LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, House or Senate or Joint

Document 23 of 100.

April 11, 2000, Tuesday

SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1859 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL N. CASTLE CHAIRMAN

BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HHS, AND EDUCATION

BODY:
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in providing increased funding for the many important education programs that fall within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. You will be missed next year, and I wish you well in your retirement.

For more than 100 years, Americans have sought to realize the promise of tomorrow by educating the youth of today. As we all know, a high quality education is the foundation for future success as an individual and a source of strength for our nation. Yet, too many schools are failing to give our children -- especially for those who are disabled or economically disadvantaged -- a high quality education. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee with responsibility for federal elementary and secondary education programs, I believe it is my job to be an advocate for quality education programs and, for those programs that are ineffective or duplicative, to take the lead in the effort to amend or repeal them through the authorization process. Today, I would like to share with you my education priorities, and ask that you give consideration my recommendations. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, before I talk about where we should go in education funding, I think it is important to understand where we have been -- otherwise we might not get there. In the 1980s, the federal government consistently provided between $5 and $9 billion dollars for all K-12 education programs. Then, beginning with fiscal year 1996, funding for these same programs increased by more than 50 percent. I believe this recent change is significant because better reflects the commitment of the Congress to the future success of our children and its high priority among the American people. Within the constraints of maintaining a balanced budget, reducing the debt, and preserving social security, I believe Congress should continue to increase funding for quality elementary and secondary education, and I hope this Subcommittee will work diligently toward that goal.

IDEA

As Chairman Goodling already stated, before we look to fund new programs, I believe increased funding for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) should be our top priority. The education of our children should not be a burden. Yet, as a former Governor, I have seen first hand how the costs of special education can stretch school budgets to the breaking point. While this Subcommittee has provided unparalleled increases in IDEA funding -- and I don't mean to belittle this accomplishment -- the federal government still provides only about 12 percent of this cost. For schools that are trying to accommodate the diverse needs of its students, our inability to fulfill our 24 year old commitment has caused significant difficulties for educators and administrators at the state and local levels who are trying to ensure that all children have the best possible education.In Delaware, our largest school district, the Christina School District, receives $800,000 per year in special education funding instead of the $4.4 million it would receive if the Federal government fulfilled its commitment to fully fund IDEA. If fully funded, the entire State of Delaware would receive an additional $24.8 million. This is tremendously important to note because that additional money is desperately needed by local school districts for other purposes.

In fact, if the federal government were to live up to its responsibility and pay its fair share for special education, local school districts would have more dollars to improve teacher quality, reduce class size, increase access to technology, and build and modernize their schools as they see fit. That point, while mentioned earlier, cannot be overstated. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will continue your leadership with respect to this issue and provide a substantial increase for part B of IDEA.

Drug and Violence Prevention Mr. Chairman, another priority that I see for the Committee, and one that has garnered a tremendous amount of attention, is the importance of drug and violence prevention programs and the role that after- school activities can play in these efforts. As you know, the President has made the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program one of his top funding priorities, and his budget seeks to more than double the current funding to expand after-school programs. While I have concerns about the quality of programs funded by a program that has grown from $750,000 in FY95 to $453 million in FY00, I do believe that tremendous benefits can be gained by quality academically- oriented programs.

Our approach in the Education OPTIONS Act is to combine the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program and the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, both of which are quite flexible, to allow local education agencies to use these funds for a broad array of activities focused on drug and violence prevention, including after-school programs. Both the level of funding and the local flexibility will allow schools to provide the intensive, ongoing programming that will help our students make positive life choices. Some of the activities allowed under the bill include, comprehensive drug and violence prevention programs, counseling, mentoring, school violence hotlines, emergency intervention services, and before and after school programs.

In addition to authorizing more than $1 billion to fight violence and illegal drugs in our schools, the Education OPTIONS Act requires programs funded under the act to be based upon: (1) an assessment of objective data with respect to local drug and violence problems; (2) performance measures established by the local education agency; and (3) scientifically based research that provides evidence that the program or activity will prevent or reduce drug abuse and violence. This will ensure that federal funds flow to quality programs.

As we move forward with the Education OPTIONS Act, I hope that your Subcommittee will provide adequate funding for the new and improved program crafted by our Committee.

Title VI

With respect to school improvement programs, I strongly encourage you to fund the Title VI block grant program over the objections of the Clinton Administration. Apparently, there are those who believe that is program is not designed to support the kind of state and local efforts that are most likely to result in real improvements. Their views are contrary to those of Delaware's Acting Secretary of Education and they are contrary to those of our Delaware educators.

While I believe it is important to maintain categorical funding sources, such as Title I's aid for disadvantaged students, I believe it is equally important to maintain the Title VI education block grant to ensure that federal dollars can be shaped to meet the unique reform needs of each state and school district. In my local school districts, this funding is viewed as a way to expand initiatives supported by other federal and state resources, according to each district's discretion and priorities. As a result, real improvements and real reform in teaching and learning are occurring because we are willing to allow parents, schools and states to work together.

In addition, this program is the only remaining federal program that provides funds to help our schools address the critical shortage of books in their libraries and media centers. This year, millions of children will visit our public school libraries, but many will find that the books on the shelves are outdated or otherwise in need of replacement. In fact, according to a recent survey, only 35 percent of our country's 100,000 public school libraries have adequate collections to support school reading programs, and many school librarians report that it is increasingly difficult to keep pace with expiring book collections.

Last year, forty percent of all Title VI funding was dedicated to helping our local schools enhance their dwindling book collections. Our public schools cannot afford to lose these funds and it is regrettable that the administration fails to recognize the need to maintain this important program. I urge you to make every effort to provide adequate funding for Title VI.

Education Technology

In the Education OPTIONS Act, we have also worked hard to improve the federal efforts regarding technology in education. In recent years, federal funding for education technology programs has dramatically increased. However, as part of that growing support, so many federal programs have sprung up that we are faced with a situation where there is little to no coordination among these programs. That is why we have consolidated eight of the existing programs and directed 95 percent of the funds to our states and local school districts.

Under the Act, states would distribute 80 percent of the education technology funds through a formula targeted to high need local education agencies, while 20 percent of the funds would be competitively distributed by the state. This is a significant change from current law under which the Secretary, through discretionary grants, distributes 42 percent of all technology funds to local school districts and partnerships, and states distribute the other 48 percent through a competitive process.

Funds under this new program are targeted for: (1) increasing access to technology; (2) improving and expanding teacher professional development in technology; and (3) promoting innovative initiatives using technology to increase academic achievement. I urge your Subcommittee to continue strong support for education technology.

Pell/TRIO

Finally, although not in my Subcommittee, I want to echo Chairman Goodling's strong support for additional funding for federal TRIO programs and an increase to the Pell Grant maximum. Need-based grant programs for low-income students must be our number one priority in higher education funding. Children from upper income families continue to enroll in college at twice the rate of children from low-income families and, for many of these families, the lack of resources is the deciding factor.

While Pell Grants open the door to higher education for many students from low-income families, the TRIO programs help these students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to higher education and support them in their efforts to obtain an undergraduate degree. I hope the Subcommittee will continue its generous support for these programs.

In conclusion, I want to encourage this Subcommittee to support increased funding for quality education programs. As I said earlier, the education of our children -- and support for the programs to do so should not be a burden. In return, my subcommittee will work to ensure that states and schools are held accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have.

END

LOAD-DATE: April 21, 2000

Document 23 of 100.


Search Terms: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: