Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
February 9, 1999, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 10001 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 09, 1999 RICHARD W. RILEY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS FISCAL 2000
EDUCATION BUDGET
BODY:
Statement of Richard W.
Riley Secretary on the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions James M. Jeffords, Chair February 9, 1999 Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to present the Administration's
views on the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965. The Administration is working on a detailed
reauthorization proposal that we plan to submit for your consideration next
month. The Department will also soon submit to Congress several reports
evaluating the implementation and impact of Title I, other ESEA
programs, and Goals 2000. Today I will provide an overview of our
reauthorization efforts, as well as some of our specific recommendations. If
there is one overriding principle that defines what we hope to accomplish, it is
to end the tyranny of low expectations and raise achievement levels for all of
our young people. Let me begin by urging the Committee to develop a single,
comprehensive bill reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Some have suggested a title-by-title approach that could lead to several
separate bills. This concerns me, because we have worked very hard with the
Congress in recent years to develop a comprehensive approach to Federal support
for education reform. If our efforts are to be successful, it is very important
for all the pieces to fit together, complementing and reinforcing each other to
help States, school districts, and schools to make the changes needed to raise
achievement for all students. This is why the Administration is developing a
single, integrated reauthorization proposal, and I hope you will do the same. I
also want to point out that with the nearly simultaneous reauthorization of the
Department's Office of Educational Research and Improvement, we have a unique
opportunity to develop a comprehensive agenda for independent research to
support improved practices and instruction in elementary and secondary
education. We should make every effort to develop research-based solutions to
the many challenges we face in elementary and secondary education, and to get
the best information on what works into the hands of parents, teachers,
principals, and superintendents across the Nation . BACKGROUND AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS This is, of course, this Administration's second opportunity to
work with Congress on improving the ESEA. The 1994
reauthorization-the Improving America's Schools Act-took direct aim at
transforming a Federal role that for too long had condoned low expectations and
low standards for poor children. Along with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,
the 1994 reauthorization reflected a bipartisan effort to raise expectations for
all children by helping States and school districts to set high standards and
establish goals for improving student achievement. The 1994 Act included
provisions to improve teaching and learning, increase flexibility and
accountability for States and local school districts, strengthen parent and
community involvement, and target resources to the highest poverty schools and
communities. There is strong evidence that these changes, particularly the
emphasis on high standards, have helped States and school districts carry out
the hard work of real education reform. States that led the way in adopting
standards-based reforms-like Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and
Oregon-found new support from Federal programs that helped them to raise reading
and math achievement. In other States, the new ESEA and Goals
2000 encouraged and supported improvements teaching and learning tied to high
standards. For example, in a very positive report on Goals 2000 by the General
Accounting Office (GAO), we were most pleased that State officials described
Goals 2000 as "a significant factor in promoting their education reform efforts"
and a "catalyst" for change. Signs of Progress Partly as a result of changes at
the Federal level and our new partnerships with the States, 48 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have developed state-level standards and
two States have pushed for standards at the local level. More importantly, there
are promising signs of real progress toward meeting these higher standards in
the classroom. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for
example, has shown significant increases in math scores at the 4th, 8th, and
12th grades (See Chart 1). 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 (See Chart 2). Tomorrow the National Center for Education Statistics will
release its national report card reading, and I understand we will see some
improvement. Making sure that every child can read well and independently by the
end of the 3rd grade is a key benchmark of whether or not American education is
improving. This has been a very high priority for the Administration and over
the past few years a strong, bipartisan consensus has emerged on the importance
of helping all children master this key prerequisite for all further learning.
Title I provides substantial resources to improve reading instruction, and last
year, Congress on a bipartisan basis passed the Reading Excellence Act to
strengthen State and local efforts to improve reading in the early grades. We
also now have some 20,000 College Work-Study students serving as reading tutors.
"Leading-Edge" States Turning from the national to the State level, individual
States have made notable progress in a very short period of time (See Chart 3).
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, from 9
percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1996. In Texas, the percentage of 4th grade
students reaching the NAEP proficient or advanced levels rose from 15 percent in
1992 to 25 percent in 1996. The National Education Goals Panel issued a report
authored by the RAND Corporation that examined experience of these two States.
This report found that the "most plausible explanation" for the test-score gains
was an "organizational environment and incentive structure" based on
standards-based reform, defined as "an aligned system of standards, curriculum,
and assessments; holding schools accountable for improvement by all students;
and critical support from business." The report also tells us that the
willingness of political leaders to stay the course and continue the reform
agenda, despite "changes of Governors and among legislators," is another key
element that has defined the success of these two leading States. Many states
are not yet implementing proven practices that are working in some of this
Nation's "leading-edge" States. According to recent special report on
accountability in Education Week, 36 states issue school report cards, 14 do
not, and fewer than half of the parents in States that do issue report cards are
aware of their existence. The report also tells us that only 19 States provide
assistance to low performing schools, and only 16 States have the authority to
reconstitute or close down failing schools. Only about half the States require
students to demonstrate that they have met standards in order to graduate, and
too many still promote students who are unprepared from grade to grade. So we
have work to do. New Flexibility at the Federal Level The 1994 reauthorization
also brought real change to the way we do business at the Department of
Education. We made a very determined effort to give States and school districts
greater flexibility to make innovations that help all students reach high
standards. Our regulatory reform effort, for example, systematically examined
every Department regulation and set very specific criteria for regulating only
when absolutely necessary. The Office of Management and Budget has supported
this approach, and other Federal agencies have since adopted it as a model.
