Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
June 09, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2792 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY June 09, 1999 FRANK T. BROGAN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND
FAMILIES ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY
BODY:
EDUCATION
LEADERS COUNCIL Statement Of FRANK T. BROGAN FLORIDA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BOARD
MEMBER., EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL Presented To SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
YOUTH AND FAMILIES US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 9,1999 Thank you Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today
about the exciting reforms that are taking place in Florida. In Florida, under
the leadership of Governor Jeb Bush and strong legislative leadership, we just
passed the Bush/Brogan A+ Plan for Education, which we believe to be the most
comprehensive state accountability package to date. Based on the conviction that
all children can learn, the A+ plan starts with high expectations for all and is
focused on increasing student achievement. We will also assure that no child
will be left behind or abandoned to a substandard education in Florida. It's
important to note that we began laying the foundation for this plan with three
major initiatives in 1995. First we adopted challenging academic standards
backed by the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to measure student
achievement. This was a two-year process that included parents, teachers,
business leaders and others. As a result of this process our Sunshine State
Standards had broad local support and buy-in. Because we were significantly
raising the bar of expectations for Florida's children, this was critical as
evidenced with the announcement of the first round of scores on the FCAT. More
than 70% of Florida's tenth graders scored below the basic level in reading in
the initial administration of the FCAT, yet public support for demanding
academic standards remains high. These sobering results tell us how far we have
to go, and our standards provide a road map for getting there. Secondly, we
provided choices to parents, teachers and communities by allowing the creation
of public charter schools. Charter schools are free from the burdens of
unnecessary rules and regulations and are strictly accountable for the academic
performance of their students. Our purpose here was to drive student achievement
by providing increased accountability for schools along with quality choices for
students. Charter schools have thrived in Florida. We now have 73 charter
schools serving nearly 11,000 children. Charter schools are serving a diverse
group of students, and in fact serve a significant number of students
traditionally considered to be low achieving or otherwise "at risk". One third
are serving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), alternative education and
disadvantaged children. Thirty-five percent of charter school students in
Florida are African American. Finally, we initiated a program to remediate
"critically low performing" schools. Elementary schools were identified as
"critically low performing" if two-thirds of their students scored below the
proficient level on standardized tests of reading, writing and math for two
consecutive years. This was not a very demanding standard, but we had to have a
starting point. I can't say we were surprised, but we were still very troubled
to find that 158 schools could not reach even this minimal standard. We put
those schools and the local school districts on notice that this kind of
performance would not be accepted. Children deserve better. The Department of
Education and State Board of Education were empowered to assist schools in
instituting approved improvement plans and demand changes in curriculum and
staff if schools did not improve. Three years later, not one of those original
158 schools remained on the 1.1critically low performing" list. Though based on
a low standard initially, this effort demonstrates that if states set serious
expectations for students and schools, provide some direct assistance where
necessary, and refuse to accept continued failure; schools can perform. We also
showed that identifying low performing schools is the beginning of the solution,
not an end. The A+ Plan is a comprehensive accountability system, built on this
foundation that significantly raises the achievement bar. Beginning this year,
Florida schools will receive report cards and be graded on a scale of A - F
based principally on how students perform on the FCAT. Importantly, schools will
also be measured according to how well their lowest performing students learn,
and will not receive high marks if these students are left behind. These grades
are not simply window dressing. Our accountability package contains significant
incentives and rewards for success as well as serious remediation and
consequences for failure. Schools that receive an A or improve by one grade
level, on the A - F scale, receive a bonus of up to $100 per student. Fifteen
million dollars has been appropriated for this purpose for the 1999 - 2000
school year. As an additional incentive, the highest performing schools will be
deregulated and rewarded with the freedom to manage their own budgets and
innovate with curriculum and other strategies. Importantly, we are providing
incentives and rewards for success while also providing the support and
flexibility necessary to replicate and expand strategies that work. For schools
that don't measure up, there is additional assistance available for remediation.
