OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GOODLING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD RILEY, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; WASHINGTON, D.C. *

STATEMENT OF MIKE SMITH, ACTING DEPUTY AND UNDER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION *

APPENDIX A- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GOODLING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *

APPENDIX B- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SECRETARY RILEY *

APPENDIX C- WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUMBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN GOODLING *

APPENDIX D- JANUARY 17, 1999 ARTICLE APPEARING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN GOODLING *

APPENDIX E- AUGUST 28, 1998 ARTICLE APPEARING IN USA TODAY SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHIARMAN GOODLING *

APPENDIX F- THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. PAUL, MEMBER FROM TEXAS *

APPENDIX G- THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. SALMON, MEMBER FROM ARIZONA *

APPENDIX H- THE STATEMENT OF MR. KUCINICH, MEMBER

FROM OHIO *

APPENDIX I- THE STATEMENT OF MR. HINOJOSA, MEMBER

FROM TEXAS *

 

 

APPENDIX J- THE PREPARED WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF MS. SANCHEZ, MEMBER FROM CALIFORNIA *

APPENDIX K- FEBRUARY 11, 1999 ARTICLE APPEARING IN LOS ANGELES TIMES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. WOOLSEY *

APPENDIX L- FEBRUARY 7, 1999 ARTICLE APPEARING IN THE WASHINGTON POST SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. MINK *

APPENDIX M- THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GUARANTEE IN EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. KIND *

Table of Indexes……………………………………………………………………...165

The committee met, pursuant to call of chair, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Honorable William Goodling presiding.

Present: Representatives Barrett, Boehner, Hoekstra, McKeon, Castle, Johnson, Greenwood, Norwood, Schaffer, Deal, Hilleary, Ehlers, Salmon, Tancredo, Fletcher, DeMint, Clay, Miller, Kildee, Martinez, Mink, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, Romero-Barcelo, Fattah, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Sanchez, Ford, Kucinich, WU, and Holt.

Staff Present: Klatt, Lovejoy, Lyden, McCarthy, Reynard, Samantar, Stroup, Talbert, Talley, Wolfe, Weiss, Zuckerman, Hendricks, Grigsby, Johnson, Nock, Folescu, and Ardouny.

Chairman Goodling. The committee will come to order.

Today we are beginning our third hearing on the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have had some governors. We have had some state superintendents.

Today we will hear from Secretary Riley. Secretary Riley was born in Greenville, South Carolina. He graduated cum laude from Furman University in 1954. In 1959, Secretary Riley received a law degree from the University of South Carolina.

He was a State Representative and a State Senator from 1963 to 1977. He was elected Governor in 1978 and re-elected in 1982. In December 1992, he was selected by President Clinton to be Secretary of Education.

He is married to the former Ann Osteen Yarborough. They have four children. He is available in the Year 2000, I would tell all of you on this side of the aisle.

Secretary Riley, first, we have a couple of opening statements. I am sorry. One of the Committee's major responsibilities this year is to review the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In light of that, it is important that we hear from you to better understand what the Administration's proposals and priorities are for this year. For many years I have tried to focus our attention on the quality of elementary and secondary education programs. Are taxpayers receiving their money's worth? More importantly, are the most disadvantaged educationally children getting a bang for the buck?

More often than not, the Federal Government's focus over the past 30 years has been on quantity, not quality. We have added one layer of programs on top of others.

But what have the hundreds of education programs our Oversight Subcommittee has found spread across 39 agencies gotten us? How are our children better off?

The President has even admitted as much. He said we must change the way we invest the $15 billion that goes into public education and start supporting what works and stop supporting what does not work.

I think that is something we all would agree on. We are also finding out that we have not been getting significant results.

This week we heard the results of the latest reading report card-the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It showed that no significant improvement in the percent of 4th graders scoring below "basic" in reading-38 percent cannot read.

The most recent National Education Goals Report shows that our high school graduation rate has been stagnant over time, steady at about 86 percent, and that we have lost ground in 12th grade reading achievement.

What all of us in this room can agree on is that we want all children to have a quality education. But more programs, more money, more paperwork, more requirements does not seem to be the way to get there.

A school district can fill out federal forms perfectly, but fail to adequately teach their children to read. We want schools and teachers to be able to focus on helping children perform not on complying with federal requirements, and mandates, and jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

And I think states want the freedom to have the flexibility to achieve these results now. Why should they have to wait for the completion of ESEA legislation, which will likely not be in effect until 2001?

And last time I checked Ed-Flex is not even currently a part of ESEA. If states are willing to show results, why not pass that Ed-Flex legislation? So, Mr. Secretary, I hope that today you will join with us and not put process before performance.

In addition to quality and flexibility, we will focus on the following:

(1) make sure dollars get to the classroom;

(2) increasing flexibility in federal programs;

(3) improving the quality of teaching;

(4) encouraging parents to save for the education of their children;

(5) increasing funding for the unfunded mandate of special education;

(6) supporting drug free schools; and

(7) encouraging increased parental involvement in the education of children.

Mr. Secretary, I again thank you for coming this morning and look forward to hearing your testimony. However, I want to say up front, which I know you do not have with you, I hope that you brought the final IDEA regulations.

As you know, we passed this legislation two years ago. If you do not have them with you today, we hope you will soon be able to wrestle them free from OMB. Maybe we should stage a ``Free IDEA'' rally down in front of the Old Executive Office Building.

I would have Mr. Kildee lead that because he is pretty good out front in rallies downtown. We could get him to rally for that. Mr. Clay.

Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Committee. I want to commend you for your long-standing dedication to improving education in this Nation. Your relentless advocacy for more prudent investments in education is already expanding opportunities in many communities.

Mr. Secretary, in large part your leadership last year on the Higher Education Act will help to improve the quality of public school teachers and save students billions of dollars through lower interest rates.

The new Act also gives disadvantaged youth more educational opportunities through the Clinton-Fattah- Gutierrez Program and strengthens assistance to historically Black colleges and Hispanic serving institutions.

Hopefully, this Congress will continue to champion greater investment in public education. Dilapidated, over- crowded schoolhouses and shortages of quality teachers threaten the academic achievement of too many of our children.

It is imperative that we continue to improve educational opportunities for students of all ages. President Clinton, in his State of the Union message, urged the Congress to pass his School Modernization Plan to build and refurbish schools in needy communities. We should enact legislation to achieve this goal.

I was pleased that Democrats succeeded in including class size reduction in last year's OMNIBUS appropriations bill. I hope the majority on this Committee will support the continuation of the Clinton-Clay Class Size Reduction Initiative and incorporate the measure in the ESEA reauthorization.

Additionally, I support President Clinton's plan to increase scholarships for new teachers who teach in high poverty areas. His proposal to provide special scholarships for retired military personnel, who go into teaching, should be given a thorough examination.

Mr. Chairman, I once again request that you work with Democrats on a bipartisan education agenda as we reauthorize ESEA. Scheduling a mark-up on a portion of the elementary and secondary reauthorization, such as Ed-Flex, without working with the appropriate Ranking and Subcommittee members is inconsistent with a fair bipartisan process.

Given the effect on Ed-Flex waivers of Title I and other parts of ESEA, it may be appropriate to handle it as a part of the overall elementary and secondary reauthorization.

As we proceed with ESEA, I urge you to follow the process that we used to pass the Higher Education Act and IDEA, which was accomplished through negotiations aimed at producing a bipartisan agenda without either side dictating to the other.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Secretary, we are ready for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD RILEY, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; WASHINGTON, D.C.

Secretary Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

I have with me Mike Smith, the Acting Deputy and Under Secretary; and Judith Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. I am submitting my complete testimony for the record.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, this Administration is working on a detailed reauthorization proposal that we plan to submit for your consideration next month.

The Department will also soon submit to Congress several reports evaluating the implementation and impact of Title I, Other Elementary and Secondary Education Act Programs, and Goals 2000.

Five years ago in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Act, and for those in the audience who are not familiar with it, I will refer to it as ESEA, and creating programs like Goals 2000, together we made a sharp break from the past and set out to transform federal policy in education.

We started to end the sorry business of dumbing down American education of giving our poorest students a watered down curriculum.

We placed a strong new emphasis on high expectations for all children while we worked with states to help them set new challenging standards and assessment linked to their state standards.

We worked hard to cut regulation, increase flexibility, and build partnerships at the state and local level. We eliminated, for example, a full 2/3 of the regulations previously covering ESEA. Two-thirds were eliminated.

We gave states the option of submitting a single consolidated state application, slashing paperwork requirements by 85 percent. The Department has vigorously implemented the waiver provision included in the 1994 reauthorization.

I believe that we have made a difference. Forty-eight states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have now set new challenging standards. The other two states have pushed the standards at the local level.

New and growing partnerships have been developed at the state and local level. In school district after school district that I have visited, I detect a new determination to set high expectations for all of our young people regardless of their circumstances.

As a result, we are beginning to see signs of progress, as I note in my extended testimony somewhat in detail. Yesterday the NCES, the National Center for Education Statistics, the statistic gathering group, announced new national scores on reading that I find very, very encouraging.

As you see on chart 3 of my testimony, average reading scores from 1994 through 1998 have increased for students in grades 4, 8, and 12. These are reading scores. I believe that this is the first time we have seen such progress on an across-the-board basis.