Under our new regulatory criteria, we found that we needed to issue regulations
for only five of the programs included in the 1994 ESEA
reauthorization; thus we eliminated a full two-thirds of the regulations
previously covering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Another major
improvement was to give States the option of submitting a single, consolidated
State application, instead of separate applications, for the majority of
ESEA programs. Not surprisingly, every State but one has
adopted this approach, which both reduces paperwork and encourages a
comprehensive approach to planning for the use of Federal funds. Moreover,
States now submit their single plan just once during the life of the
authorization cycle, with brief yearly updates to ensure accountability. States
reported in fiscal year 1996 that the consolidated application slashed paperwork
requirements by 85 percent. In addition, the Department has vigorously
implemented the waiver provisions included in the 1994 reauthorization, which
permit States, school districts, and schools to request waivers of statutory and
regulatory requirements that present an obstacle to innovative reform efforts if
there are adequate accountability safeguards in place. Our efforts included a
Waiver Hot Line as well as comprehensive waiver guidance at our site on the
World Wide Web. Since the reauthorization of ESEA in 1994, the
Department has received 648 requests for waivers from States and local districts
and granted a total of 357 waivers. Overall, the Department has approved 55
percent and disapproved 8 percent of all waivers requested. Of the remainder, 28
percent were withdrawn largely because districts learned that they had
sufficient latitude or flexibility under existing law to proceed without a
waiver, demonstrating that the ESEA is more flexible than many
people thought even without the waiver authority. ED-Flex Another approach to
flexibility is the ED-Flex demonstration program, which allows the Department to
give States with strong accountability mechanisms the authority to approve
waivers of certain Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in
the way of effective reform at the local level. Congress has authorized up to 12
States to participate in ED-Flex. We are proposing to expand ED-Flex to allow
all eligible States to participate. I believe such an expansion should be
considered in the context of reauthorization, our emphasis on accountability for
results, and other programmatic issues. ED-Flex can be an important too for
accelerating the pace of real reform in our schools, but it must be done
thoughtfully. ED-Flex cannot be used to get around established civil rights
protections. Federal Education Dollars to the Local Level One final issue I want
to touch on is the Department's performance in getting Federal education dollars
to the local level, where the can do the most good. There have been a number of
"dollars to the classroom" proposals over the past two years based on the
assumption that the Department of Education retains a significant portion of
Federal elementary and secondary appropriations to pay for administrative costs.
The truth is that over 95 percent of all the dollars appropriated by Congress
for ESEA programs already go to local school districts. Almost
all of the rest goes to States to provide technical assistance, to support the
use of standards and assessments, and to provide oversight. If the "95 percent"
figure sounds familiar, it is because some of those proposals I mentioned
promise to send 95 percent of Federal dollars to the classroom. I recognize that
some may argue about whether the "local level" is the same as "the classroom."
My view is that once the funds reach the local level, it is up to local elected
school boards to decide how best to spend them to achieve the purposes of the
programs enacted by the Congress. We in Washington should not attempt to bypass
local school boards and deny them their lawful responsibility to determine how
to meet the educational needs of their students. I believe that these
accomplishments-widespread adoption of challenging standards, Promising
achievement gains nationally and even more improvement in "leading-edge" States,
and new flexibility for States and school districts-show that we were on the
right track in 1994. The evidence demonstrates a clear connection between
raising standards and raising student achievement. The record also shows,
however, that many States and districts are still phasing in the 1994 reforms.
Taken as a whole, this experience provides a compelling argument for the
Administration and Congress to keep working together to help States and school
districts get high standards into the classroom, and to push for improved
incentives and strengthened accountability mechanisms to ensure that these
reforms take hold. THE NEXT STAGE: RAISING ACHIEVEMENT IN OUR SCHOOLS AND
CLASSROOMS Let me lay out for you the broader context for our
ESEA reauthorization proposals. In 1994, we broke sharply with
the past and made a significant policy shift in putting an end to the practice
of giving students a watered-down curriculum. I strongly believe that the
tyranny of low expectations -and it is tyranny- has been one of the great flaws
of American education. We vigorously oppose the idea of "dumbing down" American
education. Instead of "dumbing down," we want to "achieve up." To support this
effort we have developed a comprehensive, three- part strategy of (1) targeting
investments to disadvantaged children, with particular attention to the early
years of schooling; (2) improving teacher quality, and (3) real accountability.
All these pieces need to fit together if we want to raise achievement levels.
