<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:59654.wais]
59-654cc
______
1999
FIXING OUR SCHOOLS FROM THE BOTTOM UP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-6
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio, Chairman
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
Speaker's Designee Carolina,
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut Ranking Minority Member
WALLY HERGER, California JIM McDERMOTT, Washington,
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey Leadership Designee
NICK SMITH, Michigan LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California KEN BENTSEN, Texas
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM DAVIS, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ROBERT A. WEYGAND, Rhode Island
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JIM RYUN, Kansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MAC COLLINS, Georgia DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL III,
GARY MILLER, California Pennsylvania
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Wayne T. Struble, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, September 23, 1999............... 1
Statement of:
Hon. Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida.............. 5
Hon. Richard W. Riley, Secretary, Department of Education.... 28
Hon. George V. Voinovich, United States Senator from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 49
Virginia Markell, President, National PTA.................... 64
Hon. Dwight Evans, a State Representative from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............................... 69
John T. Walton, Co-Chairman of the Children's Scholarship
Fund....................................................... 79
Rose Blassingame, Washington Scholarship Fund................ 85
Vermont White, Washington Scholarship Fund................... 87
Prepared statement of:
Hon. Rush D. Holt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 4
Governor Bush................................................ 12
Hon. Jim Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida................................................. 22
Secretary Riley.............................................. 33
Senator Voinovich............................................ 53
Ms. Markell.................................................. 67
Representative Evans......................................... 72
Patrick D. Purtill, President and Executive Director,
Washington Scholarship Fund................................ 81
Theodore J. Forstmann, Senior Partner, Forstmann Little &
Co., Cochairman and CEO, the Children's Scholarship Fund... 82
Ms. Blassingame.............................................. 86
Ms. White.................................................... 88
Additional information supplied from Governor Bush:
Table: Academic Standards, Assessments, and Accountability... 17
Response to request submitted by Mr. Green................... 27
FIXING OUR SCHOOLS
FROM THE BOTTOM UP
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m. in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John R. Kasich
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Kasich, Chambliss, Shays,
Herger, Franks, Smith, Nussle, Hoekstra, Radanovich, Bass,
Gutknecht, Hilleary, Sununu, Pitts, Knollenberg, Thornberry,
Ryun, Collins, Wamp, Green, Fletcher, Miller, Ryan, Toomey,
Spratt, Rivers, Bentsen, Davis, Clayton, Clement, Hooley, and
Holt.
Chairman Kasich. The committee will come to order. I am
very pleased about the agenda that we are going to have today.
I am very excited about the fact that we have got somebody who
is really on the front line of education reform and obviously
that being Jeb Bush, who has in a very short period of time put
together a very comprehensive program to try to address the
challenges that he has found in the State of Florida and has
been very successful at it.
And I am really pleased that he is here, along with Dick
Riley who is the Secretary of Education. I didn't realize that
Dick Riley had really been in the administration all the way
since 1992. And I know he feels passionately about the subject.
And then we are going to have George Voinovich who is a
former Governor of Ohio, and he has some unique perspectives
because of a situation in Cleveland where it--basically a
voucher program had been created and a court challenge and
there--it is an ongoing story. Along with a member of the
Pennsylvania legislature who has started a charter school and
along with the President of the National PTA, who will also
give us a more divergent view.
Then I am very excited to have John Walton, who is the co-
chairman of the Children's Scholarship Fund along with Ted
Forstmann, and that is a very exciting program where
individuals decided if government wasn't going to do what they
wanted them to do, they would do it on their own in the great
American tradition.
Education obviously is at the forefront of all the
challenges that America faces. I think that while it is a
national issue, that doesn't necessarily mean that it makes it
a Federal issue, but yet today we are going to have the
opportunity to hear from people in terms of why they think the
Federal Government's role ought to be larger or smaller and at
the same time those folks who think that we need dramatic
change in education, competition in education.
I think what makes me the--I know what makes me the most
excited about what Jeb has done in Florida is that he has been
able to combine an aggressive program to try to rescue the
public education system and has given the public education
system the resources and the time that is necessary to be able
to right itself. And in the course of events if some schools
cannot right themselves, he gives children and parents an
opportunity to give their children some real choice, not just
reserved for the very poor or the very rich but for those who
are often forgotten in America, the middle-income folks. And I
think this is a very unique program and one that I am
encouraged to see actually be able to be enacted into law.
I am very pleased about it. I happen to be a very
aggressive supporter of vouchers but yet I know on this issue
of education if we are not able to talk common sense and some
balance with people who are opposed to the issue of vouchers,
we will never reach a consensus that will be able to move us
forward.
I hope that this hearing in some ways will be able to
respond to what this Budget Committee recommended over the
years, which is at least to trim and consolidate so many of the
programs for education but yet at the same time continue the
dialogue toward doing what we all want to do, which is to
advance the cause of our children's future.
I am going to recognize Mr. Spratt, but I think maybe he
serves as one of the great examples of a man who has been able
to, I guess you could say in many respects, been one of the
perfect parents, with a daughter who graduated from medical
school--I think two daughters, is that right John from medical
school? Unbelievable success, any parents's dream. And I know
he feels strongly about this issue.
I think over the course of today we will be able to all
learn and maybe make some progress and become a little better
leaders in our communities, which is really the answer.
The subject of today's hearing is Education From the Bottom
Up. Frankly I think that is the way we fix education in
America, from the bottom up. And I am anxious to hear from
Governor Bush.
John you are recognized.
Mr. Spratt. I am anxious to hear from Governor Bush, too,
and I thank you for the introduction. And I do feel
passionately about this. I think everyone in the room does. But
rather than use my time, I want to turn to someone who is a
real educator, a member of the Education Committee, but before
he came to Congress was a teacher, professor, assistant
director of Princeton's physics lab. And while in that position
he was not just teaching at Princeton at the highest level of
American education, he was formulating a program in New Jersey
where scientists are now engaged in improving math and science
education in the classrooms throughout New Jersey, a very
successful program there, and also has recently been appointed
to the National Commission on Math and Science.
Rush Holt, I yield my time so that you can get the ball
rolling for our side.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Spratt. The Chairman is absolutely
right. You are a longtime champion of education. And I
certainly appreciate all you do. And I appreciate your giving
me a moment now. Ninety percent of America's elementary and
secondary school students attend public schools. We should
concentrate our education resources on the public schools. It
is necessary for our democracy. And while most schools are
good, many face really overwhelming obstacles in educating
future citizenry and our work force.
We in Washington have an obligation to help States and
localities overcome these hurdles and meet the needs of our
students. We need to help ensure that they have competent
teachers, smaller class sizes that allow adequate teacher
attention, schools that are safe, not overcrowded, access to
technology and modern school facilities.
Despite the House leadership's rhetorical support of
education, their actions have spoken otherwise. This year's
budget resolution cut funding for education training and social
services by $200 million, compared to a freeze at last year's
level. Now, 1 week from the end of the fiscal year, the
Majority is finally allowing a markup of the bill to fund
education. And there is scrambling to pass spending bills for
other agencies that take funds away from education allocation.
And you know we, we on this side of the Budget Committee, have
consistently advocated more efficient use of education
resources and more funding where it is needed. We don't seek to
take money out of public schools. We want to support them. We
want to reduce class size, modernize facilities by providing
tax-free school modernization bonds. We want to improve the
quality of teaching. We want States to set performance
standards and we want to expand public school choice.
Last year Congress provided $1.2 billion so that States
could start hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes.
The evidence is abundant, smaller class sizes produce better
students. But we need to get on to the next steps on this. And
we have run into roadblocks on that. Many older schools are in
terrible shape. The GAO estimate that we need more than $100
billion to repair existing schools. Democrats have endorsed
legislation to provide Federal tax relief for $25 billion in
bonds to modernize schools. And we have had to resort to a
discharge petition to try to get even a debate on school
construction and modernization. Many communities could use this
assistance.
In my home State of New Jersey, public school enrollment is
increasing nearly 10 percent in the next half dozen years.
Montgomery Township in my district, once a rural farming
community, has seen its enrollment soar from 1,500 students in
1990 to 3,500 students when the doors opened 2 weeks ago. In
the next 5 years, enrollment will expand by another 1,400
pupils. The kindergarten class is twice the size of the senior
class. The average Montgomery taxpayer now pays $4,600 in
property taxes for schools, far outstripping the $3,000 in
property taxes for all other municipal and county services.
And what is worse, projects on the drawing board to meet
these known needs for schools will add another almost $1,200 in
taxes for the town's taxpayers. This doesn't include the cost
for new teachers, textbooks, school buses, security measures
that are becoming a part of every new school building.
Localities clearly need help. Too many students are falling
behind in our current system. Forty-one percent of American's
fourth graders cannot read at the basic level, and three-
quarters of students do not take algebra by the end of the
eighth grade. Approximately half of our science and math
teachers are teaching in fields where they don't have a major
or minor in their college training. We want to address this
problem by helping States and localities set standards for
school performance, assisting them to meet those standards and
supporting comprehensive school improvement efforts to improve
student learning. We want to ensure that all classrooms have
competent teachers by recruiting new teachers, training and
testing teachers, and increasing access to technology and
helping teachers incorporate technology into the teaching plan.
There are right now 346,000 information technology jobs
open in our Nation, many of them in central New Jersey. Last
year Congress passed legislation to allow more immigrants into
our country to help fill these jobs. The employers are
clamoring. Those are opportunities that our students could take
advantage of if they had the proper grounding in technical
subjects, beginning with modern schools that are wired for 21st
century learning. As a teacher, I know Washington doesn't have
all the answers. But the education of our youth is a national
responsibility, similar to our national defense, and it is time
that Congress shoulders its share to help schools provide our
children the rich future they deserve.
What could be more important Mr. Chairman?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rush D. Holt, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey
As a teacher for 30 years, I welcome this opportunity to examine
how Washington can help improve American education.
Ninety percent of America's elementary and secondary school
students attend public schools. We should concentrate our education
resources on public schools; it is necessary for our democracy. While
most of these schools are good, many face overwhelming obstacles in
educating our future citizenry and workforce. We in Washington have an
obligation to help states and localities overcome these hurdles and
meet the needs of our students. We need to help ensure they have:
<bullet> competent teachers
<bullet> small classrooms that allow for adequate teacher attention
<bullet> schools that are safe and not overcrowded, and
<bullet> access to technology that students will need in their
future jobs.
Despite the House leadership's rhetorical support for education,
their actions have actually hurt education. For example:
<bullet> This year's Budget Resolution cut funding for education,
training, and social services by $200 million compared to a freeze at
last year's level.
<bullet> One week until the end of the fiscal year, the Majority is
FINALLY allowing mark up of the bill to fund education. Worse yet, they
are scrambling to pass spending bills for other agencies by taking
funds away from the Labor-Health-Education subcommittee allocation.
They have taken so much from the education funding bill that, according
to the Congressional Budget Office, the remaining scarce funds would
require cutting education and other programs by 30 percent.
We on this side of the Budget Committee consistently advocate more
efficient use of education resources and more funding where needed. We
do not take money out of public schools but want to support them by:
<bullet> reducing class size,
<bullet> modernizing schools by providing tax-free school
modernization bonds,
<bullet> improving the quality of teaching,
<bullet> helping states set performance standards, and
<bullet> expanding public school choice.
Class Size
Last year, Congress provided $1.2 billion so states could start
hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size. The evidence is
abundant: smaller class sizes produce better students. We need to get
on with the hiring of these new teachers.
School Modernization
Many older schools are in terrible shape. GAO estimates that we
need $112 billion to repair existing schools. Democrats have endorsed
legislation to provide federal tax relief for $25 billion in bonds to
modernize schools. We who support this have had to resort to a
discharge petition just to get a debate on school construction and
modernization legislation.
Many communities could use this assistance. In my home state of New
Jersey, public school enrollment is expected to increase 7 percent
between 1995 and 2007.
Montgomery Township in my district was once a rural farming
community, but its enrollment has soared from 1,500 students in 1990 to
3,500 students when doors opened two weeks ago. In the next five years,
enrollment will expand by another 1,400 pupils. The kindergarten class
is twice the size of the senior class. The average Montgomery taxpayer
will pay $4,602 in property taxes for schools, far outstripping the
$3,000 in taxes for all other municipal and county services combined.
What's worse, projects on the drawing board are expected to add
another $1,158 charge annually to the school tax for the town's
taxpayers--and this figure does not include the costs for new teachers,
textbooks, school buses, or the new security measures that are becoming
part of every new school building. Localities clearly need help.
Performance Standards
Too many students are falling behind under our current system.
Forty one percent of American 4th graders cannot read at the basic
level and three-quarters of students do not take algebra by the end of
8th grade.
Democrats want to address this problem by helping states and
localities set standards for school performance, assisting them to meet
those standards, and supporting comprehensive school improvement
efforts to improve student learning.
Improving the Quality of Teaching
Democrats want to ensure that all classrooms have competent
teachers by recruiting new teachers, training and testing teachers,
increasing access to technology, and helping teachers incorporate
technology into the teaching plan.
There are more than 346,000 information technology jobs open right
now in our nation--many of them right in central New Jersey. Yet last
year Congress passed legislation to allow more immigrants into our
country to fill these jobs because there are not enough Americans with
the training to fill them. Those are opportunities that our students
could take advantage of if they had the proper grounding in technical
subjects, beginning with modern schools that are wired for 21st century
learning.
Conclusion
As a teacher, I know Washington doesn't have all the answers. But
the education of our youth is a national responsibility, similar to our
national defense, and it is time that Congress shoulders its share to
help schools provide our children with the rich future they deserve.
What can be more important?
Chairman Kasich. OK, Governor, it is all yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Governor Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really honored
to be here with you. It is a joy to be here to talk about
something that is the highest priority in our State, which is
to ensure that every child that goes to school in our State
gets a year's worth of knowledge in a year's time. That is what
I wake up thinking each day; I remain focused and continue to
visualize it, so that in 4 years' time it could actually
happen. And if it does happen, we would be the first State in
the country where that would be the case.
Before I begin, I want to say one thing about another
element of public policy where I am very thankful. And that is
the support that Washington has provided States during
disasters. And while we were fortunate not to have a direct hit
of Hurricane Floyd, it is heartening to know that the
organization, the cooperation that exists between Washington
through FEMA, State governments, and local efforts is far
better than it was just 5 or 6 years ago. I commend you for
your role in those efforts and for adequately funding FEMA so
that people are not scared out of their minds as the storms
pass or directly hit us.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the people of North
Carolina. We have been blessed to have support from people all
across the country when we have been hit with storms. We are
pledging to help Governor Hunt and the people of North Carolina
as best we can and I thank you again for what you did to
bolster the Federal effort in that regard.
Imagine if it was possible to ensure that every child that
God has given the ability to learn, did so--didn't matter about
family income or race--that a child could go to a school and
for a year's time get the kind of quality education that would
ensure that their learning gains would be equal to a year's
effort. I imagine that, pretty regularly, but sadly, in our
State it is not the case. Fifty-two percent of our high school
graduates--52 percent of the kids that should graduate do so in
the State of Florida. Sixty percent of the community college
students--and we have a fine community college system in the
State of Florida--take remedial courses, in essence high school
courses to be able to continue their higher education.
Fifty percent of our fourth graders are not able to read at
fourth grade reading level. And 60,000 of our ninth graders,
one-third of them, have an average of a D or F. The next year,
at age 16, many of them drop out or begin the process of moving
away from an education.
What we decided to do is something a little more dramatic
than the run-of-the-mill photo-op performed in the State of
Florida. The legislature passed the A+Plan. I would like to
describe a little bit about it: some of its principles, how we
are implementing it, some of the myths that have been shattered
along the way, and how people are reacting to a new system of
accountability in the State of Florida.
The A+ Plan is built upon the foundation of three
fundamental principles. The first principle is meaningful and
undiluted accountability. There should be different
consequences between the success that does occur in education
all across the State and across the country and the failure
that sadly occurs too often.
The second principle is zero tolerance for failure, and the
honesty and courage to point out where it exists. We should not
have an attitude that there are factors outside the school that
drive the reason why kids don't learn and just write it off as
if it is society's problem, because it is our problem when
children don't learn. And whether they come from broken homes
or they have a lower income, it is incumbent upon us to
organize ourselves around these children in a way to ensure
that they do learn.
Finally, the third principle is that education must be
child centered. It shouldn't be school centered. It should be
child centered and certainly shouldn't be system centered,
which it is in most places today. All interests, teachers,
families, Governors, Congressmen and women, all the efforts
should be focused and aligned to the interest of the child. And
we should put all our priorities, all of the incentives, all of
the consequences aligned to whether a child is learning. We
have asked schools to do far more over the last decade, and now
it is time to go back to the fundamentals, to move to a child-
centered system.
Rather than explaining the problem away, we have done
something different in Florida, which is to begin the process
to eliminate social promotion and fund the programs necessary
to support local schools so that they can have the resources to
ensure the kids learn a year's worth of knowledge in a year's
time.
We have implemented innovative systemic reforms to adhere
to one guiding principle. First we assess each child, grades 3
through 10, with a meaningful test. The Florida Comprehensive
Achievement Test has been adopted as one of our standards for
assessing our students. Based on the best information we have,
we are among the top five States in terms of our standards and
how we assess our children. Perhaps this is something you might
look at to have an accurate assessment of how other States'
standards compare.
Because we can now use our test as a measuring device on
whether children are learning, we can then clearly communicate
the progress of our students by aligning school standards to
student achievement. It is a pretty radical idea, but in fact
it seems to have worked. Instead of grading schools 1 through 5
or in terms that may be vague, we actually used the old-
fashioned report card A through F. I can tell you there is a
big distinction when a school is rated 5 instead of F in terms
of the emphasis that that school gets from the people that are
responsible for our children's education.
It is important to make sure that the standards are high.
We have a system that is easy to understand but it is rigorous
enough for there to be real divergence in the outcomes of
schools.
Third, we reward high-performing schools and schools that
are improving. In fact, next week, we will have $30 million
available to the 300 public schools that have been A-rated, or
have shown improvement to move upward. That $100 per student
goes directly to the principals where the school improvement
committees, use the funds as they see fit. No rules, no
attachment of any kind. If they want to hire teachers' aides or
hire more teachers, to lower class sizes or bring in computer
equipment or have after-school programs or start Saturday
school programs, they have the flexibility to use that money as
they see fit.
Fourth, we assist the lower performing schools, which is
critical. We say to the D and F schools that they have to have
school improvement plans that are approved by their school
district. In fact, the F-rated schools have to come to the
State Board of Education with a plan to do something different.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting a different result. We no longer
tolerate that. We provide funding assistance and technical
assistance to help them craft these plans.
Finally, and this is the part that has garnered quite a bit
of attention, we say that when schools fail and fail again, the
parents that have these kids in these schools ought to be given
other options. They ought to be given three options, in
essence:
One, another public school in that school district--and
remember, our school districts are very large so that is a
broad array of options for the parents.
Two, a private option, and we will talk a little bit about
that.
And three, they will be able to send their kids to a newly
reinvigorated, reincorporated school on the same premises. They
will have more support given to them but they will have higher
expectations, so that the schools get off this critically low-
performing list.
We call these, this option for parents, Opportunity,
Scholarships. You all up here call them, I think, vouchers. I
don't like the V-word because the V-word is used in politics.
The intent of our plan is to improve all education, to empower
parents when schools are not achieving the desired result to
provide an opportunity for them. So we call this option the
Opportunity Scholarships.
There are 4 criteria for these scholarships:
One, the tuition amount is the full funding amount that
that child would receive if that child was in a public school.
And, the tuition that they accept cannot exceed the scholarship
amount. Any private school that opts into the program has to
accept the scholarship as the full amount of tuition.
Secondly, the private schools have to adhere to health and
safety regulations--Washington, State, and locally determined.
They have to take all comers. They can't pick and choose who
they want. If there are more people wanting to go to the
school, then they use a lottery system to pick the kids that go
there. And they have to--the private schools have to administer
the same tests that the students would take each year in public
school, the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test.
In the first year of this plan, 78 schools have received an
F grade. If they receive an F grade again, then those parents
will be given the option of another school; 61,000 children
attend F schools in our State today.
The first year of its implementation, students at two
schools have been offered opportunity scholarships. In the two
schools, 134 children were afforded opportunity scholarships;
76 of them chose to go to a public school in the Pensacola area
and another 58, I believe, sent their children to five private
schools that are participating in the plan.
It has been fun, in all honesty, to watch the myths that
have been built up over time about what happens when you
empower parents and give them the financial tools to be able to
make decisions. One myth that you always hear is the ``brain
drain''--that only the good kids will leave these schools.
There are all sorts of reasons why this myth exists, but we
believe the ``brain drain'' myth has been shattered in the
first year of our experiment.
Of the kids that have gone to the private school, their
level of aptitude on the test that has been taken is no
different than the kids that stayed in the public school
system. Their level of income is no different than the kids
that remained in the public school system.
The second myth is that this will only benefit families of
high income and more stable families. In our case the exact
opposite is true, and it will remain that way because we are
aligning this accountability system to the schools that are
receiving F's. And sadly in our case, the students that are in
the F schools, are 85 percent minority, about 85 percent
qualified for reduced and free lunch. This is not a welfare
program for the rich. This is an empowerment program for the
disadvantaged.
I cannot envision as we unveil this over time that it will
change in terms of its impact on improving the chance of
economically disadvantaged families to be able to get a better
quality education. And that is why perhaps Andrew Young is
supportive of our plan. The Urban League of Greater Miami is
supportive of our plan as is Bob Butterworth, the leading
Democrat in the State of Florida. The Attorney General not only
is defending our plan, because sadly we are in the courts as
you might imagine, with two lawsuits, but he personally
supports the plan. He was opposed to it when it was in the
political realm, when it was battered about in the campaign,
but once he began to see the impact of resources being
allocated toward the schools that need the help, he became a
personal supporter as well. It makes a difference that this has
broad bipartisan support.
And, finally, there is a myth that the schools, where
parents are sending children to other schools, are being
abandoned--the ``abandonment'' myth. I hear it all the time.
Well, at Bibbs and Dixon, the two elementary schools where
parents do have choices today, there is a renaissance going on.
It is exciting. I wish and I hope maybe you will be able to
visit Pensacola and see what is actually going on. At these
schools today, the principals now have the power to hire
quality educators and fire those that fail in the classroom. At
these schools they have lower class sizes today. At these
schools they have gone to an extended school year, from 180
days to 210 days, paid for by the State. At these schools,
there is a lower teacher/student ratio, more after-school
programs and student tutorial programs. They are taking
advantage of direct instruction, and these kids are going to
learn. I guarantee you that both schools will see advancement
and not be F-rated next year.
So the bottom line is the parents that choose another
option, have a better choice. The parents that chose a public
school option in the school district are satisfied. And the
parents that chose to remain in the original school are going
to have their children get a better education.
The reaction to our plan has been fun to watch as well. All
across the State, particularly in the major urban areas, there
has been a dramatic refocus on the schools where kids have not
been learning. Instead of writing it off, now there is a
consequence of failure. And because of that, school district
administrators and teachers and principals and parents don't
want their kids to be in schools that fail, and they are
changing their attitudes and focusing their priorities and
putting the resources in these schools.
My best example of this is Earl Lennard who is the
Superintendent of the Hillsborough County School System--
Congressman Davis knows him well. Mr. Lennard was not a
supporter of our plan--I don't know, maybe he was. He wasn't
vocal in his support; mark him down as neutral for the moment--
and he didn't have an F-school in the Hillsborough County
School District, which was quite remarkable, given the fact
that it is probably in the top 20 in size in the United States.
But he announced that all of his top administrators and he
would take a 5 percent pay cut if any school in the
Hillsborough County School District would receive an F. Imagine
that. There is no place in America that I am aware of where
that is the case. In fact, one Hillsborough County teacher was
quoted in the paper, saying: I have seen principals eat worms,
I have seen vice principals kiss pigs to get students to read a
certain number of pages, but I have never seen a superintendent
put his salary on the line.
You know what? There was a businessman that went to Oak
Grove Middle School in Hillsborough County 20 years ago. This
school was rated D on the last report. Based on what the
superintendent had done and based on his belief that we needed
to have more accountability in public education, he has now
adopted this school, his business has, and they have 15
employees that are working once a week in the school. They are
mentoring eighth graders to prepare for the math element of the
Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test. And he has committed,
and so have all the other volunteers of this business, that
they will take a 5 percent pay cut if their school moves to F.
My hope and my dream is that we will tear down the barriers
that say this is the public school system, therefore ``hands
off;'' ``it is the responsibility of parents and teachers alone
to carry this out.'' We must tear down the barriers and make
education the highest priority of our community, of our State.
People should show their support for our students by getting
involved not just in 5 percent pay cuts or the possibility of
it, but getting involved in mentoring children. And we have
already begun to see that.
A month ago, I unveiled a mentoring initiative that called
upon Floridians to get onto the playing field as it relates to
education of our kids and helping them out. We expect and we
hope to have 200,000 mentors matched with kids, most of whom
first will be aligned in these F and D and C schools, to be
able to provide an hour a week, every week, to ensure the
children get a year's worth of knowledge in a year's time.
We have asked and have allowed State government employees
to take 4 hours off a month to mentor. We have encouraged
larger businesses across the State to do the same. Thankfully
they don't have to wait for our pretty complex, burdensome rule
process. They have already begun. They are not waiting for the
rules to change, they are not doing it to get 4 hours off from
work, they are doing it because they know this is a high
priority in their own lives.
What can Washington do to help us out? I am a believer in
charter schools. In fact, I set up a charter school with the
Urban League of Greater Miami several years ago. It was an
exciting process to be involved in the creation of this
independent public school. Mr. Lennard who is the
superintendent of Hillsborough, again not a strong supporter of
some elements of our plan, does believe in a more decentralized
approach. In fact, while he was complaining about our plan
before its passage, I was wandering around the school with him,
I challenged him when he asked, ``Why can you hold us to high
standards and then impose upon us all sorts of rules that
aren't aligned toward the desired results, toward the standards
you want to achieve?'' I said, ``I am for you on that. Give me
the list of things that Washington and Tallahassee impose on
you that make it harder for you to ensure that children learn.
Better than that, why don't you become the first charter school
district in the State of Florida?'' We shook hands, went to the
legislature, got a bill passed and today they are working on a
dramatic plan to eliminate many of the rules and mandates that
are imposed from Tallahassee on the school district. And in
return we are going to hold them to high standards. We are
going to say there is a consequence when you achieve good
things, good things will happen to you. And when you do not
achieve your desired result, there is a different consequence.
My vision is to have charter school districts. In fact, we
ought to have charter school States. There is broad bipartisan
support for charter schools. In fact President Clinton's
advocacy of charter schools freed up money that allowed us to
create our first charter school. I am very grateful for that--
there were no strings attached to that money. We had a
contractual obligation with the school district to make that
work.
That would be my advice to you, look at means such as the
``Straight A's Act'' or other means to hold us to whatever
standards you consider to be the appropriate ones for our great
country. Fund the programs in a flexible way for us to carry
out our mission. I believe if you come to Florida, you will be
proud of the fact that this State is saying no more social
promotion, yes to high standards, we are going to teach kids
algebra in eighth grade. We are going to ensure by third grade
they are going to be reading at grade level.
There is a veritable renaissance going on in public
education today. This is the kind of response that I hope you
would want and would promote by freeing up the resources from
Washington. We have a relatively large size Department of
Education in Tallahassee. It has gotten a lot smaller since my
friend and now Lieutenant Governor, Commissioner Brogan, was
there 4 years ago. He cut the department in half, but it is
still pretty good size; 7 percent of our budget statewide comes
from Washington but 40 percent of the Department of Education's
work is to fill out the forms and comply with the requirements
from Washington, DC; 40 percent of the staff of this Department
of Education is trying to comply with your wishes. They are not
focused on ensuring that a child gets a year's worth of
knowledge in a year's time.
I would hope that could change. I would hope that you could
trust us, once we meet certain criteria of rigorous assessments
and high standards and focus on assuring that kids that have
been left behind in the current system begin to see
advancements in their education; that you could trust us to be
able to do what is right for our children. It is the highest
priority in our State and I am pretty certain that it is the
highest in New Jersey, the highest in Kansas and all across
this country. If you trust us we will perform. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Bush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This is my
first time addressing a Committee of the United States Congress as
Florida's governor, and I am grateful for the invitation and the
opportunity to discuss Florida's educational reform efforts with you.
You have no doubt heard much about Florida's recent educational
reforms, and depending on the source of your information, some of what
you've heard may even be true.
In the short time that I have before you, I would like to briefly
describe some of the important elements of the education reform plan
that we adopted in Florida this year, then discuss some of the dramatic
efforts being taken by the dedicated educators throughout our state to
improve student achievement. I'd like to conclude by discussing the
ways we believe the federal government can best help us in our efforts
to provide a high-quality education to every child in Florida.
The Good News and the Bad
When I took office as Florida's Governor in January, the news on
the educational front was both good and bad.
The good news was that Florida was moving in the direction of high
standards, rigorous assessment and true accountability.
Florida had adopted a rigorous set of standards known as the
Sunshine State Standards. These standards tell us what students should
know and be able to do from kindergarten through high school. Florida
had also established a school evaluation system that was tied to these
standards, and we had established a test, the Florida Comprehensive
Achievement Test, the ``FCAT,'' that was specifically designed to test
these standards.
However, there was also some bad news. Shortly after I took office,
it was announced that Florida's high school graduation rate was an
astonishing 52 percent. Fifty percent of Florida's fourth graders were
not able to read at the fourth grade level. And, a survey showed that
over one-third of Florida's ninth graders, or about 60,000 ninth
graders, had a D or F average. And despite this fact, Florida, like
many states, was still clinging to the notion of ``social promotion''--
a feel-good idea that was setting up tens of thousands of Florida
children for ultimate and tragic failure.
In that context, Lieutenant Governor Frank Brogan and I proposed
and fought for legislative approval of the Bush/Brogan A+ Plan for
Education.
The Principles of the A+ Plan
The A+ Plan is built upon the foundation of three fundamental
principals. The first principle is meaningful and undiluted
accountability--there must be different consequences between success
and failure.
The second principle is zero tolerance for failure, and the honesty
and the courage to point out where it exists. Too often, there can be
political or institutional reluctance to identify ``failure.'' Although
this can be extremely difficult and painful, it becomes much easier
when one realizes that a loss of courage to identify failure results in
sacrificing children and their futures merely to protect the
``system.''
This leads to our third principle. We zealously believe that our
educational system must be child-centered, not system-centered or even
school-centered. The educational universe should revolve around the
individual educational needs of each and every child, not the other way
around.
We have weaved these three fundamental principles throughout the A+
Plan.
The Elements of the A+ Plan
Assess annual student learning against high standards. First, in
order to more accurately assess student learning and to better
determine how well Florida's students were achieving the learning
benchmarks set forth in the Sunshine State Standards, we're expanding
the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test so that all third through
tenth graders will take it, not just fourth, fifth, eighth, and tenth
graders. To demonstrate the rigor of the Florida Comprehensive
Achievement Test, I have included sample questions from the tenth grade
FCAT with my written testimony.