We still, however, have a very long way to go before we can be satisfied when it comes to reading. The NCES report also tells us that children in poverty who receive free and reduced price lunch are almost twice as likely as other children to be reading below the basic level.

This is why improving literacy has been and remains such a high priority for this Administration. Over the past few years, a strong bipartisan consensus has emerged around this goal.

I know and I share the Chairman's concern that helping all of our children master the basics really has to be the cornerstone of American education. I think we have all worked together to that goal.

Now, we are at a new stage in our effort to raise achievement. We want to shift our focus from the state house to the schoolhouse and to make high standards part of every teacher's daily lesson plan. John Stanford, the recently deceased Seattle School Superintendent, had a motto. The victory, he said, is in the classroom. I believe John Stanford has it right. We need to make that happen.

This is a core idea that shapes our thinking about ESEA proposals. We want to close the persistent gap in achievement based on income, on race, and on ethnic group. We want all of our students, including our many LEP students and children with disabilities to be achieving up and not dumbing down.

I hope that our discussions about high standards, about flexibility, and about accountability will be informed, engaging, and reflect the reality of American education as it is today.

We really do need to get away from the either/or thinking that has dominated the recent public debate about federal policy in education. The American people see education as a national priority.

I think that they have made it very clear that they want a vibrant U.S. Department of Education to exist. They expect us to work with the state and local educators to find practical, concrete solutions to the pressing problems that we face together; solutions such as helping master the basics, getting quality teachers, making schools safe and drug free, and encouraging greater parent involvement.

It is not about either/or, but it is about what we can all do together. The truth of the matter is, for example, over 95 percent of all of the dollars appropriated by Congress for ESEA Programs, all of the programs, over 95 percent of those dollars go to the school districts.

Almost all of the rest go to the states. The ESEA proposals that we will submit to you are a part of a broad three-part strategy:

(1) targeting investments to disadvantaged children with particular attention to the early years of schooling;

(2) improving teacher quality to drive high standards into the classroom; and

(3) real accountability.

All of these pieces need to fit together if we want to raise achievement levels, which is our goal. Working with the Congress; we have made a good start on the first and the second part of this broad strategy.

The Reading Excellence Act, our Class Size Reduction Initiative, expanding after school opportunities, Gear-Up, and the new Teacher Quality Initiative in the Higher Education Act, just to name a few.

These give us a strong foundation to help local and state educators and leaders raise standards. Now, there has been substantial discussion about the President's strong emphasis on accountability.

So, let me speak to that issue for a moment. We are not talking about more federal regulations. We want better results. We want to build on the successful work that is now being done at the state and the local level.

The accountability measures that we are proposing giving states the support they need to turn around low performing schools through a new $200 million set-aside in Title I; issuing report cards that give parents information about whether the achievement of their child's school is going up or going down.

Also, ending social promotion and getting more certified teachers into the classroom, and supporting effective discipline policies so, all of these proposals are practical.

They are common sense ideas that can lead to improved achievement. Many states and many school districts are starting to adopt these promising practices and we aim to encourage and to help them.

That is a very good national role, bringing to scale the promising practices at the state and local level that are making a real difference in raising achievement. Let me repeat that. I think that is extremely important.

I think it is a very good national role to bring to scale the promising practices at the state and local level that are making a real difference in raising achievement; states like North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, and Maryland, to name a few. I was just in Delaware the other day. They have put in place many of the accountability measures that we are proposing.

We need to pick-up the pace and do all we can to raise achievement levels for students in all of our high poverty schools. We are developing a range of options, some flexible, some more targeted, to make things happen.

We intend to work closely with state and local educators and leaders to get results because we really do believe in partnerships. We will help. We will prod. We will nudge. You name it encourage and demand action.

If these efforts do not work, we will take a good look at restricting and/or withholding the use of ESEA funds contingent on performance and putting measures of accountability in place.

We do not intend to be passive in the face of failure, when hundreds of thousands of young people attend low performing schools. We have a duty, we think, to get the most out of taxpayer dollars and to get the most out of our schools.

I know the members of this Committee share my deep concern about teacher quality. Improving teacher quality really goes to the heart of the matter, if we want to turn around low performing schools.

We are not going to raise standards if we stay with the status quo. Too many teachers are teaching out of field. States are granting too many emergency certificates. In some cases, teacher aids with no more than a high school diploma are acting as full-time teachers.

We propose to curtail this practice and help states build career ladders so that quality teacher aids really do have the opportunity to become certified teachers. We will propose a new initiative called Quality Teachers and High Standards in Every Classroom.

The purpose is to focus on improving teacher quality. This proposal builds on the strongest parts of Goals 2000, Title II, and Title VI Programs. It will succeed all three of these programs.

Goals 2000 has been a very effective program, despite a great deal of what I think is unfounded criticism that the Federal Government was over-stepping the line.

I am most pleased to see that in a recent GAO Report that was requested by this Committee, that the state officials, not federal, but state officials, considered Goals 2000 a significant factor in promoting education reform efforts and a catalyst for change.

Under new proposals, we will take the best aspects of Goals 2000, the Eisenhower Professional Development Effort, and Title VI to create a strong new approach to:

(1) continue the development of standards and assessment;

(2) to help districts align instruction with these standards and assessment; and

(3) to improve professional development for teachers with particular priority for match and science instruction.

We will also make a strong push in Title I to increase teacher quality by phasing in set-aside for professional development aligned to standards.

Now, a brief comment on Title I. We are proposing that we keep the current Title I formula adopted by the Congress in 1994. Turning to school-wide projects, we propose that the threshold continue to be poverty levels of 50 percent or higher.

We believe that the school-wide approach, when implemented, is one of the most effective strategies for raising achievement.

With regard to family literacy, an issue where you, Mr. Chairman, have been a leader, the Department is considering changes in Title I to further clarify the opportunities that exist, to use Title I funds for Family Literacy Services.

We also continue to support Even Start and the Reading Excellence Act. Also, I am pleased to announce that the Title I Formula Distribution will be made directly to school districts for this year, 1999.

Let me close by stating that the framework for all of our thinking is the clear recognition that the days of dumbing down American education are over. We will surely debate the merits of the policy ideas that we are putting forward in the months ahead. That is healthy.

I hope, however, that we will find common ground around the moral and social obligation that we have to give all of our young people, including the 20 percent now living in poverty, an education of excellence.

A very strong American consensus has developed about what needs to be done to improve our schools. All of the elements are starting to be put in place:

expanding childhood efforts;

improving reading, very significant;

setting high expectations;

reaching for high standards in every classroom;

extending after school opportunities;

holding schools more accountable for results;

getting more young people ready for college; and

encouraging parent involvement all across the Country.

 

 

 

 

 

We are moving in the right direction. We need to stay the course and always remember that as John Stanford said, the victory is indeed in the classroom. The Administration is prepared to work closely with Congress in the months ahead in reauthorizing the ESEA. I hope that in the process, a new bipartisan spirit can evolve around issues of education.

The last few years have been somewhat contentious here in Washington. I believe we can give a better account of ourselves to the American people.

I will be happy to respond to questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have 100, but I will submit them to you in writing so that everybody else has an opportunity to do their thing.

Chairman Goodling. As I indicated in my opening statement, what we want to make sure is that the most disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged, children in the Country have an opportunity, better than apparently they have had in the past.

I would read just very quickly from an article in the Los Angeles Times. It says, ``The Federal Government's largest education grant program, despite spending $118 billion over the last 3 decades, has been unable to meet its goals of narrowing the achievement gap between rich and poor students.

Title I, which started with idealistic fervor in the 1960s War on Poverty, provides $7.4 billion each year to help one of every five pupils in the Nation's public schools.

A recent evaluation by the U.S. Department of Education found that the extra computers, tutoring, and more than 132,000 classroom positions paid for by the massive investment have been insufficient to close the gap in reading and math performance between poor students and the most affluent.

The program has been a failure up until now, says, Maris A. Vinovskis, a University of Michigan education expert who has reviewed independent studies assessing the effectiveness of Title I. The real losers in this are not just the taxpayer, but the kids. We have not been able to deliver.

Chairman Goodling. One-reason experts agree is that Title I funds are spread too thin among the Nation's poor students to do much good.

Of the billions of dollars allocated each year, most are spent on tutoring and other remedial efforts that have produced marginal improvements in test scores. Much of the blame for the Program's shortcomings has been directed at the more than 50,000 school aids and teacher assistants hired with Title I funds.

A nationwide movement to replace these para- professionals with certified teachers has sparked controversy and lead to considerable anxiety. Under increasing pressure to show results, the program now finds itself on a collision course with its past.

The aids are caught in the middle, experts say. ``It is a classic situation where yesterday's reform becomes today's obstacle,'' said Jeremy Murphy, Dean of Harvard University's Graduate School of Education, who helped write Title I legislation 34 years ago.

That is a review of the study that your Department did. Now, let me make just a couple of other observations. As you know, we are working hard to try to get to the 40 percent of excess cost funding for special education because we believe that will help local districts rather dramatically. I noticed the President proposed a new program, the Primary Education Initiative funded at $50 million. What I can read into that program appears that we will have some model programs to demonstrate what we already know.

I am wondering whether it would not be better to put that $50 million into improving the teaching of reading and helping the teachers because that would be the only thing that would make the difference, in my estimation.

Another program, we already allow for funds to be spent for technology, professional development in 8 programs in the Department of Education.