as well as consequences for continued failure. If a school receives an F for two
years in any four year period, students become eligible for Opportunity
Scholarships which would allow them to attend the public (traditional or
charter) or qualifying private school of their choice. State money allocated for
the education of that child would follow. The people of Florida have determined
that we can't continue to wait for schools to improve while the children they
are supposed to serve are left further and further behind. The A+ package calls
for increased accountability for results at the state level, while pushing more
power and control to the local district, school and parent level. We strongly
believe that those closest to the child being served should have ultimate
authority over that child's education. Key elements of the plan include:
rigorous and measurable expectations for student performance, understandable
information to parents about school performance, deregulation of budgets and
curriculum at the school level, remediation and unprecedented assistance to low
performing schools-including $527 million in flexible funds that can be used for
after school and Saturday programs, one on one tutoring, reduced class size and
other efforts to help students succeed-and choices for those stuck in schools
that do not improve. Florida is not alone in injecting freedom, flexibility and
true accountability into state education policy. In addition to speaking to you
today as Florida's Lieutenant Governor, I am representing my colleagues in the
Education Leaders Council (ELQ, a national organization of state education
chiefs and other state officials from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. ELC member states are pursuing policies
that put the needs of children and parents over systems, that focus on
increasing student achievement rather than a fixation on process and procedure
and those that empower the creativity, unbounded energy and the unique abilities
of communities, enterprising school leaders and teachers. Through innovations
like charter schools, preoccupation with academic achievement, and renewed
emphasis on performance and teacher quality, we are giving schools true autonomy
with respect to budgeting, curriculum and personnel and meaningful choices to
parents in exchange for accountability for results. Federal education policy
should change to complement and support this new reality. Current federal
education policy focuses strictly on compliance with regulations and categorical
programs with no regard for specific state and local needs or for whether
prescribed programs are producing academic results. This handcuffs us at the
state and local level by severely limiting our ability to abandon failing
programs and put more resources and energy into efforts that are producing
results and serving children effectively. Though the federal contribution to
education is small, about 7 percent of total spending, it has a dramatic effect
on state and local policy. For example, in Florida, like most other states, 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. In the coming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), there is a tremendous opportunity to transform the
current dead weight of endless regulations and categorical programs into
leverage for positive change. Unfortunately, the White House
ESEA proposal simply reinforces the top down compliance model
that has failed us over the last thirty plus years. While the White House plan
identifies a number of worthy objectives, it continues to tie our hands with
inflexible programs and procedures that may or may not address states' unique
problems and needs. Rather than increased student achievement, success under
this proposal is measured by compliance with increasing process, procedures and
paperwork. We urge Congress to choose another course. We ask that you liberate
states-at least the ones that want to be liberated-to try different approaches
and follow paths that they see producing results in their states. We believe the
widely discussed 'Straight A s concept would be a very effective vehicle for
freeing states, that have demonstrated a commitment to accountability, to
innovate and replicate their success. Under such a scenario, states that
participate in "Straight A s would then have the flexibility necessary to
transform the often counter-productive state and federal relationship in the
delivery of education into a productive partnership on behalf of children. We
don't ask for increased flexibility as a blank check. We who are serious about
driving student achievement in our states are willing to trade true
accountability for student performance-for all children-for the opportunity to
innovate with our federal dollars and pursue policies that are producing results
for kids in our states. For more detail on what such a plan might look like, I
have attached ELC's Resolution on the Reauthorization of ESEA
to my testimony for review. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views and
look forward to further discussion if you have questions. EDUCATION LEADERS
COUNCIL ELC RESOLUTION ON ESEA REAUTHORIZATION BEYOND ED-FLEX:
The Proper Federal/State Relationship In The Delivery Of K-12 Education The
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) should be a time of bold innovation in American
education. The federal role in K-12 education needs a fundamental overhaul, not
incremental amending. The reform energies that abound in schools across America
should be freed from federal red tape. The primacy of states in the provision of
education must be recognized. Parents should be empowered. Local control should
be respected. The dead hand of the federal bureaucracy and micro- management by
thousands of pages of regulations attached to hundreds of separate programs
should be ended. Three decades of ineffectual programs, wasting money, failing
to accomplish their goals, and shackling innovation-minded local and state
education leaders .... all this needs to change. It's time for reform in
Washington that's as fundamental and bold as the reforms now underway across
America. The members of the Education Leaders Council (ELC), who include the
state education chiefs of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Virginia, understand that education initiatives, policies and
practices are most effective when generated closest to the children they aim to
serve. Education policies fail when imposed upon communities by federal mandates
and regulations. Congress can have a lasting impact in the delivery of
education, by building on this principle in the reauthorization of
ESEA. All to often, federal, state and local education
officials as well as many national education organizations focus on compliance
with regulations rather than providing services that help children. Entrenched
interest groups and bureaucratic fiefdoms, with their predilection for the
status quo, have been hesitant about and even hostile to needed education
reforms. Freedom to make decisions locally in exchange for accountability for
results should guide federal education policy. What is needed today is a
commitment to trust local educators, yet verify the accomplishment of children.
