Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
September 23, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 8654 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY September 23, 1999 RICHARD W. RILEY SECRETARY HOUSE
BUDGET STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE EDUCATION PLANS
BODY:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Statement of Richard W. Riley Secretary on
Fixing Our Schools From the Bottom Up: State, Local, and Private Reform
Initiatives before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget
September 23, 1999 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 to1 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
8h 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 1. 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 11 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 three 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 three 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 four 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 them 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 two 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 three 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
three-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 three-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 two years, the percentage of students performing at or above
2rade 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 3
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 I 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 one 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 one 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.
LOAD-DATE: September 28, 1999
