DOCUMENT RESUME PS 022 735 ED 375 954 Hearing on H.R. 3130: Improving America's School Act TITLE of 1993. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session. (September 23, 1993). Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. House INSTITUTION Committee on Education and Labor. REPORT NO ISBN-0-16-044735-6 PUB DATE 94 55p.; Serial No. 103-73. NOTE U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of AVAILABLE FROM Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402. Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) PUB TYPE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Academic Standards; Accountability; *Educational DESCRIPTORS Attitudes; *Educational Improvement; *Elementary Secondary Education; *Federal Aid; *Federal Legislation; Hearings; Parent School Relationship; Partnerships in Education; Public Policy; School Community Relationship Congress 103rd; Elementary Secondary Education Act; IDENTIFIERS Reauthorization Legislation ABSTRACT These hearing transcripts present testimony concerning the proposed Improving America's School (IAS) Act of 1993, which embodies the Clinton Administration's program for transforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Testimony was heard from U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, accompanied by Marshall Smith, Under Secretary of Education, and Tom Payzant, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Secretary Riley outlined the major points of the IAS Act, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to education that focuses on the student, family, school; and school system, and not simply on specific deficiencies. The, Act emphasizes: (1) high standards for all (3) targeting (2) a focus on teaching and learning; children; (4) flexibility coupled with resources to where needs are greatest; greater accountability; and (5) linking schools, parents, and communities. Prepared statements and additional materials were presented by Secretary Riley; Representatives Eliot L. Engel, Gene Green, and Thomas C. Sawyer; and Mary Ann Smith, the coordinator of the National Writing Project. (MDM) *********************************************************************** * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. *********************************************************************** HEARING ON H.R. 3130: IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOL ACT OF 1993 U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office E (11,C3IOnA, neseatch and Imp,oyomeni EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (EFUCI )(This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organisation originating it Cl Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality HEARING Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent BEFORE THE official OERI position or policy SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 Serial No. 103-73 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor C) C\1 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1994 81-244 CC (Mike the U.S. Ciovernment I-or 2o4i12 Superintendent of Document,. Comne,ional Sale. ()Ince. Waithintflon, ISBN 0-16-044735-6 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR FORD, Michigan, Chairman WILLIAM D. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas PAT WILLIAMS, Montana HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York SUSAN MOLINARI, New York THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio BILL BARRETT, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey HOWARD P. "BUCK" McKEON, California JACK REED, Rhode Island DAN MILLER, Florida TIM ROEMER, Indiana ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York XAVIER BECERRA, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia GENE GREEN, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RON KLINK, Pennsylvania KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona TED STRICKLAND, Ohio RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam PATRICIA F. RISSLER, Staff Director JAY EAGEN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania GEORGE MILLER, California STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio HOWARD "BUCK" McKEON, California MAJOR R. OWENS, New York THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington SUSAN MOLINARI, New York JACK REED, Rhode Island RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California TIM ROEMER, Indiana DAN MILLER, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California GENE GREEN, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona TED STRICKLAND, Ohio DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico CONTENTS Page Hearing held in Washington, DC, September 23, 1993 1 Statement of: Riley, Hon. Richard W., Secretary of the Department of Education, ac- companied by Marshall Smith, Under Secretary of Education, and Tom Payzant, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 3 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera: Engel, Eliot L., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of 44 Green, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement of 45 Riley, Hon. Richard W., Secretary of the Department of Education, pre- pared statement of 9 Additional material submitted for the record 29 Sawyer, Hon. Thomas C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of 44 Smith, Mary Ann, Codirector and Representaive, National Writing Project, prepared statement of 46 111 HEARING ON H.R. 3130: IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOL ACT OF 1993 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., Room E. Kildee, Chair- 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale man, presiding. California, Members present: Representatives Kildee, Miller of Engel, Becerra, Sawyer, Owens, Unsoeld, Reed, Roemer, Mink, Gunderson, Green, Woolsey, English, Strickland, Payne, Good ling, McKeon, Miller of