Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 12, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3054 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY April 12, 2000 MICHAEL N. CASTEL CHAIRMAN HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION LABOR HHS
APPROPRIATIONS
BODY:
The Honorable Michael N.
Castle Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families Testimony
before Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee April 11, 2000 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 21s, 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.
LOAD-DATE: April 25, 2000, Tuesday
