Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
816 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
REP. BILL
GOODLING
(R-PA)
CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
BODY:
Good morning.
It is a pleasure to be here for our third education hearing this year. I want to
take this opportunity to welcome Secretary Riley and thank him for coming this
morning.
One of our Committee's major responsibilities this year is to
review the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In light of that, it is
important that we hear from you to better understand what the Administration's
proposals and priorities are for this year.
For many years I have tried to
focus our attention on the quality of elementary and secondary education
programs. Are taxpayers receiving their money's worth? Are children learning
better? Are we emphasizing quality or quantity?
More often than not, the
Federal government's focus over the past 30 years has been on quantity, not
quality. We have added one layer of programs on top of another. But what have
the hundreds of education programs our Oversight Subcommittee has found spread
across 39 agencies gotten us? How are children better off?. For many of these
programs, we know little or nothing about their quality. Is that an efficient
way to manage Federal resources? I don't think so.
The President has even
admitted as much. He said we must change the way we invest the $15 billion that
goes into public education and start supporting what works and stop supporting
what does not work. And I think that is something you would agree with as well,
Secretary Riley.
We're also finding out we haven't been getting significant
results. This week we heard the results of the latest reading report card--the
National Assessment of Educational Progress. It showed that no significant
improvement in the percent of 4th graders scoring below "Basic" in reading--38%
cannot read. And the most recent National Education Goals Report shows our high
school graduation rate has been stagnant over time (steady at 86%) and that we
have lost ground in 12th grade reading achievement.
What all of us in this
room can agree on is that we want all children to have a quality education. But
more programs, more money, more paperwork, more requirements--that is not the
way to get there. A school district can fill out federal forms perfectly, but
fail to adequately teach their children to read. We want schools and teachers to
be able to focus on helping children perform - not on complying with federal
requirements and mandates and jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
And I
think states want the freedom to have the flexibility to achieve these results
now. Why should they have to wait for the completion of ESEA
legislation, which will likely not be in effect until 2001. And last time I
checked Ed-Flex is not even currently a part of ESEA.
If
states are willing to show results, why not pass Ed-Flex legislation now so that
all states can have the freedom to implement their reform plans. Why put schools
on our timetable? We all know this reauthorization process is going to take some
time. We don't even have the Administration's proposal yet. Why should Delaware
wait any longer to be able to fully implement a reform plan like Texas? Under
Ed-Flex Texas has seen disadvantaged and minority test scores in schools
affected by Ed-Flex waivers outpace those same groups statewide.
So Mr.
Secretary, I hope that today you will join with us and not put process before
performance.
In addition to quality and flexibility, we'll focus on the
following:
- making sure dollars get to the classroom; increasing
flexibility in Federal programs; - improving the quality of teaching;encouraging
parents to save for the education of their children; - increasing funding for
the unfunded mandate of special education; - supporting drug free schools; and -
encouraging increased parental involvement in the education of children.
Mr.
Secretary, I again thank-you for coming this morning and look forward to hearing
your testimony. However, I want to say up from that I hope that you have brought
to us the final IDEA regulations that were due in December. As you know, we
passed this legislation two years ago and the final regulations are still not
complete. If you don't have them with you today, when will you wrestle them free
from OMB? Maybe we should stage a "Free IDEA" rally down at the Old Executive
Office Building.
I hope, as well, that you will explain why the
Administration's budget request has added so little to IDEA, while creating new
programs that duplicate and overlap current programs. If we could fulfill our
promise to pay the 40 percent excess cost to educate a child with a disability,
then local school districts would have the funds to hire new teachers and repair
their schools and the Federal government would not have to create new Federal
programs for these purposes.
In just a few minutes we will proceed, but
before we do that I'd like to yield to the ranking member for any opening
statement he may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: February
13, 1999 