First, our investments in the Title 1, the Class-Size Reduction program, the
Reading programs-to name just a few-are all part of our effort to get
communities and their teachers and principals the resources they need to raise
achievement for all students. We have put a real emphasis on the early years of
schooling because research and common sense tells you that if a young person can
"master the basics" early, they get off to a much better start in their
education. We want to improve academic achievement for all students, with a
special emphasis on closing the gap upward between poor and minority students
and other students. This is why, for example, we are such strong supporters of
reducing class size in the early grades. Research from the Tennessee STAR study
demonstrated that reducing class size in the early grades led to higher
achievement for all students, with poor and minority students showing the
greatest gains. Second, we think it is absolutely essential to put a highly
qualified, dedicated teacher in every classroom in America. John Stanford, the
inspiring former superintendent from Seattle who recently passed away, had this
marvelous slogan that summed up his philosophy: "the victory is in the
classroom." If we are going to achieve many more victories in the classroom, we
simply have to raise teacher quality and get many more certified teachers into
our Title I schools. This is why we asked the Congress to create a strong,
teacher quality initiative in the Higher Education Act reauthorization last
year. Our intent here is to make high standards part of every teacher's daily
lesson plans. I will discuss this part of our proposal in greater detail later
on in my testimony, Strengthening Accountability Stronger accountability is the
third part of our broad strategy of improvement. We believe that effective
accountability measures- -what business leaders call quality control measures-
can make sure that our investments are used wisely and actually produce the
desired results. Much of our thinking about accountability has been informed by
successful accountability initiatives at the local and State levels. The most
thoughtful education leaders at the State and local level are doing what we are
proposing: they are ending social promotion, requiring school report cards,
identifying low- performing schools, improving discipline in schools and
classrooms, and putting in place measurable ways to make change happen, such as
basic skills exams at different grade levels. They are striking a careful
balance between giving schools the increased support and flexibility they need
to raise achievement levels and, at the same time, holding schools accountable
when they do not measure up to clearly established goals. We are trying to
strike that same balance in our reauthorization proposals. Our emphasis on
accountability in ESEA, and in particular in Title I, seeks to
build on, support, and encourage these growing State and local efforts to pick
up the pace of standards based reform. Here it is important to recognize that we
are not talking about more regulations. We want better results. There is both a
moral and a fiscal dimension to being more accountable. We cannot afford to lose
the talents of one child, and we cannot waste the substantial resources
entrusted to us by American taxpayers. The "either/or" thinking that has
dominated the public debate about our accountability proposals-more Federal
control versus less local control-really misses the point entirely about what we
seek to achieve. If a State is putting its own accountability measures into
place, we are not demanding that they replace their measures with our measures.
But if a State does not have such requirements in place, then it makes a good
deal of sense for them to adopt our proposals. We expect States to do this
because it is good education policy and the right thing to do for the children.
Our approach to increased accountability is one of graduated response, a range
of options-some positive and others more prescriptive-that can help break the
mold and get low- performing schools moving in a more positive direction. On the
positive side of the continuum, we give school districts greater flexibility if
we see that they are making progress. But if a school or a school district
simply isn't making things happen, we want to work with State and local
officials to find out why and shake things up. The local school district, for
example, may not be giving teachers the real professional development time they
need. If a school district is refusing to change, we are prepared to be much
more specific about how it uses ESEA funding. We do not intend
to be passive in the face of failure. We will help, nudge, prod, and demand
action. And, if we have to, we are prepared to restrict or withhold
ESEA funding. We recognize that a complete accountability
system should be multi-dimensional and include high expectations and
accountability for everyone in the system. All of us are responsible for
ensuring that all students reach high standards. The accountability measures in
our reauthorization proposal will be designed to (1) help school districts and
states provide students with a high-quality education, (2) focus on continuous
improvement, and (3) hold students, teachers, principals, schools, and districts
to high standards. It is important to note that our proposed accountability
measures reinforce and build on similar provisions enacted in 1994. For example,
the underlying structure of the Title I accountability provisions is sound, and
a minority of States are hard at work emphasizing continuous improvement and
holding schools and principals accountable for results. Many States, however,
have not fully implemented the Title I provisions and have moved only
tentatively to make other changes based on high standards and accountability, We
seek to speed up and strengthen the process by requiring States to take
immediate action to turn around low-performing schools, to give parents annual
report cards, to end social promotion, to improve teacher quality, and to have
well-thought- out discipline policies in place that make a difference. Meeting
State Standards First, we would retain the current Title I requirement that
States establish assessments aligned with State content and performance
Standards by the 2000-2001 school year. States must also define adequate yearly
progress for Title I schools and local school districts in a manner that would
result in continuous progress toward meeting State standards within a reasonable
time frame. Turning Around the Lowest Performing Schools Second, States should
take immediate corrective action to turn around the lowest performing schools.