I do not understand why we need one specifically designed for middle school, unless they are somehow or other being left out of the nearly $700 million that we are spending in the Technology Education Program.

Then there is a program for preparing for colleges which, in my estimation, totally duplicates Gear-Up and TRIO. Then there is a College Completion Challenge Grant, which, again, completely duplicates TRIO.

I think you must have stayed up later than I did. I stayed up until two o'clock, I think, trying to figure out where all of these improvements were and these NAEP results. You must have stayed up all night because you found some that I never found.

What I found is that NAEP shows that about 38 percent of 8th graders scored below basic on most recent 8th grade math tests. That is about where we have been regularly. You also pointed out in your chart significant increases in NAEP math scores from 90 to 96.

What you did not do is compare them with the 1970s and the 1980s. I think if you compare them with the 1970s and the 1980s you will see that it is pretty flat and not much change.

You painted a more rosy picture than I found from all of those results. As I have said, I will be giving you 100 questions that I hope that you will have a much better chance of getting them to me than we are in getting the regulations for our program that we passed in 1997 that we are still waiting for.

One other, the USA Today recently ran an editorial supporting the need to put teacher quality over class size, citing the research of William Sanders in which he estimates, the impact of teacher quality overwhelms class size by a factor as large as 20.

Your response there is you said, "It is not rocket science to figure out that teachers would prefer smaller class sizes. Research proves,'' I am quoting this, that "Increased student achievements create more orderly classrooms and give teachers more time to teach.'' This is what you said. As I have said, what they are saying is the quality, of course, is number one.

My last comment is there is no authorization for pilot or field-testing and a national test. That is not a question. That is a statement. I yield to Mr. Clay.

Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could I respond to the litany of points that you made? First of all, the L.A. Times article does accentuate the negative, you are correct.

The article describes the Program's performance prior to its reauthorization in 1994. The performance described in the article, and I was also concerned when I read the article, was really on old Chapter I.

As you know, we dramatically changed the Title I program in 1994. Many of the complaints that were in that article were the very things we dealt with and that we will deal with, I am sure, as we reauthorize it again.

The issue of teacher aids, has gotten almost out-of-hand. We really are trying to turn that around and will support changes to do that.

I think the article, is based on Chapter I prior to 1994.

The class size item I think is one that needs a lot of time for discussion. I would point out that a very, very powerful study, the Star Study in Tennessee, very clearly shows that class size in those earlier grades, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, anywhere from 15 to 18 students per class, makes a big difference. This study showed, in comparison with other students, that in over a period of years, the benefits achieved by those students were there in the 8th grade.

Chairman Goodling. I just wanted to point out that it all depends on who is in that classroom as the teacher.

Mr. Clay. Absolutely.

Chairman Goodling. I had teachers. It would not have mattered if they had two.

Mr. Clay. Absolutely.

Chairman Goodling. It would not have improved.

Mr. Clay. I agree with that 100 percent. That is certainly in tune with what our proposals are. I think it is both. Any good teacher will tell you, that being able to give individual attention to young children, especially when they are learning how to read is important.

That addresses the special education question as well. If you have quality teachers and you have small classes, I believe the number of special education students will be significantly reduced.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, in addition to Title I, we obviously have other important focuses in ESEA; teacher training, safe and drug free schools, and technology. What can we do in this reauthorization to improve the nexus between those programs and their results in the classroom?

Secretary Riley. Well, Congressman, the strongest need we think to connect up all of those factors is professional development; good professional development.

There is also a chart that is attached to my statement, chart 5, that talks about a survey that was taken of teachers across the country; a scientific survey. That survey showed that teachers are crying out for professional development.

They list the four areas that are new that are changing rapidly. Such as: LEP students and student diversity; helping students with disabilities; integrating technology, as you mentioned; implementing curriculum and performance standards, teaching to high standards.

Those are four changing things in the classroom. Teachers say that their current professional development simply does not help them with those changes like it should. In the old idea of having the one-day professional development, so-called day that is supposed to improve teaching really is out-of-date.

Teachers are really crying out for that. Our whole program then is looking at changing that and in directing more and more attention from Title I, certainly from the proposed new roll-up of goals in Eisenhower and in Title VI. I heard a business man the other day who said that a good business, a good business, in today's information era spends 10 percent or at least 8 percent of their money on professional development of those people running that business.

Education is a service industry. If it is anything, we ought to spend more. We spend, according to this person, .2 to .3 percent for professional development. It is dramatically under-stated. We think is the key, one of the real keys, to bringing a lot of these things together.

Mr. Miller. Thank you.

In your testimony you mentioned yesterday's release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Results. Comment was made that there has not been much improvement or any improvement over 1970 and 1980.

These tests were not in existence in 1970 and in 1980. So, how can you compare results from 1970 and 1980 with the tests that are given in the 1990s?

Secretary Riley. Well, you really cannot because, of course, things are changing. Knowledge is growing exponentially. I think if you will look at chart 3 that discusses these reading scores. I wish everybody would take a look at that.

I think it is very revealing. We just got this information. It was reported on yesterday. This is using the same baseline. 1992 to 1994 it was down. It was a trend going down in reading in all three grades.

That is enough to concern us all. Then from 1994 to 1998 when we really had, I think, the strong attention to standards, and parent involvement, and getting things going in the classroom you are beginning to see a change in the trend.

If you change a trend, as you know, following these baselines is very difficult. The tendency is to keep going in the direction it is going. This trend changed. As you see in all three grades, they went up, plus 4, plus 4, and plus-3 in grades 12, 8, and 4.

I would point out, Congressman that what the statisticians tell us that a grade level is like 10 points on this scale. So, you are talking about in those four years in reading for grades 12 and 8 went up 4 points. That is almost a half of a grade level up.

Then in grade 4, 3 points which is 1/3 of a grade level, which I think is very, very dramatic.

Mr. Miller. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Hoekstra.

Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you and have you here today. Parts of your testimony are very refreshing and I think reflect the views of a number of my colleagues; focusing on children, focusing on the classroom, reducing paperwork by 85 percent, increasing flexibility for states and local school districts to do what they need or they feel they need to do with their children, moving dollars to the classroom, build on the success at the state and local level.

It is kind of like hallelujah. We are glad that the Department of Education has that message and is implementing that message. I am concerned when you moved to the area of discussing taking the success and I think the term you used is bringing it to scale.

In talking about starting a partnership with local school districts and with states. Then talking about, well, maybe it is not a partnership. Maybe it is a little bit of nudging.

Then it moves to, I believe the terms, if I got them to are we will demand and we may withhold. I do not know if you used the word ``punished.'' Where are we? Are we for local control? Are we for local flexibility or is this Administration moving towards a demand in control system?

Secretary Riley. Well, let me respond to several of those points, Congressman.

Mr. Hoekstra. It really is only one point. Are we moving toward demand or local control?

Secretary Riley. Well, we are moving towards local control, but no one in this Country, I do not care what their ideology is, supports a non-performing school. I do not think anyone in this Country supports children moving through school without accomplishing any learning level.

So, I think you look at local control, but you look at common sense. When you mentioned dollars to the classroom, I do differ with you somewhat on that.

I did not say that I supported that because I think if you talk about dollars directly to the classroom, you are bypassing the locally elected school board at the district level.

So, really what we talk about is dollars to the school district. I think the school boards should control what happens on down into the classroom.

Mr. Hoekstra. That is okay. I mean I think getting dollars to the local level is a significant improvement in the position of the Education Department. I applaud that direction.

Secretary Riley. You understand I am not talking about directly to the classroom?

Mr. Hoekstra. No. I understand. I understand exactly. I am just glad you have moved this far.

Mr. Ford. Mr. Hoekstra, I just missed that. Could he just say the dollars to the classroom and the dollars to the school district? Could you just say that one more time, Mr. Secretary, because I did not quite get it?

Secretary Riley. Well, the statement was made that I supported dollars to the classrooms.

Mr. Hoekstra. Mr. Chairman, is this my time?

Mr. Ford. I just did not hear that.

Chairman Goodling. Yes.

Secretary Riley. Should I respond? The statement was made that he agreed with me on dollars to the classroom. I wanted to clarify that I do not think that we, in the federal level, ought to be supporting policies sending dollars directly to the classroom because that bypasses the locally elected school board that is supposed to control local spending.

Mr. Hoekstra. Okay. I have another question for you, since we have not answered the first one as to whether we are moving to a demands-maybe I will get a better answer to a second question, since I am almost running out of time.

In 1997, the House passed the IDEA reauthorization, 420:3. The Senate passed it 98:1. When would it be appropriate for the Chairman of this Committee and for Congress to demand that the Education Department finally release the regulations implementing this?

My local school districts have been complaining about this for years. Congress has passed reforms. Is this the same kind of energy, excitement, and enthusiasm that the Education Department will put behind social promotion in report cards that will take at least a 1.5 years before we get any regulations?

Which means that you will never have the opportunity to write those regulations. They will be written by the next administration.

Secretary Riley. I agree with you that it has been some time. I would point this out. We really tried to go out in this Country and get comments from all parts of the Country. I would say that we have had over 6,000 comments on the law.

The law is very prescriptive in that area and it has to be in substance with dealing with disabled children. So, we have tried to conscientiously deal with 6,000 comments. It has taken longer than I would have liked.

I would say this. We have sent out information, as the Chairman has pointed out, over to OMB. From our information with OMB, I think I can tell you that the deadline will be March 5th.