Florida, Roukema and Boehner. Hartman, edu- Staff present: Susan Wilhelm, staff director; Andy counsel; Diane Stark, cation: coordinator; Jack Jennings, education counsel; legislative specialist; S. Jefferson McFarland, legislative legislative as- Tom 'Kelley, legislative associate; Margaret Kajeckas, Selmser, professional sociate; Jane Baird, education counsel; Lynn member. staff member; and Vic Klatt, professional staff Secondary Chairman KILDEE. The Subcommittee on Elementary, 17th Washington and Vocational Education convenes today for its and Secondary hearing on the reauthorization of the Elementary Education Act and related programs. Richard Riley, the The witness this morning is the Honorable Carolina, and Secretary of Education, former Governor of South number among my dear friends. Be- one which I am privileged to whose company I have hind the Governor is his wife, Mrs. Riley, number of occasions. enjoyed along with Mr. Riley at dinner on a reauthor- Secretary Riley will be testifying on the administration's Schools Act of 1993. ization proposal, the Improving America's introducing this legisla- I am pleased to announce that I will be the subcommittee Mem- tion .today with bipartisan support among here have had strong bers. Most of the great strides in education fact that the bill bipartisan support, and I am very happy over the bipartisan sponsorship. we drafted today will have of the most The Improving America Schools Act of 1993 is one have seen in my carefully thought out reauthorization proposals I the greatest move 17 years in the Congress and I think perhaps Johnson. It speaks forward since the Act was started under Lyndon teaching and learning, of high standards for all children, a focus on combined with greater ac- and increased flexibility at the local level II) 5 2 countability and will provide a framework to guide the reauthoriza- tion process. I want to thank Secretary Riley for making his staff available to the subcommittee as we work through the reauthorization process. Second, Assistant Secretary Tom Payzant has spent many, many hours in staff briefings so far and is called to return again next week, and that has been extremely helpful. I know that the staff appreciates very much having F.,..meone of your stature sitting in with them as we work our way through this bill. I personally am appreciative of that. I appreciate his efforts and those of the other Department staff who have participated in these meetings. These meetings have really been helpful to the Members through their staffs as we begin to discuss some of the issues that will be points of discussion as we prepare for markup. I want to move the reauthorization as quickly as possible, and I am planning to schedule subcommittee markup hopefully from mid to late October. We have the benefit, of course, of the hearings that we have had since last February. Mr. GUNDERSON. I thought we adjourned October 8. Chairman KILDEE. That was very hopeful. I have been married 29 years and have been in the legislative business for 29 years, and my wife has told me that no Speaker has been right as to the time we will adjourn. My wife is generally right in those matters. So don't buy any tickets you can't return. Is Mr. Ford here yet? Mr. Good ling is on his way. We are going to dispense with general opening statements, but I would iiko to give the Minority a chance to make some opening remarks. Anti, in the absence of Mr. Good ling, Mr. Gunderson, per- haps you would like to play that role. Mr. GUNDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to believe that after last night we are switching quickly from health care into education, but you know the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is really the foundation of every Ameri- can's ability to succeed and compete and even understand their role and needs in health care. And I hope we understand how impor- tant this is from a foundation perspective. Secretary Riley, I know I speak for all the Republicans on this side of the aisle when I say we are delighted that you are here. We look forward to working with you on this. Many of us have agreed to cosponsor the introduction because we believe the basic direction of the hill is clearly in the right direction, and we want to be a part of this process in a bipartisan way. I also know I speak for every Republican thatwhen I say co- sponsoring this bill doesn't mean that we endorse the Chapter 1 formula that is in the proposal. My only hope isand I say this to not only you, Secretary Riley, but to everyone in the room. I hope understanding the importance of the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act reauthorization becomes a lot more than a fight over Chapter 1. Because if this reduces itself to nothing more than a Chapter i formula fight, then we have done a real disservice in laying the foundation of elementary/secondary education for the 21st century, and I think that is what this is really all about. 6 3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. We look forward to working with you. And after your testimony, obviously, we will have some questions and comments at that time. Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the Under Secretary of Education, a good friend of mine also. We served on the National Council of Standards and Testing together. MarshallMike Smith. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed with your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. RILEY, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MAR- SHALL SMITH, UNDER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, AND TOM PAYZANT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Secretary RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your commentsand Mr. Gunderson's. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my complete statement and the prospectus for the record, and I will present a much shorter ver- sion, if I might. Chairman KILDEE. Without objection, your complete testimony will be included in the record. Secretary RILEY. Thank you, sir. And I, as you pointed out, have with me Under Secretary Mike Smith and my Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, Tom Payzant, and the people who have worked with your staff an awful lot of hours. I am proud of them and what they have done to move us to this place here this morning. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the commit- tee, that I come today to present the Improving America's School Act of 1993. This is, of course, our proposal to transform the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Federal Government's largest commitment to education for this Nation's children. This legislation represents President Clinton's absolute commitment that we will not forsake the children of America. Almost 30 years after ESEA was first enacted, our Nation's chil- dren are struggling. It is a sorry state of affairs, and I tell you that very seriously. More children live in poverty than ever before, al- most one out of five. It is really, in my judgment, a scandal of in- creasing proportions that means that the demand for ESEA serv- ices is on the increase and will continue to rise all through the 1990s. You notice Chart 1 which indicates that certainly child pov- erty has been on the increase since around the 1970s. An article in this morning's Washington Post cites findings from a recent comprehensive study. The United Nations' Children Fund found that 20 percent of the U.S. children live below the poverty line, twice the rate of any other industrialized country. Most Euro- pean countries range in the area of 5 percent. Dramatic numbers as we embark on this undertaking. I can tell you further that poor children who go to schools with high concentrations of poverty, those that we refer to as high-pov- erty schools, are falling farther behind despite our best efforts to help them. In Chart 2 it shows that in the high-poverty schools achievement goes down as children go forward in their grades. And 7 4 in the low poverty schools, achievement stays the same or in- creases. In other words, poverty seems to drag them down as they go forward in school. And, further, an increasing number of these children, approximately 2.4 million, speak English as a second lan- guage. Our response to this new face of education, the increasing pov- erty, the increasing lack of resources for children most in need and the growing gap between our expectations and what our children are actually achievingESEA's current budget is around $9 billion. Title I will receive about $6.3 billion in fiscal year 1994. Under our proposal funding for Title I will increase to approximately $7 bil- lion in fiscal year 1995, an increase of $700 million or about 10 per- cent. How are you; Mr. Good ling? In its nearly 30-year history, ESEA has played a critical role in focusing our attention on the needs of at-risk children and the im- portance of learning basic skills. Surely that has contributed to the continuing rise of test scores among minority American students. But times have changed. Not only has poverty increased but de- mands on our workforce have also increased. Our students need higher skills and greater knowledge to hold down jobs and to raise families with some sense of security in this new information age that we are now entering. For ESEA to be effective we must go in a new direction. Every evaluation of ESEA tells us that its resources are spread too thin. They do not reach some of the children who are most in need, and its separate and fragmented programming has led to the lowering of expectations for participating children. I sometimes feel like the proverbial undertaker trotting out re- port after report that tells us that we don't achieve at the level that released we should. The National Reading Report Card, which we last week, involved the testing of some 140,000 students as a case in point. This report tells us that the majority of our children are able to read at a basic level, but almost two-thirds are not reading this new as well as they should be able to in order to function in economy. And that is the key to this new test and new kind of look at what is necessary to function in today's economy. It tells us the unhappy and troubling news that 25 percent of all seniors are reading at below a basic level of literacy when they are about to graduate from high school. How do we help these children get ready for life if we continue to give them a watered-down curriculum? These children are not dumb. And they realize all too often that they are being sorted out and left out and put on the economic margin for the rest of their lives, not because they are simply poor but because we have low- ered our expectations and come to accept the minimum as all that they can achieve. There is also some encouraging news. The Reading Report Card tells us, that children learn to read at higher levels if we place a mphasis on literature-based reading and integrating read- emphasis ing and writing. If we get beyond the ditto sheets and get into the excitement of real literature, our children read at a higher level. It is a simple idea but sometimes difficult to implement. 