Currently, there are over 6,500 schools and 1,300 school districts designated
under Title I as needing improvement. These schools and districts were laced in
school-improvement status after making little or no improvement over a period of
two years. Many of these schools are still showing no improvement despite
receiving additional support. We are saying our children have spent enough time
in low-performing schools-it is time to take action now. States should quickly
identify the lowest performing schools that are failing to show improvement and
provide additional support and assistance. If any school continues to show no
improvement, States should take bold action such as reconstituting the school or
closing the school down entirely and reopening it as a fresh new school. The
Department's 2000 budget request includes a $200 million set-aside in Title I to
help jumpstart this process of State and district intervention in the lowest
performing schools. Annual Report Cards Third, annual report cards at the State,
district, and school levels should be a requirement for receiving
ESEA funds. The report cards should provide invaluable
information on improvement over time or the lack thereof. They should include
information on student achievement, teacher quality, class size, school safety,
attendance, and graduation requirements. Where appropriate, the student
achievement data should be disaggregated by demographic subgroups to allow a
greater focus on the gaps between disadvantaged students and other students. For
report cards to make sense they need to be easily understood by and widely
distributed to parents and the public. As I indicated earlier, while 36 States
already require report cards, many parents and teachers from these States say
that they have never seen them. Our proposal is intended to give parents a too
they can use to join the debate over bringing high standards into the classroom,
to advocate on behalf of their children and their children's schools, and to
work with teachers and principals to make improvements. I assure you, if parents
find out that their children are going to an unruly or unsafe school, there will
be standing-room only at the next school board meeting and that can be a very
good thing. If parents discover that test scores are down at their school but up
at a nearby school, they will start asking questions and spark reform. In short,
a good, honest report card gives parents a real accountability tool that allows
them to make a difference in the education of their children. Separately, we
have proposed an additional test that can help parents determine if their
children are measuring up: the voluntary national tests in 4th grade reading and
8th grade math. The independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board
(NAGB) is developing a plan for this test, in accordance with language in the
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act. I ask the Committee to Join me in looking
carefully at this plan when NAGB announces it later in the spring. Ending Social
Promotion Fourth, all States receiving ESEA funds should end
the practice of social promotion. I want to be clear that in calling for an end
to social promotion we are not encouraging school districts to retain students
in grade; instead, we are asking school districts to prepare children to high
standards. That is why we have pushed so hard for programs like Class Size
Reduction, the Reading Excellence Act, and the 21st" Century Community Learning
Centers after-school initiative, which invest in the early years and help to
minimize the number of children at risk of retention in grade. Research
indicates that from IO to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high
school and have not gone further-up to 340,000 students each year-cannot balance
a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an error on a
bill. In addition, about 450,000 to 500,000 young people drop out of high school
between the 10th and 12th grades. These are the young people who are hurt by
current practices. We need to make sure these students are given the support
they need to succeed. The President's call for an end to social promotion is
designed to tell students that "performance counts," and to encourage districts
and schools to take aggressive action to help all students meet promotion
standards on time. States should target their efforts at key transition points,
such as 4th, 8th, and 10th grades, and should use multiple measures, such as
valid assessments and teacher evaluations, to determine if students have met the
high standards required for promotion to the next grade. States would develop
their own specific approaches to match their unique circumstances. Strategies to
end social promotion include early identification and intervention for students
who need additional help-including appropriate accommodations and supports for
students with disabilities. After-school and summer-school programs, for
example, can provide extended learning time for students who need extra help to
keep them from having to repeat an entire grade. Ensuring Teacher Quality Fifth,
States must do more to ensure teacher quality. States receiving
ESEA funds should adopt challenging competency tests for new
teachers, phase out the use of uncertified teachers, and reduce the number of
teachers who are teaching "out of field." Less than two weeks ago, we released
our first biannual report on Teacher Quality. In developing this report, we are
making a statement that we are going to keep coming back to the issue of teacher
quality again and again. The report told us that less than half of America's
teachers feel very well-prepared to teach in the modem classroom. Teachers cited
four areas of concern: using technology, teaching children from diverse
cultures, teaching children with disabilities, and helping limited English
proficient (LEP) students (See Chart 4). This study really is a cry for help and
we need to respond. I know the Members of this Committee share our concern about
teacher quality, and we want to work with you to address that concern. Research
shows that qualified teachers are the most important in-school factor in
improving student achievement, yet more than 30 percent of newly hired teachers
are entering the teaching profession without full certification, and over 11
percent enter the field with no license at all. Our ability to raise academic
standards also is hindered by teachers teaching "out of field." Overall, nearly
28 percent of teachers have neither an undergraduate major nor minor in their
main assignment fields. Another significant concern is the practice of using
teacher aides as substitutes for full-time instructors. All of these individuals
are trying to do their best, but where they are being asked to take the place of
a teacher we are shortchanging our students. High-poverty urban schools are most
likely to suffer from unqualified teachers. Even when urban districts succeed in
hiring qualified teachers, attrition rates during the first five years often
reach 50 percent. Partly as a result of difficulties in recruiting and retaining
teachers, Title I schools are hiring teacher aides at twice the rate of
certified teachers, and an increasing number of aides are providing direct
instruction without a teacher's supervision. Our ESEA
reauthorization proposal would begin to address these problems by ensuring that
States adopt challenging competency examinations for all new teachers that would
include assessments of subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills. We would
also work to phase out the use of teacher aides as instructors in Title I
schools, but at the same time encourage paraprofessionals to become certified
teachers by supporting State and local efforts to build career ladders leading
to certification. Our proposal will ensure that States make significant progress
in reducing both the number of teachers with emergency certificates and the
number of teachers teaching subjects for which they lack adequate preparation.
