes, we will insist on state-adopted
tests. We will monitor the development of these tests, in terms
of test quality. In terms of the implementation of the tests,
we will provide guidance, but not authority.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Secretary, I had a meeting in my community
last week, and had over 300 teachers and parents, who were
deeply concerned about how testing is occurring in Florida.
I hope that as you travel throughout the country, you will
take the opportunity to listen to those programs that are
working, and those that need some changes, so that we do not
contribute to the problem here in Washington, and we allow the
States to fix their own problems and move forward in a positive
way.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Mr. Hoekstra.
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Hoekstra. It is good to see you, again. You are making
your rounds on Capitol Hill, and we appreciate your openness
and your willingness to be here and talk about the President's
agenda for education.
When you were at the Education Work Force Committee, we
talked a little bit about the disappointing results that came
in from the independent auditors, again, that indicated that,
and I think it is for the third year in a row, the Department
of Education would have a failed audit.
The President's budget blueprint recognizes that fact, and
says, ``These failed audits indicate a potential for improper
use of Government resources.''
Over the last couple of years, there have been a number of
us that have been very concerned about the financial controls
within the Department of Education. We have criticized the
Department of Education as being particularly susceptible to
waste, fraud, and abuse.
I think you are probably aware, or are becoming aware, of
the thefts of agency funds that have occurred. There have been
other instances of waste, including the misprinting of several
million forms, erroneous awarding of Federal fellowships, and a
whole range of items that clearly indicate a lack of financial
system and, really, the integrity of the financial system,
within the Department of Education.
The President's budget calls for a significant increase in
the Department of Education. It has highlighted the waste, the
fraud, and the abuse, within the Department.
Have you had the opportunity to see reports, which may
indicate to you the amount of waste and fraud and abuse within
the department, that has occurred during the last 3 years of
failed audits; that if we get the proper financial controls in
place, those resources could actually be targeted to children
and to education? Do you have any kind of an estimate as to
what the loss may have been, over the last few years?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Congressman, I would hesitate to put a
number on that. But let me assure you that even before coming
to Washington, I had some concerns about that. Subsequent to
arriving here, those concerns have been heightened.
I have had a chance to read the audit, from Ernst & Young.
I do have some concerns that are deep concerns, and I do have
some ideas about how to approach that. I would welcome the
opportunity to have a chance to sit down and talk to you about
the specifics of it, because very shortly, I will take some
actions that will be aimed at addressing this very important
issue.
Mr. Hoekstra. Good, I mean, that is encouraging. Because I
do believe, and I think some of the other reports have
indicated, the numbers are in the hundreds of millions of
dollars that have been lost at the Department of Education,
over the last few years. I think the first thing we want to do
is make sure that we get those resources focused on our kids,
focused on getting them effectively into the classroom.
As we indicated when you were at the Education Work Force
Committee, I think the Education Work Force Committee and this
Budget Committee are ready, willing and able to provide you
with the resources that you feel that you need, to move this
department off the dime to a point where maybe when we come
back on September 30 of this year, and get an audit report in
2002, that we will have a clean audit.
I think you recognize, as well as we do, that if it takes
us too long to get to the point where we have the appropriate
financial systems in place, it then becomes your problem.
Secretary Paige. I am accurately aware of that.
Mr. Hoekstra. All right, thank you very much. I am looking
forward to working with you on passing the parts of the
education plan through the Education Work Force Committee.
Thank you.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
In our previous discussions, we talked about some of the
Federal role in education. You had spoken earlier about some of
those resources and technical help.
One area that it seems pretty clear that local school
districts need help with is in teacher recruitment, finding and
training excellent teachers.
No local school district can deal with, or no combination
of local school districts, can deal with the need for 2.2
million new teachers in the next 10 years; many of whom will
have to be trained in science and math and areas that I think
are very important to our children's development.
You mentioned a few minutes ago that you had $2.6 billion
for teacher quality. I wanted to understand that a little bit
better. Since we have to make some decisions and go to work
before April 3, I would like to know how much of that money is
new.
Considering that there is only about $2.1 billion new
dollars above the current appropriated amount that is in the
proposal, how much of the $2.6 billion for teacher quality is
new?
Secretary Paige. Most of it is a better use of the current
dollars that are there.
Mr. Holt. Do you have in mind, for this year or next year,
programs to assist in the recruitment of new teachers?
Secretary Paige. I do have some very firm ideas about that,
resulting from my 7-year experience as superintendent of
several of the largest school districts in the United States.
But a portion of this is going to be providing funding and
advice, depending on these decisions to be made at the school
or State level.
Personally, we believe that the teacher shortage is
related, in large measure, to the choke point that we use to
funnel teachers through to become part of the certification
process. We believe that broadening the pool of applicants, and
widening the choke points, so more people can come through,
will go a long way in dealing with this shortage.
Alternative certifications systems, this is not just
guesswork. Boston and the State of Massachusetts had a program
that provided a $20,000 incentive for people who come into the
teaching workforce to become teachers.
Upon some study by, I think, Susan Johnson at Harvard, it
was discovered that many of the people who came through that
system, did not come through because of the $20,000. They came
through because of the way around the certification process;
the shorter trip to the certification situation.
So some of this is just not a matter of dollars. It is a
matter of us looking at the system that we have imposed on it.
We are imposing these kinds of restraints that create our own
problem.
Mr. Holt. Well, I look forward to working with you on that.
Now once the teachers are recruited, there is the training
challenge. I was pleased to hear you say recently in our
Education Committee that you would be willing to consider the
provision that was in last year's Teacher Empowerment Act, that
would allow some funds to be specifically directed toward
science and math, since your plans would be to do away with the
Eisenhower Program, per se. I was pleased to hear about that.
Let us turn to another area, I think, where there is a
Federal role. This is following the lead of our Chair here and
others, dealing with special education.
I really want to understand where you think we are going
and should be going on this. As you know, for a couple of
decades now, there has been existing law that the Federal
Government would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of providing
this special education.
Now you are saying that there may be as much as $1.2
billion, I guess, additional for special education. As I see
that, that is money that could be devoted to school
modernization or special education.
Secretary Paige. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Holt. If all of that were devoted to special education,
in other words, we added the $1.2 billion to the $7.4 billion
that the Federal Government currently contributes to special
education, would the Federal Government have met its
obligation? Would we be doing all that we should be doing to
help the local school districts?
Secretary Paige. If we consider our obligation to be 40
percent of the funding that we promised, we would not be
anywhere near it.
Mr. Holt. OK, well, I guess I would argue then that we had
better step back and take a look at our budget here, then. If
we have a $10 billion obligation or, let us say, something like
$100 billion over the next 10 years, of Federal obligation in
special education, and it has been the law for 20 years, then
we are falling way short.
You know, I do not want to get into class warfare type talk
here. But if, in the President's tax cut, there is $555 billion
over 10 years for the top 1 percent, and only $40 billion over
10 years for all of education strengthening and reform, and
maybe $10 billion or $15 billion for special education, the
ratio is 13 times as much given to the top 1 percent of the
wage earners, as we are giving to new activities in education,
including meeting our obligation in special education.
When the President says he is here to ask us for a refund
for money that is left over, I think we have to look at what
our obligations are, before we determine what is left over.
It looks to me like we have an obligation that you just
said, that is on the order of $100 billion, just for special
education, and not even counting after-school programs; not
even counting teacher recruitment or teacher training or a
number of other needs that I can assure you the school board
members, the parents, and the teachers in my district will tell
you, they need help with.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I share in Congressman Holt's commitment to special
education. Under my predecessor in this office, Congressman
Porter, we had that 40 percent commitment to special education.
It was in the authorizing law, but we ignored it. We ignored it
for 25 years.
Under Mr. Porter's appropriations leadership, we increased
the percentage from 6 percent to 13 percent. We need to
continue on that road.
But I would say, with regard to providing tax relief to
Americans, the best education program is parents with a job. In
my district, we have got the announcement today of Motorola
firing 17,000 more employees. So the condition of this economy
is something of great concern.
I represent the best educated zip code in the nation, in
the 10th Congressional District of Illinois. We are so very
happy that you are our Secretary of Education, and are taking
over the helm.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Mr. Kirk. I was a teacher, in both nursery school and
middle school. For me, I did leave the teaching profession. But
if we had addressed some of the teacher development issues,
which I want to raise with you, I might have stayed, and it is
a concern.
But I want to raise another issue with you. We are so
worried about the condition of our country's military and
military pay, that it is taking top priority with us, and in
the President's budget.
But there is another aspect of this budget, which is
critical to the military family. I am very excited to see that
the President put education at the top of his budget funding.
There is a key program within the Department of Education
called ``Impact Aid.''
Ninety-three cents of every dollar supporting our schools
comes from raising local monies, from property taxes or State
taxes.
What happens if you cannot tax the housing where those kids
come from? In my district, the Great Lakes Naval Training
Center is home to 50,000 recruits, and we cannot tax that
housing, because it is Federal.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Kirk. So the Federal Government steps in and makes some
payments.
In the Glenview, Highland Park, and Waukegan school systems
in my district, we get some aid; but in places like the North
Chicago school system, 33 percent of the kids, in some cases,
are coming off of that Federal housing. So we really need to
look at Impact Aid.
Where did the Impact Aid numbers go in your budget; and can
you tell me your view on Impact Aid, and how it relates to the
military life and quality of the military family?
Secretary Paige. Well, first of all, we see that as a
direct Federal responsibility.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you.
Secretary Paige. We are responsible for that.
And if you survived middle school, I am very impressed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kirk. That is right. They were 10-year-olds, so they
were rambunctious.
Secretary Paige. The Military Impact on Schools Association
surveyed 20 of its members on their capital facilities finance
needs, and estimated a cost of about $310 million, to take care
of that. We estimate that it will cost approximately $50
million for the Indian lands and the condition of those.
So those are some very important direct responsibilities
for the Federal Government. We are trying to address those in
``No Child Left Behind.''
Mr. Kirk. For us, previously in the administration, the
Impact Aid Program could sometimes be described as the red-
headed stepchild of the budget. I want to make sure that as we
are concerned about the military family and military pay
increase, that we are also concerned about their kids, and
increasing the Impact Aid payments, and removing some of the
bureaucracy.
Dr. Pickles, at the North Chicago school system, reports to
me that she has got five or six full-time people, just working
on the Federal paperwork, to keep the money flowing. I want to
work with you to improve that situation, because these kids,
who are the hopes of their military families, are so important
to us, and their condition.
Turning to teacher development--or the lack thereof--that
is one of the main reasons why I left the teaching profession.
We have to look at the form, duration, participation and
content of that teacher development. There is some exciting
work happening in England on this, under Prime Minister Blair.
Can you give me your overall view on teacher development,
and where we ought to go?
Secretary Paige. Yes, we, as a matter of fact, had a
conversation by telephone with Mr. Blair's education person,
just yesterday. We talked about some corroboration in learning
more about each other's systems.
We think our greatest deficit in teacher preparation has to
do with the content-specific capability on the part of
teachers; a teacher training that empowers teachers and
develops skills in their specific content, especially math,
science, history, and courses like that.
We are appealing to the universities and other alternative
delivery system, to provide some corroboration and guidance in
the development of teachers. We are showing some successful
models and encouraging them to adopt them.
Mr. Kirk. That is good. One of the school systems that I
taught in was the Inner London Education Authority. Some of the
new work happening over there, I think, is quite exciting and I
am glad you are in touch with the Prime Minister's staff on
that.
For us in the 10th District, education is our ``secret
weapon.'' We have the First in the World School Consortium. For
many of our kids, we outrank any other country in performance
on standardized tests, but we want to keep it that way.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Mr. Kirk. Then in some of the other schools, which depend
on Impact Aid, we have got to bring them up to that standard.