5 of taking The same is true in report after report on the impact tougher courses, like tougher math courses. All of this is to say one thing: We have gone about as far as we distinct supplemental can in operating Chapter 1 as a separate, students. The Chapter program to raise the basic skills of at-risk be effec- 1 programand for that matter every ESEA programto driving tive in today's world must integrate with and become a force for the ongoing national school reform effort. Tuesday night at our monthly National Town Meeting, a Chapter how much 1 teacher told us that we would be absolutely amazed at and use Chapter 1 students can learn if we expect more of them strategies focused on high stand- a variety of teaching and learning ards. the em- Our proposal reoriented the ESEA in that way. It shifts phasis from serving narrow categories of problems to improving schoolday. The best Chapter every facet of a child's life during a difference if the 1 program in the world will not make much of a less child spends the rest of the schoolday doing classwork that is than adequate and the expectations are not there. the Our aim is to help the whole family, the whole school and whole school system. This shift in emphasis underscores and is a natural follow-up to has the Goals 2000 Education America Act that this committee which supported and also the School to Work Opportunity Act, dovetails with Goals 2000. This measure, the Improving America's School Act, provides a its role critical opportunity for the Federal Government to reinforce systemic reform. as a partner in comprehensive and President Five principles are at the center of our proposal. The today. last night had six principles, and I am sorry, I only have five much Our first principle, high standards, is based on fairness as by States must replace mini- as it is on need. High standards set children, regardless of economic or mum standards for childrenall social background. well along As you can see by Chart 3, the majority of States are important, for in the process of school reform. And I think this is in left field doing something that us to note. We are not out here education world, is not part of where the general thinking is in the moving especially in the States and the school districts. But we are forward this great process, we think, in a very important way. level, the red If you will notice, the green is the implementation planning and the blue where there is no activity. So you can see State, that there is a very fragmented difference from State to that become' which is natural under our system. All of this helps powerful direction. more uniform in moving in a very and tests Under our proposal textbooks, teaching practices, and per- should all be geared to a set of challenging State content Chapter formance standards. We believe, for example, that aligning toward breaking 1 with new State assessments will go a long way testing that has down the reliance on low-level, multiple-choice driven a very narrow curriculum. learning, espe- Our second principle, emphasizing teaching and development, recog- cially through the emphasis on professional without also nizes that we cannot raise standards for students 9 6 helping teachers acquire new knowledge and skills that will help them teach to those standards. Meeting our third and fourth na- tional education goals depends upon the ability of our teachers to teach to high standards to diverse students. Our proposal would establish an expanded and strengthened Ei- senhower Professional Development Program to support and en- courage efforts at all levels to help teachers upgrade their knowl- edge and their skills. We would safeguard basic funding levels for professional development in math and science and move at the same time to improve professional development in all other core courses. Our third principle, targeting of resources, we need to think how we reallocate our funding. We know that if ESEA funding contin- ues to be spread too thinly, high-poverty schools will not be able to close the achievement gap. The current Chapter 1 formula dis- tributes funds to virtually all counties in the Nation, 93 percent of all school districts, and two-thirds of the Nation's schools, yet leaves many of the country's poorest children in the poorest schools unserved. It is clear that we should better target our limited re- sources to the most needy schools and children. Thirteen percent of high-poverty schools, for example, do not re- ceive any Chapter 1 funding, and a third of the low-achieving chil- dren in high-poverty schools do not receive Chapter 1 services. At the same time, almost half of the schools with small percentages of poor students, the least needy schools in America, receive Chap- ter 1 funds. I know that in proposing a new Title I formula to concentrate re- sources in our poorest areas I am asking many of you to make hard decisions about how to maximize the impact of a limited amount of funds. But when you are in deep water, you need a long rope to get pulled out. The same is true of these children. Those in the deepest water need the longest rope. I am here, therefore, proposing a revision of our Title I funding formula. And under the new formula, 50 percent of all Title I fund- ing would be funneled to those school districts with the most con- centrated and highest levels of poverty. In addition, half of the funds distributed to counties under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act would be distributed according to States' shares of Title I funds. Our fourth new direction, flexibility, seeks to give frontline teach- ers and principals greater flexibility in Federal regulations in re- turn for increased accountability for improved learning and skills. I believe we must make good on our promise to reinvent govern- ment and to forge a new partnership with State and local officials. We will encourage more teachers and parents to take part in re- forming many of our Nation's poorest schools by increasing the number of those schools eligible for schoolwide programs. We lower the 75 percent poverty level in 1995-1996 to 50 percent to be eligi- ble for schoolwide programs. Lowering the current threshold will allow 12,000 more of our poorest schools to combine Federal program funds and find new, creative ways to serve all children in the school, such as extending the schoolday or strengthening all core subjects. By holding schools accountable for results and rewarding those that improve, we hope to