The issue of improving teacher quality is also of great importance to all of us
who want to improve the education of children with disabilities. The
ESEA is meant to serve all children and there are growing
numbers of children with disabilities who have been successfully mainstreamed
into regular classrooms. The ESEA and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act can work together to make a real difference for many
more of these children. The Teacher Quality report told us that the majority of
our teachers do not feel as well-prepared as they should to teach children with
disabilities. We want to work very hard to make sure that all teachers have the
skills and the tools they need to teach these children to high standards. We
made a good start in improving teacher quality last year when Congress passed
with strong bipartisan support-the new teacher recruitment and training programs
in Title II of the reauthorized Higher Education Act. Our ESEA
reauthorization plan would build on this success by providing resources to help
States strengthen teacher-certification standards. It also will include-in the
new Teacher Quality and High Standards in Every Classroom initiative- increased
investment in the high-quality professional development that teachers tell us
they need to help all students meet challenging new State standards. TITLE I I
have described some of the key, crosscutting measures for getting high standards
into all classrooms. Now I would like to outline some program-specific issues
and recommendations, beginning with Title I, which is the largest Federal
investment in elementary and secondary education. This $7.7 billion program
reaches more than 45,000 schools in over 13,000 school districts. With the
expansion of schoolwide projects following the last reauthorization, the program
now serves over 11 million students. In the 1996-97 school year, 36 percent of
the children served were white, 30 percent were Hispanic, and 28 percent were
African-American. Seventeen percent of the children served were limited English
proficient. Historically, Title I has been the single largest source of Federal
funding targeted to raising the achievement levels of students in high-poverty
schools and helping to close the achievement gap between these children and
their more advantaged peers. The 1994 reauthorization focused on helping
children in high poverty schools reach the same high standards expected of all
students. In particular, States were required to develop content and performance
standards in reading and math, with aligned assessments to measure student
progress toward meeting the standards. The 1994 Act also improved targeting of
resources, expanded the schoolwide approach, and strengthened parental
involvement. With regard to targeting, the GAO recently reported that Federal
programs are much more targeted than State programs. On average, for every $1 a
State provided in education aid for each student in a district, the State
provided an additional $0.62 per poor student. In contrast, for every $1 of
Federal funding districts received for each student, they received an additional
$4.73 in Federal funding per poor student. We believe targeting works, and we
recommend leaving in place the Title I allocation formula adopted by the
Congress in 1994. The 1994 Act expanded schoolwide programs by permitting
schools with poor children making up at least 50 percent of their enrollment to
use Title I funds in combination with other Federal, State, and local funds to
upgrade the instructional program of the entire school. Since 1995, the number
of schools implementing schoolwide programs has more than tripled, from about
5,000 to approximately 16,000. Our reauthorization proposal would maintain the
50-percent threshold for schoolwide programs. Parents of Title I children are
now more fully involved in their children's education the 1994 Act. I want to
stress that getting through the use of parent compacts called for in spark that
makes the difference. parents involved in the process of school reform is often
the I have been a strong advocate of increased parental involvement in education
for many years and there is a good reason for it. Parents are children's first
teachers and they set the hard they should strive to achieve. Teachers tell us
again expectations that tell children how and again that parents are too often
the missing part of the education success equation. If you look at the chart
entitled "Making the Grade," you will see why we are placing such a strong
emphasis on developing compacts between parents and schools for our Title I .
children (See Chart 5). Four years ago, we created the Partnership for Family
Involvement in Education with 40 organizations. This Partnership has since grown
to 4,700 organizations and it continues to grow quite rapidly. To give you one
example of its activities, last month the Partnership sent out a detailed guide
of best practices on how teachers can work better with parents. Progress Since
the 1994 Reauthorization Current information on Title I indicates progress on
several fronts. Title I has contributed to the rapid development of challenging
State standards that apply to all students in Title I schools. Teachers in Title
I schools are increasingly reporting that standards are helping to guide
instruction. Moreover, preliminary data gathered for this reauthorization from
States that have implemented the Title I standards and assessment provisions
generally show increased achievement levels in high- poverty schools. For the
1997-98 school year, 7 of the 10 States with standards and aligned assessments
in place for two years report increasing percentages of students meeting
proficient and advanced performance standards in schools with poverty rates of
at least 50 percent. These State-level data are particularly encouraging since
final assessments are not required to be in place until school year 2000-2001.
This and other information, including data indicating that Title I is driving
higher standards to poor districts and schools, will be discussed in greater
detail in the Congressionally mandated National Assessment of Title I scheduled
for release in late February. Despite these initial signs of progress, I would
be the first to admit that we are not anywhere near where we need to be in
turning around the thousands of low-performing high-poverty schools that are
served by Title I. This is why the President is so strong for improving teacher
quality and increasing accountability. We know that many States, districts, and
schools are not making as much progress as we had hoped. However, we did not
expect to turn around the long, sorry history of setting low expectations for
our Nation's poorest children in just four years. I believe we are now on the
right course in aligning Title I with the best efforts of State and local school
systems. We simply need to stay the course in fitting all the pieces together to
raise achievement levels. Finally, in looking at the impact of Title I, we
should keep in mind that despite its size and prominence at the Federal level,
it represents about three percent of national spending on elementary and
secondary education. Title I is effective only when it works in partnership with
much larger State and local resources. Nevertheless, Title I can and should do
more to assist State and local efforts to raise the educational achievement
level of poor and minority children, and this is what we are trying to achieve
through our reauthorization proposals. Proposed Changes to Title I Building on
what we have learned since 1994, our reauthorization proposal would continue to
hold at-risk children in high-poverty schools to the same high standards
expected of all children and to link Title I to State and local reforms based on
high standards. We also would continue targeting resources to areas of greatest
need, supporting flexibility at the local level to determine instructional
practices, and encouraging more effective implementation of schoolwide programs.