I do want to share Congressman Clement's commitment to the
character education, which is so important in the Glenview and
Arlington Heights school systems. I hope you keep that in mind.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
welcome to our committee today. I appreciate your being here
and your testimony.
I am from Kansas, and I want to add my voice to the chorus
of voices you have heard today in support of full funding for
IDEA special education.
To that end, I wrote a letter to then President-elect Bush
on January 5, asking that he put into his administration's
budget full funding at the 40 percent level of special
education.
I think there is a growing consensus in Congress, and I
think it is about time that we have this growing consensus in
Congress, to finally live up to the promise that Congress made
25 years ago, and in which Congress has failed every year since
then, for 25 years. This should not be a partisan issue at all.
When we talk about ``No Child Left Behind,'' we should be
ashamed of ourselves if we leave behind some of the most
vulnerable in our society, and those are children with special
needs. That absolutely should not happen, when we are talking
about an era of surplus or projected surplus, and when we are
talking about huge cuts.
I supported tax cuts last year. I will vote for tax cuts
again this year; but that should not be the choice between huge
tax cuts and full funding for special education. I hope you
will take back to the President what has been said by the
members of this committee, Republicans and Democrats today, who
support full funding for education, Mr. Secretary.
My staff, I believe, forwarded to you a letter received
from the Olathe United School District 233 of Kansas. Dr.
George, who is the assistant superintendent of schools, raises
several concerns in there.
I just wanted to really talk to you, I guess, about a
couple of them. We certainly do not have time to review each of
these concerns, but special education is one. I wanted to ask
you just about a couple of others, I guess, very quickly here.
He says in his letter, ``We have questions concerning
annually testing every child in grades three through eight. Our
State has a comprehensive system of testing. We do not believe
that this extra testing will translate into learning. We are
already testing, and the scores are published in the newspapers
and in each school's report card. We would suggest that States
be given some flexibility about which grades to test and how
many grades to test. We believe the excessive reliance on State
tests and Federal tests is a bit of overkill.''
Mr. Secretary, I guess my question about this is, how would
the President's education plan take into account and treat
States like Kansas, that already have a quality testing program
in place? Can you give us some insight there, sir?
Secretary Paige. Yes, first of all, we are not asking the
States to abandon what they have done, and start all over
again. We are, however, asking States to develop very crisp,
clear curriculum standards and very clear performance standards
for students. The measurement should be against those
standards, to determine the extent of achievement or
nonachievement against those standards.
We would be in firm disagreement with the superintendent's
idea here. It appears that he is viewing testing, the way we
are presenting it, as an appendage to the education system.
That is not the way we view it. We think testing is the
other side of the coin of teaching. Teaching, absent testing,
is teaching in the dark. We do not believe that students can go
several years before we know that.
For example, standards research from Tennessee indicates
that teacher effectiveness is the primary detriment of whether
or not students learn. Teachers' effect on student achievement
has been found to be both additive and cumulative, with little
evidence that subsequent effective teachers can make up for
ineffectiveness, earlier.
So we find that we cannot afford to go 2 years to find out
whether or not the instruction has been ineffective. It may be,
as evidence suggests, that this deficit that has been created
there is beyond remediation.
Our idea about testing is measuring the extent to which the
standards that the States themselves have set are being
achieved. If they are not being achieved, we need to know
immediately, so we can help the school develop some type of
effectiveness, or help the teacher, or whoever.
Mr. Moore. Thank you for answering that question. I will
relay that information to Dr. George.
I wanted to make a comment to you. I noticed in the
President's State of the Union Address, or at least his address
to the Joint Session of Congress, that he mentioned a loan
forgiveness program for new teachers.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Moore. Last year, I introduced H.R. 687, called the
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, which I have
reintroduced at this time.
I guess I would ask you, and I do not frankly care whether
it is my bill and I get credit for it, but I think, result-
wise, we need to do something like that. Essentially, what my
bill does is encourage this, and I got this idea, and I did not
come with the idea myself.
I asked a group of students over in Lawrence, Kansas, last
year, how many of these 25 students had considered going into
teaching, and six raised their hands. I said, ``How many of the
six of you who raised your hands actually intend to do it?''
Two raised their hands.
I said, ``For the other of you, why would you not?'' One
said, ``Because of the way teachers are treated in the
classroom.'' One other student said, ``Because I can make a lot
more money doing something else besides teaching.''
What this bill would do is provide loan forgiveness up to
$10,000, which I think woefully inadequate, but at least it is
a start, for somebody who gets in and actually teaches for 5
years. It would be over a graduated basis, over the 5 years.
I hope that you will look at that bill, or some similar
bill, and ask the President to provide his support for that. I
think this would at least provide some incentive to these
people who get in.
I have seen the best of teachers in our district. Frankly,
they are not teaching for the money; but they certainly need
some assistance and some financial help. I think that goes a
long way to helping them pay off their education loans. I would
hope that you and/or the President would support a concept like
this.
Secretary Paige. We will be happy to take a look at it.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, sir, very much.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Ms. Clayton.
Ms. Clayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary. I am glad you are there. I want to pledge to be as
cooperative and as encouraging for you to achieve your
commitment to education. Also, your pledge to the President's
commitment that ``no child should be left behind.''
To that goal, there seems to be some contradiction in terms
of allocating resources to meet the goal that no child should
be left behind.
I have three questions. First, I want to follow up on the
question of the Impact Aid. I used to have two facilities that
were military in my district. I now have one. Always, there is
not enough money. Can you answer specifically how much money is
proposed in the budget for Impact Aid?
Secretary Paige. I must apologize, but I am unable to
answer specifically, because that information will not be
available until April 3.
Ms. Clayton. But in your framework, there is an allocation.
Is it something like $700 million?
Secretary Paige. There is $62 million there for
construction, but that is limited to that aspect of it.
Ms. Clayton. Oh, OK, that is only construction?
Secretary Paige. That is right.
Ms. Clayton. Well, the figure I was given was inadequate,
and that figure is even more inadequate. So the Impact Aid
includes more than construction?
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Ms. Clayton. It has curriculum and other things?
Secretary Paige. That is right.
Ms. Clayton. If you could get that exact number to us
before April 3, that would be helpful. I think it is floating
around there somewhere.
Secretary Paige. We will get the information that we have
to you. We will do it as early as tomorrow. We will not get the
April 3 information until April 3, but the information that we
have now, we will get to as early as we can.
Ms. Clayton. OK, well, just get what you have now. That
would be good.
I want to talk about teacher development. I know that a lot
has been said. I was really impressed with our young colleague,
who had been a young male teacher, both in elementary and
middle school. I, like you, am always elated to see young
people go into education.
Recently, I attended a conference about teachers and the
quality of teachers. The teacher development is in two parts.
Many of the educational institutions themselves began to
question the accountability as shown only in testing,
particularly the kind of testing that we have.
They are not suggesting that you should not have testing.
What they are suggesting is that the emphasis should be made in
teaching a core curriculum that has basic standards in science
and math and analysis that allow young people to compete for
the 21st century.
Testing is a more relevant exercise of whether the schools
are being accountable in preparing our students; rather than a
test for the test's sake. Many of the tests are now tests for
the test's sake. There is a whole industry around ``getting
prepared for that test'' as you well know.
But in rural areas, where I come from, the recruitment has
to be placed. Otherwise, I am unable, in the rural communities
that we have, to find incentives. Therefore, we will always be
behind. Now in construction, we do not have the tax base. We
certainly do not have the tax base to give supplements.
So we need, as my colleague was saying, not only the
forgiveness of loans, but incentives for relocation, incentives
for housing, and incentives for a number of things that
compensate for not getting the big salaries that you can pay in
your district rather than in my district, and I know you want
more.
So is there any sensitivity to the rural communities and
the gap being even wider there? Since I mentioned the gap, it
is also wider in terms of access to the Internet in reference
to teaching through the utilization of the information
technology. All of that enhances our students' ability to be
competitive in the 21st century. I wish you would speak on
that.
Secretary Paige. Yes, I would be very pleased to. We are
very sensitive about rural and small systems, because they have
children, too. When we say, ``No Child Left Behind,'' we mean
those, as well. So the language will be such that it provides
access to these dollars for these smaller systems.
You brought up what I think to be the wave of tomorrow in
assisting with situations like this, and that is the
technology.
Even in urban systems like our own in Houston, we found
that to be a wonderful way to get resources to students who
otherwise would not have it.
For example, students who were interested in taking courses
for which we could not find teachers, instead of transporting
them all across the city by bus to a place or a school where
they did have that course, we could bring the course to them,
through the Internet. That is going to provide, I think, wide
access to small and rural systems in the future.
Ms. Clayton. But the schools have to be wired in order to
get that.
Secretary Paige. That is right. We are also making
provisions in our technology initiatives to be able to assist
with that.
Ms. Clayton. Have you increased your technology and your
centers of excellence, or are you decreasing them?
Secretary Paige. We have combined it, so that it will give
more flexibility to the people on the scene, to be able to make
their customized decisions about how to use those dollars.
Ms. Clayton. I know about the flexibility, but how about
increasing the dollars? Did you actually increase dollars for
the community centers of excellence?
Secretary Paige. I will try to get a specific answer. We
are not talking about the e-rate. We are just talking about the
ones in our department. Let me get that information for you. I
do not have it, at this moment.
Ms. Clayton. OK, and you were about to offer something
else, which is equally important. As a superintendent, you know
the e-rate indeed was a part of that. So what is happening to
our e-rate to compliment that?
Secretary Paige. We are in the process, at the moment, of
combining the e-rate with this consolidation issue.
Ms. Clayton. Bringing that in?
Secretary Paige. It is just changing it, as it is presently
operating. There was some thought about consolidating it with
many of the programs that are in the Department of Education.
That discussion is discontinued.
Ms. Clayton. Would it mean that my schools will have access
to the money or not?
Secretary Paige. The eligibility has not been changed. So
the eligibility would be the same. If your schools were
eligible in the first place, they will still be.
Ms. Clayton. Yes, they were.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me add my word of welcome. I would like
to raise some questions with you, if I might, about teacher
recruitment and training, and revisit briefly also the Pell
grant and Title I issues in this limited time that we have
here.
I do want to lead with teacher recruitment and training,
though. Like other members, I see a huge need out there in our
country in the next decade. We are going to have to recruit 2.5
million teachers; 80,000 in North Carolina, alone. I must say,
I do not know where those are coming from, and I do not believe
anybody else does, either.
You mentioned in your response to Mr. Holt the need to make
this certification process less cumbersome. We would be
interested in your ideas on that.
It does strike me that there is a much more fundamental
issue here. That is that the teaching career is not appealing
to young people as they undertake their education.
I had an experience very similar to Mr. Moore's in my
district with a couple hundred honor students in a
predominantly African American liberal arts college. I asked
them how many had even considered teaching a career, and four
hands went up out of 200.
There are some programs in the States that have attempted
to deal with this. In North Carolina, we have the Teaching
Fellows Program. I am pleased to see that our new Governor,
even in a time of great budget difficulty, is proposing
expanding the Teaching Fellows Program.
This program identifies high school seniors, and offers
them not just scholarship assistance, but also an
extracurricular program that, throughout their undergraduate
career, firms up that professional identity as a teacher. That
program has produced thousands of good teachers, and has had
great success.
I have introduced legislation called the Teaching Fellows
Act, which would aim to encourage and expand such programs, or
replicate them in other States and to reach into the community
colleges, where I think often people who are training as
teaching assistants or day care workers or others might be
encouraged to go for the full 4 years.