Earlier this year, Education Week magazine rated each state's
educational standards and assessment methods in its ``Quality Counts
'99'' report. I'm proud to say that Florida was given a grade of ``A
minus'' and was ranked among the top five states in this category. With
Florida's adoption of the A+ Plan this year, I am confident that
Florida's ranking will climb even closer to number one in next year's
review. For the record, I've included a copy of the Quality Counts '99
state rankings.
Clearly communicate school performance to everyone. Second, in
order to clearly identify to parents, teachers and community leaders
which schools are performing and which are not, we changed the
terminology for grading Florida's schools from a ``1'' through ``5''
grading scale to an ``A'' through ``F'' grading scale. We are also
sending the school report cards home to parents and posting them on the
Internet.
I am especially proud of the fact that our grading system sets one
standard for all students, regardless of their race, regardless of
their family income levels, and regardless of their ethnicity-every
single student and every single school will be held to uniformly high
standards.
Reward high performing and improving schools. Third, schools that
move up a grade and schools that receive an A grade are directly
receiving a bonus of $100 per student to spend as each school sees fit.
In fact, next week we will be distributing $30 million to Florida's
high performing and improving schools with no strings attached as a
reward for their exceptional performance.
Assist low performing schools. Fourth, to quickly turn around low-
performing schools, schools that receive grades of D or F are required
to develop a school improvement plan specifically tailored to address
the particular needs of each school. These schools will also receive
technical and financial assistance from their local school districts
and the state.
Provide alternatives to children in chronically failing schools.
Fifth and finally, if a school receives an F grade in any two years of
a four year period, children in those chronically failing schools will
be given alternative educational choices through an Opportunity
Scholarship. The Scholarships will allow these students to obtain a
quality education at a better-performing public school or the private
school of their choice.
Opportunity Scholarships
Here's how our Opportunity Scholarship program works. Private
schools that accept students using Opportunity Scholarships must accept
the value of the Scholarships as full tuition, must meet applicable
health and safety standards, and must accept students using Opportunity
Scholarships on a random basis. Students using Opportunity Scholarships
to attend a private school will still be required to take the Florida
Comprehensive Achievement Test and the Florida Writes! test so we can
continue to evaluate their academic progress.
When the state Department of Education issued grades for Florida's
public schools in June, 78 public schools in Florida received an F
grade, and over 600 schools received a grade of D. In terms of
students, this meant that 508,000 students were attending D schools,
and 61,000 were attending F Schools.
Because they had been previously identified as critically low-
performing schools, students at two Pensacola elementary schools that
received F's this year became eligible to receive Opportunity
Scholarships.
In total, 134 children left these two public schools to attend
other schools. Seventy-six left to attend a better-performing public
school, and 58 left to attend five participating private schools that
included four parochial schools and one Montessori school.
Debunking the Myths About Opportunity Scholarships
In the weeks that these children have been using Opportunity
Scholarships, many myths about the Scholarships have been destroyed.
The ``skimming'' myth. One of the often-repeated myths we heard
during the legislative debate was that providing students in
chronically failing schools with alternative educational choices would
result in ``brain-drain'' or ``skimming'' of the best students from the
failing schools, resulting in a disproportionate number of quote-
unquote ``hard-to-educate'' kids being left behind. Data released last
week from these two elementary schools in Pensacola squarely
contradicts that myth. When school officials looked at the academic
history of the children who used Opportunity Scholarships, roughly even
numbers of high-performing and low-performing students chose to attend
other schools using Opportunity Scholarships.
The ``elitist conspiracy'' myth. Another myth that has been
destroyed is what I call the ``elitist conspiracy'' myth. Those that
repeated this myth said that Opportunity Scholarships would mainly
benefit and be used by children from suburban, white, higher-income
families. Shortly after school report cards went out this summer, we
looked at the racial and economic breakdown of F schools, and this myth
was quickly destroyed. Of the 61,000 students in F schools, 85 percent
are minorities--63 percent, or 38,430 are African American children,
and 20 percent, or 12,200 are Hispanic children. Furthermore, of all
students attending Florida's F schools, 81 percent of them participate
in the free and reduced school lunch program.
Not only do these statistics debunk the ``elitist conspiracy''
myth, they powerfully underscore the urgent moral imperative we face in
ensuring that each of these children receives the opportunity to gain
the life-long benefits of a high quality education. In light of these
statistics, it's not hard to understand why Florida's Opportunity
Scholarship Program has received the endorsement and support of African
American state legislators in Florida, the Urban League of Greater
Miami, and most recently, civil rights leader and former United Nations
ambassador Andrew Young.
The ``abandonment'' myth. The other myth that was destroyed was the
myth that Opportunity Scholarships would lead to the ``abandonment'' of
the children ``left behind'' in the failing schools.
I wish that every Member of this Committee could have attended the
Florida State Board of Education meeting in June when local school
officials presented school improvement plans for these two chronically
failing schools. The list of reforms being initiated at these schools
by local officials was truly impressive in substance and in scope:
<bullet> More after-school and Saturday tutorials,
<bullet> A reduction in the teacher-student ratio,
<bullet> A lengthened school year from 180 to 210 days, and
<bullet> Blocks of time that are specifically dedicated to
traditional core subjects--reading, writing and mathematics.
So principals would have the authority they need to improve the
educational environment, local school officials gave the two principals
the ability to hire or transfer any person working in the school.
And, in order to reduce the high turnover rate of students in these
schools, the school district has now agreed to provide transportation
to any student who moves but wishes to continue attending either
elementary school.
The state of Florida has also committed more resources to quickly
turn these schools around. The Department of Education is providing
more money, including grants totaling $87,000, for basic skills
programs to help improve learning in the areas where it is needed most:
reading, writing and mathematics.
Witnessing the remarkable changes planned for these two schools had
a powerful effect on Florida's Attorney General Bob Butterworth, one of
the state's highest-ranking elected Democrats. Although General
Butterworth had previously opposed Opportunity Scholarships, shortly
after he witnessed the dramatic efforts being made to improve the
quality of education at the two Pensacola schools, he announced his
support of Opportunity Scholarships, because he believed they were
responsible for sparking the improvements at these schools.
So while it is very early in the implementation of the A+ Plan,
many of the worst fears about Opportunity Scholarships have failed to
materialize, and in fact, we have turned skeptics into supporters along
the way.
Educational Improvement Sparked by the A+ Plan
And beyond Pensacola, it has been inspiring to witness the changes
taking place all across our state by Florida's dedicated educators in
response to the accountability measures of the A+ Plan.
<bullet> For example, in Martin County on Florida's southeastern
coast, school officials are providing teachers at two low-performing
schools with ten extra days of additional training to help them teach
students basic skills. Also, teachers at low-performing schools will
receive a $1,000 bonus for raising the performance of their students.
<bullet> In Jacksonville, low-performing schools will now have
summer and after-school programs to focus on improving reading,
writing, and math skills.
<bullet> School officials in Ocala are hiring additional teachers
to reduce class sizes and the school superintendent has called for more
teacher training and development of parent-community activities.
<bullet> School officials in Broward County, the nation's fifth
largest school district, are spending millions of dollars to reduce
first-grade class sizes to 18-20 students per class in 104 low-
performing schools. An associate superintendent told the local
newspaper, ``Contrary to public opinion, the schools have really been
energized by this [grading system]. They are determined to improve
their scores.''
<bullet> In the Tampa area, Hillsborough County school
superintendent Earl Lennard made statewide news recently when he vowed
to take a 5 percent pay cut, or a personal loss of $8,250, if any
school in Hillsborough County receives an F grade. To meet this high
expectation, Lennard promised his schools the support they need,
including reduced class sizes for select ``D'' schools and money for
after-school or Saturday tutoring at all schools. This pledge prompted
one Hillsborough schoolteacher to remark, ``I've seen principals eat
worms. I've seen vice principals kiss pigs to get students to read a
certain number of pages, but I have never seen a superintendent put his
salary on the line.'' At least not until the A+ Plan.
<bullet> In Miami-Dade County, the fourth largest school district
in the nation, school officials are increasing intensive math and
reading instruction at schools receiving low grades, and are hiring 210
additional teachers to work at the 26 schools that received F grades.
Elementary school students in Miami-Dade County will see their class
sizes shrink, in some cases by half!
Keep in mind, that in each of these cases, local school officials--
not state officials and not federal officials--are implementing the
various reforms that they believe will work best in their schools. As a
state, we have simply set up an accountability system that is child-
centered and standards-based. We have injected our educational system
with the catalytic mechanisms needed to give every educator at every
school real incentives to see that every child gains the power of
knowledge.
Future Goals of the A+ Plan
So I am excited and hopeful about the educational renaissance that
is beginning to take place throughout Florida, and in future years, as
we continue to implement the entirety of the A+ Plan, we expect to see
even greater benefits.
Eliminate ``social promotion'' and increase funding for remediation
efforts. One goal in particular that we hope to achieve is the complete
elimination of social promotion. Based on a preliminary survey,
Florida's school districts are in the process of revising their Pupil
Progression Plans as a result of the A+ Plan. The term ``administrative
placement'' is being removed from these plans, and performance criteria
are providing the basis for promotion.
We've provided $527 million in flexible funds for local school
districts to use to help provide remediation so that students can get
the help they need to be promoted to the next grade with proficiency at
their grade level. School districts are using these flexible funds to
implement a variety of approaches: some are hiring additional teachers
and reducing class sizes, others are funding after-school programs and
tutoring, some are purchasing additional materials and supplies, others
are providing intensive reading instruction, and others are capping
class sizes in algebra. Each school district is doing what it believes
is best.
A year's worth of knowledge in a year's time. The other significant
change we expect to see in the future is having the capability to
determine whether children are learning a year's worth of knowledge in
a year's time.
Once we begin testing all third through tenth graders, we will be
able to measure each student's annual progress against the Sunshine
State standards. With this information, our state's grading system will
ultimately be based on students meeting high standards as well as each
student's annual progress.
Leave no child behind. There's another element of the A+ Plan's new
grading system that I am proud of: our commitment to ensure that no
child is left behind. The A+ Plan's new grading system, which we will
be implementing during the next two years, will take into account the
performance of the lowest performing 25 percent of students in Florida.
Schools will not be able to attain high grades by simply focusing their
efforts on the top three-quarters of students in the state. Our future
grading system will ensure that Florida's educators focus attention on
the bottom quartile of the state's students.
Continue tearing down barriers to learning. Ultimately, we hope to
tear down the barriers and the obstacles to student achievement, and
make Florida's educational system truly aligned and obsessively focused
solely on student learning. Once the barriers come down, educators,
parents and community leaders alike will be inspired to prove that
every child can learn. When Hillsborough County School superintendent
put his salary on the line and voluntarily risked a five percent pay
cut to guarantee that no school in his district would receive an F
grade, Tampa businessman Dave Marshall made a similar pledge. Because
Mr. Marshall's alma mater, Oak Grove Middle School, had received a D,
he pledged to give up five percent of his own salary and donate it to
the fundraising branch of the school district if Oak Grove went down to
an F. Mr. Marshall then recruited ten coworkers from his company to
tutor eighth grade students at the school for one hour each week. And
this is only one example of what can be achieved if we continue to
increase accountability and remove barriers to student learning.
Mentoring Initiative. To encourage more adult and community
involvement in the lives of Florida's children, last month I was joined
by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin
Powell, to kick off my Mentoring Initiative. Since taking office last
January, I have spent one hour per week at Augusta Raa Middle School in
Tallahassee mentoring a student, and we're hoping to recruit 200,000
mentors across Florida to get engaged in the lives of our state's
children. This initiative will bring together non-profit groups, state
agencies, businesses, communities of faith, schools, and others from
around the state in a partnership designed to help students excel, both
in and out of school. We are also changing the state personnel policy
to allow state employees to devote one hour a week, or four hours a
month to mentor Florida's young people.
The Federal Role in Education
So we have much work to do as we continue to implement this
comprehensive reform plan that will bring Florida's educational system
into the 21st century. While we have begun to do all we can to make
Florida's educational system performance-based and child-centered,
seven percent of our budget is regulation-based and system-centered,
and that's the federal portion of our education budget.
I am here to fully support the principles behind the Academic
Achievement for All Act, or ``Straight A's Act.''
States like Florida that are moving toward a truly accountable,
performance-based and child-centered system should be given regulatory
and funding flexibility to achieve their academic goals. It's time to
move away from the Washington-knows-best model, and allow states that
are willing to meet stringent performance goals to have more
flexibility.
The current federal approach is still based on a model that was
designed in the 20th century, and states like Florida are blazing
forward with 21st century educational approaches. Through charter
schools, charter districts, and performance contracts, we're finding
ways to hold schools accountable with much less process.
Right now, federal programs have lots of process, and little or no
accountability.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. Though the federal
contribution to education in Florida is small, only about seven percent
of total spending, it takes more than 40 percent of the state's
education staff to oversee and administer federal dollars. In fact, in
Florida, six times as many people are required to administer a federal
education dollar as are required by a state dollar. And how much
learning has the federal government achieved through these
expenditures? No one knows.
Imagine what our states could do if we could spend more of our time
and energy working to improve student achievement, rather than
tediously complying with a dizzying array of federal rules. At the very
least, the federal government should stop creating barriers for states
that are taking new educational approaches.
Because the A+ Plan's accountability measures are so potent, I
believe that once fully implemented, the A+ Plan may do more good to
help low-income children in low-performing schools in five years than
the Title I program has done in our state in 35 years. Without
legislation like the Straight A's Act, Florida will not be able to use
federal funds to fully support our reform efforts. But with the
Straight A's Act, Florida's school districts could use federal funds to
support their accountability-driven efforts in the manner they believe
best to address their local solutions, whether those solutions are more
technology, smaller class sizes, a longer school year, or individual
tutoring.
The federal government should welcome states that are willing to
trade flexibility for strict performance standards. As a state, we are
welcoming school districts that are willing to meet strict performance
standards in exchange for flexibility from state rules.
As a matter of fact, a few months ago, before Florida's legislative
session, I was visiting an elementary school in Tampa, and the district
superintendent and I were talking about the many regulations that the
state imposes on its local school districts.
Having previously founded a charter school with the Urban League of
Greater Miami in 1995, I knew that the state's charter school law
allowed certain schools to operate free of district regulations if the
charter school agreed to meet certain student performance criteria. As
the superintendent and I talked, I asked whether he would be interested
in becoming the state's first ``charter district''--a school district
that would agree to achieve certain performance goals in exchange for
regulatory flexibility from the state.
Despite the fact that no law on the books permitted the creation of
a ``charter district,'' we eagerly discussed the idea, and within two
months, passed legislation that allows for charter school districts.
Within the next month, we expect to receive applications from six
school districts in our state wishing to become the first charter
districts.
In a similar vein, I have come here to offer you more
accountability from Florida, in exchange for more flexibility. We can
increase the impact that federal dollars will have on student learning
in our state, if we are provided with more freedom and less one-size-
fits-all regulations from the federal government. I sincerely hope that
Congress will pass the Straight A's Act so Florida can become the first
education ``charter state.''
I thank you for the privilege of speaking before the Committee
today.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, ASSESSMENTS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment (30 percent of grade)
---------------------------------------------------
Which subjects are
State Grades How does the state tested using assessments
measure student aligned to state's
performance? (Fall 1998) standards? (Fall 1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York.............................. 95 A CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
New Mexico............................ 94 A NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Maryland.............................. 93 A NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Virginia.............................. 92 A- NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math, sci, ss
Florida............................... 92 A- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math
West Virginia......................... 92 A- NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Massachusetts......................... 91 A- NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Oregon................................ 91 A- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Kansas................................ 90 A- CRT, Wr, Perf........... none
Georgia............................... 89 B+ NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math, sci, ss
Kentucky.............................. 89 B+ NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf, Port Eng, math, sci, ss
North Carolina........................ 89 B+ CRT, Wr................. Eng, math, sci, ss
Texas................................. 88 B+ CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Alabama............................... 88 B+ NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math, sci
Nevada................................ 86 B NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math
Arizona............................... 86 B NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
Ohio.................................. 86 B CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Pennsylvania.......................... 86 B CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math
South Carolina........................ 85 B NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
New Hampshire......................... 85 B CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Delaware.............................. 85 B NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Wisconsin............................. 84 B NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
Illinois.............................. 83 B CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Indiana............................... 81 B- NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
Michigan.............................. 81 B- CRT, Wr, Perf........... sci, ss
California............................ 80 B- NRT..................... none
Louisiana............................. 80 B- NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
New Jersey............................ 80 B- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci
Maine................................. 79 C+ CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Connecticut........................... 78 C+ CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci
Washington............................ 77 C+ NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
Mississippi........................... 77 C+ NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math, sci, ss
South Dakota.......................... 75 C NRT, Wr................. none
Wyoming............................... 73 C NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
Colorado.............................. 72 C- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng
Nebraska.............................. 72 C- none.................... none
Missouri.............................. 72 C- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math, sci, ss
Utah.................................. 72 C- NRT..................... none
Arkansas.............................. 71 C- NRT, CRT, Wr, Perf...... Eng, math
Oklahoma.............................. 70 C- NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math, sci, ss
Minnesota............................. 70 C- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math
Rhode Island.......................... 70 C- CRT, Wr, Perf........... Eng, math
Vermont............................... 69 D+ CRT, Wr, Perf, Port..... Eng, math, sci
Tennessee............................. 68 D+ NRT, CRT, Wr............ Eng, math, sci, ss
Alaska................................ 67 D+ NRT..................... none
Hawaii................................ 60 D- NRT, CRT................ none
Idaho................................. 57 F NRT, Wr, Perf........... none
North Dakota.......................... 52 F NRT..................... none
Montana............................... 50 F NRT..................... none
Iowa.................................. 39 F none.................... none
U.S................................... -- -- -- --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: Port=Portfolio assessment; Perf=Performance assessment; CRT=Criterion-referenced test; NRT=Norm-referenced
test; Wr=Writing assessment.
Note. States are ranked by number grade to the nearest decimal; ties are ranked by alphabetical order.
Chairman Kasich. Thank you, Governor. Let me just go back
to a couple of the myths, what I hear from people who are
legitimately concerned about the fact that if you give people
an opportunity at some point to opt out, it will destroy the
public school.
I think the first issue that I hear the most of is that if
you give people a chance to get out, then what happens is a few
leave or some leave, but the parents who are not as interested
in their kids' education, that they don't--they are not
involved. So the bad kids get left in the failing school and
the good kids get out, and they take the resources and the
whole thing collapses. I have never understood that because
that is like if a building is on fire, you might as well leave
everybody in than to get some people out. But nonetheless, you
found something a little different than that, what you found in
Florida in terms of whether we have made the public schools
better as a result of some people leaving.
Governor Bush. Well, to be fair about it, Mr. Chairman,
this is the first year of a pretty bold experiment, and so all
the data is not in. But in fact, the initial students that were
given--that is, where parents were given the choices, they are
no different than the kids that continue to go to that school
in terms of income and aptitude and the tests that they took
the year before. So at least in our case, there is no evidence
of the brain drain myth that exists.
Chairman Kasich. Second question, it involves things like
special education, where I hear people say well, the public
schools have to take everybody and the private schools can
choose, and therefore, you know, you expect too much out of the
public schools and that is why they don't perform as well as
the private school. How do you deal with that particular issue?
Governor Bush. Parents get to choose in our case. And the
schools that opt into our plan have to take all comers. Now, if
schools--if an elementary school, private school, is accepting
kids with Opportunity Scholarships and they are not capable of
dealing with someone with severe physical or mental
disabilities of some kind, the parents aren't going to send
that child to that school. But on the flip side, nor are we
measuring the school's performance based on those children
either.
The way we do our grading system is we take the kids that
are capable of learning fully; it is not to say we don't have a
very aggressive program to help the kids that are very
exceptional kids; in fact we do. But kids that are new to our
country, that don't speak English, they have a 2-year
transition period before they begin to be counted in the FCAT
tests. Kids with severe disabilities are not counted. In fact,
as a pilot program, it hadn't got a lot of attention. In south
Tampa and Bradenton, parents are given Opportunity Scholarships
for kids with severe disabilities as well. And it is a little
bit harder to assess how--if their chance for enhanced quality
of life is being improved by that. It is harder to measure
these types of things with kids. But parents have taken the
other option. They have taken the private option.
Chairman Kasich. Are we having, though, an inordinate
amount of cost in the public school as it relates to special
education that the private schools don't experience? In other
words, some public school officials will say, look, if we
didn't have to handle all this, we would have more money, we
could do a better job. Are you telling me this is a problem
that we have really not resolved?
Governor Bush. Well what I am saying is that we have a
complex funding formula. I try to avoid acronyms. Being new to
the public realm, I am still holding out. But I don't even
remember this one. It is the Florida Education--Jim, help me
out--Florida Education Funding Formula, FEFP. I don't know what
the P stands for, but it is an equitable funding mechanism that
weighs in,factors such as kids with exceptionalities. So the
money runs with the child into the public school system and, in
the case of Opportunity Scholarships, runs with the child when
the parents decide to make that choice. So a kid that may have
attention deficit disorder, severe, or may be constrained to a
wheelchair and have specific health care needs, they have
higher weight in their funding formula already. And that is how
we deal with it in Florida.
I am sure it is quite similar across the country.
Chairman Kasich. I am probably not as politically correct
as you. I like this--I know that we got to put the right names
on things, but frankly I know that gets to be a big issue in
the way we conduct things in America today. But frankly, we are
giving parents choice in terms of where their children, where
they think their children get the best education.
Let me ask you this, Governor Bush. Another part of the
concern is the good kids leave, the public schools collapse.
Now I think you have found--am I correct in saying this--that
as a result of the threat of schools losing market share, the
public schools and the whole administration has become very,
very aggressive in terms of getting off the list and actually
bringing about this great improvement; that those of us who
believe in choices, the choice is a necessary part of it. Is
that what you are finding in the public schools occurring?
Governor Bush. What we are finding is there is an effort.
This is the first year of our plan. But the change of
priorities has been well recorded and significant for this
school year.
And secondly, I didn't mention this and it is important, I
advocated education reform during the campaign, so there was
total transparency. No one was surprised when I unveiled it.
Had I done this and said, OK, we are going to cut public
education funding, it wouldn't have passed.
And it is important to recognize that public education has
the highest priority, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the
State legislature. We funded public education by a 7 percent
increase in general revenue dollars and in the all-funds
budget, which includes everything, there was a $1.5 billion
increase. It is the highest ever.
Not only that, the State of Florida puts more money into
capital outlay dollars to build more schools than any State in
the country, another billion dollars of money invested. We are
a fast-growing State, but we made a commitment to public
education. And because of that, people were willing to change
the system. Had we cut back, I think the arguments, the myths,
would have been too strong to have had such provocative
changes.
Chairman Kasich. Do you need Federal dollars to do school
construction? Are you in favor of that?
Governor Bush. I will take all the money you guys can give
us--I knew you didn't want to hear that.
Chairman Kasich. Well, no. No. No. We want to hear this.
Maybe you say it is necessary. I am willing to hear what you
got to say on it.
Governor Bush. You all have to----
Chairman Kasich. Be careful, Jeb.
Governor Bush. You all have to create the priorities from
the national perspective.
Chairman Kasich. Can you do it without Federal dollars?
Governor Bush. Yes. We are doing it. The Federal money for
building right now is minimal. It may be nonexistent. We don't
count on it. And we are spending over a billion dollars this
year and we will continue to do so. We have made a commitment.
Now, if you want to give us a little bit more, you don't want
to put any strings attached to it, you are not going to say it
all should go to lower class sizes or some input-driven thing
rather than an output performance criteria, I will take all I
can get.
Chairman Kasich. I am done with questions. We are going to
go to John.
Governor, I know have you a talk coming up here very soon,
but you have to understand you are now on Washington time,
which means you will run a little bit late. I hate for you to
just run out of here without the Democrats and more of my
colleagues being able to question you. I say to my colleagues
we will come back. When the Governor is done, the Secretary of
Education will be here. I think we need to hear from him and
complete this day, and would ask you all to vote and quickly
come back so we can get started.
We are going to start all the way down and hopefully
everyone here will have an opportunity to ask a question of
some of the witnesses today. Governor, we will be back as soon
as we can. If you want to use the phone in the back, feel free.
[Recess.]
Chairman Kasich. The hearing will come back to order if
everyone could please take their seats. Let me recognize John.
You have one.
Mr. Spratt. I will yield to Jim Davis.
Chairman Kasich. Let me recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Davis, for a few questions. The Governor has
probably about 20 minutes left.
Can we straighten out Bill Gray? He is a friend of mine.
Bill Gray is a friend of mine. Please straighten out Bill Gray.
Bill, if you are watching, by the way, it is interesting
because Bill--it is amazing he would bring up Bill Gray,
because you know Bill Gates just gave $1 billion to the
disadvantaged. And the fact is that Bill was there and talked
about the exciting potential of that billion dollar gift. And
Bill Gray is a terrific guy, former chairman of the committee.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first
ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record. I
would also welcome my Governor. Governor, as you know, I
respectfully but fundamentally disagree with you on your plan
and I am going to refer to it as the voucher program, because
that is my concern. You have mentioned many good things this
morning, but the voucher feature concerns me and I want to talk
about that.
Let me first say that I believe that parents and the rest
of the public strongly support a public school system, and they
demand those schools successfully educate all of our children.
They expect us to work together to make that happen. In fact,
based on my homework, none of the fourth and fifth graders in
the two Pensacola schools you mentioned, whose failing test
grades caused those schools to be voucherized, sought a
voucher. Not one of them considered private school a suitable
alternative for them. All of the fourth graders chose to stay
in their public school, and they expect us to fix it.
And, Governor Bush, you and I are working together on the
Medicaid funding for the school districts, and we had a very
good meeting yesterday and we are making progress on that. I am
very glad to hear your comments today about the school
construction. I hope we can work together on that. But with all
due respect, I have to say the voucher plan is really not
designed to improve our most struggling schools, but it will
force an experiment using our most vulnerable students as
subjects.
Let me just give you one reason why I believe that and give
you the chance to comment on it. It is clear to my school
district and me that the report card you are using is based on
a comparison of schools against one another. Under this system,
there will always be schools at the bottom that will receive an
F. I have to tell you, the folks that are doing their best
every day in the schools I represent in Hillsborough County
think this is fundamentally unfair. And they are very fearful
of dollars leaving their schools, going to private schools.
They don't think this is fun. They are very worried. It is
something we are fighting for, and you are correct that Earl
Lennard is leading the fight to try to do everything we can.
But let me ask you this question. Based on what my school
district and I have divined from reading your report card
system, it appears to me that no matter how much a struggling
school improves from the prior year, no matter how much closer
that struggling school comes to moving toward the higher grades
than previous years, many of them will still be at the bottom,
receiving an F grade, and they will be voucherized. That just
seems terribly unfair. I would like to give you the chance to
comment on that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Davis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Bush, welcome to Washington. As
you know, I have a very deep interest in our public education system,
and I appreciate your taking the time to come here today to tell us
about the voucher program in our home state of Florida. However, I must
respectfully, but fundamentally, disagree with you about the impact
that vouchers will have on the public schools in our State.
As my record in the Florida House of Representatives and in
Congress demonstrates, I believe we must reform the way that education
is delivered in our schools. But that reform must not come at the
expense of any of our students. It should come about by meeting their
needs within our public schools--by empowering the teachers, the
parents, and the students. I know that it can be done without diverting
money from our public schools to vouchers because it has been done
successfully in a ``failing'' school in Hillsborough County, which I
represent.
First, I'd like to tell the other side of the story. I don't
believe that the Florida voucher program is about helping our students.
Rather, it is about forcing an experiment to occur, using our most
vulnerable students as subjects. Under this new system, you have
ensured inevitable failure for many of our struggling schools. You said
in your statement that no child will be left behind, but that is
exactly the opposite of what is certain to occur in these schools.
For example, the grading system that has been implemented to grade
the schools based on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
will force a failing grade and voucherization on many of our struggling
schools. Since this legislation was ram-rodded through the Florida
Legislature without talking with principals, teachers, or parents about
ways to best measure student performance or progress, I have spent a
considerable amount of time studying this program and talking to
administrators, teachers and principals in my school district about the
impact that the testing and grading system will have on our children.
The Hillsborough County School District and I believe that this
test has been designed to ensure that there will always be failing
schools. Under this system, the higher our schools perform, the higher
the hurdle is raised. Encouraging academic achievement is admirable;
however, this new grading system does not really encourage academic
excellence for our most struggling schools. It encourages our schools
to work hard to try and pass the Florida Comprehensive Assessment
Test--but no matter how hard you work it doesn't necessarily mean
you're going to pass because the FCAT is based on a curve that means
someone always fails. What kind of a message are we sending our kids?--
``No matter how hard you work, no matter how hard you try, no matter
how much you improve, you may still fail and be voucherized.''
The FCAT compares schools against one another without regard to the
nature of their individual students. Under the voucher grading system,
our weakest schools will always receive the lowest grades, in many
cases an ``F,'' guaranteeing voucherization regardless of how much a
school has improved from the previous year or how close a school has
come to achieving a higher grade from the previous year.
Another reason I think that the voucher plan does not help our
struggling schools is because of the smoke and mirror funding approved
by the Legislature to fund the ``so-called'' improvement or our public
schools. In listening to you describe this SUPERFUND, Governor Bush, it
seemed that this is $527 million in brand new money to, in your words,
``provide remediation so that students can get the help they need to be
promoted to the next grade with proficiency at their grade level.''
Governor, the implication is that these funds will be used to help
struggling students with things like tutors, before- and after-school
programs, lower class size; all of which we know can make a real
difference with these students.
However, beyond the rhetoric, this SUPERFUND of $527 million is not
a new infusion of money into our failing schools, rather it was created
by eliminating three other funds and dumping them into this big pot of
money. The money from those smaller pots were used by our schools for
summer school and drop-out prevention. However, you've now told the
school districts that in addition to using these funds for summer
school and drop-out prevention, they have to stretch these dollars to
pay for all programs they need at their schools for teacher enhancement
or to improve student performance. Basically, you've given them no new
money to do many more things.
In short, the Legislature has not provided any additional support
for our struggling schools to intensify their efforts and it has forced
some school districts to abandon valuable existing programs, such as
summer school, which my own school district may have to cut in order to
provide help for our struggling schools.
Further compounding the lack of support for school districts, the
State took away $100 million in funding to hire new teachers and aides
to reduce class sizes. As Majority Leader of the Florida House of
Representatives, along with Speaker of the House Peter Rudy Wallace, I
fought to establish a special fund for class size reduction for
Kindergarten through Third Grades. You can't even imagine my disbelief
to learn early this year that the Legislature, with your approval, had
abolished this special fund. Under your new system, if a school wants
to reduce their class sizes they have to resort to using funds from
your SUPERFUND. Studies have shown that smaller class sizes in the
early grades result in better performing students. It does not make any
sense to me that the Legislature would abolish these funds to help
students when the goal is to create a child-centered program.
Your veto of over $16 million which the Legislature provided to
school districts to extend the school year is further counterproductive
to efforts by our most struggling schools to improve. These details and
others lead me to the conclusion that the voucher plan is designed to
force a very risky experiment of vouchers, using our most vulnerable
students as subjects, rather than improve our most struggling schools.
Let me close by urging you not to abandon our public school system
by voucherization and instead to focus on what we know helps struggling
schools succeed. I'd like to share with you the success story of
Cleveland Elementary in Tampa, Florida. Two years ago, Cleveland
Elementary was placed on the Florida Department of Education's list of
``critically low performing schools.'' As a result of this stigma, a
very able principal, Cathy Valdes, motivated the school community--
teachers, parents and students--to take action to improve their school.