Title I schools would, of course, be subject to the accountability provisions
that we would apply to all ESEA programs. Specific improvements
to Title I would include targeting additional resources to help the lowest
achieving schools and phasing out the use of teacher aides as instructors Title
I schools. We also would strengthen the schoolwide authority by Demonstration
program, such as basing reforms on solid research about what works. And in
response to a key recommendation of the reading study conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), we are proposing the use of diagnostic assessments in
the first grade to ensure the early identification of children with reading
difficulties. In addition to these proposals, we are giving serious
consideration to phasing in a set-aside within Title I for professional
development aligned to standards. Separately, we support the continuation of the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program, which we believe is
generating some good models for improving the effectiveness of the broader Title
I program and for strengthening both Title I and non-Title I schools. The
Department also is considering proposals to promote high quality professional
development for early childhood educators and others to help children develop
better language and literacy skills in the early years. The NAS's reading study
presented strong evidence that children who receive enrichment services focused
on language and cognitive development in early childhood show significantly
higher reading achievement in the later elementary and middle school years. We
believe that professional development based on recent research on child language
and literacy development-including strategies that could be shared with
parents--could make a significant contribution toward the goal of ensuring that
every child can read well by the end of the 3rd grade. Our proposal would target
those children most at risk of experiencing difficulty in learning to read by
working with early childhood educators in Head Start and Title I pre-K programs.
QUALITY TEACHERS AND HIGH STANDARDS IN EVERY CLASSROOM While every State has
developed high standards, States and districts now need significant support to
continue the hard work of turning these high expectations into classroom
realities. This is why we are proposing a new initiative called Quality Teachers
and High Standards in Every Classroom. This initiative would help States and
school districts continue the work of aligning instruction with State standards
and assessments, while focusing most resources on improving teacher quality
through high-quality professional development. Our proposal would build on and
succeed the current Goals 2000, Title II, and Title VI programs. The National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that the biggest impediment to
improving teaching was the lack of access to the kinds of knowledge and skills
teachers need to help students succeed. We know from the Commission's report
that most school districts do not direct their professional development funds in
a coherent way toward sustained, standards-based, practical, and useful learning
opportunities for teachers. We need to provide teachers with opportunities to
change instructional practices in order to ensure that all children are taught
to high standards. Just as we have real concerns about improving teacher
quality, we need to recognize the growing shortage of qualified principals. I
was struck by a recent article in The Washington Post, which indicated that
about 50 percent of all schools face a shortage of qualified principal
candidates. That is a very heavy statistic. Unfortunately, we have not done
enough to support the professional growth of teachers and principals. Currently,
most school districts spend less than three percent of their budgets on
professional development, while our best private companies spend as much as 10
percent to ensure that their employees have quality training and keep current in
their work. If we expect the best from our students, we need to ensure that we
are giving our teachers the best support possible. And, we know it works. In New
York City's District 2, former Superintendent Tony Alvarado made major
investments in professional development investments that paid off in marked
improvement in student achievement. The 1994 reauthorization included a greater
focus on research- based principles of professional development in the
Eisenhower Professional Development program. Despite this emphasis, recent
evaluations of the Eisenhower professional development program found that most
districts did not receive enough funding to support the kind of on-going,
intensive professional development that works best to improve teaching skills.
As we move into the next phase of getting high standards into schools and
classrooms, we must give States and districts the flexibility they need to
strengthen their local efforts to implement standards and to improve teacher
quality. States could use these funds to continue the development of standards
and assessments and provide leadership to districts working to align instruction
with these standards and assessments and to improve professional development for
teachers. School districts would use their funds to implement standards in
schools and to invest in professional development in core subject areas, with a
priority on science and mathematics. States and districts would also be able to
use these funds to meet new ESEA teacher quality requirements
related to the implementation and improvement of competency-based assessments
for initial licensure, the reduction of the number of teachers on emergency
credentials, and the reduction of the number of teachers teaching out of field.