Secretary Paige. Right.
Mr. Price. We have got to find teachers in some new places.
We have got to, not just give them financial support, but other
kinds of support to meet this crying national need.
I wonder what your thoughts are about the way the Federal
Government might participate here. I notice in your budget, you
have $2.6 billion for teacher training and recruitment.
You have said here today, that is mainly to continue
existing kinds of activities, with the class size reduction and
the Eisenhower professional development programs. On another
day, we can have a debate about the desirability of telescoping
those two programs, or giving the States more flexibility on
that.
What concerns me more about that budget figure is the sin
of omission. I do not see much in the way of a new thrust here
in teacher recruitment and training. I wonder what your
thoughts are about that. In particular, might the Federal
Government encourage programs like these teaching fellow
programs in the States?
Secretary Paige. Well, I think the quality of these
different programs should be judged by the people on the scene.
If the programs are judged to be effective, they should have
the flexibility from the Federal Government to fund those
programs and to put them in place.
I think that the teacher shortage situation is related to
the regulations that govern it. In our own district in Houston,
the alternative certification system produced a large number of
teachers; people who had gone into the work place, but decided
later to change professions and go into teaching.
As a Dean of a college of education for 10 years, that
supplied 25 percent of the teachers that worked in this system,
I arrived at a point where more than 50 percent of our teacher
candidates were people coming from other professions, and
returning to become certified to go into teaching.
We may have to reshape our thinking about this somewhat;
and maybe our great pool of teacher candidates will not be
found in the 18 to 24-year-old population that we now see as
going to college and deciding early on to go into teaching.
It may be that those going into the workplace, deciding
that they are not fulfilled by the kind of jobs that they have,
and they decide to make a change and to come into teaching.
Wendy Colp, with Teach for America, also is another place
to look. She seems to be successful in going out to recruit
young people, just coming out of college, and even those who
had given no thought at all to coming into teaching.
Of the 200 or so Teach for America students that we use
each year in the Houston Independent School District, if you
had asked those 200 people, when they were going into that
freshman year, which of those wanted to be teachers, none of
them would have raised their hands. But after they came into
the teaching workforce, about 50 percent of them stayed.
Mr. Price. I appreciate that observation, Mr. Secretary. I
do think that you are right. We are going to have to look for
teachers in new places.
I also think, though, that there are some promising State-
level programs that do aim at those undergraduates, and
encourage them to consider a teaching career. I would hope that
we could give some encouragement to that effort, as well.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely, we will.
Mr. Price. Let me move on and ask you to revisit the Pell
grant issue. I understand you are looking at a $1 billion
increase in Pell grants, overall.
How much would that allow us to increase the maximum grant?
I understand the CBO has estimated that it would permit maybe a
$150 increase in the maximum grant. Is that correct?
That would compare, of course, to the current increase of
$450, in the current year. I just wonder if that is adequate.
What are your goals for Pell grants, after all? Is $1 billion,
permitting a $150 increase, this administration's last word on
this subject for the coming fiscal year?
Secretary Paige. I cannot say that it is the last word. I
know that it is the information that we have now. The last word
would be made available to us on April 3.
Mr. Price. Is it correct to say the $1 billion that is
currently proposed in your budget would permit approximately a
$150 increase in the maximum grant?
Secretary Paige. I am not certain of that. I will get that
information and get it to you tomorrow, but I do not know that
to be true, right now. I have asked both of these scholars, and
neither of them could tell me.
Mr. Price. All right, my understanding is that CBO has made
that estimate. I would appreciate your clarifying that.
Secretary Paige. We will clarify that. Mr. Price. I will
have a couple of other questions for the record, which I would
appreciate your attending to.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Secretary, this has been, I think, a
great presentation. We really appreciate your testimony here
today.
Let me just tell you that both you and President Bush have
set a pretty tough goal. I mean, you did not say, ``as many
kids as possible not left behind.'' You did not say, ``the
highest percentage we have ever had not left behind.''
You did not say, ``You know, we are going to work very
hard, and except for maybe the real tough cases not left
behind.'' You and the President said, and we agree, that in
this country, no child should be left behind. I have got to
tell you, that is a tough goal.
We appreciate not having all of the typical qualifications
put on a goal. It is a difficult one. We stand ready to be a
partner with you and the administration to try to achieve that
goal, because it is an important one for our future.
Just based on your testimony here today and the chance to
visit with you, I want to wish you all the best. I am proud to
have you at the helm to lead us to achieve this goal, and I
appreciate your testimony.
Secretary Paige. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity. We also are continuing to invite your thoughts
about it and members of the committee. So call our office, and
we can have dialogue on any issue that they feel so fit.
Chairman Nussle. Well, you saw today there, we are not shy.
We gave you a number of ideas, particular in IDEA, and we
appreciate your consideration of them as we move forward. We
look forward to working with you.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you very much.
Chairman Nussle. This is the continuation of the hearing on
the President's budget for education.
We have three distinguished witnesses before us from the
second panel. Chester Finn is the John M. Olin fellow at the
Manhattan Institute and President of the Thomas Fordham
Foundation, of which he is also a trustee; he is a
distinguished visiting fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution
and he is on leave from the faculty at Vanderbilt University
where he has been a professor of Education and Public Policy
since 1981. We welcome you and appreciate your being with us
today.
Lisa Keegan is also with us today. She is serving her
second term as Arizona's superintendent of public instruction,
right on the front line of what we have been talking about here
today. In this capacity, she maintains general oversight of
Arizona's annual $4.5 billion public education efforts for
students in K-12. In addition, she serves on the State's Boards
for Universities, Colleges and Charter Schools.
We also will have with us momentarily the ranking member of
the Education and Work Force Committee, the Honorable George
Miller of California, who is well known in the United States
Congress and the public as a leading advocate on behalf of
education issues. We look forward to his testimony as well.
Why don't we begin with Mr. Finn. We will put your entire
statement in the record and during your time, we would ask you
to summarize and give us your best advice here today. We
appreciate your attendance. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHESTER FINN, JOHN M. OLIN FELLOW, MANHATTAN
INSTITUTE AND PRESIDENT, THOMAS FORDHAM FOUNDATION
Mr. Finn. Thank you.
It is an honor to be on deck today with Ron Paige, Lisa
Keegan and George Miller, three great education reformers. I
notice that Secretary Paige was praised earlier for not being a
theoretician. I guess I am guilty, at least in large parts of
my life, of being a theoretician. I apologize and beg the
committee's indulgence.
I think it is important to remind ourselves as we commence
scrutiny of the fiscal 2002 education budget that the Federal
Government is very much the junior partner in American
education. This is exasperating to some who would like Uncle
Sam to be in the driver's seat but that is not where he is. As
a result, I think a little humility is in order with respect to
what Washington can accomplish in this field.
In elementary and secondary education, there are really
just a few areas where Uncle Sam tends to call the shots,
notably in special education, much discussed today, civil
rights enforcement, and in the areas of research, assessment
and statistics. Everywhere else, the Federal role is
supplemental, even peripheral.
The hard reality is that many of these supplemental
programs, to everybody's great regret, accomplish very little
besides the expenditure of tax dollars for worthy-sounding
purposes. They are ineffective. In some cases, such as the big
Title I Program, they have been ineffective for decades,
despite the billions spent on them. The same is true of the so-
called Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, the Bilingual
Education Program, the Regional Educational Laboratories, and I
could continue.
By ineffective, what I mean is that these programs are not
accomplishing their stated purposes. They are spending money,
to be sure, giving people jobs, sometimes doing perfectly nice
things for kids, like furnishing after-school programs, but
they are not bringing about the primary results their creators
had in mind or that their rhetoric implies they are
accomplishing.
There is not a shred of evidence that America's schools are
safer or freer from drugs as a result of the Federal program
dedicated to this worthy cause. Kids are not learning English
better or faster because of the bilingual education dollars.
Particularly lamentable, in my view, is the 36-year failure of
the Title I Program to narrow the achievement gap between
disadvantaged youngsters and their better-off classmates.
Narrowing or eliminating that gap and thus helping to boost
poor children out of poverty was the goal of President Johnson
and the Congress in 1965 when they enacted the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act with Title I as its centerpiece.
Thirty-six years later, the Title I Program, now much larger,
has accomplished next to nothing by way of gap narrowing and
achievement boosting.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think we can begin to
understand why. I think we can look at the assumptions that
were in the minds of the Congress and the President in 1965,
assumptions that might have made sense then, but seem plainly
wrong today and I think go far toward explaining why Title I
and so many other programs have actually accomplished so little
and why they need radical overhaul.
Three assumptions are worth unpacking. First, it was
assumed in 1965 that pumping additional dollars into schools
and school systems would cause better academic results.
Unfortunately, we know today that you can't take for granted
that that kind of connection will occur.
Secondly, it was assumed that States and districts were
both incompetent and untrustworthy when it came to the
education of poor and minority children. Instead of being given
additional money to spend as they saw fit, they were given it
in the form of categorical programs that spelled out exactly
where and how it must be spent. This is what led to the culture
of compliance that Secretary Paige spoke about.
Third, it was assumed that the proper way to distribute
Federal dollars was to hand them to public school systems on
the basis of demographic and geographic formulas. Nobody
thought to distribute the money directly to the eligible
children or to specify that it go to the schools in which they
were studying rather than the districts where they live.
Congress changed this assumption in 1972 for higher
education when it adopted the principle of aiding the student
rather than the institution. It has never been changed at the
K-12 level, however, even though today millions of children go
to schools other than the public schools in their
neighborhoods.
Those three assumptions were written into law in 1965 and
remain true central features of Federal K-12 policy today. Yet,
it seems to me the world has changed since 1965 and since 1975
when the Special Education Program was enacted.
Children now attend many different sorts of schools in many
different places. States are leading America's education
reform. Academic achievement is everyone's focus. We know all
too well that pouring more resources into one end of this pipe
does not necessarily boost the learning that emerges from the
other end.
Our Federal education policies represent a museum of
antiquated assumptions and archaic practices. Is it any wonder
that so few of our programs are effective, that so many are
ineffective? To his credit, President Bush has proposed to
change much of this. The sweeping reforms enumerated in his No
child Left Behind package would go a long way toward bringing
Federal education policy into the 21st century, modernizing the
assumptions underlying those programs and changing their
practices.
I especially salute its focus on academic results rather
than inputs and the ways that he would empower districts and
schools to concentrate on what they are accomplishing rather
than on compliance with innumerable rules.
The President's budget appears to put more money into the
areas he thinks need it most but he does so with the
expectation that the necessary program reforms will be made
before these additional monies are spent. It seems to me this
is the centerpiece of attention today.
If the program reforms he has suggested and perhaps some
other reforms get made in time, then the additional money will
be worth spending in fiscal 2002. If they do not get made,
frankly much of that money will not be worth spending, except
perhaps as fiscal relief for States and districts, which is not
a bad thing to do but doesn't cause children to learn more.
If the programs remain substantially unchanged, I think we
should be honest, they did not produce the desired results
yesterday, they are not producing the desired results today,
and simply adding more money tomorrow will not alter that sad
fact. We need to understand the main reason they are not
accomplishing what we would like: they rest on these outdated
and incorrect assumptions about how the world works.
Let us change the assumptions and the ground rules before
expecting money spent on these programs to be a good investment
in the improvement of children's learning.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Chester E. Finn, Jr. follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chester E. Finn, Jr., John M. Olin Fellow,
Manhattan Institute and President, Thomas Fordham Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
As you know, the Administration has not yet made detailed program-
by-program budget recommendations for fiscal 2002. It has, however,
indicated the order of magnitude of the spending that it proposes for
education in general and the U.S. Department of Education in
particular; it has spelled out its top priorities in this area; and it
has given specifics for certain programs. It is time, therefore, for a
preliminary appraisal.
