Copyright 1999 The Seattle Times Company
The
Seattle Times
July 25, 1999, Sunday Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B8
LENGTH: 567 words
HEADLINE:
FEDERAL STRAIGHT A'S BILL BRAVE AND NECESSARY
BODY:
PERHAPS it is a form of Stockholm syndrome that makes hard-line Democrats
defend an education strategy that doesn't work. Such stubbornness could kill a
smart plan pushed by Sen. Slade Gorton and other key leaders that would mend a
35-year-long tradition of giving vital funds to public schools in a manner that
does more harm than good. The "Straight A's" bill, formally known as the
Academic Achievement for All Act, would give states or public school districts
the option of receiving federal money without strings attached, as long as they
met certain performance goals. It loosely follows the successful philosophy
behind welfare reform, which gives states freedom to use federal funds however
necessary to reduce caseloads.
Though many Republicans support the
Straight A's bill, Democrats are calling it anti-education and defending the
holy trinity of more programs, more money and more hand-holding. President
Clinton's education plan is the polar opposite of the Straight A's bill and a
tribute to passive-aggressive micromanagement.
The Straight A's bill is
part of Congress' larger efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, 1960s-era legislation that guides most federal
spending. More rules and more money have turned this act into a $
13-billion-a-year bureaucracy with a phone book's worth of rules. Every five
years, Congress has the opportunity to revamp and improve this act.
Spread over 50 states, federal funding accounts for about only 7 percent
of most schools' budgets. Still, federal regulations make that money the tail
that wags the dog. Title I money is the most onerous example. It is supposed to
close the achievement gap between poor students and their peers. Even the U.S.
Department of Education recently conceded that the $ 118 billion in Title I
money sent to schools since 1965 has been a waste. Why?
One big reason
is the red tape. Strict federal rules make teachers waste preparation time on
hours of mandatory documentation of every minute spent with a Title I student.
The rules also encourage schools to use a piecemeal approach to achievement
rather than a holistic one: Regular kids in here; poor, low-achievers go out in
the hall with the aide.
Clinton's plan would add more red tape. He
favors dozens of separate pots of money that sound big but shrink to Dixie Cup
size by the time they reach school districts. Some money can be used only for
reducing class sizes; other money can be used only for teachers and not aides
(or vice versa). Many districts don't dare innovate for fear of disqualifying
themselves from federal funds.
A bill called "Ed-Flex," passed earlier
this year, loosened a few of the rules. The Straight A's bill would loosen
enough to make a real difference. Skeptical members of Congress - including Sen.
Patty Murray - should enter the education debates this August and September with
two things in mind:
-- The federal government is not a giant school
board.
-- Voting for more of the same is irresponsible after proven
failure.
The Straight A's bill has its own potential pitfalls. With
sneaky tweaking from either party, it could siphon money to private schools or
create extra bureaucratic hoops. But it is as brave and necessary as welfare
reform, and it's a chance for voters to separate their truly pro-education
politicians from those who simply want to take all the credit.
LOAD-DATE: July 26, 1999 