Funds would be used to advance teacher understanding and use of best
instructional practices in one or more of the core academic content areas, with
a primary focus on math and science. The initiative also is designed to
complement the strong emphasis on professional development throughout our
ESEA reauthorization proposal, including Title I, the Reading
Excellence Act, and Title VII. We would support activities to assist new
teachers during their first three years in classroom, including additional time
for course preparation and lesson planning, mentoring and coaching by trained
mentor teachers, observing and consulting with veteran teachers, and
team-teaching with veteran teachers. Veteran teachers would be encouraged to
participate in collaborative professional development based on the standards
developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The
initiative also would support distinct-wide professional development plans
designed to help students meet State academic standards, the integration of
educational technology into classroom practice, and efforts to develop the next
generation of principals. SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS The
Administration's plans for reauthorizing the Safe and Drug- Free Schools and
Communities Act have actually taken shape over the past few years in our annual
budget requests. These proposals have been designed to strengthen the program by
improving accountability and by targeting funds to local educational agencies
with (1) significant drug and violence prevention problems and (2) high-quality,
research-based programs to address those problems. Our reauthorization proposal
would build on these earlier efforts by emphasizing a schoolwide approach to
drug and violence prevention. All school districts receiving funds would be
required to develop a comprehensive Safe and Drug-Free Schools plan to ensure
that they have a drug-free, safe, and disciplined learning environment. These
plans would include fair and effective discipline policies, safe passage to and
from schools, effective research-based drug and violence prevention policies,
and links to after-school programs. These plans would also have to reflect the
"principles of effectiveness" that the Department recently established, which
include the adoption of research- based strategies, setting measurable goals and
objectives for drug and violence prevention, and regular evaluation of progress
toward these goals and objectives. Program funds would be distributed in larger,
more effective grants, because our proposal would require States to award
competitive grants to a limited number of high-need districts. Program
evaluations have consistently found that the current practice of allocating
funds by formula to all districts spreads funds too thinly to have a significant
impact in most districts. For example, about three-fifths of districts currently
receive grants of less than 10,000, with the average grant providing only about
$5 per student. Our reauthorization plan also would continue the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students program, an interagency initiative that provides
competitive grants to help school districts and communities to develop and
implement comprehensive, community- wide strategies for creating safe and
drug-free schools and for promoting healthy childhood development. Similarly,
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator Initiative would be continued under
our proposal. We also will propose to authorize the Department to Provide
emergency services, especially mental health and counseling services, to schools
affected by the kind Of violence we saw last year in Arkansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. This is the $12 million Project SERV
(School Emergency Response to Violence) initiative included in the President's
2000 budget request. Our reauthorization plan also would set aside a small
amount of funding at the State level to support similar emergency response
activities. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Since the creation of Title III in the last
ESEA reauthorization, the Federal government has helped States
and school districts make significant progress in bringing technology into the
classroom and making sure that teachers are prepared to effectively integrate
technology throughout the curriculum. With the Support of Congress, the
Department has delivered over $1 billion to States through the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund. This investment is helping to increase the number of
classrooms connected to the Internet-just 27 percent in 1997-and has helped
decrease the student-computer ratio from 38 students per multimedia Computer to
13 students per multimedia computer. By early March, $1.9 billion dollars in
E-Rate discounts will be provided to the Nation's schools and libraries. This
means that over the summer, the number of poor schools that are connected to the
Internet will rise dramatically. These discounts will also provide affordable
access to advanced telecommunications and ensure that all of our schools are
active participants in the technological revolution. To reduce the "digital
divide" that could widen the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and
their wealthier peers, we propose to strengthen the targeting provisions of the
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Just 63 percent of high-poverty schools had
connections to the Internet in 1998, compared to 88 percent of low-poverty
schools. The disparity is even greater at the classroom level, with only 14
percent of classrooms connected to the Internet in high-poverty schools,
compared to 34 percent of classrooms in low-poverty schools. Federal dollars are
helping to narrow this digital divide. High- poverty schools received over
two-and-one-half times more new computers than their low-poverty counterparts in
recent years. We will make a special effort to address the needs of rural
America, where technologies like distance learning can make a real difference,
and to coordinate ESEA technology programs with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Technology Development Program, which expands
access to innovations i1n technology to students with disabilities. Helping
teachers integrate technology their daily lesson plans will be another special
focus. Currently, only 20 percent of our teachers feel qualified to integrate
technology throughout the curriculum. The reauthorization proposal for Title III
will focus on supporting State and local efforts to improve teacher quality,
with a priority for developing partnerships between local school districts,
institutes of higher education, and other entities. We also want to strengthen
our evaluation efforts to find proven and promising models of how technology is
improving achievement that we can bring to scale. SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) are
the fastest growing population served by the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. According to State educational agency data, the number of LEP students grew
67 percent between the 1990-91 and 1996-97 academic years. Growing numbers of
LEP students are in States and communities that have little prior experience in
serving them. For example, between the 1992-93 and 1996-97 school years, the LEP
population more than doubled in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The President's
goal is to hold schools accountable for ensuring that LEP students can speak and
read English after three consecutive years in our schools. We are equally
committed to ensuring that LEP students reach challenging academic standards in
all content areas. We also want to assure that States and school districts have
the flexibility they need to provide the most appropriate instruction for each
child. I told you earlier that we cannot afford to waste the talents of one
child. One of America's greatest strengths has always been her diversity of
peoples. Today, immigrants and their children are revitalizing our cities,
energizing our culture, and building up our economy. We have a responsibility to
make them welcome here and to help them enter the mainstream of American life.
Our reauthorization proposal for the Title VII bilingual education provisions
seeks to achieve these goals by emphasizing the same two key strategies we are
pursuing throughout the ESEA: improving teacher quality and
strengthening accountability. To increase teacher quality, for example, all
institutions of higher education applying for Title VII grants would be required
to show that their teacher education programs include preparation for all
teachers serving LEP students. To strengthen accountability, we would require
both Title VII grantees and Title I schools to annually assess the progress of
LEP students in attaining English proficiency. These assessments will be used to
inform parents of their children's progress and to help schools improve
instruction. LEP students who have been in U.S. schools for less than three
years would continue to be included in the Title I assessment system, but after
three years reading assessments would be conducted in English. Schools and
districts would be held responsible, as part of the larger ESEA
accountability provisions, for ensuring that LEP students reach the three-year
English language proficiency goal. I also believe that America's children need
to become much more fluent in other I languages. We are very far behind other
nations when it comes to giving our students a mastery of other languages. There
are teenagers in Europe who can easily speak three languages. I am certain we
can do a much better job at giving our students both a mastery of English and
fluency in at least one foreign language. There are currently over 200 two-way
bilingual education programs that teach English and a foreign language and allow
all students to truly develop proficiency in both languages. EXCELLENCE AND
OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION As I travel around the country visiting schools,
I continue to see the spark of innovation and creativity in many public schools.
