Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
February 23, 1999, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2142 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 23, 1999 GEORGE V. VOINOVICH SENATOR SENATE
HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS STATES' PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION POLICY
CHANGES
BODY:
Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee (HELP) Senator George V. Voinovich February 23, 1999 Chairman
Jeffords,Senator Kennedy,and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present to my views on education and my thoughts on appropriate
changes for the federal role in education. I am pleased to join this
distinguished panel of witnesses. During my 33 years of public service, I have
served at the local, state, and now federal level. It is imperatives that
education remain the primary province of local and state government.
Consequently, I do no believe Congress should move forward on any education
initiative that is not based on the consultation and concurrence of the
governors. Each of the states represented here today have valuable information
to contribute to this important debate. I am very concerned that this
Administration intends to radically change the federal government's role in
elementary and secondary education. Rather than the role of a very junior
partner in education reform, the President has offered a number of initiatives
that would substitute the U.S. Department of Education for most local school
boards. He presents some great ideas for our Governors, but it shouldn't be
taken any further than mere advice. Simply put, these are not federal
responsibilities. In fact, the President's proposals either present states with
a new mandate or preempt current state practice or law. For the federal
government to be a better partner - to help states and local governments do a
better job of educating our children - our assistance should be more, not less
flexible. It simply makes no sense to add new categorical programs that fit
narrow needs when what is really needed is flexibility to use federal assistance
to better meet individual local needs. The President wants to commit trillions
of dollars to school construction. We are already addressing construction needs
in Ohio and have committed over a billion and a half dollars to repair or
rebuild schools. Committing new federal dollars to construction rewards the
states that have not taken action on their own. President Clinton wants to "turn
around the worst-performing schools or shut them down." It should be up to state
and local school officials to determine what schools to shut down. While the
federal government is responsible for only 7% of local school spending, it
should be noted that the Department of Education is responsible for 50% of all
school paperwork. I think we all can agree that we should give school
administration more time with students and teachers and less time on federal
mandates. In addition, the Clinton Administration wants to hire 100,000 new
teachers. Some states and communities may need additional funds for teachers.
However, a narrow categorical proposal is not a national solution to the
challenges facing our schools. Localities should have the freedom to invest in
their greatest needs - whether it be new construction, teachers, training,
technology, or textbooks. The Administration has renewed its pledge to implement
national testing. I am concerned about this proposal on many levels. A national
testing program would be the first step in establishing a national curriculum.
The Federal Government is not the national board of education and "one size fits
all" does not apply throughout the United States of America. "One size fits all"
doesn't even apply in the State of Ohio. I would like to take a moment to share
with you a program called "Achieve." This program was created following the 1996
National Education Summit, when the nation's Governors and top CEOs came
together to address the urgent need for improvement in our schools. Achieve is
dedicated to helping states raise academic standards, improve student
achievement , and establish clear accountability for results. This is the kind
of movement we need to be encouraging, rather than duplicating with federal
mandates. I request that additional information on this program be submitted for
the record. The nation's Governors are concerned about consequences for States
and communities that fail to adopt new federally mandated policies on social
promotion, teacher competency, school takeovers, report cards or discipline
problems. It is my understanding that the Department of Education will withhold
funds provided to States and local school districts through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Clearly, the absence of this necessary funding will
impact Title I recipients-our Nation's most disadvantaged. This is a high price
for these students to pay if they happen to live in a State or community that
believes in local control of schools. In addition, we cannot afford the
President's proposed initiatives without either cutting existing programs or
breaking the budget caps or using the budget surplus. Instead, given increasing
demand for academic achievement and accountability, safe schools, and quality
teaching, we must review existing commitments to education to see how they can
be improved to support those goals before creating new Federal Initiatives. It
is important to know that many of the President's proposals are already being
addressed by States that are leading the way in reforming our education system,
many of which are here before you today. Improvement in the quality of education
is a top concern for parents, teachers, and employers across the country. I
think it has to be our number one priority as a Nation. States have responded to
this concern by moving forward with appropriate reforms in elementary and
secondary education. In my own state of Ohio, I sought to remake the state
education system into a result oriented system with greater local flexibility.
We have increased accountability and established higher classroom standards. For
example, we have a program in place called the "Fourth Grade Guarantee" to
ensure that students are reading at least at grade level before being promoted.