We will have these out between now and March 5th. So, I think that is the best that I could get from them. It has gone from us to OMB; the written part and the policy.

Mr. Hoekstra. That is my concern as we get into report card, social promotion. I would expect that you would need the same kind of process, which means it will take us a 1.5 years to 2 years to write rules and regulations for education initiatives when we move those decisions to the federal level.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Before I turn to Mr. Kildee, I want to bail the Secretary and Mr. Clay out. The first reading tests were given, NAEP, in 1970 to 1971, and then the math in 1972 and 1973.

Then reading again in 1974 and 1975; math again in 1975 and 1976; reading again in 1976 and 1977; math again in 1977 to 1978. I just want to make sure we understand that NAEP has been around a long time.

Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, that is true. This is a new test. It started in the 1990 to 1992 range.

Chairman Goodling. I see. Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary, welcome and thank you for your testimony. I think you have quite properly laid out a scenario where we have the opportunity to build on the results that we are receiving from a number of the states on their Goals 2000 programs.

States like Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and others that you have referred to in your testimony that can in fact be, as they found Goals 2000, a catalyst for change.

I would like to go back to the issue of accountability since the President highlighted it in his State of the Union. It is in the eye of the beholder here. My concern is that we make sure that we in fact have accountability for the federal taxpayer, if you will, for the investment that we are about to make.

This was pointed out in the L.A. Times article. We have invested $118 billion. We had very mixed results at that time.

We have improved some of those results since then, but they are not exactly results that we would stand at the top of the mountain and shout about. But we are seriously encouraged by some of the turnarounds we see.

I raise the other day in a committee hearing here on the issue of Ed-Flex where you, in your full testimony, talked about the demonstration program with strong accountability mechanisms, the authority to approve waivers for certain federal statutory and regulatory requirements in the way of effective reform at the local level.

My concern is about that flexibility joined with accountability. I refer to the most recent GAO report, which says that in fact many Ed-Flex states have not established any goals or defined only vague objectives.

I would prefer that we deal with Ed-Flex as you have stated in your testimony in the context of the reauthorization of overall ESEA. I am also deeply concerned about what it is we should be expecting from the states as they sign up for another $40 billion to $50 billion or more than that I guess; $40 billion in Title I funds.

What is it we can expect from them? In the Ed-Flex proposals from the Governor of Texas, he told us that 90 percent of his students would be passing the State standards. They would be meeting the State standards.

He also said that not only 90 percent of the students, but it would be 90 percent of African American students, of Hispanic students, of poor students, and so forth. Other states have said nothing about that.

I would like to see whether or not we could build on what we have seen the states accomplish in Goals 2000 and get the states to agree that over a 5 year period, we would have some measurable results by which we could judge whether or not this is an investment we want to continue to make.

I would just like to hear your sense of what accountability means. I understand that we want the local districts to end social promotion. Many of them already have. L.A. has engaged in a huge project to end social promotion this year. Chicago has done that.

Certification of teachers is still important. We have demanded, and I think many of the local districts now are talking about making available to parents the qualifications of their children's teachers. I am more concerned about what it is we are going to get for the increased inflexibility and the additional investment of some $40 billion in Title I over the next 4 or 5 years.

Secretary Riley. Well, first of all, I agree with you that Ed-Flex is a matter of dealing with flexibility. We have got a lot of flexibility and accountability issues in the reauthorization proposal. I think it makes good sense to consider them all at the same time.

However, that is a process question that you all have to work out. The fact is Ed-Flex, which I think is a good idea, and I was involved in working it out in the beginning. Some of you that worked on it, we had 6 states and then we expanded it to 12.

It is a demonstration project to see how it worked in those 12 states. Then whether it should be expanded. We then recommended that it be expanded, but with the caution as the GAO study pointed out, Texas, in their law, said if you have waivers given by the State, then you have to look at the achievement.

You have to monitor the achievement effect of that waiver. If it is negative, of course, you need to reconsider the waiver or whatever. That has worked well.

We think that kind of language we would hope would be in the Ed-Flex proposal, whether it is considered with the whole ESEA or separately. If it is, I think then under the language, I know that there is a bill here around and there is one in the Senate. The language in there is generally good, in my judgment, except I do think the GAO report points out that this language dealing with monitoring achievement, as you are inquiring about, would make it certainly more effective and better.

Mr. Miller. This is my follow-up. Do you think that the states ought to telephone us what achievements they expect to achieve at the end of a 5-year authorization period?

Secretary Riley. Well, I think the states, of course, set their own standards. That is Goals 2000. That is where we are. So, really I think when they set their standards, that is their goals for the achievement of the students in that state. So, I really think that they do that through setting standards.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Castle.

Mr. Miller. I will have a follow-up later.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Castle.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the Secretary, thank you for coming to Delaware, I guess it was 2 weeks ago now. We appreciated your presence there. It is always tremendously helpful to education. The Governor took a very strong stand yesterday.

Apparently, it was in the paper today which the unions are opposing, et cetera, about the recertification of teachers and I think strong subjects that we need to face. I want to sort of continue the conversation of Mr. Miller because I have a lot of respect for his views on education. We may differ a little bit.

I am also, as you know, vitally concerned with Ed-Flex. Mr. Roemer and I are the co-sponsors in the House of Representatives of that legislation, and are very determined to get it done sooner rather than later.

Senators’ Frist and Wyden are the sponsors in the Senate. As you know, all 50 Governors have endorsed this legislation and doing it soon. I imagine you can count on the fingers of one hand since the time you were a governor that all of the governors have been together on an issue as unanimously.

So, that is unusual. The 12 states that have it like it. Some states have done better than others. Texas is one of them. We do not have time here to go through all of the results of that.

The head of the Texas education agency testified over in the Senate about this and showed that the scores of a variety of students, particularly African American students, lower income students, and economically disadvantaged students improved dramatically.

They give a lot of credit to Ed-Flex. You never quite know where to give credit for anything in education. In fact, your whole written presentation here is breath taking in the enormity of the issues that we have to face. Nonetheless, this is an issue that is really talking hold out there.

Here is my concern about it. We are ready to pass Ed- Flex. It is out of committee over in the Senate now. We took a pretty good run at it on the last couple of days of the legislation session last year, which you know about, of course.

We can get this done. We are pretty close to it here. I hear what you are saying. I hear what Mr. Miller is saying. I think you both have some decent points about needing to monitor the achieving effect of the waiver and accountability in general.

I do not have a problem with that. I think we can work some of that in. I know ultimately you do not have a problem with this either. You are for education flexibility. You have said it should be tied into, if possible, you have not said absolutely, it should be tied into ESEA.

In my view, you are not going to oppose it if it is not working on some other issues. I would ask you to tell us whether or not the President would sign it based on your knowledge.

I think the answer to that is probably yes, as well. First of all, it is a part of Goals 2000. It is not really a part of the ESEA per se. It is already working.

If there are changes in ESEA, then obviously anything we do in Ed-Flex would be subject to whatever those changes would be as far as the future is concerned.

The key is, if we pass this now, let us say in the next 3 months, a reasonable time frame, in the House and the Senate and we get it before the President. Then we have a wonderful signing ceremony.

We get all of these governors there. You give a speech and we are in the background cheering whatever it may be. The 50 States can do what they have done in Texas, Ohio, and Maryland, and the states, which have done it well.

Your Administration will be able to be involved in the implementation of this starting in the fall of 1999. If we wait for ESEA, and Lord only knows as the head of a subcommittee that is going to be dealing with ESEA in part, I hope it passes this year.

We also know there is a strong possibility that we will not be able to get it done this year and it will have to go into next year. If we wait for all of that, all of a sudden, your Administration will no longer be here. We will not have gotten it done.

I have taken all of my time to say this. I did not mean to do this. I am wholly and totally for doing it now. But listening to the concerns, which you have, which Mr. Miller has, or whatever, and you and I have talked about this.

This is our third or fourth conversation on it. I know that you are really not necessarily opposed to that, but you do feel it will be better to do it under ESEA and perhaps delay it.

Can we persuade you otherwise? Can you share with us your newfound belief that maybe we should go ahead now? Will the President go ahead and sign it? Can we work together to get it done sooner rather than later?

The Chairman has 100 questions. I have 300 I could ask you, I suppose, but that is the only question I am probably going to be allowed to ask you. So, tell me what you can do to help us get Ed-Flex moving, a good program for education in this Country.

Secretary Riley. Well, Congressman, as you well know I support the concept of Ed-Flex was involved in getting it started. The President supports it and said that to the governors a couple of years ago.

The pilot demonstration projects out there I continue to support them, but I do think we ought to read the GAO study carefully and then perhaps consider amending it to reflect the achievement language in the GAO report which in substance asked to adopt the Texas language.

The whole purpose of Ed-Flex, it is not a funding thing. It was to help speed up reform and achievement. So, I think this idea, and as the Congressman pointed out, Congressman Miller, that achievement is important. That should be monitored and the Texas language does that.

So, I think if it is taken up now, if that is considered then certainly I would be very much for it. As I have said, I think we have got a lot of different things dealing with accountability and flexibility. It makes a lot of sense to take them up together.

I am for Ed-Flex if it conforms basically to the study of the General Accounting Office, which is you all's investigative office. I would say this. We have the waiver authority now, under the current law, in the Department of Education.