Let's remind ourselves that the Federal Government's involvement
with and spending on education go a lot farther than the Education
Department's budget. Hundreds of education programs are scattered far
and wide across the executive branch. Obvious examples include the Head
Start program in H.H.S., the billions that flow into biomedical
research in U.S. universities via the National Institutes of Health,
and the many science and math education programs at the N.S.F. Less
obvious examples include the Defense Department's overseas schools, the
Agriculture Department's graduate school, and various of the Labor
Department's job training programs.
It's important also to remind ourselves that, despite this far-
flung array of programs and activities and the sizable sums spent on
them, the Federal Government remains very much the junior partner in
U.S. education. This is frustrating to people--including more than a
few Members of Congress and the Executive Branch--who would like for
Uncle Sam to be in the education driver's seat. But that's not where he
is or ever has been and, barring major rewritings of both the Federal
constitution and fifty state constitutions, that's not where he is
going to be tomorrow. A little humility is therefore in order with
respect to what Washington can accomplish in education. With trivial
exceptions, the Federal Government runs no schools, hires no teachers,
publishes no textbooks, grades no kids, sets no graduation
requirements, and awards no diplomas. Those are state, local and
school-specific decisions about which Uncle Sam has surprisingly little
to say.
Washington has involved itself on the periphery of education,
however, since the Civil War, when Uncle Sam began to gather education
statistics and subsidize the creation of land-grant universities. Over
almost a century and a half since then, myriad programs have
proliferated. Most of them seek to use Federal dollars to induce
schools, school systems, states or universities to do something
different than they otherwise would do, whether that's create drug-
abuse prevention programs, supply extra help to low income children,
investigate the causes of cancer, underwrite the development of new
middle-school math and science curricula, or assist with the start-up
costs of charter schools.
In K-12 education, there are just a few areas where Uncle Sam has
become the senior partner, notably in special education, civil rights
enforcement, and research, assessment and statistics. In higher
education, of course, Washington plays a central role in aiding low-
income students and paying for scientific research. Essentially
everywhere else, however, the Federal role is supplemental and, for the
most part, peripheral.
The hard reality is that many of these programs accomplish very
little besides the expenditure of tax dollars for worthy-sounding
purposes. They are, in a word, ineffective. In some cases, such as
Title I, they've been ineffective for decades. They've been ineffective
despite the billions of dollars expended on them. The same is true of
the so-called Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. The same is true of
the Bilingual Education program. And it's true of such small but
persistent programs as the Regional Educational Laboratories. In fact,
I could suggest a very long list.
By ``ineffective,'' I mean above all that these programs are not
accomplishing their stated purposes. They are spending money, giving
people jobs, sometimes doing perfectly nice things for children and
schools, but they're not bringing about the results that their creators
sought or that their rhetoric implies they are accomplishing. There is
not a shred of evidence, for example, that America's schools are safer
or freer from drugs as a result of the Federal program dedicated to
this worthy cause. Kids are not learning English better or faster as a
result of Federal bilingual dollars. (Indeed, a case can be made that
those dollars slow down their English acquisition.) Particularly
lamentable is the 36-year failure of the Title I program to narrow the
achievement gap between disadvantaged youngsters and their better-off
classmates.
Inadequate academic achievement is, after all, the premier problem
in American primary/secondary education, and the gap between rich and
poor children is an especially vexing manifestation of it.
Narrowing or eliminating that gap, and thus helping to boost poor
children out of poverty, was the goal of President Johnson and the
Congress in 1965 when they enacted the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), including its hallmark Title I program. (It was
also the primary rationale for Head Start, originally part of the War
on Poverty.)
Thirty-six years later, Title I, though much larger, has
accomplished next to nothing by way of achievement-boosting and gap-
narrowing. The main thing it's proven really good at is augmenting the
budgets of nearly every school system in the land. Another thing it
does well is tying state and local officials in knots of red tape. But
it's not good at closing the rich-poor learning gap.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see three big assumptions
that President Johnson and the Congress made about Title I in 1965,
assumptions that might have made sense then but that seem to me plainly
wrong today and that go far toward explaining why the program has
accomplished so little and suggesting how it should be changed before
more billions are poured into it.
First, it was assumed in 1965 that pumping additional dollars into
schools and school systems would cause better results to come out of
them. Instead of focusing on the results, Congress focused on the
inputs, taking for granted that improved achievement (or other desired
changes) would follow. Regrettably, we now know that this simply isn't
true.
Second, it was assumed in 1965 that states and districts were both
incompetent and untrustworthy, especially when it came to the education
of poor and minority children. So instead of being given additional
money to spend as they judged best, they were given it in the form of
``categorical'' programs that spelled out exactly where and how it must
be spent. Today, I submit, the real energy for education reform in this
country is coming from states and localities, yet their Federal dollars
remain tied up in categorical programs that often get in the way of
their own priorities and programs.
Third, it was assumed in 1965 that the proper way to distribute
Federal dollars was to hand them to public school systems on the basis
of demographic formulas focused on how many children of one kind or
another lived within the geographic boundaries of those systems. Nobody
thought to distribute the money to the needy (or otherwise eligible)
children themselves or to specify that it should go to the schools that
they actually attend rather than the districts where they live.
Congress fundamentally changed this assumption for higher education in
1972, when it resolved to aid students rather than institutions. But it
has never been changed at the K-12 level, even though today millions of
children go to schools other than the public schools in their
neighborhoods. Today, however, their Federal aid doesn't accompany them
to their charter school, their magnet school, their open-enrollment
public school in another neighborhood or district, their cyber school,
their home school or their private school. Because, it turns out, the
aid isn't really theirs. It's still the school system's. Thus millions
of low-income children receive no Title I aid at all.
Those three big assumptions--to focus on inputs rather than
results, to mistrust the states and keep the Federal aid dollars
tightly wrapped in categories, and to fund institutions rather than
children--remain central features of Federal K-12 policy today.
Yet the world has changed since 1965 when E.S.E.A. was enacted and
since 1975 when the predecessor of I.D.E.A. was enacted. Children now
attend many different sorts of schools in many different places. States
are now leaders of education reform. Academic achievement (or ``value
added '') is where everyone's focus is. And we know all too well that
pouring more resources into one end of this pipe does not necessarily
increase or improve the learning that emerges from the other end.
Our Federal education policies, in short, represent a museum of
antiquated assumptions and archaic practices. Is it any wonder that
most Federal education programs are not very effective?
To his great credit, President Bush has proposed to change much of
this. The sweeping reforms enumerated in his ``No Child Left Behind''
package would go a long way toward bringing Federal education policy
into the 21st century, modernizing the assumptions underlying the
programs and changing their practices as well. No, it doesn't deal with
everything--such as the sorely needed overhaul of I.D.E.A.--and it
doesn't go as far as I would wish in some areas, such as funding
children rather than institutions. But it makes huge strides,
particularly in its focus on academic results rather than inputs, and
in the ways it would empower states, districts and schools to
concentrate on what they're accomplishing rather than compliance with
myriad rules.
The President is a consistent man. His education policy package
closely traces his campaign statements and proposals. He's doing
exactly what he said he would if elected. As I read it, his 2002 budget
also tracks those policies and priorities, as it should. It puts more
money into the areas that he thinks need it most and does so with the
expectation that the necessary program reforms will be made in time to
govern the actual expenditure of these dollars when the next fiscal
year rolls around. As has been widely noted, the President's 2002
budget also contemplates larger increases in education than in any
other area. This, too, reflects his priorities, notably his belief that
fixing our K-12 education system is America's most urgent domestic
priority.
If the program reforms that he has suggested--and perhaps some
others--get made in time by Congress, the additional money will be
worth spending. If they don't, frankly, much of that money won't be
worth spending except as simple fiscal relief for states and districts.
There are, of course, some areas where we can be reasonably sure the
money will produce the intended result. I'm thinking of small programs
operated directly by the Federal Government, such as the National
Assessment of Educational Progress; of programs designed simply to
transfer resources to people in the form of enhanced education
purchasing power, such as Pell grants; and of programs where the mere
expenditure of Federal dollars helps something promising to happen that
otherwise would be harder, such as the creation of more charter
schools. Even here, though, we should take care not to become
softheaded or take too much for granted. What we should most want to
know about Pell grant recipients, for example, is not how many of them
attend college but how much they learn there, how much value their
college experience adds to them. And excited as I am by charter
schools, at the end of the day we want to know not just how many of
them there are but how much and how well their students are learning.
What concerns me most, however, are the big elementary-secondary
programs such as Title I, where we cannot count on anything much
happening as a result of the Federal dollars being spent, and the
I.D.E.A. program, whose noble purpose often blinds us to the problems
that beset it. These are examples of programs in urgent need of basic
rethinking and reworking so that we can have a greater confidence that
the dollars spent on them will yield the desired results.
This is why I say that, if major reforms such as the President has
proposed actually get enacted, then the additional investments he has
called for--perhaps even more--will be worth making. If the programs
remain substantially unchanged, however, we need to be honest with
ourselves. They did not produce the desired result yesterday. They are
not producing it today. And simply adding more money tomorrow won't
alter that glum fact. We need to understand that the main reason they
aren't accomplishing what we would like is that they rest on out-dated
and erroneous assumptions. Let's change their assumptions and their
ground rules before expecting money spent on them to be a good
investment in the improvement of children's learning. Let's also remain
humble. With the few exceptions noted above, even new assumptions and
changed ground rules won't place Uncle Sam in the education driver's
seat. But how much better off we would be if he were at least a
cooperative passenger rather than one standing outside the vehicle
watching it go by while shouting at the driver?
Thanks once again for the opportunity to talk with you today. I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Ms. Keegan, welcome. Your entire testimony may be made a
part of the record. You may summarize as you would like.
STATEMENT OF LISA KEEGAN, SUPERINTENDENT, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
STATE OF ARIZONA
Ms. Keegan. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with
Mr. Finn and Secretary Paige. I have also admired Congressman
Miller's stance on accountability.
I want to talk a bit about the plan and speak on behalf of
what has happened in the State of Arizona and also on behalf of
the Education Leaders Council, of which I am a member, a group
of very reform-minded, results-minded school chiefs. We are
much in support of the President's plan. I will talk about a
few key features.
As Mr. Finn said, Federal involvement is not going to be
the sole determinant in the improvement of our children's
lives. As a matter of fact, I think it needs to be approached
with great caution. I do think there are a couple of areas
where when focus is properly placed, it can be very helpful.
The intention behind Title I is exceptional, to close the
gap for disadvantaged kids. Unfortunately it hasn't worked. It
can work, I believe, if we focus on the President's focus, an
unapologetic attention to academic success, whatever it takes,
students first.
Also, give the States, such as Arizona and others, the
flexibility it requires to innovate in search of this goal. We
cannot continue to simply do what we were doing yesterday and
expect the same results. I think Einstein called that the
definition of insanity. We have to change. We have had to do it
in Arizona. We cannot do that when the Federal Government
imposes on us a maintenance of effort strategy where I have to
count heads for every program and make sure they are only
working on those things they were doing yesterday.
My office has been completely realigned where we could
around academic standards and around the choices we offer in
Arizona. We have to have flexibility to do that. If we must
keep people in programs that frankly don't work, are outdated,
or no longer useful, it is a waste of their time and a waste of
the taxpayers' money. Flexibility is critically important to
us.