When your grading system was released this summer, Cleveland received a
very solid ``C'' and is improving more and more daily. Here's how they
did it.
<bullet> Using paid & volunteer tutors to work with sizable numbers
of students throughout the day.
<bullet> Using before and after-school programs to extend the
school day with instructional and enrichment activities.
<bullet> Using Federal funding for high-poverty schools to hire a
full- time social worker, a full-time psychologist, as well as extra
teachers to reduce class sizes.
<bullet> Using Project Achieve to give students daily instruction
in social skills to help children control anger, avoid fights, conquer
fears and learn to get along with others who look or act differently.
<bullet> Setting aside an uninterrupted block of time for reading
instruction that bans interruptions such as field trips and special
activities.
<bullet> Getting to know a child well enough to determine what is
keeping that child from attending school--a problem at home, the
teacher visits the home. If a child needs a pair of shoes, then he or
she gets a pair of shoes. Carrollwood Elementary PTA adopted Cleveland
and provided clothes for the children at Cleveland. Active and
meaningful business partnerships.
I commend Cathy Valdes, along with the teachers, parents and
students at Cleveland Elementary for their commitment to public
education and for working to ensure that their school becomes one in
which they can show great pride.
In closing, I believe that our public schools have great potential
to help even the least motivated students. I do not believe that we
should be taking money from our public school systems through voucher
programs. Rather, we should be working harder with our teachers and
parents to improve a system that has its difficulties at the moment but
that shown its potential over the years through providing us with
millions of outstanding graduates over the years.
Governor Bush. Let me first describe how you get an F and
point out that this grading system that was established was
established prior to my arriving, by then-Gov. Lawton Chiles
and the Florida Board of Education. The grading system, they
called it 1 through 5 instead of A through F, but it was
basically the same thing. To get an F in Florida for a school,
you have to have 60 percent of your children at below basic
level, not median level but below basic level in reading, math,
and Florida Writes. Sixty percent of all the kids that take the
tests, the students that take the tests have to be at below
basic level.
Now, that system is being modified, as we demanded in the
law. Two other elements--and the board rules are now in the
process of occurring, and superintendents and other people
across the State next to us will have a chance to testify to
give their input on how we go about this--but the law allows
for two other elements to be included in the grading of the
schools. One is annual increase in performance of the
individual student. Until now, we haven't been able to do that
because we haven't tested the students grades 3 through 10. We
have tested grades 4, Florida Writes is grade 5, and then 8 and
10. So you couldn't measure individual student performance year
to year. But moving to a child-centered system we now can do
that. So that will be an added factor in the grading system.
The third element that the law requires that I was
insistent upon, the inclusion of an added weight on how schools
do in the bottom 25 percentile. So, Congressman, there are many
fine high schools in--Gorey Elementary is a great elementary
school in Tampa. If Gorey does its job with the broad number of
students, because most of their kids are in the higher
performance percentiles but they do not do well with the bottom
25 percentile, then they are not going to be afforded a higher
grade. Their grade may actually go down.
These board rules are going to be put in place by December,
and so the next test, which will be the second year of this
Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test implementation, will
factor that in. I believe that will probably change a lot of
people's thinking about what they perceive to be the old rules
that were established by the previous administration.
Mr. Davis. If I could further comment, the test that you
refer to was designed for a different purpose than you were
using. It was designed to measure progress individual students
made from year to year. I think in the haste to get the voucher
program started, for whatever reason, you have chosen to use it
for a different purpose. You have chosen to use it to compare
schools against one another. We all do know from our days in
school, Governor, when you have a test like that, a certain
number of schools have to receive a failing grade and a certain
number have to receive an A. They are compared against each
other. So my concern is with respect to these schools that got
an F this year. No matter how much they improve from last year,
no matter how much they have improved over the last 2 or 3
years, many of them are going to be trapped at the bottom
again, and the F has to be given out and these schools will be
voucherized. We are on the verge of facing a very significant
loss of public dollars into private schools.
Governor Bush. Many of the schools that are graded F will
show improvement. In fact two in Escambia--I am not a gambling
person except occasionally on the golf course--I would bet you
5 bucks that both of them will get off. They are getting more
resources, they are getting more attention. They are getting
more private sector support. They are getting more parental
support. They are getting more superintendent of school
support. I believe their kids can learn. I believe that they
will. And if they don't, remember this is 60 percent of all the
kids in a school being at below basic level in 23 different
tests on writing, reading and math. If they don't, then
shouldn't those parents be given other options?
There is a moral imperative to this as well, I believe, and
that is that when you have a higher income you can choose a
private school or you can choose to live in a better
neighborhood where the school may work better. But if you don't
have the income, it seems to me you are basically trapped in
the school that the school district assigns you to. And you
ought to be given another public school choice or a private
option when there has been failure, as defined by State
standards, and then failure again.
I can't imagine on something this important that we would
turn the other way when that happens. And fortunately that is
not what is happening. You know the school districts and the
very dedicated public school teachers and everybody are
rededicating their efforts, particularly in these schools that
have historically lagged behind.
Chairman Kasich. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
The Governor only has a few more minutes here. Maybe we will
take just a couple on each side, and the Secretary is here. And
because of those roll calls, it ate into our time. But Mr.
Chambliss is recognized.
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one quick
question, but I want to make a comment before I ask the
question. I have always been a strong supporter of the private
school system, and I am particularly a strong supporter of the
public school system. I am a product, and my wife is a product,
of public schools. My children are. My wife has been a public
school classroom teacher for the last 28 years. I have a
daughter who is a kindergarten teacher in the public school
system.
I just want to tell you, Governor, we politicians tend to
talk about education every campaign season. We talk about what
we are going to do to improve the quality of education. All of
us are sincere in our statements and it is in our heart to do
that. But I just want to tell you that I commend you for being
aggressive and taking on a very sensitive issue that is near
and dear to the heart of every single American, particularly
every parent. You can't do what you are doing without it being
controversial, because you are stepping on toes that have been
in place ever since this country was founded. But you seem to
be doing it in a well-thought-out manner. I can tell you that
the whole Nation is going to be watching the progress of your
system in Florida.
I also want to tell you, like you, I don't use the V-word
because it has a negative connotation to it. And I don't know
whether I support what people refer to as the voucher system or
not, but I do support any system that will grant to a parent
the right to choose a good quality school for their child. And
that appears to be what you are doing in Florida.
Now, there is one question I have about your merit-based
bonus system for teachers. My wife in certain years will have a
class that is just intellectually better than the class she had
before. And those kids are going to do better on test scores
than the class she had the year before. And if she is compared
to everybody else in the system for the year that she has a
lower intellectually gifted group of students, then she is not
going to do as well. And I have a little bit of concern about
merit-based pay in that respect. I think a lot of teachers
obviously feel that same way.
What are you doing and how are you throwing that issue into
the mix with respect to the bonus plan that you have for
teachers?
Governor Bush. Well, at the State level, we have not
addressed merit pay as part of this plan. What we have said is
that if schools show improvement--and as I said, next week we
will be unveiling a list of schools, I believe it is about 300
schools that are either A-rated or have shown improvement--
about half are going to be A-rated and they are going to
receive $100 per student directly to the principal and
teachers. I guess they could provide additional pay for their
teachers, but my collective bargaining would probably preclude
that. This is really to go to school improvement efforts, and
$100 per student to go to the schools that have shown
progressive improvement one grade level up.
Now, in the case of Pensacola, as part of the remediation
plan for the two schools that were graded F for 2 years
running, there is part of the plan to include higher pay for
the teachers that are in those schools. And I support that
notion. But my vision for this is that those strategies ought
to be developed locally and the State's responsibility is to
fund adequately and to have meaningful assessments and
accountability measures.
Chairman Kasich. No speeches, one question. Mr. Clement and
Mr. Green. That is it. Thank you.
Mr. Clement. Thank you, Governor Bush. Congratulations,
first----
Chairman Kasich. No speeches. Just one question.
Mr. Clement. We are pleased to have you here. I believe in
the power of ideas and the power of concepts, and I know you
have got a tough job. I would like to know, since it is your
first year, how many Opportunity Scholarships are we talking
about, number one? And number two, I know Florida's SAT scores
have dropped 4 points this year. I know you are trying to serve
2 million students in public schools. How many of the students
are you going to be able to reach, let's say, in this first
term?
Governor Bush. Well, there are 2.2 million students in
Florida. The numbers of parents who will be given other choices
because their kids are in chronically-failed schools will be
determined by the number of chronically-failed schools. The
beauty of our plan is it is totally aligned to student
achievement. If there is a rising student achievement and
schools are showing improvement, the objective is not to have
any Opportunity Scholarships awarded, because this is focused
on improving the quality of public schools.
And as I said before, one of the important elements is to
make a commitment to increased funding for schools as well,
which we have done. There was broad bipartisan support for
that, and a 7 percent increase even for a State as fast-growing
as ours is a significant increase in commitment to public
education. So I hope we will have rising test scores.
As it relates to the SAT test, I believe that we have more
people, more students, that take the test. We are about at the
national average. Is that acceptable? Heck no. I would love to
see it go up.
Chairman Kasich. Mr. Green for the last question, and the
Governor for the last word. No, I might have the last word. Go
ahead.
Mr. Green. A question. A group of freshmen here are trying
to reach out, Governor, and identify the State workers that are
spending 40 percent of their time filling out paperwork to
comply with Federal regulations. If we contact your office,
could you provide a list?
Chairman Kasich. Provide that for the record. That would be
very helpful.
Governor Bush. Absolutely.
[The information referred to follows:]
Washington Office,
State of Florida,
Washington, DC, October 21, 1999.
To Budget Committee Staff: Attached is data generated by the
Florida Department of Education reflecting the breakdown of Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) staff positions and revenue source information for the
K-12 education programs. This information is to be included for the
record on Governor Bush's testimony of September 23, 1999. Please
contact me if you require any further information. Thank you for your
patience.
Sincerely,
Frank Bonner,
Legislative Analyst.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: SUMMARY OF K-12 POSITIONS BY BUDGET ENTITY
[1998-1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund source
Budget entity -------------------------------------- Total FTE
General revenue Federal/PC&G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4811-Commissioner...................................... $44.00 ................. $44.00
4813-Planning, budgeting & management.................. 179.50 $119.30 298.80
4814-Human resource development........................ 15.00 2.00 17.00
4825-Public schools.................................... 84.15 130.85 215.00
4835-Workforce development............................. 54.12 47.88 102.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Total DOE (excluding postsecondary).............. 376.77 300.03 676.80
========================================================
Total revenue--K-12 programs/Federal flow thru... 6,810,919,428.00 1,024,461,940.00 7,835,381,368.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: SUMMARY OF K-12 POSITIONS BY BUDGET ENTITY
[1999-2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund source
Budget entity -------------------------------------- Total FTE
General revenue Federal/PC&G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4811-Commissioner...................................... $40.00 $1.00 $41.00
4813-Planning, budgeting & management.................. 85.50 104.80 190.30
4814-Human resource development........................ 23.00 12.00 35.00
4817-Technology and administration..................... 109.00 20.00 129.00
4825-Public schools.................................... 77.50 127.50 205.00
4835-Workforce development............................. 36.74 65.26 102.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Total DOE (excluding postsecondary).............. 371.74 330.56 702.30
========================================================
Total revenue--K-12 programs/Federal flow thru... 6,978,426,904.00 1,049,961,940.00 8,028,388,844.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Kasich. I mean, the specific--if 40 percent of
your people spend their time filling out paperwork, we would
like to know what it is. I want to thank you, Governor, for
coming. I think one important point for you and Mr. Riley, what
we have found is that single parents with children, who are in
poverty, is likely to find their children with a lack of
education and their being in poverty. I think the rising
poverty statistics for the undereducated in America is one of
our great crises as we go into the next century. I think we all
have a commitment to take a look at that and try and fix that.
I want to thank you for your efforts and thank you for
coming here today. And good luck to you.
Governor Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as it relates
to that one final point, that is something that our State is
beginning to get focused on in a very dramatic way is early
childhood development, so we don't have an argument about
whether kids started school not prepared to learn compared to
others. If we make a command focus on that, this whole debate
changes pretty dramatically. So we are making an effort to
ensure that when young boys and girls in Florida go to school,
that when they are in kindergarten they will be prepared to
learn. Then the focus is a year's worth of knowledge in a
year's time. And that is a worthy, ambitious goal. That is what
we are going to do.
Chairman Kasich. Thank you, Governor.
Secretary Riley, is he making his way in?
Mr. Secretary, if we can, you want to go ahead and take a
seat. I would like to thank the Secretary for coming to the
meeting today. I know he has a busy schedule. I want to
apologize for the tardiness, Mr. Secretary. We had a couple
votes over there. I want to welcome you along with Mr. Smith,
who is the Acting Deputy Secretary of Education. I want to
thank you for your long and distinguished career of public
service, both as a Governor, of course, of South Carolina, and
your long-term service and commitment to education as the
Secretary of Education. So it is a privilege for us to have you
here today and we look forward to your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. RILEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Secretary Riley. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for your long years of service, and it is good to be here.
I appreciate the opportunity. And if it is all right, I will
submit my longer statement for the record.
I have just come back Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, from a 5-day trip to the West Coast, including
Seattle that I flew out of late last night--Congressman
McDermott's area. And I will tell you there are some very
exciting things going on in Seattle. It is a place I would
advise any of you that are interested, to take a look at. The
community has come together there for public education and it
is very exciting.
Let me begin by making some observations about public
education and helping to put some things in perspective. Many
of us, regardless of our political affiliation, believe that
public education is the great bedrock institution of American
democracy. I think we all believe that. Whatever your race,
your language, your religion, your ethnic origin, we meet
together in the public space of public education. Benjamin
Barber observed, ``Public education is important not because it
serves the public, but because it creates the public.''
And parochial and private schools make an important
contribution to the democratic spirit of our country and many
of them do a wonderful job. But public education is the public
space where almost 90 percent of all of our children obtain
their education. That is why I disagree with those who believe
that public education is an institution from another time that
has lost its way.
I have been to over 600 schools in the last 6 years as
Secretary of Education, and I can tell you that good things are
happening. And yet there are some people, almost defeatist in
their attitude, who are caught up in the worn-out nostalgia
that once there was a time long ago when all things in American
education were better.
Nostalgia is not really relevant when it comes to getting
our young people ready for the 21st century. Things are
different now. Schools are different. Whether you are talking
about technology, special education issues, increasing
diversity of our student population, things are different. And
I am tired of the pessimists who have so little faith in this
Nation's young people and in this Nation's public school
teachers. We have 53.2 million young people to educate in the
here and the now.
I point out over the last 10 years public school population
has gone up 16.5 percent. Private school population has also
gone up 11.5 percent. Surely this is the right time to be
rolling up our sleeves and unleashing the American ``can do''
spirit of optimism about getting an important job done. When I
go to public schools, I see excitement. I see schools changing.
I see them working hard. And yes, sometimes I see failure. And
while I am a strong supporter of public education, I am no
defender of low-performing or failing schools.
We all need to work together and bring immediate help to
those children who are in schools that need to be turned around
and turned around now. We need to start by making sure our
children go to safe and healthy schools. I can tell you that
the health and safety of the children is the very first and
absolute concern of all parents. This is why so many parents
are asking for our help when it comes to building new schools.
There are prisons in this country that are built much better
than most of the public schools that I visited.
I was in a school in Patterson, New Jersey, a school over
100 years old. A year or so ago, the library consisted of two
pushcarts with books. Bathrooms, only one for boys, one for
girls, 330 children. The playground was a small blacktop,
cracked and uneven. It was too dangerous for the children to
play on it. They weren't allowed to play on it. There was only
one fire escape at the end of the second floor, leaving
students in the other three rooms potentially endangered in the
event of fire. One or two computers, as I recall, in the whole
school. And I saw 5 or 6 children, minority children, poor
children, standing in the hall in line when I was coming
through, and I said, ``What are these children in line for?''
and the principal told me they were in line to get their asthma
treatment. This dingy, dank, wet school. These children then
are expected to learn to high standards.
And that is our charge and that is their charge. These
children were worrying about breathing. They weren't worrying
about high standards. And I think if this Congress wants to
really make a major contribution that can make an immediate
difference for parents, then we should pass the President's
School Modernization Bond legislation this year. I think that
should be a real strong bipartisan interest to people out there
in the States that want that very badly.
And this isn't about Federal or local control, it is about
stopping the practice of serving lunch in an overcrowded school
to children at 9:30 in the morning, as is done in Miami,
Florida. The cafeteria is so small, the school has grown up in
population, kids have to eat in shifts.
It is about fixing roofs. It is about making sure there is
water in the science lab, when children are expected to learn
math and science to high standards. It is about safety and
changing the way that we build schools in this country. Instead
of building schools the size of shopping malls, let's build
schools that are smaller, that give young people a sense of
safety and of connection, a sense that they are getting some
individual attention. We should be building schools as centers
of communities that stay open late so that the entire community
can use them, schools that have the technology for the 21st
century.
And I believe if we build our schools smarter, we can help
to create some smart growth policies that will make many more
communities much more livable as well.
And despite these many obstacles, public education is
making progress. Our Nation's reading scores are up for the
first time in our history at every grade level tested, 4th, 8th
and 12th. The same is true of math. In all three grades tested,
achievement scores are up. This is especially true for children
in the low range of scores.
There are other signs of progress. ACT and SAT scores are
now virtually at their highest level in 2 decades. We have a
record number of high school seniors taking the tough advanced
placement tests. Not enough. We need to work on that. Sixty-
five percent, though, of all high school seniors are now going
directly on to college. I think we need to represent that the
overwhelming majority of our students in our Nation's great
institutions of higher education are public school graduates.
Whether they went to Ohio State or the University of Michigan
or Princeton or UNC or Davidson, Mr. Spratt, or wherever, the
public education system is literally filling up these campuses
with bright and optimistic young people now.
Can our public schools do better? They must do better. If
we are going to reach the high standards for all of our young
people that we must reach, we have some very real problems. Too
many of our children are not mastering the basics early. We
have a growing shortage of qualified teachers. We have a
stubborn achievement gap that too many of our minority children
are not overcoming. That is why we have spent over a decade now
creating a new foundation for the 21st century that is a very
sharp departure from the past: the singular idea that we should
set high expectations for all of our children.
We changed the law, as many of you recall, in 1994, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
We eliminated the watered-down curriculum for Title I children,
for poor children. They have the same high school standards as
all children. I think that was a very wise move and that is the
way it is now and should be. And I think that is one reason why
so many people really are just now starting to think about our
poorest schools. We have never really done this before, despite
all the talk about equity and equality.
Well, I am glad that so many people are now concerned. It
is a positive development and it has been a long time coming.
But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water now that
we have so many new friends that are concerned about the future
of public education. Let's also remember where we are starting
from in our thinking. For many years there has been an unspoken
assumption in this country when it came to educating our
children. It is kind of about one-third of our students. I know
when I was coming along in school, one-third would be expected
to be prepared for college. One-third could kind of drift
through school and finish high school, and get a rather decent
job back then working in a textile mill or on a farm. The
bottom one-third would drop out, struggle along, maybe get some
kind of meaningless diploma.
The fact is that has changed now. All 100 percent of those
students must get a good education if they are to have a future
at all. We are going to have to go in a new direction.
Everywhere I go, I see the growth of what I think is a new
emerging consensus. I call it an American consensus to improve
American education: high standards for all students; mastering
the basics in early years, especially reading; smaller class
size; early intervention when a child is struggling; improving
teacher quality; accountability for student performance;
modernizing our schools, especially technology; and much much
more parental involvement.
Now, this consensus includes increased support for
technology, of course, for after-school programs, anything we
can do to keep our children safe, making sure that our children
learn basic American values.
The American people are also telling us quite clearly that
they are prepared to support this growing consensus, to improve
education with new investments. Almost 80 percent of all
Americans think that the important issue that should be at the
top of the Federal agenda is how to improve and invest in
education for our children. This support holds whether you are
talking about more computers in the classroom, reducing class
size, fixing up run-down schools, giving teachers the pay they
deserve, all of these issues.
Now, I want to say a word about parental involvement which
I talk about a lot all over this country. I think it is a chief
focus of this hearing. Parents set expectations and the best
schools in this Nation consistently reach out to parents. The
most important thing that a parent can do to improve education
in America, as I have said all around, is to slow down their
lives and help their children grow. If every parent in America
had the time and took the time to read to their children, to
work with their children only 30 minutes an evening, it would
literally revolutionize American education. This, in my
opinion, is a far more valuable approach to improving education
than to talk about vouchers.
This consensus that I have been talking about also places a
strong new emphasis on fixing failing schools. This is very
positive. We can't afford to tolerate failing schools. There
are many things that can be done. These are State and local
decisions, but local leaders have many, many options. You can
put new leadership into a school. School districts can give a
new principal the flexibility to change the staff and the
entire direction of the school, and that is called
reconstitution. I support such options. I think the more
options like that, the better. I also support closing down a
failing school, if necessary, and starting over from scratch.
Public charter schools are also an option that can be
considered, all of these within the public school system. There
are also many school districts like Seattle that are
successfully expanding public school choice options. Increasing
the number of school choice options. for parents and students
is one of the untold stories of American education.
We also have proven models of successful reform that
struggling schools can adopt. Robert Slavin of Johns Hopkins
University has a proven track record in his Success for All
model. About 1,500 schools, including many Title I schools, are
now using this approach in some 47 States. Gene Bottoms of the
Southern Regional Education Board also has a very successful
model in his High Schools That Work approach. About 970 schools
are now part of this initiative and 5 to 10 new schools are
being added every week.
New American schools have done a great job of helping
school districts with real school reform. And two of your
distinguished colleagues, John Porter and David Obey, I think,
did a wonderful thing in developing bipartisan support in the
creation of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Program. Over 1,600 schools across America are now using these
proven models of reform to turn their schools around. All of
these approaches suggest that we have the ability to fix low-
performing schools now.
Now, let me turn to the issue of vouchers, since I know you
are talking about that some today. And it seems that it has
captured the attention of some people. To my way of thinking,
the appeal of vouchers rests largely on the idea that you don't
have to do any of the things I have talked about in my
testimony, the hard things, ways to turn schools around. It is
another approach. Vouchers are the latest in a long series of
quick fixes that have beset public education, whether it is new
math, open classrooms, or whatever. Voucher supporters want you
to believe that there is some kind of parallel universe out
there that is ready and able and willing to take on the job of
educating 46 million public school students, that all you have
to do to fix public schools is leave them behind.
Well, I must tell you that there is no such parallel
universe out there. The only way to fix public schools is to
fix public schools--and not abandon them. The only way to turn
around a low-performing school is to turn around the entire
school, and not use a voucher system to help a select few and
abandon all the rest. And I don't believe that public tax
dollars should be drained away from public education at a time
of record enrollments. Researchers estimate it would cost about
$15 billion in public tax dollars to give vouchers to all the
young people already in private and parochial schools in our
country. With the same amount of money, we could fully fund
IDEA and probably finance the President's school modernization
program and the class size proposal. And those are much better
options in my judgment.
I say all of this as a friend of private and parochial
education. I have done everything that I could in the last 6
years to make sure that private and parochial schools get all
of the increased support that they can get, including the e-
rate which is very significant. Private school students are
included in the more flexible Title I and other Federal
programs. We make programs as flexible as we can. Of course,
you cannot overstep the constitutional boundaries.
Now, when a private or parochial school takes public
dollars at the level that voucher supporters are proposing,
they will inevitably become less private and less parochial.
That to me is harmful to our strong belief in having strong
private and parochial schools in this country.
Let me conclude by urging the Congress to please not get
sidetracked by the allure of quick-fix gimmicks. Every veteran
classroom teacher can tell you about the long list of failed
theories and half-baked experiments that they have had to
contend with when it comes to improving education. I think we
need to focus on the essentials that everybody, everybody in
substance, agrees are essential. And that is why this emerging
bipartisan American consensus on how to improve education is so
important. It gets to the heart of the matter. It is
comprehensive in scope. The focus is on all of our children and
not just a few of them.
This approach might not seem as exciting as the fad of the
moment. But it is a solid approach and will prove to be very,
very exciting in the long run, just to have all our children
read well and learn more themselves in the next century.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and I will be happy to
respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Riley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard W. Riley, Secretary, Department of
Education
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to testify
today in support of public education and on behalf of those who are
working hard at every level--Federal, State, and local--to improve the
quality of our public schools.
Public education is the bedrock of our American democracy. I say
this not to denigrate in any way the vital contributions of other
religious, cultural, private, or community organizations, nor do I
question the role of the family in building a strong society. But no
other institution does as much as the public schools to pull us
together as a people. Whatever our race, language, religion, or ethnic
origin, we meet together in the public schools. That is why Benjamin
Barber has observed that, ``public education is important not because
it serves the public, but because it creates the public.''
The belief that high-quality public schools are the foundation of
both our democracy and our economic prosperity, in particular the
conviction that education is and should be the great equalizer ensuring
equal opportunity for all Americans, is reflected in the constitutions
of nearly all States. Collectively, these State constitutions
demonstrate a national commitment to the idea that all children deserve
equal access to a quality education and the opportunity to develop to
their maximum potential as individuals and citizens.
That commitment has been backed up by nearly a decade of hard work
by States and communities determined to improve the quality of their
public schools. These efforts are based on a strong, bipartisan
consensus on the core principles of successful education reform.
Everywhere I go, governors, mayors, superintendents, principals,
teachers, and parents are emphasizing the same things: high standards
for all students, mastering the basics in the early years, smaller
class sizes, encouraging parental involvement, improving teacher
quality, expanding after-school and summer learning opportunities,
accountability for student performance, and modernizing our schools.
Just as important, the American people are committed to backing
this education reform consensus with greater resources for our public
schools. They understand and believe in the importance of public
education, and have shown a growing willingness to make the investments
needed to fix our schools. In fact, recent polls have found that
Americans favor more Federal spending on education by a 3 to 1 margin.
And at least three-quarters of those surveyed supported specific
investments to pay teachers more, put more computers in classrooms,
reduce class sizes, and fix up run-down schools.
This reform momentum has begun to pay off. The latest results from
the ongoing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported
solid gains in math and reading achievement, including substantial
improvement for low-achieving students and for those in the highest-
poverty schools. For example, the 1998 NAEP reading assessment showed
substantial gains for low-achieving students (those scoring in the
bottom 10 percent and bottom 25 percent), suggesting that it was
improvement among these students that raised the national average of
all fourth graders. Similarly, high-poverty schools have registered the
greatest gains in NAEP math scores since 1992.
Individual States have shown even more progress. North Carolina,
for example, more than doubled the percentage of its 8th graders
scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on the NAEP math test.
Connecticut registered the largest numerical gain of 10 points and the
highest overall 4th grade score of 232 on the 1998 NAEP reading test.
Despite this improvement, we know that there are too many schools
that are failing to provide a quality education to our children. While
I am a strong supporter of public education, I am not a defender of
failing schools. However, I believe that when our public schools are
not working as well as they should, we have a patriotic responsibility
to fix them, not abandon them.
Fortunately, we know how to fix persistently low-performing
schools. The same comprehensive approach that States and school
districts are using to improve the performance of all schools is
equally effective at turning around failing schools. Raising standards,
better teachers, smaller class sizes, increased accountability, and
greater parental involvement can turn around the worst of schools. And
a key part of improving failing schools is making sure that every
student gets the extra help he or she needs to get back on track
academically.
I won't mislead you about the challenge we face: it takes hard work
and a sustained commitment to turn around failing schools. The
temptation is to look for a short-cut, a faster way to claim victory in
the struggle to make every public school a good school. That is what
makes voucher proposals so appealing: they promise improvement in the
quality of education without the hard work of fixing our schools. The
reality is that such proposals cannot hope to keep that promise, even
for the small number of students who would be able to take advantage of
vouchers. What vouchers would do is undermine public education by
diverting critical resources from our public schools and distracting
attention from the task of strengthening educational opportunity and
excellence for all students.
In my view, it just doesn't make sense to risk derailing the strong
momentum for effective education reform that is building in States and
communities across the Nation. It especially doesn't make sense to
replace an education reform agenda built on sound, research-based
principles with a fad, about which the only thing we can be certain is
that it undermines the very institution that helped build a Nation out
of diverse peoples.
The real answer to the problem of failing public schools is not to
abandon them, but to pursue a proven reform agenda, provide the
resources necessary to fix those schools, and help provide a good
education to all students.
What Really Works
Education researchers will tell you that there is no silver bullet
for improving our schools. Successful districts and schools rely on
comprehensive improvement strategies that reflect and respond to the
specific needs of their students. This is why the Clinton
Administration has developed a comprehensive set of program and funding
proposals that provide the resources and flexibility needed to
effectively support State and local improvement efforts. These
proposals focus on high standards, mastering the basics, smaller class
sizes, improving teacher quality, accountability, and school
construction and modernization.
high standards for all students
The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act marked a watershed in the history of American education. Along with
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the 1994 reauthorization helped
end the tyranny of low expectations for children by placing high
standards for academic achievement at the heart of education reform.
That bipartisan effort to raise expectations for all children spurred
States and school districts to set high standards and establish goals
for improving student achievement.
Nearly all States now have standards and goals in place, and the
initial returns are promising. In addition to the NAEP gains noted
above, the National Education Goals Panel reported that between 1990
and 1996, 27 States significantly increased the percentage of 8th
graders scoring at either the proficient or the advanced level on the
NAEP math test.
Federal programs have helped bolster State and local reform efforts
linked to high standards. For example, in a report on Goals 2000
prepared by the General Accounting Office, State officials described
Goals 2000 as ``a significant factor in promoting their education
reform efforts'' and a ``catalyst'' for change. The recently completed
National Assessment of Title I reported that Title I had promoted State
and local development of standards and assessments, and that Title I
accountability requirements had encouraged the use of performance data
to guide curricula and professional development. In addition, about
half of poor school districts reported that Title I is driving reform
efforts to a large extent.
mastering the basics
The move to high standards necessarily starts with mastering the
basics of reading and mathematics. The achievement gap between
economically disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers
remains alarmingly large in these essential subjects. This is
especially true for the key basic of learning to read, which is the
prerequisite for learning all other subjects. The latest reading
assessment from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
confirmed what many other studies have shown over the past several
years: poor children are twice as likely as other children to read
below the basic level.
Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) is the key
Federal vehicle for closing the rich-poor gap in reading and math
achievement. The recent National Assessment of Title I concluded that
trends in the performance of the Nation's highest-poverty schools, as
well as the progress of the lowest-achieving students, shows positive
gains in reading and math since the 1994 reauthorization of Title I.
The Administration has requested $8 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs
in fiscal year 2000 and would provide additional funds to the highest-
poverty schools by allocating a significant proportion of the request
through the Targeted Grants formula.
Another essential investment in mastering the basics is our $286
million fiscal year 2000 request for the Reading Excellence program.
This bipartisan initiative, which was enacted last year, supports
extended learning time for children to strengthen their reading skills,
teacher training in reading instruction, and family literacy
activities. Reading Excellence is part of the President's America Reads
Challenge, which calls for all children to read well and independently
by the end of the third grade.
reducing class size
Helping all children master the basics and reach high standards
demands a great deal of personal, one-on-one attention from teachers,
particularly for those disadvantaged, minority, and limited English
proficient children who have further to go to reach State standards.