Public education is changing quite rapidly at the ground level and offering
parents many more options in the terms of the type of schools their children can
attend and the courses they can take. This Administration is a strong advocate
of public school choice as a way to encourage and stimulate the creative efforts
of school districts to give parents the opportunity to find a school that best
fits the needs of their children. Some discussions about choice suggest that
there is choice only outside of public education. Well, that is an assumption
that I want to challenge because it really has no basis in fact. You can go to
school district after school district and find schools-within-schools, magnet
schools, school-to-work initiatives, high schools collaborating with local
colleges, and option and theme schools that focus in on specialized fields like
the environment, the visual and performing arts, communications and technology,
back-to-basics, classical studies, marine science, accelerated learning, the
international baccalaureate, finance, and medical sciences. There is a great
deal of variety in public education at the local level, from alternative schools
to community-based learning efforts, to schools-without-walls, to public schools
that focus in on the core-knowledge approach to education. There are public
school districts like Seattle that have a completely open choice model and many
other school districts that offer intra-district choice, inter-district choice,
and controlled choice. Critics of public education would do well to recognize
that many public school districts are far more in touch with parents than they
think and are giving parents the choices they seek. I want to stress that one of
the most important choices that parents can make about a child's education is
the choice of subjects and not schools. We have a growing body of research
showing that courses students choose in middle and high school are powerful
predictors of success-from mastery of high-level math to gaining entrance to top
colleges and universities. The best schools in America-whether they are public,
private or parochial-all share something in common: they place a strong emphasis
on a rigorous and engaging academic program. This is what makes these schools
distinctive, and it is what makes them work. That is why President Clinton has
spent six years advocating the idea that by raising standards, exciting families
about their children's education, and putting quality teachers into every
classroom, we can raise achievement for many, many more of our students-and
indeed, someday soon, hopefully all of our students. That is the best public
policy for us to support. Private school voucher programs affect only a small
number of students, divert us from our goal of high standards for all children.
and take scarce resources from the public schools that serve around 90 percent
of America's children. While the Administration strongly opposes efforts to
divert public funds to private schools through vouchers or similar proposals, we
want to encourage the development of new choices within the public school
system. This is why we worked very closely with Congress to reauthorize the
Charter School legislation that fosters creativity with accountability. This
year we are proposing a new choice authority that would help us identify and
support new approaches to public school choice, such as inter-district magnet
schools and worksite schools, and promote a new, broader version of choice that
works within all public schools. We are interested in promoting public school
choice programs in which the schools and programs are public and accountable for
results, are genuinely open and accessible to all students, and promote high
standards for all students. There are many successful public schools that can
provide models for improving low-performing schools, and one of our goals must
be to find ways to help States and local school districts to replicate these
successful models by leveraging "what works" for our children's education.
MODERNIZING SCHOOLS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY An additional priority for the
Administration is to help communities build and renovate the school buildings
they will need to help all students reach challenging standards. The General
Accounting Office has reported that States and school districts face over $112
billion in repairs to existing schools. In addition, many schools face severe
overcrowding as a result of the "baby boom echo." The Administration is
proposing $25 billion in bonding authority to finance the construction or
renovation of up to 6,000 schools. As part of the President's tax legislation,
the Federal government will provide bondholders with tax credits in lieu of
interest payments. State and local bond issuers will be responsible for
repayment of principal. In addition, through the reauthorized
ESEA, we would make grants to involve citizens in designing
schools that reflect the needs of the entire community. The President's 2000
budget would provide $10 million for these grants under the Fund for the
Improvement of Education. CONCLUSION These are just the highlights of a
comprehensive reauthorization proposal that will span a dozen or so titles
affecting nearly every area of Federal support for the Nation's elementary and
secondary schools. I encourage you to give careful consideration to our full
proposal when it is completed next month, and I look forward to discussing the
specific details of our plan as your work on your legislation. The framework for
all of our thinking the clear recognition that the days of "dumbing down"
American education are over. We want to "achieve up" and raise expectations for
all of our young people. As I have said so many times before, our children are
smarter than we think. We can and surely will debate the merits of the policy
ideas that we are putting forward today and that is healthy. Let us find common
ground, however, around the idea that we have both a moral and social obligation
to give the poorest of our young people the help they need to get a leg-up in
life and be part of the American success story. As I travel around the country
visiting schools, I really do get a sense that things are happening, that a very
strong consensus has developed about what needs to be done to improve our
schools. All the elements are coming together: a new emphasis on early
childhood, better reading skills, high expectations for all of our young people,
and accountability for results. We are moving in the right direction and we need
to stay the course to get results and always remember that "the victory is in
the classroom." In conclusion, I want assure you that the Administration is
prepared to work with the Congress to help and support local and State educators
and leaders who are striving to raise achievement levels. I hope that in the
process, a new bipartisan spirit can evolve around education issues. The last
few years have been somewhat contentious here in Washington, and we need to give
a better account of ourselves to the American people. I will be happy to take
any questions you may have.
LOAD-DATE: February 10,
1999 
