Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
The New
York Times
July 21, 1999, Wednesday, Late Edition -
Final
SECTION: Section B; Page 8; Column
3; Metropolitan Desk; Education Page
LENGTH:
737 words
HEADLINE: House Defies President on Education
Bill
BYLINE: By FRANK BRUNI
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, July 20
BODY:
Bucking President Clinton's angry protests
and threat of a veto, the House tonight approved a $2 billion bill for teacher
training and recruitment that did not require, as the President wished, that
more than $1 billion be devoted to his initiative to reduce class sizes by
hiring an additional 100,000 teachers nationwide.
The Republican
proposal would instead permit states to decide how much of the Federal money
they receive to use for hiring new teachers and how much to use for the
professional development of existing ones. The bill passed by a mostly
party-line vote of 239 to 185, with 24 Democrats joining 215 Republicans to
support it.
The bill's advocates said the flexibility it would give both
states and local school districts was the only way to make sure that schools did
not find themselves forced to hire teachers simply to fulfill a mandatory body
count.
"After teaching high school for more than 16 years, I know
firsthand that it isn't necessarily the quantity of teachers that makes a
difference, but the quality of teachers you put in the classroom," said Speaker
J. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, in a written statement.
But
Democratic opponents said that Republicans were setting up a false choice, and
that parents could have it all: small classes led by excellent teachers.
These Democrats, along with President Clinton, pleaded for a Democratic
alternative that called for $3.5 billion in Federal spending on teachers next
year, $1.5 billion of which would be dedicated to the hiring of additional
teachers who had certain basic qualifications. That alternative was only
narrowly defeated, along party lines, by a vote of 207 in favor of the measure
to 217 in opposition.
In a letter that the President sent to Mr. Hastert
on Monday, Mr. Clinton complained that the Republican bill "fails to guarantee
that any funding will be used for hiring new teachers to reduce class size."
"Last year we made a promise to America's children to provide smaller
classes with well-prepared teachers," Mr. Clinton wrote, referring to an
agreement between Democrats and Republicans, reached within the context of an
omnibus spending bill, that led to an expenditure of $1.2 billion this year for
the hiring of the first 30,000 new teachers. "I urge Congress to keep that
promise."
The pledge and projection of 100,000 new teachers was one that
Mr. Clinton and many other Democrats proudly trumpeted, and Republicans clearly
wanted to undercut it by raising questions about whether there was any quality
control in the equation and about why Federal lawmakers did not trust local
governments to decide their most pressing needs.
But today's vote left
the fate of Mr. Clinton's initiative unclear. Democratic leaders succeeded in
keeping enough of their party members in the fold that the margin of victory for
Republicans was not nearly enough to override a Presidential veto.
It is
also difficult to predict what the Senate, which seems to be several months away
from any consideration of similar legislation, will do. Earlier this year, a
majority of senators signaled a desire to scuttle Mr. Clinton's 100,000-teachers
pledge, but that vote did not ultimately become part of any legislation.
The Republican bill that the House passed tonight represented the first
step in a months-long process of reauthorizing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which comes up for renewal every five years
and represents about $13 billion a year in Federal spending.
The bill,
which concerns the next fiscal year, combined about $800 million that was being
spent on teacher training under the act with the extra $1.2 billion that the
Federal Government had allocated for the salaries of additional teachers, for a
total of $2 billion.
The bill then proposed that states be given broad
discretion over how to spend their portions of that money on improving the
teaching in schools. That latitude adhered to a larger philosophy and broader
push among Congressional Republicans right now to transfer more and more control
over the spending of Federal education dollars to the state and local level.
But many Democrats said that in this case, the Republicans were going
too far.
"The definition of professional development is broad enough to
permit a teacher trip to Disneyland," said Representative Robert E. Andrews, a
New Jersey Democrat. "This money will become a slush fund."
http://www.nytimes.com
GRAPHIC: Chart:
"Billions for Teaching, but How to Spend It?"
Republicans and Democrats have
different ideas on how to improve the quality of teachers in the nation's public
schools. Below, highlights of the competing proposals.
SPENDING
REPUBLICANS
$2 billion a year to hire and train teachers;
programs would be run by states and school districts.
DEMOCRATS
$3.5 billion a year, distributed as follows:
* $1.5 billion to hire new
teachers
* $1.5 billion for teacher training
* $500 million for training
special education teachers
PROGRAMS
REPUBLICANS
The money, raised by consolidating President Clinton's program to reduce
class sizes with other existing programs, could be used for a wide range of
activities, including alternative routes to certification, new tests for
teachers and changes in tenure policy.
DEMOCRATS
None of the
money could be spent on changing tenure policy. States could use some money to
redesign and strengthening teacher licensing.
NATIONAL STANDARDS
REPUBLICANS
No money could be spent for the adoption of
national teacher testing or national teaching standards, including the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a panel formed to certify master
instructors.
DEMOCRATS
Continue funds for the standards
board, which the Clinton Administration and teacher unions regard as a force for
skill training among instructors.
TEACHER CERTIFICATION
REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS
Both parties would require states
to develop a plan for employing a fully qualified teaching force within four
years.
(Source: Education Daily)
LOAD-DATE: July 21, 1999 