Students are more likely to receive this attention in small classes of
less than 20 children than in the overcrowded, 35-student classrooms so
often found in today's schools and particularly in failing schools.
The Class Size Reduction program, currently funded at $1.2 billion,
would provide $12.4 billion over 7 years to help schools hire 100,000
new teachers and reduce class size in the early grades to a nationwide
average of 18. This initiative responds to a growing body of research
showing that students attending small classes in the early grades make
more rapid educational progress than students in larger classes, and
that these achievement gains persist well after students move on to the
later grades. In particular, Project STAR--a longitudinal study of
smaller classes in the early grades in Tennessee--found that students
in smaller classes (13-17 students) substantially outperformed students
in larger classes (22-26 students) on both standardized and curriculum-
based tests. In addition, the positive achievement effect of smaller
classes on minority students was double that for majority students, a
smaller proportion of students was retained in grade compared with
students in larger classes, and there was greater early identification
of special educational needs in the smaller classes. A follow-up study
found that the higher achievement levels reached by students in the
smaller classes persisted at least through eighth grade. The President
is requesting $1.4 billion for Class Size Reduction in fiscal year
2000.
improving teacher quality
A key emphasis of the Class Size Reduction program is on hiring
highly qualified teachers who are prepared to teach in smaller classes.
Similarly, we cannot expect our students to reach high standards until
every classroom is led by a qualified and well-trained teacher capable
of teaching to high standards. Research shows that qualified teachers
are the most important in-school factor in improving student
achievement, yet high-poverty urban schools are most likely to suffer
from unqualified teachers. In high-poverty schools, more than 20
percent of all teachers are teaching out-of-field, or in a subject in
which they lack either a major or minor degree. That's about twice the
rate of teachers teaching out-of-field in low-poverty schools.
We made a good start on improving teacher quality last year when
Congress passed new teacher recruitment and training programs as part
of Title II of the reauthorized Higher Education Act (HEA). The
President's fiscal year 2000 request includes a $40 million increase
for the HEA Teacher Quality Enhancement grants program, which would
help States improve the quality of their teaching force, strengthen
teacher education, and reduce shortages of qualified teachers in high-
poverty districts.
Our ESEA reauthorization would build on the improvements in the HEA
to help ensure that all teachers are prepared to teach to high
standards. A new Teaching to High Standards initiative would support
new teachers during their first 3 years in the classroom and help
ensure that all teachers are proficient in both academic knowledge and
teaching skills. In addition, our reauthorization proposal would
support high-quality teaching in high-poverty schools by requiring that
all new teachers paid for with Title I funds be fully certified in the
subject they teach.
increasing accountability for student performance
A key element of standards-based reform is a strong emphasis on
accountability. Challenging State academic standards provide the bar by
which to measure the performance of students, teachers, schools, and
school districts. The purpose here is not and should not be punitive,
but to identify weaknesses and help guide improvements. Many States
have taken this to heart by establishing rigorous accountability
systems that hold districts and schools accountable for student
performance and providing support for those schools that aren't getting
the job done. However, State progress in the area of accountability has
been uneven, and we believe it is time to provide stronger
encouragement at the Federal level. As I said in my reauthorization
testimony earlier this year, there is both a moral and fiscal dimension
to being more accountable. We cannot afford to lose the talents of any
child, and we must ensure that the substantial resources entrusted to
us by taxpayers are used effectively.
Our ESEA reauthorization proposal includes an Education
Accountability Act, a package of measures to hold districts, schools,
teachers, and students to high standards and help ensure that all
students receive a high-quality education. This bill would encourage
States to develop an accountability system for all schools, including
Title I schools, that includes procedures and standards for identifying
low-performing schools. It also would provide States and districts with
additional Title I resources to help turn around low-performing schools
and mandate strong corrective action if there is no improvement within
3 years. Our fiscal year 2000 request for Title I includes $200 million
to accelerate the pace of State and local school improvement efforts.
The Education Accountability Act also would require annual State,
district, and school report cards that are distributed to all parents
and the public. These report cards would help give parents the
information they need to make good choices about the public schools
their children attend.
The reauthorization bill also would require States to put in place
within 4 years policies ending the practices of social promotion and
traditional grade retention, and to provide intensive and comprehensive
educational interventions to students who are at risk of not meeting
standards for promotion in a timely fashion. The President's fiscal
year 2000 budget includes $600 million for the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers program, which can help students meet promotion
standards through extended learning time before and after school and
during the summers.
school construction and modernization
Finally, States and school districts face a huge task in
modernizing existing schools to provide students with a world-class
education for the 21st century. The average public school is 42 years
old, and the General Accounting Office estimates that one-third of all
public schools need extensive repair or replacement. And the baby boom
echo--which this fall brought an estimated 447,000 new students to our
schools for a record total of 53 million elementary and secondary
school students--means that States and districts must squeeze ever more
students into these old structures. We cannot expect students to meet
demanding new standards of achievement in dilapidated, dangerous, and
overcrowded facilities. And both new and renovated schools should be
designed for the kind of education we know works best: smaller schools
that create a sense of community and small classrooms in which teachers
can provide lots of individual attention.
To help States and districts shoulder the financial burden of
building and modernizing schools at the same time they are implementing
standards-based reforms, the President's School Modernization Bond
proposal would subsidize almost $25 billion in construction bonds over
2 years to modernize up to 6,000 schools.
This proposal does not in any way inject the Federal Government
into local decisions about which schools are built or renovated. What
it does is provide Federal help to address a massive national problem.
There is a quote from Plato that I believe holds great relevance for
our system of public education. Plato said, ``That which is honored in
a country * * * is that which will be cultivated there.'' As we near
the millennium, I hope we will honor our children and cultivate their
education by helping to build and modernize their schools.
Expanding Public School Choice
High standards, the basics, smaller classes, better teachers, and
accountability are not just slogans--they are sound educational reform
strategies that are working to fix failing schools and improve the
quality of public education all over America. That's why I disagree
with the implicit assumption of voucher proponents that the only choice
faced by parents and children--particularly poor children--is between
bad public schools and good private schools. This ignores the efforts
of millions of hard-working public school principals and teachers who
provide a quality education to millions of students--and not just in
the affluent suburbs.
However, that doesn't mean we can ignore for one moment the failure
of some public schools to do right by their students. I have
consistently called for quick action to turn around failing schools and
for making available options for the students in those schools. You can
reconstitute a school by putting in new leadership and giving that
leadership the authority to change the staff and implement wholesale
reforms in school structure and curriculum. If all else fails, you can
close down a persistently low-performing school and start from scratch.
And to help students escape failing schools, we are proposing in our
ESEA reauthorization bill to give school districts the option of
allowing students in a failing Title I school to transfer to another
public school.
Districts also may consider expanding public school choice options
to provide alternatives to failing schools. I strongly support public
school choice because it does not drain resources from our public
school system and because it maintains accountability safeguards over
the use of public funds. I just returned from Seattle, Washington,
where I heard a great deal about efforts to expand public school
choice. The growing amount of choice in our public school systems is
one of the untold stories in American education.
The percentage of public school students attending a school chosen
by their parents rose from 11 percent in 1993 to about 15 percent in
1996. That means about 7 million children attended public schools of
choice 3 years ago. I suspect that number has increased considerably
since that time, in part because the Clinton Administration has
strongly supported expansion of public school choice. Since 1995, for
example, the Public Charter Schools Program has supported the
development of an estimated 900 new charter schools. A total of 1,700
charter schools are operating this year, or a little more than halfway
toward President Clinton's goal of 3,000 charter schools by 2002. Our
fiscal year 2000 request of $130 million would support up to 1,400
charter schools serving some 400,000 students.
Magnet schools--organized around themes such as math and science or
the performing arts--are another very effective public school choice
option. Approximately 1.5 million students are currently enrolled in
over 5,200 magnet schools. Magnet schools can help promote diversity by
attracting students from a variety of backgrounds, and the Department's
Magnet Schools Assistance Program is specifically designed to aid
desegregation efforts by eliminating, reducing, or preventing minority
group isolation. Studies have shown that Federally funded magnet
schools have helped provide minority students a high-quality public
school education that otherwise would not have been available.
Our ESEA reauthorization proposal includes an initiative designed
to encourage the development of high-quality public school choice
options that are available to all students, including students in
failing schools. The Opportunities To Improve Our Nation's Schools
program, or OPTIONS, would provide 3-year competitive grants to support
public school choice projects that stimulate educational innovation and
improvement and contribute to standards-based reform efforts. Funds
would be targeted to high-poverty school districts and projects could
include, for example, public schools at work sites or on college
campuses, as well as postsecondary enrollment options for secondary
students.
Finally, we need to encourage school districts and schools to think
about expanding choice within schools. Offering more rigorous course
options, promoting Advanced Placement courses, and creating schools
within schools are all good ways to provide greater and more
stimulating choices within existing schools. We are requesting a
significant increase in the Advanced Placement Incentives program for
fiscal year 2000, from $4 million to $20 million, to launch a 3-year
initiative to bring challenging courses to all high schools.
Fixing Failing Schools
We also know, however, that it is possible to turn around failing
schools very quickly. For example, just a few years ago Harriet Tubman
Elementary School in New York City, where 99 percent of students come
from low-income families, was one of the lowest-performing schools in
the city. After being assigned to the Chancellor's District--a special
school district created for the lowest-performing schools--school
leaders, parents, and teachers devised a plan for comprehensive change,
including an intensive reading program. In just 2 years, the percentage
of students performing at or above grade level on the citywide reading
assessment rose from 30 percent to 46 percent. As a result, Tubman
Elementary was removed from the State's list of low-performing schools.
Similarly, at Hawthorne Elementary School in Texas, where 96
percent of students qualify for free lunch and 28 percent of students
have limited English language skills, only 24 percent of students in
the school passed all portions of the 1994 Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS). Four years later, thanks to a rigorous new curriculum
for students in the early grades, almost 63 percent of students passed
the TAAS, with the largest gains over the period being made by African
American students.
These schools share much in common with other high-performing,
high-poverty schools. In a survey of 1,200 top scoring schools with at
least a 50 percent poverty rate, the Education Trust found that 80
percent reported using standards to design instruction, assess student
work and evaluate teachers. Similar percentages reported the use of
systematic early intervention strategies as well as the use of extended
learning time for students, particularly in reading and math. And
nearly all schools dedicated significant resources to professional
development for teachers.
A Texas study identified similar approaches as responsible for the
success of over 50 high-poverty, high-achieving schools. The study's
authors observed that ``there are good practices that would enable any
high-poverty school to create an environment in which almost all
students achieve high levels of academic success.''
In addition, there are a variety of proven reform models that
struggling schools can adopt--often with the help of Federal funds--
``right out of the box.'' For example, many Title I schools have
adopted Robert Slavin's Success for All program, while Gene Bottoms of
the Southern Regional Educational Board has developed a High Schools
That Work initiative. Representatives John Porter and David Obey have
helped over 1,600 schools adapt these and similar proven reform models
to their own specific needs through the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program.
Other Federal programs, such as the Class Size Reduction
initiative, can support efforts to turn around failing schools and give
students the extra help they need. In Columbus, Ohio, the school
district is targeting its Class Size Reduction funds to 13 high-
poverty, low-performing schools. The funds will be used to hire 58 new,
fully certified teachers in grades 1-3 in these schools and reduce
class sizes from an average of 25 to an average of 15. The smaller
classes are part of a broader strategy that includes implementation of
proven early reading programs like Success for All, intensive teacher
training in early reading, 90 minutes of reading instruction per day,
and clear standards and assessments with benchmarks linked to the
curriculum.
Vouchers Are Appealing, But Fatally Flawed
These examples show that successful educational improvement demands
comprehensive approaches, a sustained commitment from everyone
involved, and plenty of hard work. The appeal of vouchers, I believe,
rests largely on the idea that you don't have to do these things. That
there is some kind of parallel universe of superior private schools
that is ready, able, and willing to take on the job of educating 46
million public school students. That all you have to do to fix the
public schools is to leave them behind and subsidize private education
instead. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is no such parallel
universe. The only way to fix the public schools is to fix the public
schools, not abandon them.
And that's not just me talking--the American people agree and have
agreed for almost 40 years. In 1950, a Life Magazine poll asked
Americans whether they favored Federal funding of schools run by
churches or just the public schools. Only 30 percent favored giving
Federal money to religious schools. In 1999, at a time when improving
education is the top national priority and Americans favor increased
Federal spending on education by a 3 to 1 margin, a new Life Magazine
poll showed the same 30 percent support for giving Federal dollars to
schools run by churches.
There is a lot of emotion in the debate over private school
vouchers, over this plan in one city and that plan in another, but I
would like to steer clear of the emotion and focus on the facts. And
the facts say that vouchers cannot improve public education in a
meaningful way.
Let me begin with the core assumption of voucher proponents: that
private schools provide a superior education to public schools, and at
lower cost. Numerous studies show that if you control for family
educational background and income, students in public schools perform
about as well as students in private schools. I won't deny that the
very best private schools provide an excellent education, just as the
very best public schools do, but on average private schools do not
deliver the superior education promised by voucher supporters.
As for costs, research shows that nominal tuition charges at
private schools substantially understate the real costs of private
education. Most private schools rely heavily on special fees and
fundraising activities to supplement tuition. In addition, most private
schools do not provide the range of educational services found at
public schools, such as special education, bilingual education, free
transportation, and food and health services. The record keeping and
reporting required to ensure accountability for public funds in a
voucher system also would increase costs. Once these factors are taken
into account, any cost benefits of private education largely disappear.
It also is important to remember that a significant portion of any
public investment in vouchers would go to students and families already
in the private schools. Nationwide, for example, it would take some $15
billion to pay the costs of the 5 million students already enrolled in
private school. This substantial expense would do nothing to help
students in public schools, particularly the disadvantaged students who
are the focus of Federal education programs.
Another set of concerns is purely logistical. With over 90 percent
of our children attending public schools, there just are not enough
spaces to accommodate more than a small percentage of public school
students in existing private schools. In California, for example, less
than 1 percent of the State's public school students could expect to
find space in private schools. It also seems logical to assume that the
spaces that are available are likely to be found in second-tier private
schools and not the best ones.
And getting students to private schools can require costly
transportation subsidies. The City of Cleveland, for example, spent
$1.4 million in 1 year to pay for taxis that carried voucher students
to school. Transportation is an often overlooked but unavoidable and
very expensive extra cost of voucher programs.
A final area of concern is that many of the attributes that explain
the appeal and the academic success of private schools are incompatible
with the purposes of publicly supported education. For example, many
parents turn to private schools because they believe religion should be
an important part of their children's education. And most private
schools use selective admissions procedures to screen out difficult-to-
serve students, such as some children with disabilities or behavioral
problems.
Private schools have been quick to recognize that participation in
voucher programs threatens much of what gives private education its
character and vitality. For example, a 1998 survey of 22 urban areas
found that 86 percent of religious schools would not participate in a
voucher program if it permitted students to opt out of religious
instruction.
Many private schools also value their independence from the
oversight that necessarily accompanies the use of public funds. This
led 64 private schools in Miami to abstain from participation in
Florida's statewide voucher program. While we can all appreciate and
respect the determination of these schools to remain independent, their
position underscores the difficulty of ensuring accountability for
public funds in voucher programs.
All of these factors--the performance, capacity, costs, character,
and accountability of private schools--suggest that the supporters of
vouchers have not really thought through the real implications of their
proposals. If they had, I believe that they would have to agree that
private school vouchers just don't make sense as a responsible strategy
for effective reform of the public schools. Voucher proposals can only
distract the American people from the hard work of real education
reform, drain critically needed funds from our public schools, and
undermine support for public education.
Conclusion
For nearly a decade, the Nation has worked to develop and implement
a comprehensive set of sound, research-based education reform programs.
These programs are working to help States and school districts across
America improve the quality of public education and turn around low-
performing schools. This bipartisan, mainstream approach is based on a
strong belief in the importance of public education for American
society and democracy, high expectations for all children, and a
commitment to ensuring that no child is left behind and denied the
opportunity for a quality education. Vouchers would undermine public
education and could derail this reform consensus while providing
education of an uncertain quality to a small minority of students. The
only responsible choice is to continue support for proven practices
that strengthen public education for all children.
I will be happy to take any questions you may have.
Chairman Kasich. Mr. Hoekstra is recognized.
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary. In your written statement you quote Plato, ``That
which is honored in a country is that which will be
cultivated.'' you also go on to, in your comments today, talk
about that this is not about local and Federal control, that
this is about a bipartisan American consensus on education. I
think there is a broad bipartisan American consensus in
education as to what kind of education we want and what results
we want with our children. There is a real national debate
about what the best way is to achieve that. I have also had the
opportunity to travel to 20 States and hear testimony from
people in the public, private, and home school environments
talking about what they want for education. And there is a real
debate. And it is a real debate versus the proposal that you
and the administration are putting forward, which is one of
Federal control.
In your own written statement, you frequently use the term
``we know how,'' ``we know,'' how to ``pursue a proven reform
agenda,'' when you talk about the Federal programs, and you
talk about flexibility. But when you actually read the
statement, it talks about, ``you know,'' ``this program
requiring''--it is not requiring Washington to do something, it
is requiring people at the State and at the local level to
follow a Washington mandate. It talks about strong
encouragement to hold accountable local districts. To
``encourage and mandate,'' ``would require,'' ``would
require.'' The approach that the administration is putting
forward is not one of flexibility that allows people at the
local level to work toward this consensus, but it is one that
says rather than reaching--a school reaching out to its parents
and involving children's parents, which is what you
articulated--the schools are forced to reach out to Washington
to find out what the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy in
Washington believe is the best solution for them.
I don't know if you have been to Chicago lately. We had an
opportunity to have Secretary Bennett there who, in the 1980's,
described that as the worst performing school district in the
country. Former Secretary Bennett and Paul Vallas, who is the
superintendent of schools over there, testified at our hearing.
The former Secretary no longer believes that this is the
worst school district in the country. And the formula for
success was not following Washington mandates, but what the
State of Illinois did for the Chicago public schools. They
demandated the schools and provided accountability. They said
we will get rid of all the different State programs that are
coming into the Chicago public schools, we will demandate the
schools, and we will give you a couple of checks, but we want
to hold you accountable.
Why won't your administration support the same kind of
approach here, that in exchange for local and State flexibility
to meet the specific needs of a Detroit or a Chicago--and there
is not a proven track record that what worked in Chicago is
what will work in Detroit--why won't you let those States and
those school districts, who are trying to serve their kids,
have more flexibility and then hold them accountable for the
results?
Secretary Riley. Well, Congressman, I think you make the
point that the flexibility that is out there now in Title I and
other programs evidently is working well in Chicago. We have--
--
Mr. Hoekstra. Excuse me. They only get 7 percent of their
money from Washington, or 7 to 10 percent. What happened is,
they got freedom from the State to spend 93 percent. The 7
percent from the Federal Government isn't what fueled their
success.
Secretary Riley. Well, Congressman, I will respect your
premise which is that by Washington regulations we have
hamstrung Chicago somehow to where they didn't have local
freedom to make decisions.
And then your statement was that what they are doing, using
within the context of our programs, gives them all kinds of
freedom, gives them all kinds of flexibility. We have so much
more flexibility in the Federal programs now than we did when
we came here, that it is not even compared. We eliminated
three-fourths of the regulations on Title I.
So I think--I understand what you are saying, Chicago is a
very good example, and they are really turning that around. We
are trying to have Federal programs be such that can be helpful
to Chicago and not harmful to them. And I work very closely
with Paul Vallas and very closely with the mayor and others
there. And I will tell you, our programs are helping them
immensely.
Mr. Hoekstra. Then how come Paul Vallas says, why doesn't
the Federal Government give me the same kind of freedom that my
Governor will give me?
Secretary Riley. Well----
Mr. Hoekstra. Why can't we be as flexible and as
trustworthy of the Chicago school system as what their Governor
is?
Secretary Riley. Evidently we are not harming them with our
regulations or they couldn't be having the same kind of
success.
Mr. Hoekstra. Is that the standard, we are not harming
them?
Secretary Riley. You indicated they were harming them, by
having some kind of restriction on them and not giving them the
freedom to do as they wish. We don't have but 7 percent of the
money. That is right. In Columbus, Ohio, the chairman's own
district; those folks there are taking class size money, and
putting it--targeting it in the low--poorest schools and have
really come around to a very sensible approach. They have some
15 pupils per teacher; they are making a difference.
We have that kind of flexibility in the programs. And
please understand, I agree that they should have flexibility.
You have to have some accountability, and those too you have to
work out. You can't pour Federal dollars out there and have no
accountability. You have to have some accountability. And we
are very strong on that, as you know.
Mr. Hoekstra. We are looking forward to it. We are going to
give the administration a wonderful opportunity to give local
schools and States a tremendous amount of flexibility and to
trade it off for accountability.
The former Governor from Ohio will be here later today. He
has testified that the 7 percent of the money that the State of
Ohio gets generates 40 to 50 percent of the paperwork that the
State bureaucracy had to put in place. I hope that as you go
back through your statement and take a look at it, that you
emphasize--as we move forward in reforming education, you
emphasize the flexibility and start removing from our
vocabulary here in Washington the terms ``require,''
``mandate,'' to ``hold.''
You are right, when you see what is going on at the local
level, there is tremendous success. And the people in Columbus,
other than their football, do sensible things. All right. They
can be expected to do the right thing.
Chairman Kasich. That gentleman has just now lost his time.
Mr. Secretary, if I could, you can respond--the Secretary
has limited time. I want to recognize Mr. Spratt, Ms. Rivers,
Mr. Pitts and Mr. Wamp and maybe Ms. Hooley too. So we are
going to have to be limited in our questions, please. And, Mr.
Secretary, of course you can respond.
Secretary Riley. The Straight A's Act, that I gather you
are talking about, I am opposed to--and I would say, as you
point out, only 7 percent of the dollars come from the Federal
Government, 93 percent is State and local. So obviously the
great decision-making is with the 93 percent.
The 7 percent, though, that we send out, from a national
point of view, if you have no targeting, if you have no
national purpose, that money just becomes lost in that process.
So I am opposed to that. Under the 5-year proposal, all the
State would have to do is have standards and assessments, a
plan, goals, and any State purpose could be served. I mean, you
could use the money for building something, if it was an
education-related thing, you could use it for vouchers, you
could use it for whatever, and you could totally lose the focus
and the targeting of poor kids or disabled kids that we have in
the current system.
I prefer our current system with a lot of flexibility and a
lot of the accountability.
Chairman Kasich. Mr. Spratt is recognized.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. You have
been bringing both experience and passion to this subject. You
have proved your commitment to it over the last 7 years and,
before that, for 8 years as Governor of South Carolina. I can
attest to that.
Let me quickly ask you one question because others have
questions. I have watched you for 7 years in this job, in the
context of a tight budget in the Cabinet and in the Congress,
marshal money for education, as much money as you can, more
money every year.
Today, the President is going to veto the tax bill. What
would be the consequences for education, all of the educational
programs, if this bill were to pass and become law?
Secretary Riley. Well, the indications that we have from
looking at the tax cut that has been sent to the President
could be as much as a 50 percent cut in education dollars over
a 10-year period. Now, that is dramatic. Again, you can argue
those numbers, more or less, but I am telling you, it could be
very dramatic in terms of education, and I am very pleased that
the President is going to veto it, or has vetoed it, I think,
already this morning.
Mr. Spratt. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kasich. Mr. Pitts is recognized.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome Mr. Secretary. Again, in the context of the tight
tax dollars and with the need for increased efficiency of our--
the use of our tax dollars, I want to ask you about
administrative overhead costs. If we are interested in driving
the Federal tax dollars down to the local public school to be
spent on activities that affect classroom learning, such as
teacher salaries, teacher aides, equipment, books, computer
supplies, whatever the local school district determines is
their priority, as long as it is classroom related; and if that
is the only requirement, if we give them more flexibility in
the use of that money, more local control--and I would like to
exempt things like special ed and voc ed and migrant ed--but if
we could give them a block of money, what percentage of that
tax dollar is needed for administrative overhead by the
bureaucracy on the Federal level? And maybe you could estimate
what would be needed on the local level and the State level.
Secretary Riley. Well--and that is a very legitimate
question, and I appreciate it.
I would say this in terms of Title I, which is our biggest
K-through-12 program, our administrative cost here in
Washington is approximately one-fourth of 1 percent or less.
One-fourth of 1 percent or less. Title I law reads that the
State cannot take for administrative costs any more than 1
percent, so for Title I, it gives to the school district 98-
plus, almost 99 percent.
Now, overall for Federal K-through12 programs, it is less
than 1 percent. Approximately one-half of 1 percent for all of
K-through-12, if you figure all of the programs for
administrative purposes here.
Mr. Pitts. All of the other programs?
Secretary Riley. Yes. If you count them, all our
administrative costs are less than--are about one-half of 1
percent; Title I is even half of that. And so I think that
getting funds to the school district really, Congressman, is
what we ought to talk about. If you talk about going beyond the
school district and to the classroom, you are bypassing a very
important part of American education, the elected school boards
who really make the local decisions.
So I would urge Congress, when you are looking at these
things, I think the point that the Federal dollars should be
looked at is at the district level and not the school itself.
Those are district decisions, in my judgment. But the
administrative costs are very low.
I would say this, that I am very pleased that certain
programs we have cut out, eliminated some 68 programs, which
saves over $600 million, since we have been there. We have cut
student loans, of course, from 22 percent down to below 10
percent, which saves probably $1 billion a year. And our total
costs are around a half a billion. So, I mean, we think that we
run a rather efficient business.
Mr. Pitts. Now, if you keep your administrative costs
within 2 percent, 1 or 2 percent, do you think that is fair to
require, if they are using Federal dollars and they have that
local flexibility, that the State and the local level should
not be using more than 2 percent each, as well?
Secretary Riley. Well, the----
Mr. Pitts. I am talking about utilizing by the
bureaucracies.
Secretary Riley. The States vary significantly on that.
Some of them have a very efficient operation, others less so.
Of course, under Title I they can't use more than 1 percent for
administration. And that is our--that is clearly the biggest as
that is an $8 billion program. So States, we think, ought to be
just like the Federal Government, ought to be very careful,
very conservative about their administrative costs.
There are certain necessary administrative costs; if you
are going to have full accountability and make sure the funds
are spent properly, you have to have some. But we try to keep
that down to the very minimum, and the State, I would hope,
would do the same.
Chairman Kasich. Ms. Rivers.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, it is always a pleasure to see you and hear
from you. You just mentioned a moment ago locally elected
school boards. And as someone who spent the better part of a
decade on a local school board, a lot of issues are very
important to me. I think I bring a perspective that perhaps
some folks don't have.
For example, the debate earlier today around the vouchers,
the argument is that vouchers really don't hurt local public
schools because it is on a per capita basis, and if you just
pull out the money per child, it leaves the same sort of
program for everyone else.
My experience is that the costs are not really allocated on
a per child basis within a school; things like labs, gyms, a
comprehensive library cost the same amount whether there are
200 children or 225 in the school. A bus that has to run from
point A to point B is not reduced in cost because two children
fewer are riding it. There are economies of scale, and in many
cases, smaller sometimes equals more expensive.
What is your experience or how does the Department, what
does their research suggest about this?
Secretary Riley. Well, in serving on the school board, you
were on the front line, and you observed that, I think, very
accurately. The State constitutions, as you know, are the
general law of the State; practically all the constitutions say
that the State will provide free public education for all
children in the State.
Now, you can then pull 10 children out or 100 children or
whatever and go to another location, and then leave that
location closed down, or if they change their mind, they come
back to that school. So the school system, really, under the
State constitution has to plan for all the children in the
State.
And as you point out, many of the services then are
services that serve all children; you can take 2 percent off
and you still have to have those services there.
So I think that is a very good point, that you can't--the
State or the school district can't just drop their funds
immediately if 1 percent or 2 percent of the children go to
another location.
Ms. Rivers. Heat and light cost the same irrespective of
how many kids.
The second question I have is, you mentioned earlier that
the voucher proposal that was discussed earlier was about the
same amount as fully funding IDEA. That is about $15 billion, I
think, when I last looked into it.
One of the things that I know local school boards struggle
with is that many of their special ed costs are not met within
the Federal dollars that come to them. Originally, they
expected around 40 percent; we have never done that at the
congressional level. Shame on us in Congress.
But were we to reach that point, we would put considerable
money back into local schools to be used at their discretion,
because it would free up local dollars that they are committing
to meet their special education needs. Yet when I proposed it
here, virtually everyone on that side of the aisle voted
against funding IDEA. What would that money do for public
education, do you think?
Secretary Riley. Well, it would be a significant help; I
don't think there is any question about that.
First of all, I would be quick to say that all of us should
be very proud of what we have done in this country for disabled
children. We must never cease having that as a clear priority.
But I would say this, I hear from an awful lot of people--from
school board members and others--about the expense of educating
disabled children, the fact that the Federal Government was
authorized to provide as much as 40 percent--it wasn't a
mandate; it was an authorization, and of course we only fund a
very small 12 or 14 percent of the excess cost now. And funding
has gone up significantly over the last 3 years, I think about
64 percent, with Congress being a leader in that and we have
certainly supported it.
I support full funding of IDEA, but you have to support
full funding of IDEA in line with other costs that are out
there. You can't just say, we are going to do this and nothing
else. Disabled children are tremendously helped by small
classes, tremendously helped by qualified teachers and so
forth. So I think the surplus that is out there now in your
amendment--and I thank you for it; I think it is the right
thing to do--if you have a surplus and you deal with Social
Security and Medicare and the debt as much as you can, then to
have those funds go for something like IDEA would help all
Americans in a very clear, fair way.
So I appreciate your amendment.
Ms. Rivers. My last question--if I still have time, the
last question: You just mentioned class size reduction is a big
issue. Frankly, the two proposals that the President has put
forward, the class size reduction one, has gotten more
attention, but as somebody who has dealt with schools at the
local level, my experience is, many schools would like to go to
smaller class size, but don't have the classrooms.
To go to smaller class size means more classrooms have to
be available, and therefore the school construction initiative
is more important in many cases or is a predecessor, it has to
be the prerequisite to moving forward on class size.
What is the Department's experience in trying to evaluate,
you know, the overcrowding of schools, the availability of
classroom space?
Secretary Riley. Well, as you point out, those two really
feed off each other. Class size is extremely important. And our
research shows that small classes with 15 to 18 students in the
early grades, and teachers able to teach reading, that children
do well in early school, middle school, high school. It is a
longitudinal study, and it is very, very powerful.
However, as you point out, that exacerbates the
construction problem. To me, you don't then say, let's don't do
it. Because it is right and it is good for children, you have
to do something about construction. And they are trying to do
that, I think, in every State, in every school district, and we
are trying to help. And it is doable within this current
season, with the surplus and with the money we have to deal
with only the financing; not to say what schools are built or
whatever they are built around, those are local decisions, but
simply to help with the interest on the bonds, for some $25
billion of school bonds. It would be a wonderful way to go into
the new millennium with children seeing what is important to
us, renovating, improving, building schools.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chambliss [presiding]. The gentleman from Tennessee,
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Ms. Rivers talked about a development of IDEA,
and I was recently in a small, rural east Tennessee county
where they have taken the initiative to build new schools. That
is not their problem; it happens to be a traditionally
Democratic county, and I was meeting with the superintendent.