I want to talk about accountability and measurement. I
realize for many this is a difficult issue. I think it speaks
poorly for where we are in the United States that testing is
controversial. You never go to a doctor and complain that he or
she is spending far too much time on blood testing and x-rays
and why don't we just get to treatment. There is no way to know
where our children are unless we assess and measure them.
Frankly, we simply have not done so in American education every
year, every child in many places.
We started doing it in 1997 in Arizona and it immediately
became clear to us that there was a decline in the academic
achievement of our children starting just after the fourth
grade. We went to the curriculum and could identify what was
going on. There was a lot of philosophy being taught in the
fifth grade and we stopped teaching content.
That is not just Arizona. That would indicate to us as a
Nation, if we look at our curriculum, we can identify what is
going on. I think the reason we don't talk about this as much
in the public debate as we do about IDEA, because we have
several family members involved in special education. The
reason we don't talk about it as much is because in IDEA it is
easy for us to recognize it is simply underfunded. In the case
of Title I, it is more than money. It is technique, philosophy,
content and it is hard to get your hands around. The way you
get your hands around it is with measurement.
We are deeply grateful in our State that the President is
standing behind an effort we have been trying to put forward to
assess all children every year and look at progress and to
diagnose.
I heard Secretary Paige say we could close the achievement
gap tomorrow if we would quit testing. That is the truth
because we could ignore it. When you test all children every
year, it is impossible to ignore.
I want to beg the members to continue to work on ways to
allow for and include more choice. In Arizona, academic school
choice is a fundamental part of our system. Our system is
basically run around the idea that the money we fund students
with belongs to the students' betterment. We fund students as
they go to a school that works for them and deliver the money
to that school. We then inform parents how that school
performs, a fairly simply model.
It includes public charter schools, tax credits for
scholarship organizations for those children who would choose a
private school and could not otherwise afford it. It has
resulted in Arizona in increased academic achievement. As a
matter of fact, Arizona is one of the fastest improving States.
We have a ways to go but we are an improving State. We owe a
great gratitude to our teachers for that.
The reason they are doing that is because we have made it
possible, desirable and have injected competition for the work
on behalf of children into our system. It makes a difference.
It is very important to note that in Arizona, our public
charter schools are not only competitive with the traditional
system, they may very well be outpacing them as far as growth
is concerned, partially I believe because they are allowed to
innovate, allowed to go around the system Secretary Paige was
talking about in terms of who they hire as teachers. They bring
them in with professional qualifications, not necessarily
through the traditional certification route. We need to learn
from that.
I also think it is important that the NEA last week put out
a study saying 63 percent of the public was in favor of the
President's choice idea exactly as it has been stated. For
children in failing schools, a strong majority is saying
absolutely these children deserve a choice. It is an urgent
situation.
I want to end by saying how much we appreciate the
President's focus on teachers. This is where it all happens. We
do need to change our thinking about how we bring teachers into
the system, get rid of what I think is a wall and create a
broad funnel that brings teachers in from other areas. We need
to innovate in the ways that we prepare our teachers, but most
of all, we need to prepare our teachers in strong content,
strong intellectual material and also glorify teachers on the
basis of their ability to progress students and nothing else.
That is what they are there for, to benefit their students.
I think we need to strongly question those certification
processes or endorsement processes that do not have at their
core the progress of students.
Thank you very much for inviting me and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Lisa Keegan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa Graham Keegan, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, State of Arizona
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear
before you today to discuss the President's proposed budget for the
Department of Education. I am particularly honored to be sitting here
with Secretary Paige, whose work and career I have followed for many
years. His commitment to education is second to none, his enthusiasm is
infectious, and students under his leadership excel. He is an excellent
choice to lead the Department of Education into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I must admit I was pleasantly surprised to be asked
to testify before this committee, because in all my years as
Superintendent of Public Instruction--and, before that, as a member of
the State Legislature--I have rarely made the pitch that more Federal
spending is what is needed to address the challenges facing education
today. In fact, I made rather a buzz a year or so ago with a piece I
wrote for the Fordham Foundation when I summed up the appropriate role
of the Federal Government in education with the words, ``back off.''
Obviously, I have never been known for subtlety.
This advice, however, remains consistent with my belief that there
can still be an appropriate, even successful, role for the Federal
Government in education, provided that three things happen, and usually
in this order:
<bullet> First, the President proposes budget priorities that
encourage the academic growth of children, and not the explosive growth
of educational bureaucracies.
<bullet> Second, that the Congress uses its legislative finesse and
power of the purse to direct resources where they are most needed
rather than where they are necessarily the most wanted.
<bullet> And third, that the U.S. Department of Education takes its
role seriously in developing regulations and guidance that steer,
rather than strangle, States, districts and schools.
In the case of the President's budget proposal, I think the first
criterion for success has been met. The President has clearly stated
that in his Administration, there will be no excuses for failure--
socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, or limited English proficiency
will no longer be accepted, or blamed, as inhibitors of educational
success. The President assumes, and then demands, that all children in
this Nation will succeed.
And he has done this not by creating an endless number of
discretionary set-asides, or by creating programs that worry first
about maintaining existing bureaucracies or systems. Rather, he has
trained his eye and his efforts on the child, and on working to fund
priorities that look at the educational needs of children and what is
required for them to succeed.
It is appropriate, then, that the President--and the First Lady--
have made reading the first priority of his education plan. Reading is
at the core of preparing children to learn for life--no one gets ahead
unless they can read first, and the President has put up a billion
dollars as a down payment to ensure that the kids get there. Almost a
quarter of the total increase in educational spending will go into the
President's reading initiative.
Reading and reading instruction are issues we as a nation have
tinkered with around the edges for decades, and the fiasco regarding
whole language probably cost us a generation worth of progress. The
President has committed the resources necessary to ensuring that we can
have every child in this nation reading by the time they reach the
third grade, and it is a commitment I encourage you to help him meet.
However, the real showpiece of the President's plan, in my opinion,
is its strong accountability mechanism. Accountability lies at the
heart of true educational reform because it not only inherently demands
success, but also provides the means of identifying the shortcomings in
the system and where improvement is needed. We have had a strong
accountability system in place in Arizona for a number of years, and it
has helped us shift the focus in our state away from looking for
excuses toward looking for ways to succeed.
Using our state assessment system--a unique combination of two
assessments--a criterion-referenced test measuring our rigorous Arizona
Academic Standards and an annual norm-referenced test that delineates
academic gain--we know which students in our state are succeeding and
what it is they're learning. More important, it also tells us which
students are not succeeding, and what it is they're not learning so we
can work to fix it. This is a critical component of education in
Arizona, and I am pleased to finally see it reflected in Federal
policy.
One of the basic assumptions of our state's accountability system--
and in the President's plan as well--is that all children can learn. We
have the same expectations of all children, and--horrors!--we test all
children. We really need to conquer this fear of testing. Testing is
not just an intellectual exercise for students, nor is it a punishment.
And blaming a test for low academic achievement is like blaming a fever
on the thermometer.
When done well, testing is a useful and necessary tool in
determining where we are as teachers, students, policymakers, and a
nation. You cannot hold states accountable unless you have a valid
mechanism for measuring success. Without testing, all we have are vapor
trails of good intentions zooming off into the sky.
Therefore, I applaud the President's effort to encourage annual
testing and I also believe in publishing the results of those tests in
school-by-school report cards. We already issue report cards in
Arizona, and we make them widely available through the Internet to
anyone who wants to view them. School report cards have proved to be
one of our most valuable tools in helping schools look at where they
need to do better, and parents have indicated to us that they are the
first thing they look at when trying to determine which school is best
for their children. When moving into a new neighborhood, a parent can
simply log onto our web page, type in the name of his or her school
district, and pull up a report card on every school in their new
district.
I am also pleased to note a new accountability provision in the
President's budget request that not only imposes consequences on states
and schools that do not make progress, but which also rewards states
and schools that succeed. I must confess to being somewhat baffled by
the conditions of the current school improvement law which say that the
more you fail, the more funding you receive. While I understand and
support the need to target funds to schools where they are most needed,
such an approach sends a curious message to the school whose students
made progress and received only passing notice, while the school down
the street picked up an additional $200,000 for failing. I recently
heard from some superintendents in the rural southeastern part of
Arizona who asked, ``How come you and your staff seem to only visit us
when we're doing badly?'' and while that is not exactly true, I had to
respond with, ``Because that's when the law tells us to.'' I am pleased
that, with this proposal, we can at last acknowledge excellence at the
same time we are providing additional services to those schools that
need help.
I would encourage the Congress to work carefully to ensure that any
legislative proposals will reflect the President's commitment that,
``accountability must be accompanied by local control, in both measures
and means.'' While I am very pleased that the President, in his budget
blueprint, has indicated that States will be given the freedom to use
Federal dollars to create comprehensive systems of accountability, I
would caution you not to be overly prescriptive in describing the
nature of that system. Let the States decide what type of annual
assessment works best for their students and schools in determining
academic gain and excellence in student achievement. Such action would
honor the work that states are doing now in moving toward high
standards for all children, as well as the creation of statewide
assessment and reporting systems. So please, let the States decide how
they will test.
I am very encouraged by the provisions in the President's plan to
empower parents and provide students and their families with more and
more educational options. Choice is what we stand for in Arizona--it
lies at the heart of everything we do. We have the largest system of
public charter schools in the United States to give parents and
students more options for the kind of school they want. We require all
public schools in Arizona to have open enrollment policies and written
protocols for accepting students from outside their home district. We
issue school report cards to ensure parents have the information they
need to make informed choices, and we provide tuition tax incentives
that provide qualifying students with real choices of public and
private schools.
I applaud the President and Secretary Paige's decision to continue
the discussion on educational choice in the budget. The President has
proposed allowing families in chronically failing schools to use the
Title I dollars that their own child generates to pay for supplemental
services or, perhaps, private alternatives. I am sure some of the
members of this committee had a visceral reaction to the last two words
of that proposal, but please, keep talking about it.
In fact, I noted with considerable interest the results of a survey
conducted for the National Education Association (NEA) which indicated
that a clear majority of Americans support allowing parents of children
stuck in failing schools to use tax dollars to send their children to
any public, private, or charter school. According to the survey, the
proposal enjoys the support of 65 percent of men, 63 percent of
minority voters, 55 percent of Democrats, and 65 percent of
independents. I think you will find the support for reasonable
approaches to choice--including private education--is there.
As I mentioned, in Arizona, we have proved that students can be
given private choices in a way that passes Constitutional muster. State
law allows individuals to donate up to $500--in exchange for a dollar-
for-dollar tax credit--to non-profit organizations set up to award
scholarships to at-risk students so they can attend private school.
These things can be done in a way that is fair and without infringing
upon First Amendment issues. Keep looking at ways to ensure those
dollars support a student, not a system.
It is this point--watching out for the student, and not the
system--which I want to reiterate as you are talking about both the
budget and legislative proposals. I said earlier that Congress should
work to send resources where they are needed, not necessarily where
they are wanted. The President has proposed to dramatically increase
funding for education, and I know some Members have discussed offering
amendments to ``fully fund'' programs like Title I. But I'm telling you
now, such increases aren't meaningful if the funding never makes it to
the child who generated the funding in the first place.
Congress needs to get over this recurring urge to hold everyone
harmless when it begins allocating Title I funds. While States may
certainly be held harmless, the children themselves certainly aren't.
Continuing to fund a state based on where its kids were years ago
instead of where they are now means overpaying one state while
underpaying another, and all at the expense of the disadvantaged
student. It is the student, after all, who is entitled to the funds,
not the State or a district. A hold harmless clause results in the
funding of phantoms. Let's allocate these precious funds based to those
who need them--real kids in the classroom right now--and not to those
who want them just because they've always had them.
The President has also encouraged choice by providing incentives
for the growth of charter schools by providing seed capital for start
up costs. As reported by the Congressional Research Service, one of the
major reasons for closing charter schools has not been failure to
perform academically, but rather insufficient costs for facilities,
since most charters cannot rely on local taxes for their basic
expenses. This provision in the budget helps address this significant
need, although I want to alert the Congress that you will need to look
at a number of other issues, including the method of allocating funding
to school districts, to ensure that charter schools can draw down funds
in a timely manner in order to deliver many of the services described
in the budget.
The largest increase in the President's budget goes toward
teachers--recruitment, training, hiring and retention--and I couldn't
agree more that this is one area where we need to add some significant
resources. We need to take a good hard look at the critical issues of
training and retention, especially in the areas of mathematics,
science, vocational education and special education. States need to
take the initiative to return education to the teachers and make
teaching an attractive profession again. Finally, we need to keep great
teachers doing what they do best--teaching in the classroom, not
administering programs or babysitting.
The $2.6 billion the President is proposing for teacher quality is
a good start, and I encourage the Congress to take full advantage of
this investment of resources by crafting a flexible, quality program.
No more overly prescriptive, formula-driven grants, such as the Class
Size Reduction grant. Instead, allow States the flexibility to pursue
initiatives to encourage innovation in the classroom, through programs
such as Arizona's Teacher Advancement Program (TAP).
The TAP program is an initiative we undertook last year with the
cooperation of the Milken Family Foundation to revamp the current
school structure in order to provide greater opportunities for teachers
without asking them to leave the classroom. We can offer them multiple
career paths, better salary compensation, and stronger support for new
teachers. The TAP program lets teachers not only get back to teaching,
but also allows them to take stronger roles in training other teachers,
and sharing expertise with other districts. Importantly, the TAP
program advances the importance of judging teacher quality on student
performance. A successful teacher takes the child where she finds him
and moves the child. Success for students is gauged in academic
progress, and success for teachers needs to be based on the same
measure. This is just one example of an initiative Arizona could pursue
more widely and freely with the flexibility provided in the President's
proposal.
I also want to continue to encourage you to follow the President's
lead in consolidating programs. I am pleased, for example, to see the
President propose a merging of two programs that serve identical
purposes--the 21st Century Community Learning Centers and the Safe and
Drug Free Schools and Communities Act--into a consolidated grant. While
the President has proposed making this a State formula grant, I would
recommend either that LEAs apply directly to the U.S. Department of
Education for this funding, as they do under the present 21st Century
program, or that the State distribute its formula funds competitively.
The onus would then be on the states to ensure that programs followed
best practices in terms of prevention programs, and that grants would
be made in a manner that ensured resources were adequate to meet the
needs of the program, rather than just drizzling out of funds by
formula, as under the current Title IV program.
I also want to credit the President and the Secretary for proposing
that States be allowed to redirect resources provided for FY 2001 under
the school renovation fund authorized in this year's Omnibus
Appropriations Bill. Arizona received $17.5 million under this grant,
and the President has asked that States be allowed to use these funds
for renovation or, if they so choose, for special education or
technology. While my agency does not administer these funds--the Act
required that we pass these funds through to the Arizona School
Facilities Board--we would like further direction on how we might, for
example, direct half these funds through to the Facilities Board for
renovation, and invest the remainder in technology initiatives, such as
our Regional Training Centers.
We've been talking a lot today about what we're spending, Mr.
Chairman, but let me also talk a little bit about what we're saving.
I've been a legislator, and I know there are lots of things that are
nice to do with funding, especially at the Federal level where the
funds are somewhat more impressive. The President has proposed budget
savings of more than $430 million in his education budget, mainly
through the discontinuation of one-time and short-term projects.
I know it is difficult when negotiating a budget--and even more
difficult when negotiating appropriations--to refrain from creating all
sorts of little projects to appease all sorts of different
constituencies. But I hope you can appreciate that what the President
has done here is what States are asked to do all the time--make the
most of the funding you have. To this end, the President has focused
his efforts on long-term, big picture initiatives that will improve
student achievement, hold States accountable, empower parents, and keep
our teachers well trained. I urge you to concentrate on these
initiatives, rather than winnowing money out on smaller projects. We
don't need lots of small projects with even more reporting requirements
and audit checks. Let's stay on task.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the President has given you a good start,
and I hope the committee will include his recommendations in the FY
2002 budget resolution. It is now up to you, the Congress, not only to
implement his budget, but also to develop many of the initiatives he
discusses in his blueprint. I encourage the authorizing committees in
the House and Senate to use the President's proposal as a guide when
developing this year's reauthorization bills.
There is much that is promising in this budget proposal, and much
that will require thoughtful deliberation by the Congress. As for those
of us in the States, if you will provide us with the funding and
flexibility proposed in this budget, I promise you we will ensure that
our students have the tools they need to achieve and to succeed. We
will implement the accountability mechanisms that quality education
demands. We will make our teachers the best in the world. We will
provide parents with information and choices they need to make the best
decisions for their children. And I look forward to us doing it
together, at the State and Federal level, in what is finally a true
cooperative effort.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with
you today. I look forward to responding to any questions you and the
Committee may have.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
I enjoyed your comments about what we expect and our
expectations in 1965, 1975, 1985 and now. It reminds me of the
phrase ``If you always do what you always did, you will always
get what you always got.''
To some extent, I even have this belief that maybe it just
takes a few more bucks. I do hear the concerns from our
superintendents, our teachers, our instructors, our school
boards back home that say, ``We are not making it.'' Mr.
Clement from our committee mentioned music education. I am not
suggesting this entire budget will pass or fail because of
music education, but music and art are important, languages are
important. Yes, it is reading, writing, arithmetic, certainly,
but it may seem a few more bucks might help.
Second, your comment that the local areas are not
trustworthy and that was kind of the belief in 1965. At that
point in time, it was in direct regard to the treatment of
minority students and students who were disadvantaged in other
ways, maybe students with disabilities. Certainly, that was
true but we still seem to have a certain level of, I don't know
if mistrust is the right word, but certainly a belief that we
know better out here how to manage it.
I am told by my local administrators that 6 percent of
their budget comes from us but about 60 percent of the mandates
and regulations come from us. We certainly have a lot of rules,
regulations and things we believe they ought to be doing, but
we are not putting the money behind it.
I am not arguing with your point that it is not just money;
I am wondering what advice you would give us with regard to the
prioritization of the resources that we send out? Should we try
to give more advice and direction toward those resources based
on the good testimony and information we get here, or should it
be as flexible as possible to allow the local school districts
and States to make those decisions?
Give me your advice based on what I said on how we should
proceed with our budget. I will offer that to both of you.
Mr. Finn. There are some situations where the mere
expenditure of money brings about a result that you may find
desirable. If the goal is to have more children participate in
after-school programs, for example, then adding more funds for
children to take part in the after-school program may be
thought to be successful.
A different question is whether sitting in an after-school
program is sufficient or whether it is important for the
children also to be learning something, doing their homework or
in some other way benefitting from more than day care. That is
where the questions get sticky in education, situations where
mere delivery of the service is not sufficient and where an
actual educational result is sought.
As far as basic strategy, it is foreshadowed in the part of
the President's proposal called Charter States. I believe the
basic strategy the Federal Government should be using for most
of its education dollars is embodied in the theory of charter
schools, which is to let them do what they want with the money
but hold them strictly accountable for whether the desired
results are produced.
Most modern corporations and other organizations function
this way. They are loose with respect to means and tight with
respect to ends. I think this strategy is the appropriate way
to steer Federal education policy in almost all program areas.
We have been doing it the other way around for 35 years, being
tight about means--hence all those regulations--and loose about
ends, hence the absence of results. I think we need to turn
that upside down.
Ms. Keegan. I would second that. There are certain things,
as we say in the State Department, that are nonnegotiable. That
is the outcome. As a part of our role at the State Board of
Education, here are the standards for all students, not a few,
this is where everyone is going to be, here is how we will
measure that, here is what we expect and we have
responsibilities to provide resources for that end, but after
that, the maximum amount of flexibility in getting that done at
the school level is critical.
We have a national, shameful problem in an achievement gap.
We know from the educational science of the last 15 years that
annual testing that allows you to look at gain of pupils and to
ensure a rich experience each and every year is important
beyond measure. I do not think it is an unreasonable request
that all of us get together. On behalf of the Education Leaders
Council, we endorse that idea fully of a picture every year of
where these kids are.
In Arizona, we use the National Assessment of Educational
Progress as a second snapshot of what is going on in Arizona.
We like it and I would say as a national database, it is just
about the best we have right now because there are bad tests
out there, there is bad curriculum out there. To the extent we
do not get together and show where kids are progressing, we
will lose them.
I don't have any problem with nonnegotiables in return for
the investment that is made to close this achievement gap, the
investment you make in Title I, but I think our schools need to
have flexibility to get there. We will demand the same from
them.
Chairman Nussle. We have joining us a distinguished Member
of Congress who takes a back seat to nobody when it comes to
the advocacy of education. He is the ranking member of the
Education Workforce Committee. We welcome you, and your entire
statement will be in the record, Mr. Miller. We appreciate your
attendance and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Let me see if I can pick up where my two colleagues left
off and that is, I think the President has quite properly set a
tone for education reform by concentrating on the results that
we as policymakers, parents and hopefully children should
expect when they attend a public education system in this
country. That is that we would have high standards and measure
whether or not children are making progress toward those
standards.
I happen to agree with the idea that we would measure that
annually so that we could on a real time basis direct resources
to those children and to those schools who need it the most so
that we don't end up with children at fourth or eighth grade
who are 2, 3 or 4 years behind their peers, and in many
instances with little hope of rescuing and recovering those
children to a level that will allow them to benefit from the
rest of their educational experience or to participate in
American society.
The President has made it very clear that there are
components to this system, that we need quality teachers, we
need an environment that is conducive to education and we need
to measure those schools with respect to that outcome and be
prepared to take actions for those schools that fail the
children in that quest for quality education.
We must also understand that if we want these real reforms,
in many States, it is hard to think we are still talking this
way now, but these are dramatic reforms from the way they are
conducting business today; that if we want those reforms and
want the results the President has said he wants, his budget
simply does not provide the means by which we can achieve those
results.
I have been very hard on schools and the use of money, hard
on accountability, hard on the issues of performance and
results for a number of years in this Congress. I would still
have to tell you that unless we are prepared to dramatically
increase the Title I contribution so that States can provide
the resources to those schools most in need or as the President
would say, the poorest children and the poorest schools, that
simply will not happen and we will be back here after our
reauthorization of ESEA this year 5 years from now looking at
the same bowl of mush with respect to the performance of our
children.
I do not think that is what President Bush wants, I do not
think that is what this Congress wants, my colleagues are not
for that. We have spent too much time and the fact of the
matter is that today we have an alignment on behalf of
education that we have never had before. Education continues to
top out the polls no matter what you match it up with. The
American public wants a first- class education for its children
and its grandchildren, and it wants these schools fixed. I
believe we have the political will to do that, and we also now
have the surpluses available to do this.
When we were arguing about a ``Nation at Risk,'' we were
$208 billion in the red. When President Clinton signed in Goals
2000, I think we were $130 or $140 billion in the red. We were
talking about deficits as far as the eye can see. That has all
now changed. Now, not only do we have both the will but we now
also have the wallet.
Believe me, I know it is very popular in this town to say
you cannot solve this problem by throwing money at it, but you
cannot fix this problem without money. If you look at the
poorest performing schools in this Nation, we need to recruit,
retain and teach teachers in those schools. You are not going
to do it without a new commitment of resources.