We have tried to be very careful about that and use it with a great deal of care and discretion. Several hundreds of waivers have been approved from us. So, what we are doing is shifting from us, in the Department of Education, to the state.

A state cannot waiver itself. So, what we are talking about is local regulations that the state could waive and they would not have to come to us. If the state has the capacity to do that, we think that is the best place to do it.

It is not an end of the world situation, if you see what I mean. They can come to us for a waiver now. What is an example of some waivers? That is instructive to look at that. Like the 50 percent threshold for a whole school approach under Title I.

Then Texas has had a number of waiver requests that were less than 50 percent. Now, that makes good sense to me if it is not much less.

Our research tells us that in the range of 50 percent is a very good range. If it is 48 percent, that makes great sense for the state to be able to consider that, waive it, and have a whole school approach.

If it is 20 percent, it does not. So, somebody has to judge all of those things and decide where are the regulations holding up progress? That is what Ed-Flex is all about.

So, I support it and think it is a good idea. Then you all will have to decide how you ought to take it up and whenever.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Secretary, did I miss on your bio, you did not used to be in the Senate, did you?

Secretary Riley. No, sir. I was with the State Senate for 10 years. I do not know if that counts.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Kildee.

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary I am very pleased that you have with you today Mike Smith. Mike and I have served on various boards and commissions through the years. I am very happy that he and Judith Johnson are a part of the Department now.

Also, I am happy to see my former staffers who are now with the department: Susan Wilhelm and Tom Kelly. They helped write the last reauthorization of the ESEA, in 1994, which the Los Angeles Times tended to ignore when they wrote their article. I see they are in the audience here today and I appreciate that.

Chairman Goodling. Would the Gentleman yield?

Mr. Kildee. I yield to the Gentleman.

Chairman Goodling. I want to make sure that since you are recognizing staffers, that you do not miss the kingpin. I hope they pay her well and that is Mary Jane. So, if they are not paying her well, they should.

Mr. Kildee. I certainly would concur with you on that, Mr. Chairman, very much so. Mr. Secretary, when either through the ESEA waiver provisions, or through Ed-Flex, gain flexibility in the use of federal education funds; How do you propose to structure accountability to see that these dollars are being spent productively and utilized in a way to improve student performance?

I know, that you will be presenting a bill which one of us will introduce up here. How do you plan to structure the accountability provisions in that legislation?

Secretary Riley. Well, in terms of the language in the Ed-Flex proposal itself, as I have reflected in the previous question, the GAO study gives us some very instructive information based on Texas as to what would be helpful in that.

The language in the Ed-Flex proposal that was presented by Congressmen Castle and Roemer also has very good language in there about you cannot use Ed-Flex to divert from the intention of Congress.

I mean, it is very clear that you cannot get off into another direction. It is to do away with details of the bureaucracy that hold up reform.

Judith indicates to me that we are working on how then to handle the policy of handling it in our office. I think the Ed-Flex provision itself gives protection to see that the intention of Congress cannot be turned on its head by this authority. The language is in there that says that.

Mr. Kildee. Through the years, federal programs have been created to serve special populations and those with special needs. How should the Federal Government assure that those special populations are still being served?

Secretary Riley. Well, that is similar to the question that Mr. Clay and Mr. Miller raised. It is a very legitimate question. I think the language, and I would refer you to the language, in the Ed-Flex proposal which says if the intention of the law, of course, is to serve disadvantaged kids, under served kids then that attention cannot be thwarted.

If you have some little technicality and you have a reform measure taking place in the community that says you have got to do something in a year, and the whole reform measure would have it done in a year and 3 months, then that is a very legitimate thing to get a waiver on and not disrupt the whole reform effort in the school district.

It is that kind of thing really that Ed-Flex can be a very big help with. If it turns around and says instead of serving under served children, it is shifting it to serve children who are not under served.

Obviously, that is beyond the authority of Ed-Flex. It is also beyond the authority of the Secretary in the waiver of power.

Mr. Kildee. How do we somehow enforce that?

Secretary Riley. Well, Texas language goes a long way in that direction. It talks about monitoring the achievement of those who are served. If the achievement is negative and not positive, then it calls for a reaction to the action of the waiver.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. McKeon.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I am happy that you are here today and I appreciate your comments. I want to thank you for your visit the other day with you and your staff. I really enjoyed our visit.

I think that we are off to a good start in working on a bipartisan way for this ESEA reauthorization. I appreciated your comments on shifting emphasis from the state house to the schoolhouse.

In our visit the other day when I commented on my experience as a member of the school board for a number of years, I mentioned to you that I had probably more problems with the state house than with the Federal Government. I think this is good to emphasize the local school boards and their control.

Now, our Subcommittee, as we go through this process, will be focusing on teacher quality and teacher improvement. One of the things that we will have to do is set priorities.

The Chairman has already mentioned the U.S.A. article and the study by Mr. Sanders where he estimates the impact of teacher quality and how much more impact that has versus class size in improving student improvement.

I have just a couple of questions. I will say then now and then let you respond. Do you believe that class size has a greater impact than teacher quality? This will be important to us in setting our priorities.

Number two, does the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget, which proposes $1.4 billion for class size reduction, continue to prohibit local flexibility with respect to allowing school districts to use more than 15 percent of their funds for teacher quality?

Number three, the President alluded to a proposal as a part of his Education Accountability Act that would require all new teachers to pass a test prior to teaching. Do you envision this test being separate from current state certification tests?

Secretary Riley. All right, sir, the class size in its relationship to teacher quality I think are inseparable. I think you have to have both. As the Chairman pointed out, if you have a teacher who is not qualified, regardless of class size, the teacher is not qualified.

If you have a teacher who is qualified and that teacher has 35 students or 25 in the 2nd grade teaching them how to read, faced with these changes that I mentioned like the diversity, like the high standards, all of the different factors that face the change in that classroom, that teacher will say, I think any good teacher will say it is very much a limitation on their ability to reason with a child and find out how best to teach him reading.

Mr. McKeon. I do not think we are arguing that they are not both important. It is just that when you have limited dollars and you have to put the dollars based on priorities, which would you rank higher?

Secretary Riley. Well, I would be unable to rank one over the other, I am afraid. I would say this. We have already committed on class size. We have committed on the importance of teacher quality.

We think the best way to move towards that is to beef up professional development through several ways that we propose. So, I think the commitment for class size is there.

I think the Star Study, and the Wisconsin study, and other things show that it absolutely works, especially for reading qualified teachers; reading those early grades.

So, I think that is a commitment that we should follow through with to the 100,000 teachers, which is a 7-year commitment. Teacher quality is an absolute necessity. I think in the reauthorization of ESEA, it should be a priority.

Now, the budget on local flexibility on class size where you have reached the 15 to 18 in the class, there is local flexibility then as to what to do with the class size dollars beyond that.

In other words, you have reached that basic goal. So then you can go into higher grades, or lower grades, or you can move money into professional development, as you asked.

Teacher tests, of course, the proposal is that before a teacher goes into a classroom that there be a test of content, knowledge, and a test of skill knowledge. A state that is out there now would be adequate, as I understand it.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Martinez.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You stated in your written testimony that the Eisenhower Funds are spread too thin to make a difference. How do you propose to change that because that is a part of the teacher training priority that you just talked about?

Secretary Riley. Well, we think what the Eisenhower Program does is right on the money. So, what we propose to do is to lump together, roll into one proposal,-this is our proposal- Eisenhower, Goals 2000, and Title VI.

Then to put as the charge of this new initiative getting standards into the classroom and high quality teachers. The high quality teachers is primarily through good professional development.

As I have pointed out, teachers have been talked to. The survey of teachers across the board would say that, that is a great need that they want. We think that is exactly right.

Mr. Martinez. Mr. Secretary, we keep talking about high quality teachers and how important they to a child's education. I would like to point out that the Los Angeles Times article on teacher quality, that has been several times today, included information

more recent than 1994.

I know that because on the individuals cited in the article is my constituent. She works in a high school in my district and although her salary comes form Title I monies, her duties have nothing to do with instructing kids. She spends her time stacking books, shushing kids in the library, and doing other things just as the article says.

If you look, even since 1994 there are still a lot of teacher aids employed in non-instructional settings. A lot of Title I funds that should be going to instruction are not really going to quality instruction for these kids.

I know you have made some changes. My concern however is the same as Mr. Miller's and Mr. Clay's and that is how can we structure Title I this time, to ensure that the money goes where it is intended?.

Mr. Zukaris was not the President of the L.A. School District before 1994. He came more recently. Even he is under pressure-- under the gun to do something about the way Title I funds are spent.

In fact, one school is under threat of being taken over by the County Board of Education on the basis of their terrible record as to how they are teaching their kids. How do we make sure that Title I monies are spent for quality teachers? I understand there is a program in L.A. County through which they are trying to take a lot of those teacher aids and give them the training they need to become fully certified.

You can get them certified. But that still does not mean that it is being done right here, right now, immediately.

Secretary Riley. That is a very good observation and question. I would point out the data in the article was based on the previous study before our previous ESEA. Consequently, the data was old Chapter I data.

I am sure some of the facts in there, as you point out, might have been more current. You and I both know that if you go all around the Country and you look into every Title I school or whatever you will see some things perhaps that you would do much differently.