We are implementing a more stringent set of academic requirements that students
must meet to earn a high school diploma. State funding for our youngest children
has grown tremendously. I am proud of what we have done in Ohio with the Head
Start program, by guaranteeing access to quality early childhood program
services for any three or four year-old whose parent desires services. Education
is lifelong learning and we must begin as early as possible. It has been
scientifically proven in study after study that early childhood care and
education has a direct effect on school success. Researchers have demonstrated
that the first three years of a child's life have more to do with their future
success than anything else we do. During my tenure as Governor, we initiated
unprecedented support for Ohio teachers. We have facilitated professional
development through urban leadership academies in the six largest urban
districts, peer review and mentoring, and financial support for teachers that
are pursuing or have received certification by the National Board of
Professional Teaching Standards. Ohio is second in the nation in the number of
nationally certified teachers. We have pursued innovation and parental choice.
The Cleveland Scholarship Program gives 3,000 low income students in Cleveland
the opportunity to attend the school of their choice. Charter schools are
expanding to the state's eight largest urban districts, and we gave over 600
"break the mold" schools the flexibility to design programs to improve teaching
and assessment. While public education is principally a responsibility of state
and local government, the federal government has a role to play in supporting
families, and state and local reform efforts. However, the federal government
must not create new mandates on states and local education agencies. I commend
you, Mr. Chairman, and all Members of this Committee for working to pass what's
known as "Ed-Flex." As you are aware, Ohio is one of the 12 demonstration states
in the Ed-Flex program. We have found that Ed-Flex permits innovative school
improvement plans without regulatory barriers. For example, one of our statewide
waivers allows the use of Eisenhower Professional Development Grants to be
applied in the areas of greatest need in a school district. We have allowed
these funds to be directed at reading and social studies programs rather than
exclusively for science and math. I have just been informed by the Ohio
Department of Education that 1998 4th and 6th grade proficiency test scores in
these areas have made substantial gains. I am proud that the States have shown
what they can do when given a chance. Think about what we did with welfare. We
empowered the people closest to the problem to make a difference in the lives of
people. I believe that the same situation will happen with education. The
flexibility allowed under "Ed-Flex" has fostered numerous creative responses
customized to meet the needs of local school districts. Let's continue to give
Governors and states the flexibility to determine where resources will be
applied most appropriately. By quickly providing all states the opportunity to
participate in Ed-Flex, we will gain a better understanding of remaining
regulatory barriers and changes as we reform the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). Let's allow states to spend more money on
our children and not on regulatory red tape. Before we consider any additional
federal education programs, for which money is not available, we must examine
what the federal government is already doing. I know that Senator First
addressed this issue last year with the Senate Budget Committee's Task Force on
Education. GAO has looked at this as well. Depending upon whether you believe
CRS or GAO, there are anywhere from 560 to 760 federal education programs in 31
to 39 different federal agencies. We need a complete survey of existing programs
and an analysis of what is truly working in education. For example, we have the
Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Department of
Justice, Department of Education, among others, all administering programs for
early childhood education. Literally, we have programs all over the place.
Wouldn't it be nice to sit down and look at what we are doing as a country in
education, identify the programs definitively, look at those that are really
making a difference, get rid of those that aren't and put the money in the
programs that are successful. We must then work with State governments as
partners to come up with a system where we can maximize our dollars to make a
difference in the lives of our children. Also, we should look at all of the
unfunded mandates we have imposed upon the states. For example, we have the IDEA
program that in theory is supposed to elicit 40% in federal funds with the
states coming up with 60%. States are following through with their end of the
bargain, but the federal government is only providing 11.7%. States are
practically having to foot the bill for the entire program. We need the federal
government to fully fund IDEA at their 40% match and allow states to free up
some of their own money for programs that are state priorities. Congress should
also pass legislation which sends some portion of federal education to the
states in the form of block grants. States need maximum flexibility to tailor
education reform and improvement programs for their populations, yet the
complexity of current categorical programs can discourage coordinated state and
community-based planning. I encourage you to work with Governors to develop
block grants that would allow states the flexibility to ensure that resources
address local needs. Finally, early childhood education must be a national
priority, implemented locally. Early childhood remains one of the greatest unmet
needs in our country at the same time that one of our highest priorities must be
to ensure that all children enter school ready to learn. I intend to introduce
legislation that will enhance the network of federal programs for young
children. This proposal will be fiscally responsible and focus on building upon
and improving current programs and infrastructure. The package would ensure that
states have flexibility to effectively utilize current funds and to coordinate
and integrate existing services provided by federal, state, and local
governments. It all boils down to the fact that we need to coordinate our
efforts for reform. Our Governors and the states are going to be on the front
line with any changes we make and we need their input. I intend to keep the
channels of communication wide open with the National Governors Association and
I encourage you to do the same. How well we do with this challenge will impact
upon our future- our children. Thank you.
LOAD-DATE:
February 24, 1999 