If you look at the condition of those schools, you have to
understand, these kids are going to school in many instances in
absolutely unacceptable environments. We have to change that
and help school districts. Districts are trying to do it but we
have to take the Title I portion of this program and make it
realistic in today's rules for the results that my two
colleagues here have talked about. If we are going to demand
those results, those resources have to be there.
As I look at the outline of the President's submission of
what we will see submitted in the future--I guess we do not
have a formal budget but we have an outline--you are talking
about doing this all for a new $1.6 billion. It is simply not
going to happen. I think we ought to keep the faith with the
public.
I have introduced legislation that would spend $110 billion
of new money over a period of 5 years. In exchange for those
resources, we ought to be very hard nosed about the results we
expect, about the accountability we expect and the actions we
are prepared to take for those States that are not capable of
doing that or those districts that won't or haven't done it.
We should make no qualms about that. We should be very
forceful in that manner. Otherwise, we are not going to get
educational reform. George Bush, Sr. started America 2000, and
Bill Clinton converted it into Goals 2000. We put out a couple
of billion dollars to get the States to come up with world-
class standards, assessments and aligning them and to date, I
think seven or eight States have started to comply with that.
The rest have not done it.
I do not think we should go easy on these people any
longer. It is too easy for Members of Congress to suggest we
are only 7 percent of the money. In those Title I schools, we
are a heck of a lot more than 7 percent of the money. We are
the key to whether or not those schools get turned around. We
have to understand we have a right to ask for these kinds of
results in return for that Federal investment to try to help
the poorest children and the poorest performing schools.
I would hope as you consider your budget resolution, you
would immediately see the inadequacies on its face of the
President's submission for the results that he is telling the
Nation he wants and that we all share and that this Budget
Committee would provide room in the budget so we can have real
resources for real reform for real results for America's
children.
That is outlined in my prepared testimony, and I thank you
for the opportunity, and I thank my colleagues here for letting
me make that statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions the members might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to share my views on strengthening our nation's
schools.
ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME OPPORTUNITV
We now enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fundamentally
improve public education in our nation.
As someone who has served on the Education and the Workforce
Committee for more than 26 years, I can tell you that the stars of
public opinion, political will, and budget surpluses are aligned behind
education in a way that they never have been before.
We owe it to our children to seize this moment.
ENCOURAGED BY BUSH EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION
I have met with President Bush several times over the last few
months. And I am deeply impressed his passion for ensuring that every
child receives a high-quality education.
I am particularly heartened by his commitment to close the
achievement gap--between minority and poor children and their peers.
The President says that we should have high standards for all
students; that we should annually measure every students' progress
toward meeting those standards; and that we should hold schools
accountable when they fail to provide an adequate education.
I could not agree more.
IF WE EXPECT RESULTS, WE MUST PROVIDE THE RESOURCES
But to achieve the results we all want, we must provide the
necessary resources--quality teachers and training opportunities; small
class sizes; modern classrooms; after-school and summer tutoring
programs for extra help; and support services for troubled students.
And we must target those resources to where they are most needed.
Education reform without adequate resources is an empty promise.
That's why Dale Kildee, other Members of Congress, and I have
introduced legislation--The Excellence and Accountability in Education
Act (HR 340)--to double Title I funding for low-income children, invest
in teacher training and smaller classes, provide salary bonuses and
loan forgiveness to address teacher shortages, and invest in real
reform at failing schools.
THE BUSH BUDGET FALLS FAR SHORT ON EDUCATION
Unfortunately, the budget proposed by President Bush shortchanges
education.
It includes only $44.5 billion for the U.S. Department of Education
for academies year 2001-02, a 6-percent increase--less than half of the
13-percent average annual increases over the past 5 years.
In his joint address to Congress, President Bush characterized
education as his top priority and his tax cut as money ``left over.''
But, in fact, the budget outline he has submitted puts tax cuts
first. Instead of sitting at the table, our nation's schools are forced
to wait around and fight for scraps.
As President Bush and the congressional majority rush ahead with
large tax cuts, the Administration has not proposed how it would spend
two-thirds of Education's $44 billion budget.
The President has not identified the $433 million in cuts he
promised.
And Congress has not agreed on an overall budget.
Over the next decade, President Bush would spend 13 times more on
tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers than on his education
reform initiative.
I am troubled and disappointed by these priorities.
President Bush's budget includes only a $1.6 billion increase for
elementary and secondary education, $7.2 billion less than my proposal
authorizes.
The additional $7.2 billion in the Miller-Kildee bill could mean
1,600 more modernized schools; 16,000 more school counselors, 11,000
more qualified teachers, and 150,000 more children in after-school
academic enrichment programs.
FEDERAL FUNDS SHOULD SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Second, I am concerned that President Bush's plan for education
turns to private school vouchers as the solution to our troubled public
schools.
Vouchers will help only a select few children; drain resources from
the public schools that serve the large majority of children; and
undermine accountability because private school students are not
tested.
The Bush budget also includes Education Savings Accounts, which are
``backdoor vouchers'' that would effectively make private school
tuition tax-deductible. ESAs would also overwhelmingly benefit upper-
income families. These resources would be better spent on strengthening
our public schools.
Third, I am concerned that President Bush would repeal our block-
grant proven education initiatives, including class-size reduction,
school renovation, after-school, and safe and drug-free schools.
Class Size and Teacher Quality. President Bush is proposing to
consolidate the Class-Size Reduction and Eisenhower Professional
Development program. This action in effect would create the largest
categorical grant next to Title I. It may not be a bad idea in and of
itself, and my sense is that in some form this idea could garner
bipartisan support in both bodies.
But the Bush proposal in its current form fails to provide enough
funding to continue reducing class size and expand professional
development and training for teachers. Class-size reduction is a proven
approach to improving achievement and teaching reading, especially for
low-income children in early grades. But only if it is coupled with
high standards for teachers and with quality teacher training. I hope
we can reach an agreement that has all these elements: flexibility,
accountability, and major new investment.
School Renovation. I think it would be a huge mistake if we were to
adopt President Bush's plan to eliminate the School Renovation
initiative we enacted only last year.
We face a serious, well-documented crisis in the condition of our
public schools, which need $127 billion in repairs.
But President Bush would redirect funds Congress has already
appropriated for renovation to other needs, delaying resources from
reaching schools and pitting schools' needs against each other.
After-School Programs. President Bush would consolidate the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers and Safe and Drug-Free Schools
programs. 21st Century centers provide a safe, healthy place for
academic and artistic enrichment during the sometimes-dangerous after-
school hours. Congress has recognized the success of this initiative by
increasing its funding by over 2,000 percent over the past 4 years to
$846 million. Consolidating it would put the future of this young,
promising initiative at risk.
Straight A's/Charter States. Finally, the Bush proposal includes
the ``Straight-As'' block grant that abandons the national commitment
to help our country's most disadvantaged public schools. The proposal
would allow states to slash funding for poor schools in favor of
affluent ones. It would allow states to take funds appropriated
specifically for students with specific needs and instead use them for
the general student population. It would allow states to convert part
or all of Federal aid into private school vouchers, decimating public
schools. And it would repeat the mistakes of the past, when block
grants failed because they lacked the focus to stimulate real reform,
accountability for results, or political support.
Higher Education. Finally, I would like to briefly note my
remaining reservations with the President's budget. Although college-
qualified, low-income high school graduates are still kept out of
college by financial barriers, his budget includes an increase for Pell
grants that will likely fall short of last year's $450 increase. The
limited resources in the Bush budget will make it difficult to
substantially increase funding for special education, as President Bush
promised to do during his campaign. And historically black and
Hispanic-serving colleges would receive a much smaller increase than
they have seen for the past 3 years.
Of course, the President's proposals are only a starting point for
congressional action. Together, we can build on its strengths and
remedy its shortcomings. I hope we will invest more in our public
schools; reject the false promise of vouchers and unaccountable block
grants; and, continue proven approaches to strengthening our schools.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Mr. Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Miller, before you came there was testimony
from Mr. Finn to the effect that Title I really has not
succeeded, we haven't closed the performance gap. I suppose
that may beg the question as to whether or not the performance
gap might be wider if it were not for Title I, but what is your
observation, what is your perspective on Title I? Has it played
an important role, has it achieved success?
Mr. Miller. We have had some successes. They certainly are
not what we would like. It certainly has not accomplished what
it should have. Clearly, it should have accomplished more.
As Mr. Finn said, when we started we were sort of into
serious micromanaging. We used to have what we called
radioactive dollars which followed the child everywhere and you
had to find out where they went and spend them only on those
children. Since 1994, we have expanded school-wide programs and
schools that can participate and trying to let people use their
creativity recognizing children on the edge of poverty
sometimes are in the same school, they may not qualify
specifically for that program but can benefit from that.
We still have not demanded the results. Secretary Riley
talked about every child, we should have high expectations for
every child and we have to have world-class standards. I
suggest to you that in this business, if you can dodge a
bullet, they try to dodge the bullet. The districts have not
been terribly high on accountability for the most part, the
States have not been terribly high.
When I got into the fight over Edflex, Governor Bush was
one of the few governors who was really prepared to hold
himself accountable on desegregated data so we could really
tell what the gap was in the States. Most governors did not
want to go near the notion of being held accountable for every
poor child or every minority child, the majority child and what
that gap is.
I think that you can argue this has certainly been less
than a great success and the children who were targeted in this
program have been shortchanged. I think they have been
shortchanged financially but they have also been shortchanged
on educational policy and demanding results.
That is what this reauthorization and this President is
speaking to. That is what accountability is about and standards
and testing is about as I think my two colleagues testified.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Finn, would you agree that one objective of
Federal education policy should be to close the gap, to reduce
the disparity in performance by whatever means but with the
assistance of Federal funds?
Mr. Finn. I think this is an honorable and necessary
national purpose and I think the Federal Government has a
legitimate role in trying to make it happen. What grips me is
36 years of noble intentions and mighty little to show for it.
Mr. Spratt. Ms. Keegan, did I hear you say Title I is
producing results in Arizona? Are you using the program to good
effect?
Ms. Keegan. We use it, yes, and I would say there are
spotty results in Title I. Arizona overall is demanding now
annual assessments with children. We demand that all schools
are improving and coming up to standard, so yes, we are
improving. I think that model would work well overall for all
kids who are in Title I.
Mr. Spratt. Do you think it has worked better since we have
loosened the availability for having Title I schools as opposed
to Title I programs within schools?
Ms. Keegan. Not necessarily. I have a different view about
that. I think this money ought to accrue to the benefit of a
student wherever that student is.
Mr. Spratt. Do you think we diluted the program in making
it available to too many schools as opposed to those that
really had dramatic problems?
Ms. Keegan. Frankly, at times, but people would argue that
my preferred choice of going right down to the student level is
huge dilution. That is the amount of money that child carries
with him or her, so there is a philosophical concern on my
part. In Arizona, they move quite a bit, and choice is a
component of our system more so than others. So if these
students knew of a great program, particularly in the inner
city this happens quite often where there is a great program
being offered in a compensatory way by a particular social
service agency, they could all congregate to that program and
that program would not be diluted because the money would be
portable for those kids.
So it depends on the State, Congressman. I do believe in
the maximum amount of flexibility for the use of these dollars
but as Congressman Miller has said, I don't think there is any
need to apologize for an insistence on results.
Mr. Spratt. Could I ask you this about IDEA? If we were to
take the radical step of simply repealing IDEA, what would
happen in Arizona? Would you maintain the same level of effort
for special education children, would your constitution in the
State of Arizona still require you to provide them an equal
education?