We are trying, as we did in 1994, to make sure that all Title I effort is looking to high standards in the classroom for all children. That is very important. You cannot do that if you have a policy of hiring nothing but primarily teacher aids. Then there is nothing wrong with them.

Most of them are very good people and try very hard, but they are not qualified to teach in a classroom. Well, Title I now says that. They are not supposed to be serving as the primary instructor of a classroom.

However, the effect of that happening is out there, as we well know. That is why in this reauthorization we want special attention to this issue of teacher aids and try to take the good teacher aids, help them get the necessary credentials to become teachers because they have wonderful experience.

The other teacher aids, to phase them out and to have the responsibility, as you point out, on the qualified teacher. That is how the whole thing is supposed to work. Do you have anything to add to that?

Ms. Johnson. I would like to add to that, the use of teacher aids where Title I students has a long history, and when you go into the classrooms what you often find is that the teacher aids are providing basic skills instruction while the remainder of the classroom and students are really being engaged with instruction.

We have found that for far too long those basic skills being taught to students did not match what they were being tested for, particularly in this new school environment of the new 1994 legislation.

So, it is really important that we stand up and say that our poor children need to be taught by qualified teachers. This does not mean that teacher aids cannot be useful in schools.

They can support parents. They can serve as parent communicators. They can serve in libraries, but they cannot be providing directive, academic instruction to students who need to be exposed to quality instruction.

Mr. Martinez. Just so we understand, the use of funds that I was talking about was not for those teacher aids that were in the classroom. They were teacher aids that were not in the classroom.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. DeMint.

Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I just have one more request that I would like to make. I have a couple of questions here that I would like to submit in writing on behalf of the Hispanic Caucus and Ruben Hinojosa and myself who will work on the Education Task Force for the Hispanic Caucus.

In our regard, our concern for the bilingual education and the 3-year limit. I would like those questions answered as soon as possible.

Secretary Riley. We will certainly do that.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, sir.

Secretary Riley. Sir, let me point out one other thing, Mr. Chairman. There is a set-aside in the proposed Title I for professional development, in Title I.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. DeMint.

Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like all of my fellow members to know that the Secretary is from my district. He was Governor when I was a small child in South Carolina.

Secretary Riley. And I know a lot of your relatives.

Mr. DeMint. He continues to be one of the most popular Governors we ever had and we are proud of him.

Secretary Riley. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Goodling. That is why I am promoting him for 2000.

Mr. DeMint. Some philosophical questions. I have never been in politics. I have been in business. We always found that competition improved quality and price in every field that I have ever worked in.

One of the areas that interest me in the development of education in our area is Greenville Technical College is developing a charter high school. They have already had more applications than they can handle in the first year. I wanted to just get your perspective.

Do you generally support the idea of charter schools developing under the public school umbrella and the idea of that possibly expanding throughout the Country; community colleges helping to form or to provide more variety within the public schools?

Secretary Riley. Well, the answer is yes. I support and the President supports the option of charter schools. By having a charter school in and of itself is not good or bad. You have to have a good charter school, just like any other school.

The idea of having the option within the school board of having innovative creative ways for public school choice, as you know, I think that is a very good idea. I think charter schools offer that then for you.

The idea of connecting up higher education, an institution like Greenville Tech, as you know, which is a very high quality technical Community College, is really what other states would call it.

To connect up a high school with this Community College is very strong and very good. It is the right direction to go. It gives these high school students the opportunity to have some teachers who are teachers in the Community College and visa-versa.

It kind of gives them the idea of moving on into post-high schoolwork. So, I very much support the linkage of higher education with K-12. The charter school is one way to do that. So, I have answered yes. We support additional funds to help start-up costs for charter schools. I always urge people to realize that simply by having a charter school is not a panacea. It is an option.

Mr. DeMint. Just another quick question or point. I have got a number of friends who are principals of schools. They are a little afraid of federal mandates for class size. The point being that they think that for some courses that larger classes would be appropriate and in some setting smaller classes.

That they would like the flexibility to have a large instructional setting and small instructional setting and not be set so that every class has to have the same size. Do you have any disagreement with that?

Secretary Riley. Well, the idea of the proposal for reducing class size, of course, is targeted on grades 1, 2, and 3 with an emphasis on reading. So, the whole idea is for those three grades with a teacher who is well instructed on reading.

The Star Study that I referred to from Tennessee really was a very good study and I think a powerful study. It shows in a longitudinal study that for those early years, if you have a teacher who is well instructed on reading, it really makes a difference.

Now, flexibility from there on out. In other words, to meet those grades 1, 2 and 3, 15 to 18, then flexibility as to how you use those funds. One of the options being professional development.

Mr. DeMint. Thank you.

Secretary Riley. But it has to be class size related.

Mr. DeMint. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Roemer.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, let me try to get my groveling out of the way right away and try to out-do Mr. Goodling in his compliments to you. He is trying to draft you for the 2000 ticket.

I think that, this Secretary of Education is the best this Country has ever had and I applaud your strong dedication to children, and improving schools with bold new ideas. I hope with those compliments that you will agree with all of my questions on Ed-Flex now

Secretary Riley. I certainly agree with your compliments.

Mr. Roemer. That is a good start.

Mr. Secretary, let me ask a couple of very quick questions because I only have 5 minutes on my and Mr. Castle's Ed-Flex Bill.

Then I want to ask you a Title I question on teacher development. The President promised about a year ago this spring to the National Governors' Association that he would deliver Ed-Flex to all 50 States. Twelve currently have it. The President is strongly in support of this Ed-Flex Bill. Is that correct?

Secretary Riley. That is correct. Again, I would point out that it is a demonstration. It is out there now. The reaction on the General Accounting Office study shows that some changes perhaps should be made in a Ed-Flex Bill to make sure you cover the monitoring of student achievement.

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Secretary, I agree with that. We are working with Mr. Castle, Mr. Goodling, and Mr. Miller to try to implement some of the GAO's recommendations and tighten in on some of the hooks from the Texas program that combine standards, performance, and assessments.

I think that is a good requirement and I think that we could tighten the accountability language in our bill. Another quick question. The Castle-Roemer language on accountability is stronger than current law. Is that not correct?

Secretary Riley. It is my understanding it is. I think it is very good language. I said that in response to an earlier question.

Mr. Roemer. Is it not correct, Mr. Secretary that the Commission on Civil Rights has reported that there has not been any undermining of targeting of aid to the poor under these 12 states. Is that not correct?

Secretary Riley. I am not positive of the response. I will say that civil rights is not a part of Ed-Flex. You cannot.

Mr. Roemer. The Commission on Civil Rights has issued a report that I would ask unanimous consent be entered into the record that has indicated that there has not been any undermining of targeting aid to the poor.

Let me jump from Ed-Flex, which I hope that we can work together on, Mr. Secretary, for the best interest of our children, for the best interest of new ideas, for the best interest of bipartisanship get off to a good foot in this session of Congress and pass that Ed-Flex Bill.

Let me get to a little bit more controversial topic on the teacher quality in Title I. In California, according to the latest available figures, the ratio of aids in Title I to teachers is roughly 4:1 in Title I programs.

In Los Angeles, it is 7:1 ratio, aides to teachers. Now we know that there are literally very few requirements for these aides to improve their education. I think under current law they should be moving toward a high school degree.

That is the current law. We cannot afford to have these Title I programs be jobs programs. My opinion, Mr. Secretary, is that the at-risk children need the best-educated, and the most knowledgeable, and the most effective teachers in these programs. We need to revise the requirements in the Title I programs.

Let us get more certified teachers in these programs and really limit the number of these aides and clerks that are eating up money and have little or no requirements to further their education. I would appropriate some comments.

Secretary Riley. Congressman, that is exactly what we are proposing to do. You make a very good point. Children who are disadvantaged are the very ones that more

than anyone else need teachers who are capable of teaching disadvantaged children.

Often times that takes special, special work on the part of a teacher and a special quality. The idea of having areas with large numbers of disadvantaged children with a 7:1 or even a 4:1 ratio of teacher aids is very clear that you are shifting away from quality; not necessarily good people, but quality in terms of teaching.

Mr. Roemer. Exactly.

Secretary Riley. Our proposal will be completely in touch with your ideas and I think you are exactly right.

Mr. Roemer. Well, your answers lived up to my compliments, Mr. Secretary. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement by Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Ford.

Chairman Goodling. Surely.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Riley, I had the pleasure of seeing you in Cambridge and certainly enjoyed that and here again. I noticed within your opening comments, and I apologize for not being able to be here for those.

I have reviewed the statements that 95 percent of ESEA actually goes to local school districts. Subsequent to that, you make a statement that you support the concept, which is very similar to 95 percent going into the classrooms.

I have got several questions. First is it seems that even though 95 percent of that money is going to local districts, there is a substantial portion that is not reaching the classrooms.

One, are you willing to support a bill or a concept that 95 percent of that money that comes from here really needs to go into the classroom with the accountability and things that we have talked about?

Secondly, on the IDEA and let me go back a little bit. You know I come from a profession where we are having to tighten our belt more and more so that we can deliver more services to more people.

I notice within the budget that there is about a little over $30 million increase in the Department of Education; some funding there.

I am looking at my district here in Lincoln County; Stanford, Kentucky, where IDEA- we get about $200,000 for that local district.

Now, if it is fully funded it should be up to a little over $1 million. We are about $828,000 that is not funded, if it were fully funded. So, we are short that much. Now, this is a community of farmers.