He told me a story of the last school year where some students
were involved in an incident; I think it was illegal drugs.
Based on school board policy, some of the students were
suspended and some were not. Those that were not were
classified as learning disabled. The school board, the parents,
the teachers, the superintendent, they were all irate and
believe that here in Washington, we have actually created two
different classes of students based on local school board rules
and regulations.
I would just ask you to comment on whether or not you think
we have gone too far. In a day where many national experts say
there are too many children medicated for ADHD, we have too
many children in this country who are basically being medicated
when they may not be properly diagnosed. This is a problem.
Since we have such a growing population of learning
disabled, do we here in Washington, DC, want to draw a
distinction between two different classes of children in this
country? Where one would have to abide by the rules, and the
other would not? This superintendent just plain said to me,
``All I need from you is less regulation and less control out
of Washington.''
Secretary Riley. Well, I enjoyed being with you in
Chattanooga, by the way. The IDEA is very, as I said,
important, but it is a complicated measure. Every disabled
child is different. Every child, for that matter, is different.
But they are different in a complicated way and they need to be
dealt with. And I think IDEA goes a long way to doing that, and
it should be funded better.
No, those are local decisions really, I think as you
describe them, determining whether a child is learning disabled
or not or should be receiving medication or not. We certainly
don't determine that. But when you have a child who is disabled
who then is being punished for some reason; the law does
require that that child continue to get educational services.
Frankly, I agree with that. I don't think you ought to punish a
child by denying them educational services. And that is really
a very controversial part of IDEA.
I agree that you should provide educational services. I
think we should provide them for all children at all times.
But it does get complicated. You have complicated children,
and I really can't get into the overuse of drugs for children
with ADD or whatever. I do know a lot of children with ADD who,
with the help of Ritalin, have been tremendously helped in
their learning capacity and potential. And other drugs may be
overused; I am really not able to comment on that. But I
appreciate your comment.
Mr. Wamp. Would you recognize that is one area where
Federal control actually restricts the local school board if
they have to, by Federal law and in this case, they have to
treat those children separately. That is a control that is
creating a lot of angst for a lot of school boards out there.
Secretary Riley. The Federal law would say, you have to
give them Ritalin?
Mr. Wamp. They have to keep them in school. Even if they
violate school board policy, they have to keep them in school.
Secretary Riley. They don't have to keep them in school;
they have to provide educational services. And I mean, there is
nothing wrong with that. You don't deny somebody educational
services and say that is the way to punish them, in my
judgment.
I don't think that is the way things work. I understand it
is complicated and perhaps expensive in some ways. But I think
you can punish a child with a disability just like any other
child. You can punish the child, but you have to provide
educational services; and I think that is right.
Mr. Wamp. I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Kasich. We have to wrap it up here. The Secretary
is already behind time. I want to thank the Secretary for
coming. And, Ms. Hooley, the last question.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for all of the good work you do.
When we talk about education policy, there are some things that
work very well. We know that high expectations or standards
make a difference. In fact, I was just talking to a principal
at McKay High School in Salem, Oregon. It was an underachieving
high school, and because the administration set high standards
and expectations, they have turned that high school around.
We know the quality of the teacher you have in the
classroom makes a difference. We know a small class size makes
a difference in terms of a child's learning. We know parents'
involvement makes a difference. While we talk about teachers
and teacher quality and trying to reduce classroom size,
though, we are looking at a national shortage of teachers.
What can we do either on the Federal or local level to
address the whole issue of the quality of our teachers?
Secretary Riley. Well, every speech I make, I talk to young
people about considering teaching. I think that is something
all of us, as leaders, can do. All people know we need 2.2
million quality teachers who can teach to high standards, who
can teach with technology, who can teach to diverse student
bodies over the next 10 years.
Now, many of the programs this Congress has passed, the
President has proposed, such as class size--the class size
money goes to reduce class size in those early years. It can be
used for recruitment; it can be used--15 percent of it can be
used for professional development, for example, to help
teachers learn how to better teach reading. So we try to keep
those programs very flexible.
The Higher Education Act that was reauthorized last year,
Title II that was then funded, also has funds for recruiting
young people into teaching, helping them through their
educational process, and teacher colleges also, through those
inductive years when they are new teachers when so many good
teachers drop out after 3 or 4 or 5 years.
So we have got to recruit more teachers. We have got to
educate teachers better. And then we have got to retain them.
And it is a very important thing for this country to work that
out, because all of us need to be working on this--we are
trying to use every way we can to help with that very issue you
are talking about.
I had over 100 university presidents here last week and it
was very interesting, talking about teacher colleges. Not
teacher college chancellors, but chancellors of the whole
university, to try to get the teacher education part of the
university on a level with the arts and sciences. To try to
connect up the teacher education with the K-through-12 classes
on the local level.
So I think there are a lot of things we can do. We are
working on that. I look forward to working with you to continue
it.
Ms. Hooley. I have one very brief last question.
Chairman Kasich. We have got to suspend. I am sorry, Ms.
Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. I will get another chance, hopefully, with the
next set of panelists?
Chairman Kasich. Absolutely. I don't mean to cut you off,
but people have very strict time constraints. Senator Voinovich
is here. We are going to have the group of people who are
involved in the scholarship programs.
I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want you to know my
wife is going to have twins in February, and I have already
sampled the Harry Potter book; I am reading it now. Any time
you are looking for somebody to stand up and urge the parents
to start taking that time to read to their kids--I don't know
why we don't make a national campaign about this on both sides
of the aisle.
If you are looking for somebody up here to be a point
person to join with you to constantly say to parents, read to
your kids for 30 minutes, it makes all the difference in the
world. I am willing to work with you and put some energy into
that. You let me know and I want to thank you for being here
today.
Secretary. Riley. Thank you. And I thank the committee.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Kasich. We are now going go with the great
pleasure of having George Voinovich. George Voinovich, I think,
has been elected to just about every office there is to be
elected to. Believe it or not, he was Assistant Attorney
General, he was a State representative. He was the Cuyahoga
County Commissioner, he was the County Auditor, he was the
Lieutenant Governor, he was the Mayor of Cleveland, he was the
Governor of Ohio, and now he is a Senator, and there are no
other jobs we can think of that he can be elected to in Ohio.
But the thing that is so wonderful about George Voinovich
is he is very down to earth. It does not get real complicated.
There are basics in life. And I will tell you the thing I
admire most about him, he is as firm as the day is long. He is
not afraid to go across the aisle. When he believes in
something, he stands pat. He is just a terrific public servant.
And I am very very proud to call him a friend.
George, why don't you talk a little bit about Ohio
education. We have two other people on the panel, but we know
you have time constraints so we will let you go ahead, whatever
you want to tell us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to come here before this committee, and I must
say that, I've just gone through an hour and a half with my
colleagues trying to figure out how we are going to balance
this budget. It is not going to be easy.
Today I would like to share some thoughts with you about a
subject that I talked to this committee about back in January
1995 in Columbus, Ohio. At that time I said that we needed to
look at the proper role of government at the Federal, State,
and local level, and that we needed to define which government
services were truly important to society. We had to determine
what level of government should do it, and then determine how
it was going to be paid for.
Mr. Chairman, when I was a member of the National
Governor's Association and chairman of that organization, we
fought vigorously to delineate those responsibilities. I would
like to just remind this committee that we have made some
notable legislative progress. Recently a study was done by the
National Conference of State Legislators, and they talked about
the important things that have happened in terms of our
relationships and key issues. They talked about the ``five
hallmarks of devolution.''
And, Mr. Chairman, you remember them--the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, welfare
reform, Medicaid reform, and the elimination of the Boren
amendment and the establishment of our children's health
insurance program. They addressed the things that we were
getting into; and what the Federal level of government
involvement should be; what was our relationship and our
partnership with States and local jurisdictions.
In this year, one of the most significant things that has
happened and something that this committee should be interested
in is that we passed the anti-tobacco recoupment legislation.
That is a significance piece of legislation for this committee
to pay attention to, because in our State, the fact that we
could use all of that tobacco settlement money means that our
first year payment is the equivalent of all the growth of all
of our other resources: income tax, sales tax and so on. A lot
of that money is going to be used for education.
I talked to the Governor of Nevada the other day; they are
taking half of their money and they are going to provide
scholarships for every kid in Nevada to go on to higher
education. They are going to pay for that. So that bill that we
passed makes a lot more money available to our State and local
governments.
The other thing that I think was significant that you
should be interested in and concerned about is Ed-Flex, which
basically took Federal education funds and said to the States,
you can use this money for things that are not specified in the
law as long as you tell us what you are going to do with it and
as long as you come back and you account for what you are doing
with that money.
So we have made some real progress. But I must tell you
that I am a little bit disturbed, as a former Governor and
former State legislator and local government official, with
what has happened on the national level. I just heard Secretary
Riley talking about the issue of teacher education and what we
are doing at our teaching colleges. So much of what the
President and the Secretary have talked about in the last 2 or
3 years about education, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, are things that are the proper subject for State and
local government. They are the role of the State governments.
And if you look at the involvement of the Federal
Government in education, they say it's 7 percent, but when you
peel some things away, actually it is about 3 or 4 percent.
Education is primarily the responsibility of State government.
You are interested in budgets. The President's proposal,
100,000 new teachers, $1.2 billion in 1999, $200 million more
in this fiscal year coming up. School construction, $11
billion; testing, which is the first step in a national
curriculum; social promotion, a lot of things that they are
talking about fundamentally are the responsibilities of State
and local government. You as members of the Budget Committee
should understand that during the last several years as you
passed legislation to support education initiatives, that the
money to pay for those programs came out of Social Security.
People constantly come to me and say, ``We have got to have the
money for the 100,000 teachers.'' I say, ``Where do you think
the money is coming from? We don't have any budget surplus.''
We may have one this next year. But now, it is coming out of
Social Security. The Federal Government is $5.7 trillion in
debt. Fourteen cents out of every dollar is being used to pay
for interest, $600 million a day is used to pay for the
interest.
And I think that what this committee should be doing in
terms of the future is saying what is our role, and
particularly, when you don't have the money to pay for it, you
ought to be very reluctant about what programs that you get
into.
Now, what could we do in terms of education? Mr. Chairman,
you have heard this. There was a study done by the General
Accounting Office that showed there are 560 different education
programs in 31 Federal agencies and offices, 92 of them are in
early childhood care and education, prenatal to 3. I want to
ask you the question, how much effort has been made by this
committee or the Education Committee to look at those programs
and determine whether or not they are needed? Are they still
relevant? Can you take the money and use it for something else?
Are they proper programs for the Federal Government to be
funding, or are they a State responsibility? If they are a
State responsibility, then maybe you should say to the State,
we are going to phase them out and you are going to have to
take on that responsibility.
The other thing that I think that we need to look at is,
are there any other initiatives on the Federal level where we
could get a bigger bang for our buck. You are talking about
children; parents reading to children. I have a bill in the
Senate--a prenatal-to-3 bill--which does some very simple
things. For example, we are asking for a one-time $30 million
grant to public broadcasting so they can expand their Web site
so that your wife or my daughter-in-law or some daycare
operator can access information about public television. They
have a curriculum to go with ``Mr. Rogers'' or some of the
other programs that they have, like ``Sesame Street,'' and the
parents or the teacher can read to the kids about it before the
program goes on. They can watch the program, and after the
program is over they have other materials that they can use to
follow up.
There are some things that the Federal Government can do to
stimulate things happening on the local level. For example, the
Federal Government has helped fund the research on the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards. So today, across the
country there is competition. Ohio is No. 2 in the country next
to North Carolina; across the country, teachers are pursuing
certification by the National Board of Teaching Standards.
But let me tell you, I met with a group recently that got
Congress to provide $2\1/2\ million to pay for the tuition of
the teachers in the States to take the test. I said, hold on a
minute--that is not what we agreed to do. The money was to be
used to do the research so that you get it all done, so you
could certify these teachers. We don't want to get the Federal
Government into paying the tuition of people that are applying
for it. That is the State's responsibility.
The point I am making is that as a newcomer here, it just
seems that things just keep on going on and on and on, and
nobody ever wants to look at a program to see if it can be
eliminated. Now I chair a subcommittee that is called Oversight
of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia. I brought in Secretary Riley's people. I brought in
Secretary Shalala's people to talk about their prenatal-to-3
programs. We have a thing called the Performance Plan and it is
required under the Government Performance and Results Act. The
GAO said that Health and Human Services and Education hadn't
sat down to coordinate their efforts to deal with their
prenatal-to-3 programs. So Secretary Riley--to give him
credit--has taken that effort out of some lower level office
and is bringing it into his office, where they are rewriting
their plan so they can take the money that is being made
available for those programs and making sure that it is are
being used as effectively as possible.
And over the next 2\1/2\ years, I am going through every
one of those 92 programs that deal with prenatal to 3, and I am
going to recommend we ought to get rid of some of them. We need
to find out what programs we should be doing and what we should
not be doing.
The other thing I would like to comment on is if we do have
a program and if we agree that it is a good program, then we
need to provide flexibility. Ed-Flex is good, as is the
Straight A's program that Mr. Goodling and our people in the
Senate are working on. Give the States flexibility.
Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest things that could happen
in this Congress is if the Education Committee, or maybe your
committee and Senator Domenici's, could get together with the
Governors and say let's sit down at a table and spend 2 or 3
days looking at what we are doing and figure out how is the
best way to get this done. Honestly, I think you could get 50
Governors together. How did we get Ed-Flex passed? We got it
passed because the Governors agreed it was a good thing on a
bipartisan basis. We got their support and the President signed
the bill. We ought to be doing a lot more of that. In areas
where we are partners with State and local government, it would
be smart to bring them in and sit down and start talking about
these things instead of Congress going off and saying we are
going to do it. I understand the frustration. There is a
problem a day, no, many problems a day. I want to do something
about it. But the question is, is it our role to do something
about it or is it their responsibility to do it, or is it
shared? We ought to bring these people in and talk with them.
As I said, we have to think in terms of flexibility; we
have to give the most flexibility as possible. I remember with
Ed-Flex somebody criticized it and said, Well, they are going
to take Title I money, and they are not going to take care of
the kids. I said, Are you telling me that the States and the
local people are not going to take care of kids with Title I?
I would like everyone to apply for Ed-Flex in terms of
Title I because when they do, States can come back and say,
``This is what we are going to do with Title I money.'' Then
each year they have got to account for what they are doing with
the money. In other words, give them the flexibility and then
require that they have to account for it.
The other thing is there are a lot of ideas out there. You
know, one of the things you were talking about here is our
scholarship program in Cleveland. It is a voucher program and I
think it is a good program. It has been difficult to get on its
feet, because there are people who oppose it and say it is the
devil himself. There are others that are saying it is better
than Heinz 57 varieties. But the fact is in terms of the
Federal Government, I never mandated vouchers, I never mandated
charter schools, but I would never preclude a community from
using their money for the vouchers or for charter schools or
for something like that.
What we should be doing is getting as much innovation and
initiative in this country to really start to deal with the
problems that are confronting our kids in the area of
education.
Last but not least, I think that too many people do not
understand that there is competition among the States in terms
of a lot of programs, and particularly in education. I competed
with Michigan, Michigan stole some ideas from me, I stole some
ideas from North Carolina. I mentioned earlier on, the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards. There were only two
States involved in that program, Ohio and North Carolina. Now
38 States are in it and they are all competing. By the way,
Ohio pays for teachers to apply to take the test. Once they
pass the test, we guarantee them another $3,000 a year for 10
years to reward them because they have now become nationally
board certified.
The point I am making is that we are all concerned about
what is happening in education. You had Governor Jeb Bush in
here. He is trying something new. A lot of people say what he's
trying is a terrible thing. Who knows? Who knows? I don't know.
But why is it that we are afraid to try new ideas? If you are
in business and you have problems, you have to do research and
development. Any business that sees something that is not
working out or where they are not being competitive, or that
doesn't try new ideas, goes out of business. This is a big
business. Education is a big business.
So I would just like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, that there
are a lot of things that we can do in the area of education in
this country. And again we have got to decide who has the
responsibility and who pays for it; and then what we need to do
is understand that we are partners. And what we try to do is to
see how we can be the best partners so that we can really make
a difference and get a return on our investment for our
children which will allow us to move forward and be
competitive.
Education is this country's number one economic development
tool. Period. But that doesn't mean that the Federal Government
has got to take over and micromanage everything that is going
on at the local level, particularly, Mr. Chairman, when there
isn't any money.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, a United States Senator
From the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me
here today before the Budget Committee to discuss the role of
government in education.
More than 4\1/2\ years ago, when I was Governor of Ohio, I had the
opportunity and privilege to testify before this Committee at a field
hearing in Columbus, Ohio.
The purpose of my testimony on that January day, was ``to share
with you some thoughts about a subject that impacts each of us every
day--the proper role of government at the federal, state and local
levels.''
I said, ``first, we must define which government services truly are
vital to society--and which are not * * * (S)econd, once we have
determined what government should do, we must then determine which
level of government--federal, state, local or some combination--should
provide and pay for those services.''
Mr. Chairman, when I was Governor, and member and Chairman of the
National Governors' Association, I fought vigorously to have those
delineations spelled-out. Fortunately, we have made some notable
legislative progress since I addressed the Committee in January, 1995.
Specifically, we have seen a decline in important Federal ``command
and control'' initiatives. In State Legislatures magazine last year,
the deputy executive director of the National Council of State
Legislatures, Carl Tubbesing, outlined what he called the five
``hallmarks of devolution''--legislation in the 1990's that changed the
face of the federal-state-local government partnership and reversed the
decades long trend toward Federal centralization.
These bills are the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Reform Act Amendments, Welfare Reform, Medicaid reforms such as
the elimination of the Boren Amendment, and the establishment of the
Children's Health Insurance Program.
I would also add that the most significant victories since the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act happened this year when the Congress
passed, and the President signed into law, Tobacco Anti-Recoupment
legislation and the bi-partisan Education Flexibility Act.
The Education Flexibility Act, or ``Ed-Flex,'' provides that to the
extent that the Federal Government is going to fund education programs,
each of the 50 states will be able to target their Federal Title I
education dollars to education priorities and initiatives identified by
local school districts in each state. Ed-Flex will also cut down on
Federal paperwork requirements for each state and school district.
The Tobacco Anti-Recoupment legislation ensures that the billions
in tobacco funds that the states went to court to obtain are not seized
by the Federal Government. In our state of Ohio, Mr. Chairman, that
means $9.8 billion over 25 years to spend on whatever state and local
needs exist.
In spite of all of these achievements, we still have not managed to
slip the knot of Federal intervention involving what I believe is the
number one state and local responsibility in America--our educational
system.
While I have the greatest respect for Secretary Riley, I must say
that many of the programs that the President has proposed in education
have been the responsibility, are the responsibility and should be the
responsibility of our state and local governments.
For instance, the President is looking to provide $11 billion worth
of tax free bonds for school construction programs; he's spent $1.2
billion and has sought $200 million more in order to hire an additional
100,000 new teachers; he has pledged to install national testing, which
is a first step toward a national curriculum; and he wants to implement
policies relating to social promotion, teacher competency, school
takeovers, report cards and discipline issues.
If he was still Governor of Arkansas, I would have no problem with
him wanting to implement these initiatives for his state and pay for
them out of his own state's funds. However, he is not the Governor of
Arkansas, he is the President of the United States, and like so many of
the President's other initiatives, these costly education proposals are
not the responsibility of the Federal Government.
What the President is trying to accomplish equates to the greatest
level of Federal intervention in education to occur in some time. Let
me just say, that I do not oppose putting teachers in the classroom,
but I am concerned with the Federal Government telling state and local
officials that they have to hire new teachers. Localities should have
the freedom to invest their dollars in their greatest needs--whether it
is teachers, computers or textbooks. In fact, Ohio is spending $1.5
billion of its own money that I had committed to repair and rebuild our
schools when I was Governor.
Not only are the President's education proposals not the
responsibility of the Federal Government, but, the problem is
compounded because there is no money to pay for the President's
education proposals, except if the President uses Social Security funds
to do so.
When our nation's governors seek to implement new programs, they
wouldn't even think about using their states' pension funds, however,
the President is raiding the Federal pension fund--Social Security--in
order to pay for his ``pet'' projects. That's because, as this
Committee is aware, we have no on-budget surplus in order to pay for
things like these 100,000 teachers or school construction or even the
100,000 COPS program which has cost us about $7 billion. They're being
paid for out of Social Security.
In all honesty, our states are in much better financial shape than
the Federal Government. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have a staggering
$5.6 trillion national debt--a debt that has grown some 1,300 percent
in the last 30 years. We're paying $600 million per day just on the
interest and 14 cents of every tax dollar goes to pay the interest on
the national debt.
Yet, the President advocates spending more Federal money that he
does not have on the expansion of Federal education programs--and other
programs for that matter--when to do so would require dipping into our
nation's pension fund.
Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable. The Federal Government cannot
use Social Security as a private bank for whatever purpose comes along.
It's time to stop the gimmicks.
If the President wishes to fund these programs, he should be honest
with the American people and tell them how he's going to pay for the
programs he wants. If he won't re-allocate Federal resources, or if he
won't raise the dollars to pay for them, then he should do without.
Regardless, I think that this Committee and the Congress should
define what the role of the Federal Government should be with respect
to education. We should look to eliminate programs that the Federal
Government shouldn't be involved in, consolidate the programs in which
the Federal Government should be involved and make sure that the money
is being spent properly.
Right now, according to the General Accounting Office, there are
560 different education programs--including approximately 90 early
childhood care and education programs--that are run through 11 federal
agencies and 20 offices. I believe that it is critically important that
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of
Education (DoEd), which manage the vast majority of early childhood
care and education spending, coordinate their efforts to ensure that
their respective programs complement and not duplicate one another.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, I've held two
hearings this year to get HHS and DoEd to comply with the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and report their efforts to
coordinate these hundreds of programs. The GPRA requires these annual
performance plans to help Congress, the departments, and stakeholders
measure program effectiveness.
According to the initial report by GAO, both departments addressed
the issue of coordination in their respective plans, but failed to
adequately report implementation of these coordination efforts.
However, as a result of our hearings, the Department of Education
is currently re-writing their performance plan so there will be better
coordination. I would like to thank Secretary Riley for acknowledging
this need and giving it a higher profile in his department.
If the Federal Government is going to remain involved in education
programs, then it is crucial that we work harder and smarter and
utilize the right programs to get the best results for our children.
To do this, I believe we should take the funds that we save from
consolidating and eliminating those portions of the hundreds of Federal
education programs, and use them in an area that I have been passionate
about, and in which the Federal Government has been nearly invisible,
and that is the care of our children from the age prenatal to three.
I have introduced legislation, the Prenatal, Infant and Child
Development Act of 1999, S. 1154, that leverages state and private
dollars, but does not supplant them. My bill is a model that gives
states flexibility with their block grant dollars and lets them focus
on pre-natal to three in a way that makes sense for their local
communities. It makes the programs better instead of just making them
bigger.
For example, my bill provides scholarship money for childcare
providers to get credentialed so they are better able to care for
children in the prenatal to three age group. It's not a lot of money,
but it will increase the quality of child-care providers in our nation.
The bill also helps us reach the goal that Head Start set of
credentialing 50 percent of Head Start teachers by 2003. While my bill
contains a modest amount of seed money for states that want to start
coordinated early childhood programs, it is only meant to help them
leverage more money. It is not simply a gift that will keep coming
every year. Last, and most importantly, my bill is offset . It will not
increase spending.
Another priority is one I just mentioned, Head Start. As you know,
Head Start provides developmental services for low-income children ages
three to five and social services for their families. In my state of
Ohio, we've maximized our use of Head Start, so that right now, every
child who is eligible for Head Start in Ohio has a slot available to
them for pre-school education.
I believe that Head Start affords the opportunity for the Federal
Government and the state governments to partner together in order to
help address the needs of a special segment of our society. If the main
stumbling block for states to participate in the program is a concern
over too much red-tape, then I believe that the Congress should address
these concerns to the satisfaction of each state and the detriment of
none.
As we address education programs that are designed to help our
states, we must ensure that these programs maintain flexibility for our
states. We have taken a giant step toward giving our states the tools
they need to meet the challenges of tomorrow by passing the Education
Flexibility Act, or ``Ed-Flex.'' As I mentioned earlier, under Ed-Flex,
each state is allowed to target their Federal education dollars to
education priorities and initiatives identified by school districts in
that particular state.
When Ed-Flex was first considered, it was a pilot program in first
six, and ultimately twelve, states including Ohio. The ``naysayers''
were quick to assume that there would be a ``race to the bottom'' and
that Title I funds would disappear. The truth is, under Ed-Flex, there
will be accountability for how and how well Title I funds are spent.
Another approach that gives state and local officials flexibility
is the ``Straight A's Act,'' legislation which I have co-sponsored.
This bill would consolidate more Federal education program dollars into
a single block grant to the states and local school districts. In
exchange for this flexibility, states and school districts must
demonstrate academic achievement and improved test scores. With this
block grant, states and localities would be free to invest in programs
that produce results and ensure that funds reach the classroom where
they can be most beneficial, while reducing bureaucracy and eliminating
ineffective programs. In addition, the flexibility provided by this
legislation will negate any perceived need to allocate more Federal
dollars to implement this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we must maximize every Federal dollar that is spent
on our children; to get the ``biggest bang for the buck.'' With
flexibility, our states are better able to manage their individual
state education programs, while providing the necessary oversight and
funds to each individual school district. This way, we are best
equipped to implement the programs that will work best in each
individual state and prepare our students to face life's challenges.
From a national education policy perspective, in terms of national
priorities, I believe states should be the ultimate decision makers of
what they should or should not do. In other words, there should be no
mandates. Period. For instance, I don't believe we should mandate
vouchers and charter schools, however, I also don't believe we should
say states can't pursue such programs. If a state has an innovative
education approach that will help our kids learn, it should be
encouraged.
In Ohio, we pursued our own innovative education approach by
implementing the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. Believing
that competition fosters improvement, I made the implementation of this
pilot school scholarship plan one of my top priorities as Governor. As
the first school choice experiment in this country, the Cleveland
Scholarship and Tutoring Program has been in operation since 1995.
It is a painful fact that the Cleveland public school system has
not delivered the kinds of results that will best prepare our children
for the rigors and challenges of the high-performance workplace of the
21st century. The Cleveland School system spends roughly one-half
billion dollars to graduate only 36 percent of its high school seniors.
Few would argue that the children in Cleveland deserve better.
The Cleveland Scholarship Program offers state-funded scholarships
for use at both secular and religious private schools, giving low-
income students access to an otherwise unattainable private school
education in Cleveland. In September 1996, during its first school
year, the program provided scholarships to some 1,855 students for the
ublic, private, or religious school of their choice. A later expansion
of the program budget enabled parents of approximately 3,675 students
to use vouchers to enroll in 59 participating area schools during the
1998-1999 school year.
This Scholarship Program represents one more ``selection'' in the
smorgasbord of education reform that can help the Cleveland Schools
deliver the results our children deserve. I want to stress that school
choice should not be regarded as a panacea, but rather as one part of a
broader reform movement. There is no silver bullet; lots of ideas may
work, but I do not believe we should depend entirely on any one item,
nor should we preclude any one item. It's all about what we can do to
improve the quality of education for our children.
Many of the Committee members may know that the Cleveland
Scholarship program was recently struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court,
not because it was unconstitutional, but because it was enacted on a
``single-issue'' spending bill, or, in Congressional parlance, it was
ruled non-germane because it was a ``rider.''
Nevertheless, the Ohio Legislature passed the measure again this
year as a single issue item based on its merits. Although the program's
future status is unclear, I am hopeful that we will be able to continue
the program and use the data that it produces to undertake a
longitudinal study that will make sure that the program is delivering
results. Over time, we should know more about the academic performance,
attendance, conduct, and parental involvement of the students in the
Cleveland Scholarship program.
It all gets back to the fact that at each level--federal, state and
local--we all want value, which is getting the best product for the
least amount of money, and we all want positive results. When dealing
with education, Congress should be concerned with allowing the creation
of an environment where new ideas can at least be tried. We need to
stimulate initiative and innovation, and ensure maximum flexibility,
like we've done with Ed-Flex, but we should always remember that with
freedom, there is accountability.
In Ohio, we made our school districts accountable by ranking them
according to four performance categories: effective, needing continuous
improvement, under academic watch and in a state of academic emergency.
These categories are based on 27 different criteria that are dependent
on student test scores in math, reading, writing, science and
citizenship.
We implemented a ``4th grade guarantee'' that stipulates that no
child will move on from the fourth grade until he or she passes a
reading proficiency exam.
We also implemented requirements that each high school student pass
a proficiency exam before they graduate. Period. We were met with some
opposition, but I felt it was the only way that we were going to ensure
that our students had at least the basic skills that would help them
become productive citizens.
It's all about accountability, and in Ohio, we're doing something
about it because we want our kids to succeed.
Each year, we spend billions of dollars on Federal education
programs--programs that are in some instances unnecessary, obsolete or
duplicative. I believe it is our duty to determine if these programs
are effective and what Federal role is involved with each program.
If there is no Federal role in a particular education program, then
we should eliminate or consolidate that program. If it's determined to
be a state or local issue, we need to look at how to segue that program
into a state or local responsibility. If it's truly a combination of
responsibilities on the part of the federal, state or local
governments, we need to determine who provides and who pays and to what
extent. And we should also look at innovations where we can prioritize
money and get a better return on our investment, particularly where we
have consolidated or eliminated a particular program.
As I stated earlier, there are 31 different Federal agencies and
offices that run 90 early childhood care and education programs that
help address the needs of our children from pre-natal to three.
Providing for our nation's youngest children is my passion, and I will
continue to use my Subcommittee chairmanship to determine how best to
consolidate and coordinate those programs according to the criteria I
just outlined.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today, and I
believe that your Committee should continue to examine the proper role
that the Federal Government plays in the effective use of tax dollars
for education. In fact, I believe it would be of great interest to this
Committee to start by giving scrutiny to the 470 remaining Federal
education programs.
Throughout the history of our nation, education has been a state
and local responsibility. Regardless--for the foreseeable future, the
Federal Government will continue to play a role in the education of our
children. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon both the Federal
Government to remove the excessive regulations that tell our state and
local governments what they can and cannot do with respect to
education, and upon Congress, to streamline the multitude of Federal
education programs so that our tax dollars are spent on true education
needs. Above all, flexibility, accountability and innovation are the
tools that will help our states and our localities give our children
the opportunity they deserve to learn.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kasich. I want to thank you, Senator Voinovich,
for coming. I just wonder, have you ever put together your view
of what the State government should do, what the Federal
Government should do, how we can consolidate these programs?
Have you ever written all this down anywhere?
Senator Voinovich. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be
writing it down. In other words, I can tell you I have got
enough written about what I don't think we should be doing. I
don't think we should be paying for 100,000 teachers. I don't
think we should be setting national curriculum.