Ms. Keegan. Absolutely. We are dedicated to these children
and one of the most important things that has happened has been
the standards and assessment movement. We would continue to see
to the best education possible for these students.
Frankly, I don't think that is ever going to happen. The
requirements of that program should be focused just on academic
and other needs of these kids. I would never advocate for the
elimination of IDEA. I think its full funding is a necessary
goal. I would love to see it but I also think an elimination or
a serious study about some of the regulation that comes along
with IDEA is in order.
Mr. Spratt. I am not proposing elimination, but frequently
the argument here is even if we went to that step, the States
would still be saddled with the obligation by their own
constitutions in many cases to provide an equal education and
probably to spend virtually as much as you are spending right
now.
Ms. Keegan. I would say these are not children we intend to
leave behind. They are expensive children, but I do think there
are some dollars being spent away from children because of
current regulation.
Chairman Nussle. Mr. Miller, as I said in my introduction,
there is not anyone in the Congress who is a stronger advocate
for education. I certainly respect and appreciate that.
We have had some successes I think. I guess I am interested
on your take on over the last 5 years we have had an average of
13 percent annual increase in education. I am sure if you and I
sat down and made a list, we would probably think of a few
things in addition that we could add a few more dollars for or
priorities that maybe went unmet.
I guess the thing I am wondering about is if we are
spending 13 percent for the last 5 years on average and are
still not getting the results we need to get--we both agree we
are not getting those results--what should we have been doing
those last 5 years that could have achieved those results?
I respect the fact you come to the Budget Committee today
and say, what the President put forward is not enough. If you
had heard my questioning of the Secretary, particularly in the
area of special education, I think you would have heard that
not only from me, but a number of members of the panel, that
there was some concern about that program. If 13 percent is not
enough, what is enough?
Mr. Miller. I think the difference is you now have an
opportunity with the reauthorization going on at the same time
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including Title
I, that we can for the first time to put in real rules of
accountability in exchange for this money. That is the real
difference.
I do not think it is fair if you are going to test kids,
that they do not have an opportunity to learn what is going to
be on the test or what is covered by the standard. If we have
these world-class standards, then we have to have a curriculum
that is aligned and we have to have teachers capable of
delivering it.
In many instances in the Title I schools, that simply does
not happen. Title I is given credit for cutting the achievement
gap in over half of the time it has been in existence. People
argue about that but you could argue things would be much worse
in poor, minority schools without what we have done in the
past. That is not good enough. We still see this gap. We want
to improve it.
The question is, in the private sector when you turn around
a business, very often you have to make an investment. When the
Edison Schools are talking about going into New York, they are
talking about putting in an up front investment of $2 million
per school; in California, half a million per school. We are
talking about intensive training during the summer to get
teachers ready for the Edison method of doing this.
You can agree or disagree with whether Edison makes sense
or not or whether it is good or bad, but the fact is they are
recognizing this kind of investment. We do not have a number
for the Defense Department because they are going through a
review asking the question, ``What do we need to do the
mission?'' I think we have to ask the same question on behalf
of America's children. What do we need to do this mission? If
we are going to make that commitment of resources, then under
what conditions should that commitment be made? That is what I
think is different about now as opposed to the last several
years because we really did not ask the second half of that
question about results and accountability. If we were not going
to get that, I am not for more money.
Chairman Nussle. The concern I have, we have 39 Federal
agencies that are administering 760 education programs; we have
100 K-12 programs in the Department of Education alone; and
that is not enough?
Mr. Miller. It is not a question of whether it is enough;
the question is whether they are high quality. Mr. Nussle, you
know when you say 700-and-some programs, you're talking about
the Forestry Service that has education programs for rangers on
how to do watershed management.
Chairman Nussle. All right, so 759.
Mr. Miller. It doesn't have much to do with public
education in terms of the public school system and what we do,
and this legislation.
Chairman Nussle. Let us just take the 100 K-12.
Mr. Miller. That is why you have actively on both sides of
the aisle, the administration and the Congress, discussions of
consolidation of those programs. That is, in all likelihood,
going to happen on a bipartisan basis in this markup. Those are
the kinds of changes that people are looking at, looking at the
results we want in measuring the districts and whether or not
they are getting that result, and whether we are making
progress with the children. You are not going to do it without
the resources to change the structure of this system and get
people qualified and credentialed.
Chairman Nussle. Let me ask you, Mr. Finn, we have 5 years
of about 13 percent increases. Unfortunately, the philosophical
discussion and the actual technical, practical discussion of
what goes on in the classroom is fine for another day, we have
to write the budget. What percentage do we put in? Did we get
13 percent worth of results, did we see a 13 percent decrease
in the achievement gap every year that we have put that 13
percent in? Why haven't we seen the results for the kind of
huge cash outlays that we have been putting into these
education programs?
Mr. Finn. Because in many cases, you have been putting
additional funds into programs that are ineffective and do not
produce results. In some cases, you are putting increases into
programs that simply redistribute resources, such as the Pell
grant program.
In other cases, you are putting money into little programs
that have been around for decades that do nothing good but they
keep getting more money. I could cite the Regional Educational
Laboratories, for example. They are eating up $60 to $100
million a year for nothing in terms of the goals we are talking
about here today.
A serious round of program consolidation that doesn't get
undone by earmarks, set-asides and things like that would make
a very big difference. I think my difference with Congressman
Miller, if I have one, is the chicken-and- egg issue. I see a
strong possibility that additional money will be out there but
the results still won't be because the programs still won't be
different from the way they have been these 36 failed years.
That is my nervousness about the larger budget increases that
he is recommending.
Chairman Nussle. Superintendent Keegan, I am very intrigued
by your IDEA comments, both from your practical and
professional standpoint as well as your personal standpoint. Do
you have any general advice for us from a budgetary standpoint
on IDEA? The Secretary mentioned today that they were going to
try some flexibility within IDEA, possibly also looking at some
reformation of the definitions, labels, categories, things like
that which tend to try and pigeonhole kids and put a label on
so that we can follow them around and understand or think we
understand what the label means.
Do you have any advice for us as we go down this road with
IDEA?
Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, we actually spend a lot of time
on this in Arizona. Our identification rate in Arizona is just
about 9 or 10 percent, a little bit below the national average.
I do think the Secretary's comments about intensive reading
programs for all kids across the board are important in
speaking about kids who are being identified with a general
and, what we call, soft learning disability. That oftentimes is
a reading disability.
However, the children that are in categories, if you will--
in Arizona, we are carrying about 13 categories, so it isn't
just you all. This is driven by people with serious concerns
about their children. Our family carries a genetic mutation for
fragile X which is the single largest reason for inherited
mental retardation. Several of my nephews are heavily impacted
by this and they are in the public school system. They go
through this every day.
I will tell you, it is fascinating to be in charge of the
Special Education Department in Arizona and then see it on the
ground with your children. What is interesting to me is that
the assessment of these children has been critical because so
often we see measurement as punitive, and literally parents are
counseled out of measuring their children because that will be
too stressful for them, but then what happens is there are no
stated goals and there is no achievement acknowledged. Nobody
knows where these children are, and they have far more capacity
in most cases than we give them credit for, as you probably
well know.
So that is a difficulty for me. We have a lot of
philosophical opposition to measurement as punitive on children
that I think we need to get over. The group of parents that we
brought together in Arizona was very interested in portability
of special education funding. Parents know where the good
programs are. They will get themselves into programs that work.
I think we should acknowledge and congratulate that by making
more special education dollars portable with kids so parents
could make the selection.
It is very heavily regulated, the districts are usually
always in charge of where the child services will be. I think
that is unfortunate. Parents do know. Parents of disabled kids
are highly involved, for the most part, with their children's
education. They have good support groups. So we look to just
give them the maximal amount of choices. If you can do that
with the IDEA funds as well, I think it is of benefit to the
kids.
Again, I would do that only with--assessments will be
different for kids with special needs, but there ought to be a
stated requirement that whatever assessments are possible need
to follow these kids as well. These kids are entitled to
assessment. They should not be kept from high expectation.
Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
Mr. Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. One final question. You said you were sure if
you and George Miller sat down and developed a list, it would
be a long list of ideas. I think Mr. Miller already has his
list drawn. I thought I would give you a chance, George, to
just lay out what you are proposing, particularly for
elementary and secondary education.
Mr. Miller. We really know now there is a set of
circumstances that are most conducive to a child receiving a
good education. Obviously, I believe it is teacher centered,
that you have to have a highly qualified, well qualified
teacher. I am not talking about certification because sometimes
you get certification and you don't have the qualifications to
teach.
I think we have to be rigorous about having teachers who
have subject matter comprehension, have a major or minor in
that field or a rigorous State exam in that field before we
think that they can teach.
I think you also have to have a decent setting. There
continues to be evidence suggesting that small class sizes,
maybe especially among poor and minority is helpful, but it is
not terribly helpful without a qualified teacher. The small
class size in and of itself doesn't give you the kind of
benefit you would want for the cost to do that.
If you could reduce that class size and put a well
qualified teacher in that position, then you have to have
curriculum that works. One of the things maybe some day we will
get to is the fact there is a lot of junk curriculum out there.
There is a lot of pop art, if you will, about what to sell
schools and school districts, but if you have that, you have a
chance that child is going to succeed.
As we follow these children, we see where children are
continuously exposed to high quality teachers of good
competence, that these children advance. If they come from the
inner city or from the suburbs, they tend to learn like each
other. There is not this great, expected disparity.
That is not to say that all children will succeed, but far
more of them will succeed than we are willing to accept today.
I think those are the key components. So those schools have got
to have resources to bring about that kind of change. We have
thousands and thousands of classrooms where we have unqualified
teachers, we have a shortage of teachers for a whole host of
reasons, and we have to be able to pay them, train them and put
them in a decent atmosphere. You are going to need additional
resources to truly get that done if you are going to do it in
every school.
I could do it in selected schools within a school district.
I am in the process of doing it in one very small elementary
school in my district today. But if I do it across 15 or 18
schools that need it, there is not the money to do that. I
suggest we make that kind of investment. I think we have to
double the Title I appropriation. I think we have to greatly
increase the amount of money both for class size reduction and
for professional development of teachers; those two things go
hand-in-hand.
I think we have to fully fund IDEA. If we just stay
current, it is going to cost you a couple of hundred million
but to go to full funding is about $17 billion. So we are
talking about real money, but it is very clear the school
districts are moving money around, trying to accommodate the
demands of IDEA.
Obviously we are all willing to look at changes in IDEA,
but these are real, new dollars that have to take place for the
reform. I don't know why when at this moment more and more
people are putting value on education, when more people
recognize that the education of their child or grandchild will
have far more to do with their chance of success in this
country than race, gender, or ethnicity. It is going to be
about your education if you are going to participate in
American society.
We don't ask what is it we need to get the job done. This
committee may have a difference of opinion from me, but we have
to start from there. I think we have to start talking about
fully funding Title I. There is not a lot of point in taking
full funding in Head Start and then dumping them into a lot of
bad schools a couple of years later. You are not going to get a
return on your investment. There are a lot of studies that show
that is what happens, you don't get that return.
We have to talk about fully funding quality teachers.
Unfortunately, today in too many locations, people make a
simple, logical economic decision not to teach. That has to
change. Certainly for Title I schools, we ought to be doing all
we can to enhance that opportunity.
Chairman Nussle. I think we will let you have the last word
on this, George.
Congressman Miller, Mr. Finn, Ms. Keegan, thank you very
much for your testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the committee was recessed, to
reconvene at 1 p.m. the next day, Wednesday, March 14, 2001.]