I just came from an Agriculture Committee hearing. Things do not look good for farmers. Cattle and tobacco in Kentucky are not looking real good. Hogs are even worse. So, it is not a community that can afford a whole lot.

I wondered if there is some way we can tighten up our belt. I am impressed coming up here the first time with a number of folks, the buildings we have got here, and the number of people working.

I just wondered if we tightened up a little bit and sent some of that money back home where it really would affect people. I wondered if you would be willing to start that at the Department of Education to make sure that we can get that money back to them?

Secretary Riley. Well, let me comment on both points, Congressman Fletcher. First of all, the 95 percent to the district, and I do not think you were here when we had the colloquy on that point. It is my general view that as far as what we are talking about here in the Congress, we ought to be talking about to the district and not the classroom. If you go to the classroom, you are bypassing the elected school board, which I think is a bad idea.

Obviously, you have funds spent by the elected school board that you may or may not agree with. But I think those are local decisions that should be handled locally. Now, the 95 percent really is not under the new ESEA.

That is the way we are handling the old ESEA and really the policy of administration in the Department. If you look at Title I, which is our biggest program, our funds that we take out of Title I is well-less than 1/2 of 1 percent; 1/2 of 1 percent.

So, around 99 plus percent goes to the state. Under the law, the state can only take 1 percent, up to 1 percent. So, really on Title I as far as the school district is concerned, they get some 98 percent plus.

Then they spend funds on whatever, the curriculum, and so forth. So, the school itself might get 90, 91, 92. I do not know what difference from different places. I think that is important for us to realize.

As far as the Federal Government's part, we are taking a very small, small piece for administration of these funds. Mostly it is pass through from us. Now, your point of IDEA is a good point and one that we have had, of course, a lot of discussion about.

IDEA and a lot of the leadership has come from Congress has been increased rather significantly over the last couple of years. As you know, the authorization level is 40 percent.

The authorization level for PEL and other things are well above where they are. That is how high you can go under the authorization. This is an authorization committee that controls the maximum amount.

I would say this. It is my recollection that our budget has, if you figure all of the things for special education and IDEA, about $116 million into different categories. I make this point too.

A large percentage of disabled children's time is spent in the regular classroom. Some 75 percent, as I recall, is an average across the Country. That is important; class size that we were just talking about for special education kids is very important.

For kids who are borderline able to read or not and often moved into special education, unfortunately. So, I think some of these things dealing with quality teachers, dealing with really construction matters that impact disable children, technology, classroom size, those kinds of things we think are also very important in terms of disabled children.

Chairman Goodling. Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is always a pleasure, Secretary Riley, to hear you speak. I am looking forward when you come into my district at the end of March.

I am really happy that we are seeing that we are going to go forward with more teacher training. I think that is probably one of the most important components that we can talk about.

We were able to start that last year on the higher education, talking to young teachers when they graduate, the frustration they felt when they got into the classroom. I think this is a real breakthrough for us.

We have to continue. I am obviously interested in the safe and the drug free schools. Unfortunately, last year we had a number of shootings in the schools around this Country.

I think it is extremely important that we start looking and seeing how we can reduce gun violence in our schools. I look forward to working with you on legislation that we can included in ESEA.

I think it is going to be important for the future of our schools and our children. They are scared, even though most of the time they should not be. I think if we start dealing with this, and even though we had a lot of committee meetings last year, every expert that came in talked about when there was violence, usually a gun was involved. This is something that we have to start dealing with.

Most of the American people, especially the parents, want us to. I commend the efforts that you and the Administration are doing. I think we are on the right road.

And we have to improve the quality of teachers in the classroom.

Our teachers want it. They want to be the best they can in the classroom. Unfortunately, from what I see in my schools, we need help. We need new and better schools so that our teachers can teach in an environment conducive to learning and our children can learn.

I do not want you to forget about suburban schools because we are in trouble also. My schools average 50 to 80 years old. They need a lot of help. I think that is what you are going to find anywhere around this Country in the suburban areas.

We need as much help as the urban and rural. So, our commitment, as far as I am concerned, on education for this Country has to be a top priority because I have always said that if we put the money into education and do the right thing, all of our social problems will go away.

I believe that firmly. So, I am hoping and I know you cannot make a commitment on it, but I hope that you will work with us on trying to reduce gun violence in our schools also.

Secretary Riley. Absolutely. I would point out that our Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, which has been in effect for some time, and has had very successful programs in some areas and not so successful in others.

There has been a problem that has come up in some of the research and discussions that the funds are too spread out. That really you have some areas, some schools that have very, very serious problems. They ought to have the resources there to deal with those problems.

In the proposal that we will make in the budget this year does deal with that situation to try to concentrate some funds on those real troubled areas. Then also some competitive grants coming down from the states.

That our funds would go to the states, but the states would handle on a competitive grant. So, you would have really is programs thinking out what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Then the state, of course, would decide how to divide that fund up. We have what we call Principles of Effectiveness that we put out there that all programs, Safe and Drug Free Programs, thinking about these terrible incidents that happened over the last couple of years to year and a half; all of the other problems which we cannot, cannot accept.

Principles of Effectiveness would develop goals, objectives, and plans to handle safe and drug free issues. Plans to handle the determination of early indications of problems. Then also be research based. Then also have evaluations.

So, these principles are out there. Now, these programs are going to have to meet these principles. I think you are going to see them tightened down and a lot more effective use. I look forward to working with you on all of these.

Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.

Secretary Riley. Now, I am going to shorten my answers, Mr. Chairman, at your request.

Chairman Goodling. Very good. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, in following up a little bit on what Congressman DeMint's questions with regard to charter schools, I think you said that there was nothing uniquely good about the concept of charter schools.

It was just whether or not a good charter school existed as opposed to a bad one. Let me suggest that the concept itself is good because in fact a charter school, a bad charter school can, and many have, closed.

That is the difference. That is what makes it good. The ability for parents to actually be able to extricate their children from an under-performing school, as opposed to being forced into a Government monopoly school system that does not serve their needs.

That is the goodness of the charter school concept, I think. That is what makes, perhaps, that has something to do with the tiny bit of an increase we see in the NAEP score.

Although, I must admit that I was intrigued by the fact that a comment was made that the NAPEP test was changed in 1992, did you say, which then precipitated perhaps this increase in scores? Who knows?

I mean it is just strange that for 20 years that went on with one kind of test, and the trend line was this way. In 1992 the test was changed and something else happened. Actually, I have two questions, Mr. Secretary, quick questions for you.

One deals with the fact that you may know on yesterday I introduced a bill to eliminate the E-Rate for wiring at public schools.

One of the problems that I have with this particular plan is the fact that we are spending literally billions and billions of dollars to do exactly what this plan is designed to do, to provide technology to schools.

No one has the slightest idea really of how much in fact we are spending. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Department of Education last year, the Labor and HHS Appropriations Subcommittee reported that the Department of Education could not account for the money that was spent on education technology.

Is it possible, sir, for you to give us a specific amount of money that the Department of Education is spending on this activity; education technology?

Even better, is there a way of tracking what we are spending throughout the Federal Government on this particular plan of introducing technology to the classroom?

The next question and the last one is with regard to OCR and bilingual education. As you know, the Denver Public School System just went through a lengthy tussle with OCR over its bilingual education program.

Really the fight existed over the particular kind of program that the Denver Public Schools wanted to implement. Could you tell me, sir, do you agree with me that the Lao Decision, which of course was the genesis for all bilingual education programs, that the Lao Decision never, ever, ever directed a specific kind of remedy?

If that is the case, how can the Department of Education's Office of OCR be out there forcing school districts into particular remedies that may or may not as you know, the Department of Justice has now sided with the Denver Public Schools in their efforts to provide a better quality education for children.

So, what is your comment on that?

Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, I will have to be a little bit longer than I intended. The Lao Decision, I think, certainly did not specify the remedy, but it called for whatever is done something that works. In other words, it called for dealing with this problem of LEP children to make sure they get an education.

The E-Rate, of course, is E-Rate discounts. They really are a rate adjustment, as you well know, all around the Country at the various levels of telecommunications. Of course, it is not a tax on the people and then people and then spent on technology.

It is a rate adjustment. Somebody has to pay it, but it is an adjustment for technology use and wiring in the schools. In terms of education technology, I think we have done a very good job on that in the last several years.

I am very proud of that. Yes, we can tell you how much money we are spending on the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which is in the neighborhood of $450 million. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, which is a competitive grants program.

The Technology for New Teachers, which is $75 million that we passed last year. When you add all of that up, it is between 25 and 30 percent probably of all of the technology money that is spent in education in the Country; K-12.

I think that is a very good way for us to spend money, but to make sure it is spent properly. Your statement about charter schools, I will differ a little bit with your characterization of what I said. I did not say the concept was either good or bad. I said it is a very good option. That charter schools can either be good or bad.

I think the concept is very good. I support the concept as an option. That does not mean that it automatically is a good school. I think you would agree with that.

Do you want to say something about the test baseline?

Mr. Smith. There are actually two tests. One test was developed in the early 1970s and continues to be given. A second test was developed around 1990 or so.

It was developed because the National Assessment Governing Board believed that the first test was not challenging enough. It did not extend the students enough. It did not give them the kinds of questions they should be asked.

On the first test, that test actually showed some considerable closing of the gap between about 1975 and about 1988.