I know my friends in Head Start won't like to hear what I
am saying, but you have had the Head Start program, which is a
terrific program and as you know, Mr. Chairman, Ohio is the
only State in the United States of America where every eligible
child, whose parents want them to be in Head Start, is in Head
Start, or public school preschool. We have done it. And we
spent an enormous amount of money doing it. We eliminated
general assistance for able-bodied people in our State and took
the money and put it into Head Start, because I felt that we
needed to make a difference for our kids early on in their
lives. So we reordered our priorities.
But the fact is that we have been in the program a number
of years. It was supposed to be a model program, Head Start,
and a lot of States, frankly, are doing nothing in this area.
If I were calling the shots, what I would say to the States is
if you want the Federal money, then we are expecting you to get
in the program. If you don't think enough of the program, then
we are not going to give you the Federal money for this Head
Start program.
I have talked to some Governors and said, why aren't you
increasing your involvement with Head Start? They have come
back to me and said, we don't want to fund it if we are going
to have to put up with the Federal guidelines in the operation
of this program. I said well, fine; we will just lift those.
But there are a lot of areas that we are in, and we keep
increasing funding, again, where the States should be stepping
to the table.
Mr. Chairman, I know some of you are looking to take the
TANF money. Now, I don't advise you to do that. We cut a deal
on welfare reform. Congress said we will give the States this
money for 6 years. The States said we will take the same amount
of money, but give us the flexibility. And States have stacked
up a little money. But the fact is, we are using some of that
TANF money right now in Ohio to provide prenatal education for
parents; newborn baby education to parents. We are using that
money, for example, to provide home visits to families for
every new birth. In fact, your wife will probably be asked if
you want somebody to come out to your house to talk about how
to be a new parent. OK. This may sound silly, but it is
necessary for some new parents. It is very important that
during that first 3 years that that child get as much
stimulation as possible because that is when their brain starts
to grow.
I guess what I am saying is that you will be getting a
report back from me for my subcommittee on what is going on in
these prenatal-to-3 years.
Chairman Kasich. Let me say that, you know, George
Voinovich and I have the same kind of ancestry and you can see
he is a guy who as a Governor could kind of do three things and
get everybody to move. He comes to Washington now and it
doesn't happen as quickly. But just think, here is a guy who
has just--what he has done on the early childhood development
programs in Ohio and what he has done on Head Start, he is in a
very strong position to have credibility and yet still talk
about the things the government should do and shouldn't do and
what State governments should do and shouldn't do, and really
can't be criticized for not caring.
And I am just excited that he is here, because if he would
just keep his voice being heard, 1 day, over time, people will
listen more and more and more, and you have just got to keep
hanging in there.
The gentlemen from Minnesota is recognized, Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. Sometimes
it is probably more difficult to be heard in the clatter of
those other 99 Senators over there. But I want to thank you for
coming here today. You do offer a unique perspective.
I want to mention something that you sort of implicated but
you didn't exactly say. Our Governor, Jesse Ventura, was out
here last spring, met with the delegation, and we talked about
the whole idea of building new schools; in other words, this
Federal funding. And the Secretary recently, or just a few
moments ago, testified that that was still a very high priority
for the administration.
He said--and I would like to get your reaction to this--
Governor Ventura said that as far as he was concerned, if the
Federal Government would just fund the obligations that they
have made, for example, under IDEA, the special education
funds, he said he would have more than enough money to build
all the schools that we need in the State of Minnesota. Would
you concur with that in terms of Ohio?
Senator Voinovich. I am glad you asked the question. No. 1,
we talk about how we don't need mandates. And Congress mandated
IDEA and agreed that the Federal Government was going to pay
for 40 percent of it. I think it is about 11 percent right now.
If you ask every Governor, he or she would say to Congress take
all the money you are putting into other programs and give it
to us to fund your IDEA mandate, and we will have enough money
available to do a lot of these things that these Federal
programs are supposed to be doing. I think you would get a
unanimous response on that.
In terms of school construction, again, that is a local
responsibility. In Ohio, one of the things that I recognized
when I became Governor was that we had a real problem in terms
of our physical facilities, particularly in our low-wealth
districts. We have 29 areas in Ohio that are part of
Appalachia. So we went to work. We are spending billions of
dollars now in Ohio. And the way we do it with the school
districts, if they are real low-wealth districts, we say you
got to pay a little bit. In fact I went out and campaigned for
some of the levies. And the leveraging in one district was for
every dollar that they put up, we gave them 14. And it has been
in existence long enough that I have been around for the
ribbon-cuttings to open some of those schools.
So Ohio and other States are aggressively pursuing
rebuilding a lot of these buildings and constructing new
buildings in areas where they are needed. Now, we are charging
our taxpayers a lot of money to do that. It is not pennies from
heaven. It is costing us. The question is, should we in Ohio
send our money to Washington to fund school construction. I
know it is a tax credit, but people have to understand that a
tax credit means there is less money to the Federal Government
and in effect the Federal Government is losing money because of
it. Is it proper for us to send the money to the Feds and then
have them turn around and redistribute the money? My feeling is
that it is a State responsibility. If the Federal Government
were flush, and had a whole lot of money, that might be a
different story. But that is not the case.
States should be stepping up to the table and doing school
construction. Many of them are doing it. And the ones that are
doing it understand they are not going to be competitive unless
they have decent school building. So I am saying I don't think
that is a role for the Federal Government--school buildings
should be the responsibility of State and local government.
Mr. Gutknecht. Let me follow up, if I could. I would like
to get your reaction. George Will was on the Hill yesterday and
gave a speech. And in the speech, he said of all the studies on
student performance, they tend to confirm that only four
factors seem to affect school performance. First was the
percentage of two-parent households; second was the amount of
reading that is done at home; third was the amount of homework
that is assigned; and fourth, the amount of television watched
at home. Apparently the amount spent, classroom size, and even
Federal tinkering, doesn't seem to have much of an impact.
I would like to get your reaction to that.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I think there was one individual
who said the closer you are to Canada, the better the test
scores. They did a study of SATs and found that the more
northern the States, the better the kids were doing. I think
that has probably got more to do with the fact that they are at
home, you have got two parents, and you have less single-parent
households and so on.
I thought those observations were very good, but at the
same time, you have got to recognize that America is different.
And the issue is how do you compensate for that fact. I went to
high school in the Cleveland School District and I went to
Cleveland public schools. In fact, we just had our 45th class
reunion and I was saying to my classmates, that at the time we
went to school, I think it was like 10 percent of the kids were
from one-parent households. Today I think it is close to 70
percent. So you don't have that parental involvement that you
need. More and more, kids are being born without their father
there in their lives. So what do you do about that situation?
We recognize how important, say, a Head Start program is
for at-risk kids. We understand that mothers need to have some
help in making sure they know, when that child is born, what
they should be doing so they don't miss that first 3 years of
opportunity. We know that we need to encourage local
communities to use their resources, for example, to coordinate
programs that deal with prenatal to 3. These are leadership
things, the roles that government can play. I mean, I don't
think we should just say well, there isn't a role for us to
play. The issue is what role should it be.
And in terms of television, I just mentioned to you an
initiative with public television. The people in Cleveland say
you ought to not let kids watch TV. My kids didn't watch TV. I
was the last person on my street to have a television set and
the last one to have a color television set. But I had 2 kids
graduate summa cum laude and another one graduate cum laude. We
spent some time with those kids. But the fact is in this
program that I am talking about, parents and child care
providers can get information about the television programs
from the Internet and talk to their kids about them so they
learn something from them. We are finding in Ohio a lot of low-
income families don't use ``official'' child care. It is mom,
grandma, somebody down the street, somebody who is taking care
of three or four kids. What do they do during that period of
time? If they know that they can watch public television and
the kids have got something they can do constructive with their
time, you are taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity to
make a difference with those kids. That is the thing we should
be looking at--what are the practical things.
I think the other thing we should mention is
accountability. I had a superintendent who had been in his
school system for 25 years say to me, George, the most
important thing you did is that you put into place the ninth
grade proficiency test. This was back in 1991/1992. It was a
test that basically said we don't care whether you have been in
school 12 years or not; if you can't pass a ninth grade
proficiency test, you don't graduate.
I've got to tell you, that was like a big bomb hitting some
urban districts. I had superintendents come in to see me and
say there is no way, Governor, you are going to allow kids that
have been in school 12 years not to graduate and get that
diploma. I said, try me. I said, let's turn it around. And what
we did is we started a public-private partnership, a tutoring
program to really do what we could to make sure that that first
group of kids could pass.
Now we have a fourth grade proficiency test, a sixth grade
proficiency test, and a tough 12th grade college entrance test.
We are reporting the results. We are giving the people of the
State a report card. Nationwide, today, there is a lot of
complacency. You know, parents say their children's school is a
good school. I've got to tell you something: in Ohio, when they
got the report back that their fourth graders weren't passing
that test or weren't doing so well, they started asking the
school, what is going on, why aren't we getting the results? I
invested in it.
I just bumped into a guy who is the chairman of his board
of education in Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Mr. Chairman, you know
Chagrin Falls, it's a great community. And they were one of 6
districts in Ohio that met all 18 of what we call the quality
points. They are very efficient. He is going to his district
for a levy and he is going to get it passed. You want to know
why? Because he can say to the people in his district, we are
No. 1, and it's because you are investing in your school system
that we are getting a return on our investment. It is those
kinds of things, that accountability, that means a great deal.
Chairman Kasich. Mr. Spratt is recognized.
Mr. Spratt. Senator, let me just thank you for your
testimony. It was refreshing and I enjoyed hearing it. I hear
you saying that you think there is a Federal role in education:
We should lay back on the mandates and micromanagement, but
there is a role and even some reason to be categorical, and
there are some programs like Head Start that we think our money
ought to be spent on and is worthy, and we ought to hold the
States to some standards.
Senator Voinovich. Absolutely.
Mr. Spratt. So I take heart from what you say. Also you are
pitching public education. So this is a kind of a hybrid
presentation.
Senator Voinovich. I am pitching all kinds of education.
Mr. Spratt. I mean, public television as part of public
education. I misspoke. Let me ask you something. You started
out by saying that you were engaged in trying to finally end
the budget season and balance--get the budget within the caps.
We got a situation now where we have used the Labor, HHS,
Education appropriation bill as a bill-payer for all other 12
appropriation bills. I think we have tapped it out for about
11, $12 billion, maybe a bit more in outlays.
By CBO's calculation, to get outlays to that level, you
would have to cut budget authority by as much as $28 billion
out of an $88 billion overall bill. How do we close the year
and not savage education?
Senator Voinovich. Well, can I tell you the way we did in
the State of Ohio? When I first came in when I became
Governor--we were $1\1/2\ billion in the hole. The previous
group had spent a lot of money and just assumed that the next
budget would grow by 25 percent to pay for it. And so what we
did was go through and look at the programs and prioritize the
programs that we felt were the most important.
Now, one of the things that I am concerned about is the
real defense readiness problem we have in this country. We do
need to spend more money for defense. But there is a feeling
that you can increase spending for defense by $17 billion and
then not have funds for what is it--I think it is labor--is it
Labor-Education? Our appropriations subcommittee, I can't
remember what the name of it is.
Mr. Spratt. HHS.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. We are underfunded there, and we
are going to need to find some more money. First of all, you
know, we are going to have a $14\1/2\ billion surplus which is
going to have to be used to deal with this problem. One of the
problems is that because of the budget agreement, we are going
to have to spend less money this year than last year; correct?
Isn't that right?
Mr. Spratt. Caps.
Senator Voinovich. Right. But we are going to have to spend
less money. That is a tall order in itself. And then comes
along Medicare which is hemorrhaging; then comes along our
readiness problem where we are in deep trouble. We have this
drought situation, and a bunch of other things that have come
along. The issue is, how do you do all that and save Social
Security? I think you have to go through and peel back on some
of the things that you would like to do and say that we are
just not able to afford doing these things. Now, that means you
will take a whole lot of heat.
The other alternative is to raise more money. And there
aren't too many people around that want to do that. So it is
going to be a difficult thing. But it is like everything else;
everybody ought to give a little in order to get this job done.
And I want to say something. There are a lot of wonderful
programs out there. And a lot of people will come down here and
you will hear them say what we have got to do. The children's
hospitals, for example, want money to be reimbursed for
educating the doctors. Same with the cancer hospital. I mean,
there are all kinds of things. But unless we get ourselves,
from a public policy point of view, back on track in terms of
fiscal responsibility, we are doing a great disservice to
everyone. Somebody told me the other day we are spending 54
percent of the budget on mandates today. Somebody else said in
10 years we will be spending 66 percent. And if we don't do
something about getting that debt down, so we can stop paying
14 cents out of every dollar for interest, and get back to
being fiscally responsible, we are going to be in grave, grave
trouble.
In our State, we made the cuts, and the Chairman knows when
we finally got to 1992, I will never forget it, I cut higher
education, secondary education, and eliminated a lot of
programs. And I went to the legislature, and I said to them, I
will do it. You know what they told me when I did that? They
said, We will grow out of this George, don't worry about it.
Well, I had to do it and I did it. I went to them and I said,
you know, I can cut education again, I could do a lot of these
other things, but I think we have gotten to the point where we
just can't cut anymore. And so we raised a little money to
balance that budget. And because we got ourselves on our feet
there, we moved forward.
And today, when I left Ohio, we have about $1 billion in
our rainy day fund. When I was Governor, it had gone down to 14
cents. All I am saying to you is this is a budget committee.
The greatest thing from a public policy point of view you can
do is to get the fiscal house in order for the United States of
America. I mean, I took over Cleveland, the first city to go
into default. The first thing I did was get the books, but they
were inauditable. I may say you may find some books here that
are not auditable. Once you have got that and you are on firm
ground--then you are in a much better position, I think, to
deal with the things that are going to confront this country.
And we have in my opinion, done a great disservice to our
children and to our grandchildren. We have refused during our
lifetime to pay for those things that we thought were
important. We were unwilling to go without them, even if we
weren't able to pay for them.
I think that is really the challenge today, in this
country. We need to understand that there are many competing
interests out there that we need to deal with, because every
person has got a particular point of view, and a cause that
they want to have responded to. But the highest calling would
be to get our fiscal house in order, so we can enter the next
century with our feet on the ground.
Chairman Kasich. I want to thank Senator Voinovich for
coming. We are going to have to end his testimony. We have a
short panel yet to come.
George, by the way, we are going to have Mr. John Walton
with us today who, along with Ted Forstmann, has created these
scholarship programs, millions of dollars worth of help to
people in districts where kids are not doing very well; and we
had good testimony from the Secretary of Education and from Jeb
Bush.
I really want to thank you. I think your idea of convening
the governors with Pete Domenici, we are going to pursue that.
I look forward to working with you.
I thank your able assistant, Mr. Dawson, for coming with
you. We will let you get back to the Senate.
Senator Voinovich. May I just add one thing? The people who
will also be testifying at this hearing, the private-sector
people, should really be applauded for what they are doing. The
most important thing they can do, and what we are trying to do
in Cleveland is, conduct longitudinal studies to see how their
program really works. That is very, very important, because if
a program does work and we get the results that prove it, then
I think that is something that needs to be looked at for
possible implementation elsewhere.
Of course we won't find out from Jeb Bush, will we, for a
few years? But we ought to be willing to go that route, even
though some people may think it is controversial.
Chairman Kasich. Thank you very much.
We are now going to hear from Dwight Evans, a State
representative who was first elected from the State of
Pennsylvania in 1980. He is popular, has been reelected every
term since. He also was the creator of a charter school over in
the Philadelphia area. I am looking forward to his testimony. I
thank him for coming today.
We are also going to have Virginia ``Ginny'' Markell who is
from--let me get it right--Clackamas, Oregon. That must be a
nice area.
Darlene, are you familiar with Ms. Markell?
Ms. Hooley. I am very familiar with the fabulous work she
does. Clackamas is part of my district.
Chairman Kasich. Is it on the ocean?
Ms. Hooley. Not quite.
Chairman Kasich. I want to thank her for coming also.
Why don't we start with Ms. Markell first, and if you
could, kind of summarize your testimony. I know that as the
head of the National PTA, you are probably a very articulate
person. Why don't you just let us have it?
Then, Dwight, I am sure you are probably not that effective
a public speaker. No, I bet you are very effective. We will let
the two of you just kind of let us have it. We will take a few
questions, then get to our final panel.
STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA MARKELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PTA
Ms. Markell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. It is a
pleasure to see my own representative here and not getting too
impatient just because I am here--it is a nice thought,
Darlene--and other members of the committee also.
Just a little background about the National PTA before I
start. I am indeed the President; I was installed in June of
this year. We are the largest and oldest child advocacy
organization in this country with 6.5 million members. So when
I speak, I speak with a lot of parents' voices behind me, not
usually as loud as what 6.5 million members will do for us. But
I want you to understand that we are a grass-roots organization
and we do indeed solicit information from our local unit
members in local schools and communities throughout this
country.
Much of today's discussion has been about vouchers, so I do
want to give you some perspective about the National PTA's
long-standing opposition to vouchers: long-standing opposition.
Let me give you just a couple of highlights as to the reasoning
behind that.
First of all, we don't believe that vouchers really give
families choices. The only choice belongs to private and
religious schools. They are able to select the children that
may attend those schools. Vouchers also, as you have heard
today, divert public funds into private schools, which we think
have limited public accountability. They do not meet standard
criteria that other public schools need to in that neighborhood
or community.
We also know that in order for private school and religious
schools to be held accountable, they may lose their autonomy in
regards to their curriculum and certainly over their policy
decisions.
We also believe that vouchers do not equalize educational
opportunities. Vouchers will not help the most disadvantaged
families. They will not assure access to quality education,
especially for those with disabilities and special needs.
Voucher proponents have also not provided particularly
strong evidence that they improve achievement. Research, in
fact, conducted on voucher programs has been conflicting at
best, and for more than 9 years of the voucher experiment, we
do not have a clear or statistically valid success story.
We also think that vouchers will create unnecessary and
costly administrative burdens to States and districts. At a
time when we are looking at more educational flexibility,
voucher programs will impose new levels of administrative
management. And probably most significant is the fact that
vouchers will really benefit only a small percentage of
children. Public schools educating 90 percent of our country's
future need to have those funds.
We have some other concerns about vouchers, too,
particularly in regards to the fact that we think it is very
divisive to communities. As we begin to siphon off some
students, we lose the sense of community schools. There are a
number of opinion polls that have been conducted over the last
few years that demonstrate to us that the public has a very
strong commitment to public education, so strong that some of
the polls indicate that they are also willing to pay increased
taxes to support that public education.
We also think that there are some problems in the existing
programs that we have. For example, both Milwaukee and
Cleveland programs have been cited for not adhering to the
selection and admission requirements that have been outlined in
the law.
We also think there are going to be some structural
problems with the voucher program that you heard about from
Governor Bush this morning as we begin to punish failing
schools by taking funds and sending those funds to schools with
a small number of students.
Briefly, our priorities are that rather than looking at
vouchers, we should be looking at enhancing the Federal
investment in education. We are particularly attached to
programs that the Department of Education has established. What
it now needs from the government is full funding.
For example, Title I only provides services to about one-
third of those who are eligible. Those services would need to
be funded at $24 billion if we were to provide for every single
entitled student. We already heard from Congresswoman Rivers
this morning about IDEA and the funding that is needed to fully
fund that.
We believe that the foundation for education reform and
change within this country can be attached to parent
involvement. And we have been very supportive of the
reauthorization of ESEA as it has strong components that
support parent involvement. All of the research for the last 30
years in regards to parent involvement has told us that the
more parents are involved, the more successful students will
be. You heard that even this morning with the Representative
from Minnesota, who quoted the information that was presented
from George Will yesterday.
Education is at a crisis in this country. We would
certainly be, as an organization, the first to admit that. We
are seeing some major changes that need to occur as we look at
record high enrollments, an increase in the number of students
with disabilities or special needs, the fact that technology
has changed the landscape of education and our schools have not
kept pace with that, the anticipated teacher shortage, the fact
that we need to modernize our schools and update our
facilities. Certainly we need to look at extensive before- and
after-school learning opportunities for children.
The fact is, the problems will need to be addressed by the
Federal Government. Without substantial infusion of funding, we
will not be able to bring up failing schools to a standard that
this country expects.
I would like to talk just very briefly, since you have
asked us to condense our comments, about some examples of
Federal initiatives that we think will be the answer to real
school improvement. The first one has to do with the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. This
particular initiative provides grants to schools that have
identified for themselves what is necessary in order to improve
the education for the children that they serve. Parents and
teachers and others in the local community design and agree on
the implementation for research-based reform. That is the key
element of the program--that it is community-driven by parents,
teachers, local community members. Unfortunately, the program
is not adequately funded.
We have talked a fair amount this morning about class size
reduction in terms of the numbers of students that teachers are
actually responsible for in the class. The research that we
have looked at indicates that reduced class size, not vouchers,
tends to hold the greatest promise for real improvement in
student academic success. Schools and communities know that
this is the case. However, they cannot fund additional teachers
without some assistance.
Certainly school construction and modernization bonds will
allow us to move our children into the opportunity to be
exposed to the technology and the skills that they will need as
we move into the next century. The 21st Century Community
Learning Centers will provide millions of children a place to
go after school, not only to benefit academic development, but
also social skills, as they participate in quality after-school
programs. Unfortunately, there is a great shortage of this kind
of funding and programs, and the schools cannot make that up
without additional investments.
Parent involvement--I need to hit on that at least one more
time before my time is up. I would like to encourage members of
this committee to sign on with us in the PARENT Act. We are
extremely proud that the government has identified the need to
give parents the skills and the opportunity to be part of the
educational system for their children.
The House has introduced in H.R. 2801, and the Senate in
1556, the PARENT Act which stands for Parental Accountability,
Recruitment and Education National Training. This bill will
provide States and schools with Federal leadership, information
on research and model programs, and the technical assistance
that they need to plan and implement effective parent
involvement programs. We do know, again as I have already
stated, based on the research that in order for true academic
change to occur, education reform to occur and student
achievement to rise, we need to have parent involvement.
To summarize, let me just say that Congress should not be
diverting funds to private schools, but should address the
immediate needs of schools such as investing in comprehensive
school reform, reducing class size and modernizing schools.
Federal resources provide the foundation schools need for
improvement. They also help expand opportunities for students
in schools and communities with limited resources.
And while I know you have heard this, I will say it again:
Children are only 25 percent of our present, but they are 100
percent of our future, and the government must invest in their
well-being as well as their educational development to secure
the economy of this country.
I thank you for the opportunity to be able to discuss these
issues with you. I look forward to the questions you might pose
and certainly look forward to the National PTA working with
this committee in the near future.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Markell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Virginia Markell, President, National PTA
Good morning, Chairman Kasich and members of the committee. I am
Ginny Markell, President of the National PTA, the oldest and largest
child advocacy organization with 6.5 million members. I appreciate
being part of today's discussion and I am pleased that you have placed
particular emphasis on the importance of parental involvement in
education reform.
Much of today's hearing has focused on vouchers so I will begin by
giving the National PTA's perspective on that issue and then move to
where the debate really should be focused: how to make every public
school an effective school and the programs and funding needed to get
there.
National PTA opposes vouchers because:
<bullet> Vouchers do not give families ``choice.'' The only choice
belongs to private and religious schools who are able to hand select
the children they admit.
<bullet> Vouchers divert public funds to private schools, which
have limited public accountability and do not have to meet the same
criteria as public schools. To be held accountable, the private and
religious schools may have to sacrifice their autonomy over curriculum
and other policy decisions.
<bullet> Vouchers do not equalize educational opportunities.
Vouchers will not help the most disadvantaged families, nor will they
assure access to a quality education, especially for those with
disabilities or special needs.
<bullet> Voucher proponents have not provided strong evidence that
they improve academic achievement. Research conducted on voucher
programs has been conflicting at best. After more than 9 years of
voucher experiments, a clear and statistically valid success story has
not yet emerged.
<bullet> Vouchers create unnecessary and costly administrative
burdens on states and districts. At a time when policy-makers are
calling for more education flexibility, voucher programs would impose
new levels of administrative management and oversight.
<bullet> Vouchers only benefit a small percentage of children.
Public schools educate 90 percent of our nation's students.
National PTA has other concerns about vouchers too. They divide
communities and prevent substantive education reforms from moving
forward. Voucher fights are ongoing in state legislatures, in the
courts and at the local level. Numerous opinion polls continuously
demonstrate that the public strongly supports public education.
Accordingly, policies should focus on strengthening public schools, not
promoting proposals that split the community and only help a select few
students.
In addition, there are significant problems with the few voucher
programs that already exist. For example, both the Milwaukee and
Cleveland programs have been cited for not adhering to the selection
and admission requirements outlined in the laws. Others have structural
problems; for instance the program in Florida, which Governor Bush
described earlier, punishes failing schools by stripping away their
funds and sending a small number of students to other schools. What
happens to those children left behind in the failing school? If
Congress passes a national voucher proposal these problems would be
greatly magnified.
Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Committee, another key
factor in this debate is cost. Just to provide vouchers to the students
who already attend private schools would cost $15 billion. For a
comparison, that is more than the entire Federal investment provided
through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which benefits
nearly 90 percent of school districts. Vouchers cannot be the answer to
education reform for our nation's students. The answer is to increase
the Federal investment in the education system we already have.
Current Department of Education programs, which are targeted to
address specific needs, have been effective in improving student
achievement and reforming schools. Unfortunately, funding levels are
not adequate to allow these programs to serve all eligible students and
schools.
For example, Title I only provides services to about one-third of
those who are eligible. To provide services to all would cost a total
of $24 billion. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
is another essential program that far from meeting its full need. IDEA
would need at least $12-14 billion to provide the 40 percent Federal
Government share that was originally promised. Sadly, we could provide
many other examples of the underfunding of Federal education programs.
In addition, schools are facing enormous new challenges in carrying
out their mission:
<bullet> Record high enrollments
<bullet> Increased percentage of children with special needs
<bullet> Rapidly changing education technology demands
<bullet> An anticipated teacher shortage
<bullet> A price tag exceeding $200 billion to repair and modernize
our schools
<bullet> Extensive need for school-based before and after school
care
The fact is, the problems schools face will not disappear without
Federal assistance. Without a substantial infusion of funds-continued
over a sustained period of time-our nation's capacity to provide high
quality educational services to all children will be irreparably
harmed.
Here are a few examples of Federal initiatives that would result in
real school improvement and increase student achievement:
<bullet> The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program.
This is an initiative which provides grants to schools that have
identified what is necessary to improve education for the children they
serve. Parents, teachers and others in the local community design and
agree to implement research-based reforms that have been proven to work
in other schools. Unfortunately, the program is not adequately funded.
<bullet> Class Size Reduction. Research has demonstrated that
reduced class size is a critical factor in helping students achieve. In
fact, Professor Alex Molnar from the University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee, found that reduced class size, not vouchers, hold the
greatest promise for improving student academic success. Schools and
communities may know this is true, but do not have the financial
resources to hire more teachers. Because it is of Federal interest that
all children have the opportunity to succeed, Congress should provide
supplemental funds to schools that have identified this need.
<bullet> School Construction and Modernization Bonds. Children
cannot learn in buildings that are unsafe or dilapidated. The estimated
cost of repairing and modernizing school facilities is staggering--more
than $200 billion--and cannot be absorbed by local communities.
Congress must address this problem if schools are to succeed. Pending
tax credit proposals could turn a Federal investment of $3 billion into
$25 billion in local bonds for school construction.
<bullet> 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Millions of
children have no place to go after school and would benefit
academically and socially by participating in quality school-based
before- and after-school programs. Unfortunately, there is a severe
shortage of these programs, and schools again cannot afford to resolve
this shortage without help. The Federal Government's commitment to 21st
Century Community Learning Centers must be increased.
<bullet> Parent Involvement. Parent involvement is often cited as
an essential element in school reform. National PTA is promoting the
PARENT Act, which stands for Parental Accountability, Recruitment, and
Education National Training. The bills have been introduced in the
House and Senate as H.R. 2801 and S. 1556. The PARENT Act focuses on
strengthening the connection between parents and schools by providing
states and schools with Federal leadership, information on research and
model programs, and technical assistance needed to plan and implement
effective parent involvement programs.
The PARENT Act would strengthen parent involvement by ensuring that
teachers are taught how to work well with parents, technology programs
are expanded to connect teachers and schools with parents, and parents
are involved in planning how Federal funds are used in local programs.
The PARENT Act is not a one-size-fits-all Federal program, but rather a
sensible outline that will lead to improved student achievement.
Polls indicate tremendous support for increased parental
involvement and a willingness on taxpayers behalf to invest Federal
dollars toward this effort. We encourage members of this committee to
co-sponsor this important legislation.
To summarize, Congress should not divert public funds to private
schools, but instead should address the immediate needs of schools,
such as investing in more comprehensive school reforms, reducing class
size, modernizing schools, expanding before- and after-school learning
opportunities and increasing parental involvement. Federal resources
provide the foundation schools need for improvement. They also help
expand opportunities for students in schools and communities with
limited resources. Children are only 25 percent of the present, but 100
percent of the future. America's tomorrow depends on quality public
schools today.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views today. I look
forward to the National PTA and your staff working together in the
coming year.
STATEMENT OF HON. DWIGHT EVANS, A STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Evans. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I would first like to express how my particular views are
shaped. I am a product of the Philadelphia public school
district, formerly a teacher, taught in the public school
district; a member of the Pennsylvania House for the last 20
years, on the House Education Committee, chairman of the
Appropriations Committee; supported the legislation to
authorize charter schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
passed in 1997.
There are now 50 charter schools in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. There are 25 charter schools in the City of
Philadelphia. I started a charter school called the West Oak
Lane Charter School. The West Oak Lane Charter School has about
621 children, a longer school day, a longer school year;
students wear uniforms, teachers wear uniforms, the principal
wears uniforms; they teach Spanish; targeted toward computers.
So fundamentally that gives you a little sense of my
background.
However, I want to express that there is a real frustration
on my part, that I do not believe--and I can only specifically
speak about Philadelphia and obviously not about the entire
Nation--I do not believe that the schools are child-centered. I
believe that they are adult-centered and they are not meeting
the needs of all of the children. We have to begin to ask
ourselves some serious questions.
In my view, this is not about interest groups, this is not
about one constituency, this is not about protecting favored
programs that do not work. This is about teaching and learning.
What should our children know and what should they be able to
do? How do we support our teachers to assure that they enter
the classroom ready to teach? And how do we support them so
that they are ready to stay? What are the proper roles of
school boards, the State government and the Federal Government?
What choices are there--charter schools, magnet schools, inter-
district schools and even switching to the nearest closest
public school? What criteria do we place on using tax dollars?
I think that we need to start by recognizing that education
will continue to be a State government and a local school board
responsibility. While I recognize and applaud your effort and
support here in Washington, I think the reality is that yours
will always be a secondary role. The fact of the matter is that
States will always set education policies and school boards
will always be responsible for implementing that education
policy. Depending on the source, the Federal support of basic
education is estimated between 7 percent to 10 percent. Based
on the latest information of Pennsylvania, Federal support is
only 3 percent of the local funds available.
We also need to recognize the fact that the education
delivery system is always changing. Until quite recently, the
education of public school children was totally in the hands of
State government and the nearly 15,000 public school districts
in this country. This is no longer the case. To the mix have
been added charter schools, and programs such as those in
Milwaukee and Cleveland. We should anticipate further changes
and design our funding systems to be flexible enough to meet
unanticipated changes.
