EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999 -- (Extensions of Remarks - April 22, 1999)

[Page: E742]
---

SPEECH OF HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of flexibility in the way that our federal education programs are implemented at the state and local level. Local Educational Agencies and individual schools need flexibility to ensure that our programs are conducted in a manner that is responsive and relevant to local conditions and the divergent needs of all students. However, educational flexibility needs to be viewed in its proper context--specifically in terms of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In this context the Conference Report on H.R.
```
[Page: E743]
```
800, the Ed-Flex legislation, falls short and I rise to oppose the Conference Report.

I am a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and this Committee has just begun to take up the numerous important issues that are involved in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is folly, Mr. Speaker, for this final version of the Ed-Flex bill to come up before the ESEA has even been considered. How can we justify creating a system in which all states can have the option to waive federal education requirements when those federal education programs have not even been reauthorized? It is inappropriate and unjustified for the Congress to be granting across-the-board waiver authority to states before the House Education and Workforce Committee has reconsidered the ESEA.

In fact, the Conference Report on H.R. 800 is actually weaker than the version that was passed by the House of Representatives. At least our House version of the bill contained a sunset provision that mandated that Ed-Flex be taken up during the ESEA reauthorization process. The Conference Report eliminates this provision.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, accountability must not be sacrificed for the sake of flexibility. If the Congress grants greater flexibility to the states, the states must be held responsible to use these new powers in a way that improves educational quality and student performance. The Conference Report is weak on accountability provisions. We tried to strengthen these accountability provisions in Committee, but were not successful. Now the Congress has placed itself in a position that will grant huge loopholes to states and localities when it comes to measuring and enforcing accountability. This is another reason why I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ed-Flex Conference Report.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the long-term effect of Ed-Flex will be to shift valuable federal resources away from schools in high-poverty neighborhoods towards school in more wealthy districts. It is a hallmark of national education policy that federal funds be used to benefit schools and school districts that are most in need of outside resources. Federal programs need to be targeted to the disadvantaged. It is very possible that this bill will open the way for states to redirect ESEA Title I funds away from the disadvantaged. This trend dilutes the essential purposes of Title I. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ed-Flex Conference Report.
END