Copyright 1999 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
View Related Topics
May 20, 1999, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 707 words
HEADLINE:
Clinton Details Education Standards; Proposals Would Require Systems to Upgrade
or Close Schools
BYLINE: Kenneth J. Cooper, Washington
Post Staff Writer
BODY:
President Clinton
yesterday proposed a range of education mandates that public schools would have
to meet or face losing federal funds. Under one of the proposals, school systems
would be required to upgrade or close schools that failed to help all students
-- including disadvantaged ones -- reach expected achievement levels.
"States and school districts that choose to accept federal aid must take
responsibility for turning around failing schools or shutting them down,"
Clinton said.
The administration's plan for renewing the $ 15 billion
Elementary and Secondary Education Act for another five years
laid down a Democratic marker in the political debate over how best to improve
the nation's schools. Many of the proposals -- such as banning social promotion
of failing students to the next grade -- were outlined in Clinton's State of the
Union address in January.
Although neither the House nor the Senate has
yet drafted its version of the education legislation, the administration
proposal to impose additional mandates runs counter to the prevailing
inclination among congressional Republicans to give local school systems more
flexibility in how they spend federal funds.
"The federal government has
absolutely no right to foist these mandates upon schools all across America,"
said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio). "This is yet another example of the
wrong level of government proposing solutions to problems."
But several
of the requirements Clinton recommended have already been implemented in some
states, a fact the administration hoped would deflect Republican criticism.
The administration, for instance, would require states to identify
failing schools and try to improve them by providing extra training to teachers,
implementing tested reforms and giving students more academic help. If
achievement did not rise in two years, school districts would be required to
overhaul the school, allow students to attend other public schools, or close the
school altogether and open a "charter school" under independent administration.
Already, 19 states, including New Jersey and Texas, have similar systems
for intervening to improve failing schools. And several Republican governors
have pushed for more radical measures: Florida recently passed legislation
proposed by Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to give students in failing schools vouchers to
pay tuition at any public or private school, a market-oriented strategy Clinton
has opposed.
Briefing reporters, Education Secretary Richard W. Riley
focused on provisions aimed at helping disadvantaged students who receive
remedial services under Title 1, the $ 8 billion program that is the largest
authorized in the legislation.
Federal law requires schools to
demonstrate that Title 1 students receive comparable educational services to
other students, based on standards such as class size and student-teacher ratio.
The administration proposed shifting those standards toward measures of
educational quality, such as challenging curriculum and a wide range of course
offerings. Districts also would have to make sure schools serving impoverished
students did not have disproportionate numbers of uncertified teachers or ones
teaching subjects they did not study in college.
In four years, states
would have to ensure that 95 percent of their teachers were certified in the
subjects they taught or engaged in studies that would allow them to reach that
status within three years, a provision that some education advocates criticized.
"The proposal is too limited in its scope, the time lines are too long and the
standards are too low," said Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, a
lobbying group.
Under the administration proposal, newly hired teachers
would also have to demonstrate competency, both in their subjects and in overall
teaching skills.
Periodic reauthorization of the federal education
programs since their creation in 1965 has often begun with proposals for
dramatic change. But typically, each reauthorization bill has made incremental
changes in program rules and funding levels, while adding only modest
initiatives because of the need to broker the legislation with the White House,
Congress and education lobbies.
LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999