Let me continue by laying out what I believe ought to be
the guiding principles for the appropriation of Federal funds.
First of all, I would urge you to try to move away from
categorical funding, to flexible funding. I realize that
funding always comes with strings attached. I don't expect you
to just hand over the money and not expect anything in return.
We at the State and the local levels should be held accountable
for improvements in teaching and learning. The bottom line
should be the overall improvement, not just the preparation of
reports.
It seems to me that you at the Federal level need to focus
on trying to set important priorities in education and then
constructing more flexible grants that combine the dollars from
the categorical programs. By way of illustration, it seems to
me that the Federal priorities could be focused on such areas
as support for the poorest students, who are the students most
at risk, or assisting in the recruitment, education, retention
and professional development of highly qualified teachers or
principals.
There should be few conditions attached to the receipt of
these funds other than demonstrating improvement in teaching
and learning. States should not have to institute specific
processes or procedures in return for funding. Federal
requirements, such as school report cards or the reconstitution
of failing school buildings, may have more appeal than
substance. According to a survey of accountability measures
used by various States that was done by Education Week, 30
States already have report cards. Will the state of education
in this country really improve if the other 20 are required to
do so?
While reconstitution and school closures are touted as get-
tough measures, there is scant information on the usefulness of
these tactics. The same Education Week survey also revealed
that North Carolina, which is always cited for remarkable
improvements in educational attainment, has neither closure nor
reconstitution available to it.
First of all, I would like to urge to you to let the States
continue to take the lead in the development of standards,
assessments and systems of accountability that fit our own
unique circumstances.
Let me repeat that: I would urge you to let the States
continue to take the lead in the development of standards,
assessments and systems of accountability that fit our own
unique circumstances.
While I recognize the potential of such programs as the
recently implemented Ed-Flex, I would hope that the concept is
merely the beginning of a more flexible approach to the use of
Federal funds than an end.
I would like to say this in closing, Mr. Chairman, to the
members of your committee: I represent a legislative district
that borders a suburb in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
City of Philadelphia between 1990 and 1999 has lost 150,000
people, who have left the City of Philadelphia. Obviously there
are issues such as taxes and crime and things of that nature.
But if my good friend, Congressman Hoeffel, was here today, who
borders my legislative district, a great majority of the people
who have left my district have left my district on the basis of
the schools.
My view is that the schools are not child-centered. They
are not meeting the needs of the children; they are meeting the
needs of the adults. Obviously, we have to begin to look at
other options, begin to look at what works. We need to have--
and I compliment the chairman and the members of this committee
for having this type of discussion, because the fact of the
matter is, everything doesn't work for every single child.
That doesn't mean that there are not good schools. The
question is, we are talking about having good systems. We can
always point to an individual school. How can we point to an
entire system, and is that system meeting the needs of every
particular child?
So, in closing, I say to you that this is probably the most
important issue to this country, that we need to begin to look
at other ways in terms of the things that we are doing. I am
not saying to you that charters magically, by themselves, will
solve the entire problem. Obviously, I think that charters are
a part of the solution.
So we need to keep our minds open. We need to have some
debate. I don't think that this is a Democrat, Republican,
black, white, liberal or moderate issue. I think that this is
an issue to find a way to what is the best for our children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kasich. Thank you, Mr. Evans.
Ms. Markell, let me just ask you in one area, first of all,
Jeb Bush testified this morning and most of the criticisms you
had of a school choice program were answered by him. There is
no slight selection, there are standards. Virtually every
criticism you had he spoke to in his testimony. What you also
saw in his testimony was the fact that local districts, as a
result of getting low grades, made a significant effort to
improve themselves and to boost themselves.
Urban schools today in America, more than half of fourth
and eighth graders fail to achieve minimal standards on testing
in reading, math, and science. Slightly more than half of urban
high school students fail to graduate in 4 years. Twenty-five
percent of American workers in manufacturing, mining and
construction can't even fill out a job application. And then if
you take a look at the international standards, which I really
had wished to talk to the Secretary about, we rate 19th in math
and science against--we are 19th in the world. Lithuania, the
Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, New Zealand, France, Norway,
Iceland, they are all ahead of us, and that is just a few of
them.
Does it ever bother you that the idea that if we just work
harder with an absence of competition, because since--between
1970 and 1997, per-pupil spending in the U.S. rose 91 percent
in inflation adjusted dollars. I believe you are so committed
to this and I think the greatest argument against change or
choice in education is being made by people who have a sincere
concern that if, in fact, there is choice, the public schools
will be hurt. But it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
I have held public office now for 21 years, and I think we
have lost part of a generation of young people. When you look
at the evidence of what happens in Milwaukee, when you look at
Cleveland, when you look at the number of parents that stand in
line--I was out in California, and parents were in line for 2
days to get their kids into a magnet school.
The next panel is going to represent some wealthy people
who offer scholarships; people are dying to get these
scholarships, to have some kind of choice.
Do you ever worry that maybe just doing the same thing and
not opening the door toward some competition is really the
wrong way to go, and ultimately we are going to look back and
say, we lost more of another generation of young people?
Shouldn't we let the States be able to set programs that if
they want to have a school voucher program, they should have
it? If they don't want to have it, they don't need to have it;
but shouldn't we honor diversity in education and let the
States be able to choose the kind of educational structure they
want?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dwight Evans, a Representative From the
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to
first of all thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you my
views on how to improve the educational attainment of this nation's
children and how I believe that the Federal Government can best support
this endeavor.
My views on education have been shaped by both my experience as a
schoolteacher in the Philadelphia School District and as a member of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for nearly twenty years. I
have served on the House Education Committee and have been chairman of
the Appropriations Committee for the last 10 years. I have played a
leadership role in seeking a greater state role in funding basic
education and in assuring that state funds were directed to those
poorer school districts most in need of financial assistance. I
supported the legislation that authorized the creation of charter
schools in Pennsylvania and was the moving force behind the creation of
the West Oak Lane Charter School in my own legislative district in the
City of Philadelphia.
While I take a great deal of pride in my efforts in the area of
education, I also feel a certain sense of frustration over the fact
that we adults have failed so many children for so long by failing to
provide them with the kind of education that they will need to succeed
in the future.
To remedy this gross injustice, we must not only redouble our
efforts; we must also redirect them. Our education system must be
child-centered. Education is not about what is best for the adults in
the system. It is not about interest groups, one-issue constituencies,
or protecting favored programs that do not work. It is about teaching
and learning. What should our children know and what should they be
able to do? How do we support our teachers to assure that they enter
the classroom ready to teach and how do we support them so that they
want to stay there? What are the proper roles of our school boards,
state governments, and the Federal Government?
What choices are there--charter schools, magnet schools, inter-
districts schools, even switching to the next closest public school?
What criteria do we place on using tax dollars?
I think that we need to start out by recognizing that education is
and will continue to be primarily a state government and local school
board responsibility. While I recognize and applaud your efforts and
support here in Washington, I think the reality is that yours will
always be a secondary role. It is we at the state level who must set
education policy and it is those at the school board level who must
implement this policy. We at the state and local levels are the ones
who are held most accountable for the success or failure of our
children's education. I think it is also important to note that it is
at the state and local level we put up most of the money. Depending on
the source, Federal support of basic education is estimated to be 7
percent to 10 percent. Based on the latest information for
Pennsylvania, Federal support is only 3 percent of the total funds
available.
We also need to recognize the fact that the educational delivery
system is also changing. Until quite recently the education of public
school children was totally in the hands of state governments and the
nearly 15 thousand public school districts in this country. This is no
longer the case. To the mix have been added charter schools and
programs such as those in Milwaukee, Cleveland and now Florida. We
should anticipate further changes and design our funding system to be
flexible enough to meet unanticipated changes.
Let me continue by laying out what I believe ought to be guiding
principles for the appropriation of Federal funds. Given both the
complexities of the issue and the limited time to discuss them today, I
can only describe them in the most general way.
First of all, I would urge you to try to move away from categorical
funding to flexible funding. I realize that funds always come with
strings attached and I don't expect you to just hand over the money and
not expect something in return. We at the state and local level should
be held accountable for improvements in teaching and learning. The
bottom line should be overall improvement, not just the preparation of
reports for the sake of preparing reports.
It seems to me that you at the Federal level need to focus on
trying to set a few important priorities in education and then
constructing more flexible grants that combine the dollars from a
number of categorical grants. By way of illustration it seems to me
that Federal priorities could be focused in such areas as support for
the poorest students who are most at risk for academic failure, or
assisting in the recruitment, education, retention, and professional
development of highly qualified teachers.
There should be few conditions attached for the receipt of these
funds, other than demonstrated improvement in teaching and learning.
States should not have to institute specific processes or procedures in
return for funding. Federal requirements such as school report cards or
the reconstitution of failing school buildings may not meet the local
needs. According to a survey of accountability measures used by various
states that was done by Education Week, 30 states already have report
cards. Will the state of education in this country really improve if
the other twenty are required to do so? While reconstitution and school
closures are touted as ``get tough'' measures, there is scant
information on the usefulness of these tactics. The same Education Week
survey also reveals that North Carolina, which is often cited for its
remarkable improvements in educational attainment, has neither closure
nor reconstitution available to it.
Second of all, I would urge you to let the states continue to take
the lead in the development of standards, assessments, and systems of
accountability that fit our own unique circumstances. Federal funds can
be used most effectively and efficiently when they complement state
programs. We need to integrate and coordinate Federal funds as
effortlessly as possible. While I recognize the potential of such
programs as the recently implemented Ed-Flex, I would hope that the
concept is merely the beginning of a more flexible approach to the use
of Federal funds than an end in itself.
In closing, I would just ask you to trust us at the state and local
levels to do the right thing for the education of our children, to
assist us by providing some of the resources we need to do the right
thing, and to hold us accountable to do the right thing.
Ms. Markell. If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me address several
of the items.
I did hear Governor Bush this morning. Yes, it does sound
like a very interesting and exciting program as he presented
it. I think we do need to remember that it is a new program.
He also talked about a number of things that have not been
documented yet. I was fearful, as I listened to him talk, about
parents not being able to select a private school, because the
special needs expertise is not there. That was a very strong
implication.
We do like some of the things that he proposed. Our concern
is indeed in moving public dollars into the private arena.
And we are not opposed to change. I think many of the new
initiatives that we are seeing out of the Department of
Education indicates that. We certainly do not maintain and
advocate maintaining the status quo. That has never been what
the National PTA is about. In fact, our very founding was based
on the fact that there were concerns about public education 100
years ago. What we chose to do was not leave the public school
system, however, but to stay within the system and demand
change.
I think that is what this country is asking us to do, is to
look at programs that we can replicate, that have positive
successes; but at the same time, not dismantling the public
education system. We have grave concerns about what could occur
if we divert public funds into private schools.
Private schools do, at this point in time and in many
situations, select students. They talk about a lottery; we have
not seen that followed through. That may not be the case yet in
Florida. We are not sure that that is going to be the case in
the long run. We have concerns about that.
Chairman Kasich. If you became convinced that the public
school system could not improve without the potential loss of
market share, or if you became convinced that the public
schools, frankly, were given greater emphasis to improve if
there was some competition, would you reverse your position?
Ms. Markell. I can't be convinced to go there quite
frankly. I think even as we look at----
Chairman Kasich. No matter what happens, you can't be
convinced that this system doesn't work? There is no
circumstance under which you think that giving parents choice
at the local level to take their kids out of a school system
where they are not learning and allow those kids to go to a
school system where they are confident they will learn, under
no set of circumstances would you say----
Ms. Markell. If you are talking public versus private, no,
I would not. Public choice is an entirely different issue.
Public school choice includes magnet schools and academies, as
well as charters within the public school system.
Chairman Kasich. But under no circumstance could you even
conceive of a situation where you would say that we ought to
permit choice outside of the public school?
Ms. Markell. As a strong believer in public education, I
cannot imagine that I personally would make that change nor
would my organization.
Chairman Kasich. I think that speaks volumes right there.
I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank both of the panel members. You can both comment on
this question.
We have heard a lot about vouchers today. For the record, I
need to let you know that I am a product, well, I am a product
of both public and private schools. I went to both. I also
taught in both public and private schools. There are wonderful
public schools; there are wonderful private schools. There are
also some public schools that aren't very good and there are
some private schools that aren't very good.
What I haven't heard at all today, with all the talk about
vouchers, do we ever hold those private schools accountable
when we send a child with a voucher to a private school? Do we
ever hold that private school accountable for improved
learning? How do we know in the Florida model, if you are from
an F school and you get a voucher, that the school that you
choose to go to isn't an F school? Are there any standards or
any accountability for private schools, based on your research
or your information?
Mr. Evans. I cannot speak to you specifically regarding the
issue of vouchers in Pennsylvania, because there is no voucher
law on the books. But I guess what I would like to kind of add
to this conversation is, at some point, I would hope we would
get past this ``us versus them'' approach.
Obviously, when you begin to start talking about private
schools or any other entity, the true test is going to be that
parent; and ultimately if something is not working, you will
make the assumption that that parent will not keep that child
in that environment. My general sense is, I can speak about the
charter school that we have.
We started a charter school last year. Our principal did
not work out in the first 4 or 5 months. There were some
parents who had taken their children out of the charter school.
We got a new principal. The principal came in, and the
principal did some of the basic things that were necessary. Now
some of those same parents who had taken their children out are
now trying to get their children back into the school.
So I guess what I am expressing is only my general feeling
that there is a certain thing called an education tool box and
that basically these kinds of decisions should be left up to
the local school district, they should be left up to the States
to fundamentally decide what works in terms of the child's
interest.
I keep hearing this conversation talking about the system,
the system. What is the system? The system is children. The
system is not buildings and bricks. It is children first.
So if you--as you said yourself, you were a teacher, you
have been in the system, you understand. Everybody here has
options and choose who sits up on this panel. We all want to
make a decision, what is in the best interests of our children.
I don't think anybody should ever, in my view, question the
fact that what somebody wants to look at in the interest of
their children, first.
Secondly, should private schools and other entities have
standards? Absolutely, everybody should have standards,
everybody should be held accountable; we all should be. But if
something is not working, at what point do we say if something
is not working that we need to have some other options
available? At what point?
I can tell you in the case of the City of Philadelphia,
although there has been some change, there are some high
schools that have a dropout rate of 30 to 40 to 50 percent. Do
we continue to keep those high schools functioning as they are
and basically don't do anything about it? Do we continue to let
that happen?
I guess I am just saying to you that I think that we should
have discussions on the table, we should look at options, we
should try to look at something. We may need to do something
different there that hasn't been working. We can't continue to
do the same thing.
Ms. Markell. I think as you know in our own State, we have
private schools that are not accountable to the public. We have
private schools that have noncertified teachers, that don't
need to take any form of testing for advancement. That is a
concern. And I think that is probably one of the largest
detriments as we talk about the difference between private and
public education, that there is no level of accountability at
the private level.
I think, too, as we look at--and we had the very same
discussion at the break about moving a student from potentially
an F school that is a public school to an F private school,
because our conversation with the Florida PTA folks is that
there is no judging assessment or criteria looked at for
private schools as we have given parents choice. That within
itself says to me that the free market only works when you
provide consumers all of the information. And if they don't
have the same level of information about private schools as we
are able to provide them for public schools, they are not
making sound choices. That is fearsome, I think, for most of us
who are such strong advocates of the public education system.
Ms. Hooley. I think there are a lot of assumptions about
the benefits of vouchers.
Again, I have been involved in both public and private
schools in a lot of different ways. I think there is an
assumption that private schools are always better than public
schools when some are and some just aren't. So I am concerned
that we also need to have some accountability. If we are going
to use a system that is a mixture of public and private school,
that we have accountability for everybody.
Representative Evans, I am a great believer in the idea
that you try things; some things work, some things don't work.
I have been involved in education long enough to know that fads
do come and go. Some of those work. When kids are failing in a
school, you have to do something about it.
I can give you some wonderful examples where administrators
have turned schools around. But if we are going to have
accountability, which I think we need, then I think we need
accountability for all.
Mr. Evans. Congresswoman, I would just say this to you. I
have never known, particularly, a public school to shut down
because of academic failure--fiscal failure, but not academic
failure. I have known that we, particularly in States, just
continue to invest; even if it doesn't work, we continue to
invest.
I understand because I started off by saying I am a product
of the public school system. The reality of it is, we have to
figure out something different as a system. I am not saying
there are not good schools. This constant argument, that people
think you are going to destroy the public school system I think
personally is a mistake, because the public school system in
this country is always going to educate the majority of the
kids. I do not believe that there is the ``capacity,'' quote,
unquote, in the marketplace in itself to educate all the
children.
In the case of Philadelphia, we have 215,000 children in
the City of Philadelphia. There are not enough Catholic schools
or private schools in the borders of the City of Philadelphia
that could deal with that issue of capacity.
I believe that that is not the issue. I think the question
really is, how do we change the dialogue between parents and
teachers and principals so that parents really feel like they
are equal partners and they are not just prisoners, and we
don't just say, ``Well, you have no choice, you can't do
anything about it, this is what you are stuck with.'' When do
we begin to say that we put them on an equal plane?
In the movie, ``Jerry McGuire,'' when they talk about--the
part, ``show me the money'' and ``follow the money,'' ``show me
the money'' and ``follow the money'' will change the dialogue
of discussion if that parent is equal.
Personally, I believe in the concept that principals should
have the power to hire and fire. I believe in the principle
that the principal is the instructional leader. I believe in
professional development for teachers. I think that teachers
need to be well trained and need to be ready. But I think the
power is not really decentralized in the hands of principals. I
don't know about anyplace else, but I know in Philadelphia,
principals cannot hire and fire.
It is like picking a team. Somebody gives you a team that
is assigned to you; you have no choice, but they want you to be
responsible if you are a principal. They want you to be in
charge. You cannot be in charge of an environment where you
have not picked that team to determine what is necessary.
Ms. Hooley. Representative Evans, I don't think we disagree
whether parents should be involved. I think they should. I
think it makes a difference in the learning of that child.
Thank you for being here. Again, Ginny, thank you for the
terrific work you do and for being here today.
Chairman Kasich. I want to thank you. I would like for both
of you not to leave, to be able to stay with us. We are going
to hear from some children. I want to get to them.
Representative Evans, I can remember--is this the first
time you have ever testified?
Mr. Evans. Correct.
Chairman Kasich. The first time I came down here, I was a
state senator, I thought they were going to have marching bands
and I would get an hour, I didn't get a chance to say much,
most of the people weren't listening. But I want to thank you
for coming. Your testimony is valuable.
Virginia, I would like to work with you in the future.
There is, without question, some common ground. I happened to
write a book and talked about a lady from the Baltimore schools
by the name of Trudy Williams, who through pure tenacity was
able to turn that whole school around, that whole discipline
around. She fought all the bureaucracies.
It is possible for people to bring about miracles in our
public schools. We all want to work together to have that
happen. I want to thank the two of you. If you want to sit
right out here in the front, that would be terrific.
Now I would like to recognize John Walton and Patrick
Purtill and a host of young people who are going to talk, I
think, a little bit about their school. I first of all want to
say, in a strange sort of way, the actions of Mr. Walton and
Mr. Forstmann really represent what America is all about. I
think that they have started this program--I guess I ought to
let him tell us why they started this program, but my
observation is, they were frustrated, they didn't think
government would move fast enough, and that there were too many
futures being lost. And in the great American spirit--
entrepreneurship, ideas, self-reliance--they sat down and said,
let's put some money behind a true reform program.
Senator Voinovich was here a little bit earlier, Mr.
Walton, and he wanted me to compliment you. The Members of the
House and Senate, I know, are very grateful for the fact that
while you could be, because of the busy schedule you have and
the many activities you are engaged in, it would just be easier
to kind of go about your life. You have decided not to.
I just mentioned a book that I wrote. It focused on people
who really had no money, no fame, no real big success, just the
person next door. Should I do another book, I certainly don't
want to exclude the people who do have positions and do have
resources and stand up and apply them, because all too many
times it is easy to just take care of yourself and not worry
about the world around us.
As just another human being, I want to compliment you for
the efforts that you have made and the priorities that you have
set. I stand in admiration of your effort. The floor is yours
to give us whatever presentation you want.
Where are the children? We are going to have the children
come on in. If you want to go ahead and start, Mr. Walton, the
floor is yours.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN T. WALTON, CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE CHILDREN'S
SCHOLARSHIP FUND; AND CHILDREN AND PARENTS IN THE WASHINGTON
SCHOLARSHIP FUND
Mr. Walton. Thanks a lot, Congressman Kasich. The
Children's Scholarship Fund, like most things, grew out of an
idea that has transformed considerably since its origination.
Starting in 1992, we have seen the growth of scholarship
funds around the country. They have been fueled by a growing
sense of--really, of frustration with the possibility of losing
thousands and thousands and even millions of children through
the educational cracks.
I would certainly agree with the participants in the last
session that maintain that there is a strong public school
culture, there are many excellent public schools. But the
simple fact is that we are simply losing too many children to
an inadequate education. Their opportunities are diminished,
they are condemned to a life of poverty, often illiteracy, and
in this country, in this age, we simply cannot afford that
waste of human capital.
The scholarship fund was originally actually--the
Children's Scholarship Fund was Teddy Forstmann's idea. It was
a wonderful idea. It grew out of the Washington Scholarship
Fund which, for a thousand applications, we had over 8,000
children apply. It demonstrated such an incredible demand that
it was obvious that this was an issue that was really
appropriate for wider distribution.
It was an idea that appeared to really have struck a nerve
with the parents in Washington. As a matter of fact, we have--
Rose Blassingame has brought her three grandchildren with her
today from Washington--Franciscoe, Diamonesha and Lapria--and
we really appreciate their coming here. But they are examples
of the kinds of families and kids that are involved in these
programs.
What they do is that they offer--we offer basically a very
minimal scholarship, it is like--$1,100 is the average
scholarship. These parents dig into their own pockets and find
the balance of the tuition necessary for these children to
attend the school of their choice.
You would think that since the qualification for these
programs is for low-income parents that the demand would be
relatively modest. But starting with 1,000 scholarships in
Washington, we had 8,000 applications. When the program went
national, for 40,000 scholarships, we had over 1.25 million
children represented by the applicant pool.
Now, that sounds like a lot of kids, but you might say,
spread over the Nation, that is not really so many. The truth
is that that was done mostly by word of mouth. There was some
radio, there was some media promotion of it, but the vast
majority of those applications came in through word of mouth.
That is an indication of how parents in low-income communities
are talking about education.
We often hear the position that many of these parents are
too uninvolved, they are too tied up in the struggle for
survival or social issues, whether it is drugs or any of the
other afflictions that divert people's attention from their
children. But the simple fact is that when parents from
virtually any background perceive that they can have a positive
influence on their child, that they have true power to change,
true power to improve, there are very, very few that will not
take advantage of that option.
It is that empowerment, it is that extension of equal
opportunity to low-income parents that has catalyzed the
support that we have seen across this country from donors, from
advisory board members.
I have got to tell you that these folks are from all sides
of the political spectrum. As a matter of fact, when Teddy was
talking to me about putting together an advisory board, he
said, I think we are going to be the only Republicans on this
board. I said, Teddy, I hate to tell you this, I am not a
Republican. The point being that this is not a political issue;
this is an issue about children, it is an issue about
empowering parents, and it is an issue about, quite frankly,
giving parents the most important vote that they could have.
Those of us here in this room today, I doubt that there are
more than a handful, if that many, that do not have true choice
of where our children go to school. We can do one of two
things. We can either pay tuition or we can live in a
neighborhood with decent public schools. It happens all the
time. Any realtor will tell you that property values vary with
the competency, the performance of the schools. We all have
choice.
But, my friends, there is a large and significant and
dangerously vulnerable portion of our population that do not
have choice. They have no say in the type of education that
their children get. It may be good. There are cases where these
parents are well served. But too often when parents have no
choice, they have no power to either move or pay tuition, the
educational product is less than any of us would accept for our
children.
Probably the most important thing that we have learned from
this experience is the impact that this type of parental
involvement, that these parents' ability to cast their vote for
the school that their child attends--the most important thing
that we have learned from that is one that you might not
expect. It benefits the children because the children, more
often than not, much more often than not, end up getting a
better education.
They go to schools where the parents are convinced that
those schools are--they are treating their children in the way
that they want them to be treated. They are choosing that
school; they are monitoring that school. But what really
happens, the thing that has amazed me, has been the change in
the families, the change in the parents that we see, of these
children.
We see parents who were the parents that you talk about.
They are the parents that everyone is concerned about that
aren't very involved; they sort of get their kids out the door
in the morning and they maybe see them home in the afternoon.
But they are somebody else's problem, somebody else is taking
care of it; I am not going to go down there and talk to that
teacher, that principal, because I left school in the sixth
grade. Or I don't speak very good English; it is a very
intimidating environment for me to go down there and represent
my child at that school.
But give me some power, give me the ability to determine
what kind of school is best for my child, and I will talk to my
neighbors, I will do the kind of informal research that parents
do when they are trying to make decisions in a neighborhood,
and I will come up with an answer that would surprise most of
us sitting in this room with the accuracy of the evaluation.
Parents are incredibly capable in using their own resources to
evaluate schools.
We talk about sending money to public schools. We talk
about accountability. But the truth is, we don't send money
anywhere--or sending money to private schools, but we don't
send--in a government-sponsored program, whether it is
something that this Congress might enact, if the money follows
the child, you are not sending money anywhere. What you are
doing is, you are empowering that parent to send their child
where they think they will receive the best education.
I have talked too long.
Chairman Kasich. Be careful, you are starting to sound like
a Republican.
Mr. Walton. I am not a Democrat, either, if that makes you
feel better.
The thing that--probably the strongest impression, the
lasting impression that I have come away from this with is,
this truly is an issue of equal opportunity. It is an issue of
providing educational opportunities to parents who have not had
them the way that we have. Whether we live in good
neighborhoods or whether we pay tuition in private schools, it
doesn't matter; we have got choice.
This is extending opportunity to those parents; it is
extending the right to vote, to cast the most important vote of
their lives and their child's life, which is the educational
environment that their child will be in for the 12 years that
they are in school.
I am reminded often of the suffrage movement, where Wyoming
was the first State to grant the right to vote for women in
1848. It took us over 70 years before that right was extended
to women across this country. I cannot believe that this
country will wait that long to extend the right to vote for
their child's education to the poor parents of this country.
Thank you.
Chairman Kasich. Let us have Ms. Blassingame if she would
come on up. I know she has a little bit of testimony. I know
that Patrick Purtill wants to make a short statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Purtill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick D. Purtill, President and Executive
Director, Washington Scholarship Fund
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Patrick Purtill and I
am the President and Executive Director of the Washington Scholarship
Fund. The Fund was created in 1993 to provide low-income Washington, DC
children with scholarships to attend private, parochial or independent
school.
The Washington Scholarship Fund is committed to providing District
children with the education they need to be full and productive
citizens. Our program is aimed at increasing access to education for
students who come from economically disadvantaged families. By
providing partial scholarships, WSF gives DC children a chance at a
brighter future.
The Fund's program is very simple. Children qualify for a
scholarship if they:
<bullet> reside in Washington, DC;
<bullet> are entering grades Kindergarten through eight; and
<bullet> meet the definition of low-income as defined by the
Federal School-Lunch Program.
Scholarships, ranging from 30 to 60 percent of tuition, up to a
maximum of $1,700 for elementary students and $2,200 for high school
students, are awarded by random lottery to eligible families. This is
the best way to ensure that all students have an equal chance at
receiving a scholarship. After recipients are notified of their award,
parents decide which school their child is to attend. WSF plays no part
in making nor limiting this decision.
The Fund believes in providing a positive learning environment for
children as early in their development as possible. For that reason,
applicants must be entering grades K-8 to be awarded an initial
scholarship. However, once a student enters the program, the Fund will
continue to support him or her through completion of high school.
For the 1999-2000 academic year, 1,354 low-income District children
will attend over one hundred different private, parochial, and
independent schools thanks to scholarships from the Washington
Scholarship Fund.
An important aspect of our program is that all of our parents are
required to pay at least $500 of their child's tuition per year. Some
families pay more, depending on their income and where they choose to
send their child to school. The Fund requires this financial commitment
because we believe that parental involvement is essential to the
success of any child's education. When parents are able to invest in
their children's future, they feel a true sense of pride,
accomplishment and ownership. They are the real heroes working to
ensure their child has a better life and I am pleased that several of
them are here today to share their experiences.
Prepared Statement of Theodore J. Forstmann, Senior Partner, Forstmann
Little & Co., Cochairman and CEO, the Children's Scholarship Fund
Dante once observed that ``A great flame follows a little spark.''
For me the spark was ignited by my work over many years with New York's
Inner City Scholarship Fund, run by the New York Archdiocese. Impressed
with its success at educating children for half the cost the government
system fails to educate the same children, I thought: why not start a
fund to help low-income families seek a good education wherever it
could be found.
So I got together with John Walton and we offered 1,000 partial
scholarships to students in Washington, DC. After just a couple of
months, we had received nearly 8,000 applications. Confronted with this
huge demand, we decided to go national: John and I put up $100 million
to fund 40,000 scholarships, and the Children's Scholarship Fund was
born.
Throwing a lifeline to kids trapped in the worst schools seemed
like a good idea to me, but would others be willing to brave the
inevitable controversy and join our cause? I soon found out.
Those who stepped forward to join our board range from civil rights
leaders such as Andy Young, Martin Luther King III and Dorothy Height--
from national leaders such as General Colin Powell, White House Chief
of Staff Erskine Bowles, Barbara Bush, and both the majority and
minority leaders of the U.S. Senate, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle--from
sports and entertainment figures, such as baseball legend Sammy Sosa,
actor Will Smith, Michael Ovitz, Bob Johnson of Black Entertainment
Television and MTV's president, Tom Freston--from business leaders such
as Jill Barad, Chairman and CEO of Mattel, to Jim Kimsey, founder of
America Online--just to name a few.
The diversity of our board has been a great source of our strength.
People from all walks of life were generous, not just with their time
and effort--but their money as well. Soon we had raised $70 million to
match our initial investment--and with this we set up programs in 40
cities and three entire states. As calls poured in I thought: why limit
our scholarships to just these local programs? We worked through the
logistics, came up with extra funds, and on the Oprah show we made our
scholarships available to every single low income family in the United
States of America.
Yet nothing, not even our experience in Washington, DC, could have
begun to prepare us for the explosive level of demand for these
scholarships. By our March 31st deadline we had applicants from all 50
states and territories--from 22,000 cities and towns across America. In
many areas huge blocs of the eligible population applied: 26 percent in
Chicago; 29 percent in New York; 33 percent in Washington, DC; and in
Baltimore, MD 44 percent applied.
In total we received one million two hundred and fifty thousand
applications. That is an almost inconceivable response--made even more
so when you remember that this is only from people who had heard of our
program.
To understand the magnitude of this demand, please remember that
these are partial scholarships (parents must contribute $1,000 per year
on average) and low-income applicants (average income less than $22,000
a year). Consider that $1,000 over 4 years from the parents of one
million, two hundred and fifty thousand children adds up to $5 billion.
Five billion dollars from families who have very, very little--simply
to escape the system that they've been relegated to and to obtain a
decent education for their children.
In anybody's book, that has to be an amazing demonstration of
dissatisfaction with the present system--and a demand for alternatives.