Pursuant to the "trust but verify" principle, ELC has called for unprecedented
freedom for state innovation in exchange for the strong accountability measures
which ESEA has always lacked. These are reflected in the
following priorities: - Flexibility for states in determining how federal
dollars are spent and what they are spent on - Accountability for results rather
than simple compliance with spending categories, procedural controls and other
regulations of input and process -High goals and expectations for all students
regardless of origin, income or location -Empowering parents, not bureaucracies,
by assuring that federal education dollars follow students to schools and
programs of choice The highly successful charter school movement sweeping
through the states is a suitable model for a more productive partnership between
the federal government and the states. Simply put, states should receive
wide-ranging freedom in the use of their federal dollars in exchange for
significantly greater accountability for results. As in a charter school
agreement, a participating state (or large school district) would enter into a
five year contract with the Secretary of Education in which it offers to produce
specified academic improvements (and indicates how these will be measured). In
exchange, participating states would gain broad flexibility in deciding how
their federal education dollars are spent to achieve the agreed upon academic
results. Sometimes termed "Super Ed- Flex", this strategy includes the following
essential elements: -A participating state enters into a five year contract with
the Secretary of Education in which it agrees to produce specified academic
gains and states precisely how these gains be measured -States specify how
federal dollars will be spent to attain agreed upon academic results
-Participating states choose which federal programs they want to include in
"Super" Ed-Flex. Eligible programs include all formula- based K-12 programs,
except IDEA -Funding levels would be based on existing formulas. Monies from
these programs may be commingled and spent as the state sees fit. All
categorical program regulations are waived for participating states
-Accountability: contracts must include clear performance objectives and
timetables for achieving academic improvement. Achievement must be desegregated
by student categories. If Title I is included in Super Ed Flex, achievement
gains must be shown for disadvantaged children. If Bilingual Education funding
is included, gains must be shown for LEP youngsters. As indicators, states may
use State-level NAEP, a commercial test, state standards-based assessments or
another mutually acceptable test of academic achievement -Renewal: states that
produce the specified results get their contracts renewed. States that fail to
produce agreed upon results, revert to categorical/regulatory approach
-Participation: no state is required to participate and all have the option of
continuing with categorical programs which remain on the books -Evaluation: GAO
evaluation is required prior to next ESEA reauthorization cycle
ELC members are confident that this approach will deepen and sustain the tide of
freedom, innovation and accountability currently sweeping the landscape in the
states. It goes far beyond the stale "block grant" debates of earlier years by
linking greater freedom with improved results. We at the state and local level
are focusing on standards with rigorous assessments, enterprise and
accountability while pushing authority and control of curriculum and budgets to
individual schools. Through innovations like charter schools., preoccupation
with academic achievement, and renewed emphasis on performance, we are giving
schools true autonomy with respect to budgeting, curriculum and personnel and
meaningful choices to parents in exchange for accountability for results. We
urge the Congress to do the same.
LOAD-DATE: June 11,
1999 