That's why April 21st--our national lottery day--will be remembered as
a turning point in the history of American education. The parents of
1.25 million have put an end to the debate over whether low-income
families want choice in education: they passionately, desperately,
unequivocally do. Now it is up to the defenders of the status quo to
tell these parents, and the millions of others they represent, why they
cannot have it.
We have heard most of these arguments before. But as pressure for
competition and education alternatives grows--as now it must--we are
bound to hear these same arguments reprised with increasing frequency
and exaggeration. The arguments against choice fall into four
categories:
1. Policy;
2. Historic;
3. Civic; and
4. Legal.
I'd like to address each of these briefly--since each, like all
arguments designed to deny freedom, ultimately reveals a hollow core.
Policy
The first argument against competition in education essentially
runs something like this: since 90 percent of children are in the
public education system, we must ``fix'' that system--and fight choice,
because choices bring competition, and competition will ``destroy'' the
public schools.
Let's examine this one. It's certainly true that 90 percent of
children currently receive education from the government system, or
what we call public education. But far from being a reason for
rejecting competition, it is precisely why we must embrace it. Because
a system that can command, indeed enforce, a 90 percent market share is
a monopoly. And as everyone knows, monopolies always produce bad
products at high prices. Because when there is no competition,
customers have no alternatives. And with no alternatives, they have no
recourse but to accept whatever a monopoly decides to produce, and pay
whatever a monopoly decides to charge.
This is exactly the record of the government monopoly in education.
In the past forty years alone, we have almost quadrupled per student
spending--while reducing the student/teacher ratio by nearly 40
percent. Yet student achievement has stagnated, while important areas
like literacy and safety have seriously gotten worse. Today, for
example, a public school education in New York City costs about $8,000
a year compared to roughly $3,500 in an inner city parochial school.
Yet the inner city public schools lose half their students before
graduation, while their parochial school counterparts graduate nearly
all their students and send most off to college.
In the face of this shabby performance, we are told that if we just
keep plugging away at the same old failed solutions--spend more money,
hire more teachers, and reduce class sizes--we will get different
results.
In the meantime, what happens to the child? To people who want to
maintain the status quo, this is not the primary concern. The primary
concern is not what happens to the child if he is forced to stay--but
rather what happens to the system if he is free to leave. By their
reasoning, no matter how bad the situation gets, we must not help the
child to leave lest in leaving he makes a bad situation worse. Does
this make any sense at all? Does the child exist to serve the system,
or does the system exist to serve the child?
But even if this argument were not so morally bankrupt, it runs
completely counter to long settled economic truths. Long before the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act we knew that monopolies stifle innovation and
defraud the customer. The solution has never been to increase the power
of the monopoly. The remedy, which has worked time and time again in
American experience, is to encourage competition.
History
Competition may be deeply ingrained in America--but according to
defenders of the status quo, so is what they call public education.
America, many of us have been led to believe, was founded upon a system
where government was responsible for educating the public and, as such,
this system must be considered an underpinning of our democracy, and a
reflection of our Founding Fathers' deepest aspirations and ideals.
The only problem with this argument is that it is a total and
complete falsehood. The government delivery system we have come to know
as public education wasn't established until roughly 100 years after
our country's founding. The system it replaced--the system of education
our country was founded upon--was characterized above all by diversity,
competition and choice. Parents could choose from a mix of different
options--while competition spurred innovation and expanded services.
This approach wasn't perfect, but worked well and was improving. Not
only did it arguably produce some of the greatest Americans of our
history, the most basic measure of achievement--literacy--was very
high, in many states higher than it is today.
Civic
The third argument claims that the free market approach may have
worked in a more homogeneous society, but in today's diverse culture we
need the government system to promote social harmony and teach civic
values.
At least the civic argument is a more honest echo of the sentiments
first voiced by public education's early pioneers. Because while Horace
Mann and his followers did believe in the efficiency of a government
model, there was also something else at work in the mid-19th century.
As huge waves of immigrants fanned some Americans' fear of foreigners,
education reformers played upon these concerns to raise doubts about
the ability of immigrant parents, with their exotic religions and
multi-cultural backgrounds, to make proper decisions with regard to the
education of their children. The proposed solution was to filter these
foreign children through some sort of standardized system.
Conflict began immediately. After the creation of uniform
institutions for all, the same families that had peacefully co-existed
in all kinds of different schools--non denominational, Quaker and
Lutheran, classical and technical--now found themselves at odds.
Parents were faced with an unwelcome dilemma, either accept that
others' values would be imposed on their children, or try to impose
their own values by taking control of the system. Issues changed, but
the dynamic remained the same, erupting in conflict over Creationism,
sex education, school prayer, religious holidays, and values education
such as the ``rainbow curriculum.''
Attempts to deal with America's religious diversity--whether the
radical secularism promoted by the left, or the common-denominator
school prayer promoted by the right--have failed because they remain
locked inside the parameters of the status quo. By claiming to deliver
what families need, rather than giving them the power to pursue what
they want--they needlessly trample individual rights and create social
conflict.
Legal
Why not simply enable parents to pursue the education they want?
According to the fourth, and final argument: it's against the law.
Here's where the legal argument against choice binds parents in a
Catch-22. Because the same people who insist that the First Amendment
prevents children from exercising their faith within the public system,
argue that it also prevents families from using a fraction of their own
tax money in order to leave it.
Since some children might flee to the inexpensive option of
parochial schools, we're told this would represent an unconstitutional
establishment of state religion. This argument holds true if, and only
if, you take one thing out of the picture: the parent. Because in a
competitive system, it would be the parent who would get the money and
do the choosing. The fact that this argument fails to take the parent
into account can't merely be an oversight: it's almost as if the
government monopoly has so long discounted the customers--the parents--
that they've forgotten that they even exist.
The irony is that so long as the current monopoly continues to shut
out competition, non-profit, religious schools will be the only option
many families will be able to afford. Of course, this is a ridiculous
result. A truly open, competitive environment in education would
witness all kinds of new suppliers coming to the fore. If I can
persuade you for just one moment to look beyond the status quo, perhaps
you can begin to see the vibrant possibilities, dancing on the horizon
of a not too distant tomorrow. Who knows where the schools will come
from. It might be Microsoft, or IBM, or National Geographic, or the
Museum of Fine Arts.
To refuse to let such potential suppliers compete with a government
monopoly is not only senseless--it is wrong. We have seen what state-
sponsored, government-run monopolies have produced in terms of cars,
like the Yugo, or airplanes like the ones built in the former Soviet
Union. There has never been an industry, a business or a product that
competition has not improved. And here, please remember, we are not
talking about cars or airplanes--we're talking about our children.
In short, we must introduce competition into education, by bringing
down barriers to alternative sources of supply, allowing some new
providers to compete, and allowing parents to decide where their
children will go to school. Competition, as in all other aspects of
American life, will be good for education. It will be good for
teachers, for parents, for children, and for any schools that can
deliver high quality education. Competition will not hurt public
education, it should renew it. I believe that every child, regardless
of their parents' income, should have access to a high quality
education, and that can be achieved only through opening up the
government's monopoly on education.
Mr. Walton, if you would just stay, I am sure we will have
a few questions for you.
Is it Rose? Can I call you Rose?
Ms. Blassingame. Yes, you can.
Chairman Kasich. OK, Rose, you have got the time.
STATEMENT OF ROSE BLASSINGAME
Ms. Blassingame. It is an honor to be here today speaking
to the House Budget Committee. It is an even greater honor to
receive scholarships for my grandchildren from the Washington
Scholarship Fund. This is primarily because my grandson,
Franciscoe, was in public school until the sixth grade.
Looking ahead, I knew what he had learned. I knew what was
possible for him, and I knew what kind of safety I wanted him
to have. And I did not see that future in the D.C. public
school system. But it was also impossible financially for me to
send him to private school. So I said some prayers and things
sort of fell into place.
We won a scholarship through the Washington Scholarship
Fund and Ted Forstmann. Franciscoe went into St. Thomas More
and just graduated from the eighth grade there.
I always knew that he would go a long way even in public
school. But I realized that he would have to go to college. To
do this, he would have to be prepared. Public school and home
teaching was not enough. He needed good preparation at high
school, and I did not see that in D.C. public high schools.
There are a few good schools but not enough. So now he is in
Archbishop Carroll High School.
Education was my uppermost concern, and then safety. I
found those in St. Thomas More, which I could not have afforded
without the Washington Scholarship Fund. With the tutorial
programs and teachers that care about him, Franciscoe just
blossomed. I knew after his second year in St. Thomas More, he
would go into private high school.
Diamonesha went to public school prekindergarten, and then
to St. Thomas More kindergarten. She was not prepared. The
children there were already reading and writing. But she is
younger and she adapted more easily. By her second semester,
she was making straight As. She is even taking Spanish. The
teachers change with different subjects and are more
specialized.
I am for public school education. There are still people
who are too poor to go to private school even with help. But I
think any sacrifice is worth it for a child.
D.C. public schools need to be revamped or fixed. I was
listening to a WOL radio show. The commentator said that it
would take 6 or 7 years to fix the D.C. public school system.
Franciscoe does not have that long. Diamonesha would not be
prepared to go to college. What happens to the children now?
President Clinton said that you should repair a roof while
the sun is shining. With D.C. public schools, the sun is not
shining. The D.C. public school system is just like the
Titanic, sinking very fast. By the time they fix it, where will
these kids be?
My youngest granddaughter, Lapria, is not a child the D.C.
public school system was even interested in educating. She was
slated to go to special ed. She supposedly needed physical and
occupational therapy, but she is in St. Thomas More doing well.
I wish all the money spent and all the taxes I paid could
properly educate children, but it can't. There is no sense in
having lost children.
People say better children are going to private schools.
That might be true, but any child has the potential to be
academically strong. So children will be left behind.
I will end with this. I met a woman a few years ago named
Kim. She was dying. The two things uppermost in her mind were
that her children were taken care of and that they would be
educated. That way she knew that they could take care of
themselves and their own children. The first wish was fulfilled
by her husband. The second wish was answered by the Washington
Scholarship Fund and Mr. Forstmann. When she died, she had no
other regrets besides leaving her husband and her girls. She
knew that her children would be educated.
To me, that is the most important thing. No matter the
color, we all want our children to do better than us, to be
happy and prosperous. The only way to be that way is with a
better education.
Chairman Kasich. I want to thank you, ma'am, for that
testimony.
[The statement of Ms. Blassingame follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rose Blassingame, Grandparent, Washington
Scholarship Fund
It is an honor to be here today speaking to the House Budget
Committee. It is an even greater honor to receive scholarships for my
grandchildren from the Washington Scholarship Fund. This is primarily
because my grandson was in public school until the 6th grade. Looking
ahead, I knew what he had learned, I knew what was possible for him,
and I knew what kind of safety I wanted him to have, and I did not see
that future in the DC public schools system. But it was also impossible
financially for me to send him to private school. So I said some
prayers, and things sort of fell into place. We won scholarships
through WSF and Ted Forstmann. Franciscoe went into St. Thomas More and
just graduated from the 8th grade there. I always knew he would go a
long way even in public school, but I realized that he would have to go
to college. And to do this he would have to be prepared. Public school
and at home teaching was not enough. He needed good preparation at high
school, and I did not see that in DC public high schools. There are a
few good schools but not enough. So, now he is in Archbishop Carroll
High School.
Education was my uppermost concern and then safety. I found those
in St. Thomas More, which I could not have afforded without WSF. With
the tutorial programs and teachers that cared about him, Franciscoe
just blossomed. And I knew after his second year in St. Thomas More he
could go into private high school.
Diamonesha went to public school pre-kindergarten and then to St.
Thomas More kindergarten--and she was not prepared. The children there
were already reading and writing. But she is younger and she adapted
more easily. By her second semester she was making straight A's. She is
even taking Spanish. The teachers change with different subjects and
are more specialized.
I am for public school education--there are still people who are
too poor to go to private school even with help. But I think any
sacrifice is worth it for a child. DC public schools need to be
revamped or fixed. I was listening to a radio show and the commentator
said that it would take 6-7 years to fix the DC public school system.
Franciscoe does not have that long; Diamonesha would not be prepared
for college. What happens to the children now?
President Clinton said that you should repair roof while sun is
shining. With DC public schools the sun is not shining. The DC public
system is just like the Titanic--sinking very fast. By time they fix it
where will these kids be?
My youngest granddaughter is not a child the DC public school
system was even interested in educating. She was slated to go to
special ed. She supposedly needed physical and occupational therapy.
But she is in St. Thomas More doing well. I wish all the money spent
and all the taxes I paid could properly educate children but it can't.
There is no sense in having lost children. People say better children
are going to private schools. That may be true, but any child has the
potential to be academically strong. So children will be left behind.
I will end with this. I met a woman a few years ago named Kim. She
was dying and the two things uppermost in her mind were that her
children were taken care of and that they would be educated. That way
she knew that they could take care of themselves and their own
children. The first wish was fulfilled by her husband. The second wish
was answered by the Washington Scholarship Fund and Mr. Forstmann. When
she died, she had no other regrets beside leaving her husband and her
girls. She knew that her children would be educated.
To me that is the most important thing. No matter the color, we all
want our children to do better than us. To be happy and prosperous. And
the only way to be that way is with a better education.
Chairman Kasich. Mrs. White is also here to testify.
Mrs. White, you have got the stage, go ahead and grab that
microphone.
STATEMENT OF MS. VERMONT WHITE
Ms. White. Good afternoon. My name is Vermont White. I am a
single parent of four children, three girls, one son. Three of
them attend St. Francis, thanks to the assistance of the
Washington Scholarship Fund.
I applied for the Washington Scholarship Fund because I
wanted a chance to offer my children a better quality of
learning. I knew the chances of winning a scholarship were low,
but a cousin of mine convinced me to apply. I also saw the
Oprah Winfrey show, who featured the program on her show. Then
I found out that I had received a gift of the Washington
Scholarship Fund for my kids.
If I had not received the Washington scholarships, I still
would have done my best to send my children to private school.
Their education at St. Francis Xavier isn't free. I have to
pay a portion of their tuition. The scholarship has helped ease
my financial burden I was facing paying for three kids to
attend a private school. I honestly can breathe now to know
that my kids' education is funded by the Washington Scholarship
Fund. But if I have to get a second job to keep them at a
private school, I will. If I have to scrub floors, they are
going to get the education they deserve.
I have given up my social life. It does not matter to me as
long as my kids get a good education. If Washington Scholarship
Fund gives you so much, you have to give the rest.
It gives me a chance to be even more involved in my
children's lives. Since I can't count on a public school bus to
pick up my children, I have rearranged my current work schedule
and taken an afternoon job at St. Francis Xavier where my
children are now attending. That way, transportation won't be a
problem.
Before I won the scholarship, I worked hard to get my
children into the best public schools I could find. Every day I
sent them by Metro to a school in northeast Washington that I
thought would give them a better education than the schools
they were--where I lived. The public school in my neighborhood
shut down, forcing the students to move. The teachers could not
spend as much time with each child as we needed. Just from
being in southeast Washington, I think some public schools
suffer.
What the private school offers my children is smaller
classrooms, one-on-one time with their teachers, and not a lot
of classroom disruption or disturbance. They will have to work
hard; actually, they will have to work extra hard to catch up
with the kids who have been there for a while. But my children
want to go to college. One wants to be a teacher, the other
wants to be a doctor or nurse. And another has decided that she
wants to go to Yale Law School. So I will work hard to do
whatever I need to do to make sure she goes to Yale.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vermont White, Parent, Washington Scholarship
Fund
Good afternoon. My name is Vermont White and I am a single parent
of four children, three of whom attend St. Francis Xavier School thanks
to the assistance of the Washington Scholarship Fund.
I applied for the scholarship because I wanted the chance to offer
my children a better quality of learning. I knew the chances of winning
one of the scholarships were low but a friend of mine convinced me to
apply. I also saw Oprah Winfrey's feature of the program on her show.
Then I found out that I had received the gift of WSF scholarships for
my kids.
If I had not received the scholarships, I still would have done my
best to send my children to private school. Their education at St.
Francis Xavier isn't free. I have to pay a portion of their tuition.
The scholarships help ease the financial burden I was facing with
paying for three kids to attend a private school. I can breathe now.
But if I have to get a second job to keep them at private school, I
will. If I have to scrub floors, they are going to get the education
they deserve. I have given up my social life. It does not matter to me
as long as the kids get a good education. If WSF gives you so much, you
have to give the rest. It gives me the chance to be even more involved
in the lives of my children.
Since I can't count on a public school bus to pick up my children,
I have rearranged my current work schedule and taken an afternoon job
at St. Francis Xavier where my children are going to school. That way
transportation won't be a problem.
Before I won the scholarship, I worked hard to get my children into
the best public schools I could find. Every day, I sent them by metro
to a school in Northeast Washington that I thought would give them a
better education than the schools where I live. The public school in my
neighborhood shut down, forcing the students to move. The teachers
could not spend as much time with each child as was needed. Just from
being in Southeast Washington, I think some public schools suffer.
What the private school offers my children is smaller classrooms,
one on one time with their teachers, and not a lot of classroom
disturbance or disruption. They will have to work extra hard to catch
up with the kids who have been there for a while. But my children want
to go to college. One wants to be a teacher, another wants to be a
doctor or a nurse, and another has decided she wants to go to Yale Law
School. I will work so that college happens for them.
Chairman Kasich. Let me ask the two ladies, Rose and
Vermont, it would just seem to me intuitively that there are a
lot of people who feel as though they really don't have much
power and much control in terms of their children's future.
Have you women given any consideration to linking with
other women around the country who have received these
scholarships and trying to create some kind of a movement, some
kind of an effort, to demand the kind of reform and freedom
that you have for everyone who could be in your situation and
didn't get the break, right? Have you given any thought as to
how you can create a movement to try to create more reform in
our public schools?
And, Mr. Walton, have you given any consideration?
I tell you, we have a lot of very smart people here today,
but these are the only two testimonies I am taking with me.
They are as compelling as anything I have heard here in this
committee room since I have been in this committee room. What
are we going to do to get you to be part of a movement to touch
other ordinary Americans who feel as though they don't have
this chance?
Ms. Blassingame. Well, myself, I have met other parents
through Mr. Forstmann----
Chairman Kasich. You need to use that microphone, Rose.
Ms. Blassingame [continuing]. Through Mr. Forstmann.
Franciscoe, the girls and I have met other parents with
scholarships--one in particular in California; the other, a
couple in New York; one here, like I said, Kim Rogers, who was
very, very special to me. I have met several other parents who
are scuffling even with the scholarships to keep their kids.
I often think about other children that I wish to be in the
scholarship fund and can't be because I can't afford to put
them in. I look at kids in my neighborhood, I don't have to go
across the country. I live in a building with 400 apartments.
The majority of these kids have to go to Leckie School or P.R.
Harris Junior High School. I have them in my home.
I try to get--I went to Leckie Elementary School, and I
suggested to the principal there that she distribute fliers for
the Washington Scholarship Fund. At that point, I was also
discussing Lapria, who was a child born 24 weeks, only weighed
18 ounces, went into cardiac arrest when she was 3 weeks old
and had some brain damage. She was never supposed to walk,
talk, sit up or do any of those things. I was discussing
Lapria's education with this principal, and the possibility of
D.C. public schools being able to educate children like her.
The doctor says she is an exception. She doesn't have to be
the exception; she can be the rule. It is only a matter of
retraining these children's brains. And if a child like Lapria
with 10 percent of the brain in her head damaged--the 10
percent that we use was damaged in her head--she is actually
using the other 90 percent of her brain. Now, if a child like
her can be retrained, then any child can.
I was told by the principal of Leckie Elementary School
that if I wanted that child educated, I had better get her out
of the D.C. public school system. This remark was made by a
principal.
Now--DC, I am not knocking D.C. Schools and this is not
unusual. This is really not unusual for D.C. public schools.
You all aren't involved in this. We are; we know what is
happening, and it is not just happening here. The lady that I
talked to from California, it is the same thing there. In New
York, it is the same thing. It costs money for us to do
anything like you are talking about. It is not something I
haven't thought of. But right now I am scuffling just to send
these children to school.
They used to get one night, one evening a month we used to
go to McDonald's. That doesn't happen anymore. One time every 6
months, I could go to the hairdresser; that doesn't happen
anymore. It is harder than you think for people, even with
scholarships, to do these things. You can talk to people
forever, but if you don't show them how it can be done--and it
is really, really hard.
Sure, I imagine, I wish I could go around the country, I
wish I could travel and talk to other parents. I wish we could
really put this together, but we don't have the money. There is
no point in sitting here to try to talk about it. I dream about
it, I think about it, I see it; I see it right there in my own
neighborhood, but--it is nothing I don't see.
Uppermost in my mind at this point is educating my
children. And that is--it is being selfish, it is really a
selfish thought. But in order to do what you are suggesting
that we do, I would have to put their education aside, and I
can't do that.
Chairman Kasich. Well, you just taught me something, ma'am,
something I forgot. It is what you can do where you live, not
where you do--what you do other places. It is just that you are
such powerful voices that fight against a sense of injustice,
you know. And if Americans hear this, maybe the politicians
would be a little bit more brave.
And that is not meant to say that we don't need a lesson on
our side of the aisle, that we have got all the answers either.
Sometimes we put big interests ahead of the resources that are
necessary for people who don't have any clout. We all need to
have more courage, and you are showing it.
And, John, I just wonder if there is a way in which some of
these stories--they are just so compelling--can be displayed
across the country. Have you given this any thought at all,
videotapes or--you know, there is hope.
But it is a movement. Can you help stoke that movement a
little bit more, not just with the program itself, but some
vivid illustrations of how giving parents more power can make a
huge difference?
Mr. Walton. Well, I am sure that can be done. I think there
are people obviously very capable of doing that, and I think it
should be done because these are stories that are--I mean, I
simply cannot ignore these stories. You cannot ignore the
parents. You cannot ignore their experiences. You cannot ignore
what is at work when these parents are empowered to cast that
deciding vote for their child. This story does need to be told.
I am afraid, in another sense, we have been a little bit
like Rose, that we have been focusing in on trying to get the
kids----
Chairman Kasich. Put the fire out?
Mr. Walton. Right.
Chairman Kasich. We can think about that at a little later
date; we can talk about that.
Let me recognize Mr. Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. Let me join the chairman and say it has a been
a very compelling presentation on the part of all of you.
I had a daughter who went to public school in Washington at
John Eaton Elementary School, and one of the reasons that
school worked was there was a lot of parental involvement in
it, dating way back to the time when Mrs. Mondale herself, who
lived in the neighborhood, got involved; and it was sort of a
magnet school.
I can remember when I was at Yale Law School, I had friends
who went to public high school in Washington, D.C., and they
thought Woodrow Wilson High School was one of the best schools
in the country. And what has happened in D.C.? What is it about
the private schools that your children are now able to attend
that makes them so much better than the D.C. public schools? Is
it safety and security in the classroom, teacher relationships,
better students with whom they go to school, students who want
to learn, better extracurricular programs? All of the above?
What is it and can we replicate it and do it--obviously we have
got to improve the D.C. public schools, as well as support
programs like yours.
Ms. Blassingame. I think it is all of the above.
I will give her a chance to talk.
I think with the extension of--they are not better kids;
they are just kids given the opportunity to learn. Kids--with
everything else, you just said.
There are extracurricular activities. Franciscoe went into
St. Thomas in seventh grade, so he had a lot of catching up to
do. But the tutorial programs were there for him. The teachers
in private schools have to tutor. Even where he is at
Archbishop Carroll, if they don't tutor at 7 in the morning
then they have to tutor in the evening. This is mandatory. The
D.C. public schools, it doesn't happen.
Don't get me wrong, I was born and raised in Washington,
D.C. I am a product of the D.C. public school system in
Washington, D.C., the old public school system. It worked at
that time. I got the type of education in D.C. That Franciscoe
is getting in private school now. I remember my 12th--I can
remember my first grade teacher. My first grade teacher was a
real sweet teacher, and I remember her because she was always
tying my ribbon.
My second grade teacher, I thought she was the meanest
person in the world. But she told us all we were not getting
out of her classroom--they called it cursive writing, we were
printing then--unless we could write, because she would not
have us go into a third grade class without her having taught
us properly. And that happened, and we all wrote legibly. I
still have the big writing now to this day.
In the 12th grade, I remember my English IV teacher telling
me that no one got an A in her class unless they was as smart
as she was. She had been going to college all the time and was
still going to college. So, of course, no one ever got an A.
But I am saying D.C. public school system worked at one
time, and a product of like--and like you say, you know, people
who are a product of that. It is not working now. That is where
he is not--the education that I got, I am paying for him to
get. We played volleyball, we had playgrounds to play on. They
were safe. There was no one running around or shooting or the
gangs or all that other stuff.
Mr. Spratt. You live here now. Do you think we can restore
those conditions, do you think the school system is fixable;
and if so, what does it take?
Ms. Blassingame. You can fix anything. And that was what I
read in my statement, and was what I intended to put in there:
What do you do with the children now until you fix it? Because
you can't fix it overnight. It didn't fall down overnight.
Mr. Spratt. Ms. White.
Ms. White. I have a daughter who goes--my oldest daughter
attends a public school; she goes to Jefferson Junior High. She
when to Burville Elementary School in Northeast, one of very
few elementary schools where it was mandatory that they wore
their uniforms. In the private schools now, I have a 9-year-old
daughter who just did not like her teachers at the public
schools. She would not do homework; she would not even do her
work in class. Every day I was called to go to her school, but
before I got the call at 1 in the afternoon to let me know that
she had been sitting in the office all day, when they decided
to call me.
So I decided that I was going to put them into a private
school. Before I even got the Washington Scholarship, I looked
to St. Francis.
She is in a classroom now of maybe 13 kids. When I pick her
up in the evening before I even go to After Care, because I am
in the After Care program, in the after-school program, every
day she comes to me and she says, Mommy, can you please help me
with my homework? Whereas when she was in elementary school,
when I would get home from work, I would say, Do you have
homework, she would say no. Now it is like, Can you please sign
the papers, they have to be back at school tomorrow.
So where they were in elementary school, I cared, but it
wasn't like, well, have you to get this done. Just like in his
statement he gave earlier, you just--you dread going to the
school because you know that there is going to be a problem.
Now, I look forward to getting up every morning at 5 o'clock,
making sure they have their bath, making sure I cook breakfast,
making sure they get there, because I know they are going to
get the proper education that they need now in order to be a
doctor, a nurse or in order for my seventh grade daughter to go
to Yale Law School. So it is--we, as adults, need to take the
time to go into the schools, take a day off of work, whereas
work is important, but the--our children are our future. They
will be the future leaders sitting up in the chairs talking
about the education they have or sitting here saying, well, we
need to do this.
There are a whole lot of other things that we need to
change, but we need to take the time out to say, OK, today is
the day that I am to go into a public school and sit down and
help read to a child, help a child do math, help a child learn
their times tables. It is just we need to take the time; as an
adult, we need to take the time. Because you gave your daughter
the proper times, there are other parents who just do not care.
Their child could be the next president; they just won't sit
down and take the time. That is what we need to do, take the
time to give to our children, give them back what we have
already learned.
Chairman Kasich. Any other questions?
Mr. Nussle. I think I would like to take the time right now
and hear from Franciscoe, and if he wants to tell us a little
bit about his school, his favorite subject and how he likes his
school.
The stories we have heard from these witnesses are very
enlightening. You are helping to show the light. We thank you
for that. It demonstrates to me how little Washington does know
in a one-size-fits-all system when the struggles you are
telling us about are different certainly from the ones we deal
with in Iowa and in the State of Florida that we heard about
this morning.
But maybe this young man here who is our future would like
to tell us a little bit about school and what his favorite
subject is.
Mr. Franciscoe Blassingame. My name is Franciscoe
Blassingame. I go to Archbishop Carroll. My favorite subjects
are math, music, and PE.
Chairman Kasich. PE, phys ed.
Mr. Nussle. Well, now I know you are just a regular school
kid. I can tell you that much. My son is the same way; his
favorite subject is PE. I am not surprised.
Do you sing or play an instrument for music?
Mr. Franciscoe Blassingame. Neither. I am in what they call
``intro to music,'' where it teaches us how to read the notes
and listen to how the different beats are in songs.
Mr. Nussle. We hope you continue to work hard, and we sure
need you and thank you for coming today and talking to us.
I hope your friends get to watch this maybe a little bit on
TV.
Chairman Kasich. Next time in, we will have your sisters
come up here.
John, any questions?
Mr. Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, ladies and thank you, John, for taking the time
to talk with us. My only observation is, after hearing you
describe the programs and the attitudes of your children and
grandchildren, and provide a different perspective, that the
Scholarship Fund and the Opportunity Scholarships to a large
degree are about empowerment, they are about accountability,
accountability for both the schools and your students. And, of
course, they are about your own involvement, parental
involvement. And both the members of the committee here and the
administration, that hasn't supported the Opportunity
Scholarships, recognize that parental involvement and
accountability and performance standards for students are
essential to good education. I think that is exactly what the--
what it appears the result of your experience with the
Scholarship Fund has been.
So I thank you for bringing the personal experience of the
Scholarship Fund to the committee.
And my only question, I think, for Mr. Walton would be, are
you seeing, or what are you seeing at the State or the local
level as obstacles to the success of the fund? Obviously, money
is always going to be an issue, the more funds you have, the
more scholarships you can offer. But aside from finances, are
there political obstacles or informational obstacles that you
are seeing and is there anything that we can do to help you be
more successful?
Mr. Walton. No. Actually, the biggest obstacle to the
Scholarship Fund is simply the limited resources of the private
sector to provide enough scholarships for all the parents that
would like to have them, to provide them in an amount that
would allow low-income parents to--in other words, you have a
system that is spending $6- to $8-or $9,000 per child, and
these parents are getting $1,000, $1,100, and they are chipping
in another $1,000 or whatever on their own.
It is really a good resource problem, but quite frankly,
the political side that we deal with--very little political
opposition in the Scholarship Fund. I think I--but of course,
private funds are limited for this sort of thing. And we do
what we can with them, but there are limits. The real obstacles
come, of course, when it moves into public policy.
Mr. Sununu. Do you think that the Opportunity Scholarship
Program that Governor Bush talked about in Florida or that has
been proposed for the Washington, D.C., public schools would
meet with the same kind of success, the parental involvement,
the accountability and the performance that you have seen as a
result of the work of the Scholarship Fund?
Mr. Walton. You know, I am somewhat familiar with the
Florida program. I am not familiar with the detail of the
Washington program. But basically, if you empower parents, if
you give parents, low-income parents the same opportunity to
choose that we have, and the program is intelligently designed,
it is going to do exactly what our scholarship programs do. It
is really that simple.
Mr. Sununu. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kasich. Let me thank all of you for coming. And,
ladies and Mr. Walton, I want you to know, as determined as you
are for this--well, I am not sure I can be as determined as you
two ladies are, but I am as determined as I can possibly be to
my core to fight for this issue. Either in the government or
out of the government, I am going to help as much as I possibly
can.
And we appreciate the fact, Mr. Walton that you have stood
up to the plate with some great success and things I can take
from this hearing today.
I want to thank the members for being here since about
10:15 this morning. I think it has been an excellent day. We
look forward to further hearings on this subject, and I want to
thank everybody for being here today.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
<greek-d>