In fact, it closed the gap between African Americans and Whites by about 40 percent in reading and in math; and for Hispanic Americans the same kind of thing.

The gap then began to open a little bit more. That test was last given in 1996. The reading levels are fairly flat. It is going to be given again in 1999.

I believe we are going to get an up-tic on that, that will follow the up-tic that we have got in this most recent test, which shows, between 1994 and 1998.

Mr. Tancredo. It could be because there is so much choice in the system.

Mr. Smith. It could be.

Mr. Tancredo. Whatever the case; if we get good scores we will all take them.

Chairman Goodling. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to submit for the record an article in today's Los Angeles Times with the heading ``Reading Test Scores Rebound After Reforms.'' It discusses the improvements in reading scores since 1994, if I may.

Chairman Goodling. Sure.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.

Ms. Woolsey. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary Riley. Good morning.

Ms. Woolsey. When I ran for Congress in 1992 and was elected in 1993. I ran because I wanted to make education the number one priority in this Country.

It was my privilege and luck to get here when you became the Secretary of Education. I have considered it a true honor to work with you over these years and to see that success really can follow excellence. We can have results when we put our minds to it.

Secretary Riley. Thank you.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you for all that you have done for us. Thank you for setting an example that will go forward in another administration. I mean education is not going to fall off the face of the earth in the year 2001.

We certainly have a Vice President that follows in the footsteps of our President and Secretary Riley in caring very much about education. So, I think we are going to be able to continue with these goals on into the next century.

Thank you for all you have done there and for your support for something that is very important to me. That is bringing both students and teachers up to speed in educational technology. We have the perfect front man for me today; the gentleman just before me.

You have done a wonderful job in trying to bridge the divide between the wealthier and the less fortunate in our school system. I would hope that we are going to enhance that and work towards doing even more in our elementary and secondary reauthorization.

There is a part that is a gap that needs to be addressed. That is the gender gap between girls and boys and their use of educational technology. A recent study from the American Association of University Women found that far fewer girls than boys enroll in computer science classes.

When they get in these courses, they are mostly using them for word processing and not to learn the technology that will make them available for higher education and in courses that will get them the better jobs in the future.

So, I am hoping that I can work with you. I am on the Science Committee, too. There are four of us. Mr. Roemer is one and Mr. Ehlers from the other side of the aisle- and work with you to include elementary and secondary reauthorization issues or programs that can help girls and continue to further what we are already doing.

Secretary Riley. Thank you very much. I certainly will work with you in that regard. The science and math area, as you know, has been a problem over the years that young girls were not encouraged to get into these areas.

Then we are into this technology era. Obviously, that is something that all of us ought to work to prevent and to change. I think it is changing. I think it is changing in a good way.

When I go into a classroom and ask young people what their favorite subject is, it is amazing how many young girls say math and science. I mean 3rd grade, 4th grade, and 5th grade.

So, I think that it is an area that we need to be constantly attuned to. During my first year here when all of the physics students, the top physics students in the country in all of the 50 States came to my office, every one of them were White young boys.

I think now we are beginning to see a real movement on that. Technology can help, but not to have technology opportunities for poor kids is really exacerbating the problem of their poverty.

Ms. Woolsey. Right.

Secretary Riley. Because they do not have computers at home. They do not have the family that is computer literate. You have got to have that in the schools and in the libraries. The E-Rate, of course, that you and I have talked about helps with that a great deal.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I want to start out by saying that I stand for the proposition that we ought to increase federal funding for education. I have a very different perspective on it than the Administration does.

I believe that every single penny of new federal funds for education should go into IDEA. It should go into special education. Let me rehearse the numbers that you know. In 1967, 3.5 percent of local school costs went to special education.

In 1975, the Congress came along appropriately, in my opinion, and required the states with a very significant new mandate to provide special education. Now, the costs are about 20 percent, I think, plus in school districts for special education.

As you mentioned, we authorized, and in the initial legislation we promised, to pay 40 percent of the extra excess costs that came about as a part of requiring this mandate, but we have never paid more than, I do not know, 10 or 12 percent.

Whereas, we should be funding special education to the tune of $13.6 billion. We are funding it at about $4.3 billion. As you said, through Congress, Chairman Goodling and Chairman Porter, and other's initiatives in the last two years, we have increased the special education funding by I think 68 percent.

In this Administration's proposal, it offers a very tiny increase in special education. The Administration advocates new school construction programs, nine other new education programs for the states.

I listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the needs in their states for school construction. I would include my State among them. When I look at, for instance, places where we typically think of the need for school instruction: New York, City.

I see a State with a $1.9 billion surplus as opposed to our $5.6 trillion debt. The City of Chicago needs new schools. The State of Illinois has a $1.2 billion surplus, which apparently the good citizens of that State have not seen fit to put into building new schools.

The City of Los Angeles needs new schools. The State of California is sitting on a $2 billion surplus. I cannot find my way past what seems to me the unassailable logic of the notion that if the Congress, the Federal Government, and this Administration would fund, fully fund, special education, then every single school district in this country would have a huge burden lifted from its shoulders.

After which, it could on the counsel of its own local school board decide to use what had been budgeted for special education for many of the things we all advocate. Whether it is new technology, teacher training, school violence programs, smaller class sizes, college preparation, and school construction. Every school district could decide where it was lacking, once we funded this federal mandate and then do what it needs to do for its children.

If any single school in America did not properly educate a special education child, there would be federal penalties. It is not like the other programs. There is no federal penalty for not having enough computers.

We have a federal penalty for not meeting the special education mandate and we have totally failed to live up to our responsibility to fund that mandate. This Administration continues that policy. I would like your comments on that, sir.

Secretary Riley. I appreciate your strong support for IDEA. I also am a strong believers in IDEA and think it serves a wonderful purpose. I would point out that IDEA is not legally a mandate.

States do not have to take IDEA. Then states, under their own constitution and general law, have to provide quality education for all disabled children, all average children, all brilliant children, or whatever.

So, it is a state responsibility. That is not a practical answer because it is a lot of money. States then all take IDEA, as you would, I would, and everybody else. I point that out to say that it is, when you fall back on it, it is a state responsibility. The Federal Government comes in and says it is a national priority and 40 percent is the maximum limit that we can go. I wish we were at 40 percent. I wish we had the kinds of funds to reach all of our priorities.

Mr. Greenwood. Do you advocate that?

Secretary Riley. No, I do not because it is a priority, but it is not the only priority. We have got a number of priorities.

It is very important, as I indicated generally a minute ago to disabled children, to have the general classroom, the regular classroom be a high quality classroom; small class size, qualified teachers, school building. School buildings are very important to disabled children.

Mr. Greenwood. The Chairman is going to get mad at me for doing this, but all of which the schools could do if we just take that burden off their back.

Chairman Goodling. All good things come to those who wait. Ms. Mink.

Ms. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to you, Mr. Secretary. I was not going to get into any discussion about things that I do not agree with in the Administration. However, the subject has been raised by Mr. Greenwood, I have to join him in expressing my own personal disappointment in the Administration's failure to provide extra monies for IDEA. While we could argue that this is not in the area of a federal mandate, neither is ESEA a federal mandate.

It is established because it is a priority for this Nation that we take care of children who are economically and educationally disadvantaged.

Therefore, we put an emphasis on a very, very large program and the elementary and secondary level. I do feel that particularly in my State, and I assume in others, that the huge cost of supporting special education is eating away the State's ability to do other things that it ought to be doing in the field of elementary and secondary.

So, I do not think you can put it in a different category. In my view, it is a question of civil rights. It is a question of doing the right thing. I would have hoped that the Administration could have come forward with a much larger increase in this area.

It certainly would have helped my State. Getting to a subject that I was going to raise has to do with teacher preparation and teacher development.

While we look at the whole scene that you have very, very accurately sketched for us as our goal in this field, I do feel as I assume you do, that the whole area of teacher education is probably the most important. As you say, if you reduce the class size and you do not have a qualified teacher, you really have not accomplished very much. So, my question to you, Mr. Secretary, and this was raised in our conference over the weekend.

Many of us feel that colleges of education and the training centers for our teachers are largely responsible for the failing quality of our teacher population.

What is the Administration suggesting with reference to our colleges of education to make sure that they are targeting in on the methodology that is going to achieve quality education in the classroom?

We have all of these monies that go to comprehensive school reform demonstration programs. How much of that research indicates quality of the teachers as being critical?

How sure are we that the teachers coming out of our colleges of education are going to meet the standards that you talk about?

Are we going to constantly have to rebuild upon the population of teachers after they have finished college because we have failed to look at our colleges to make sure that they are meeting this standard that we want to have in our teacher population?

Thank you.

Secretary Riley. Thank you. On the IDEA, and you make the same point. It is a good one. As I say, I do not think anybody feels any more serious about disabled children than I do. I wish the funding could be significantly larger and always will.

Ms. Mink. Mr. Chairman, that orange light is mine. It should not count against the Secretary.

Chairman Goodling. Sorry about that.

Secretary Riley. The Chairman has got the hammer on me now.

I would point out that $116 million basically is what I request for an increase this year, which is not insignificant.

It is into certain categories with special attention to infants and toddlers; a special interest in children 3 to 5 as I recall; and one 5 to 9.

Five to 9 is new. It is a prevention kind of thing that I think will be very, very helpful. As I pointed out, class size and other things apply to it.

So, it is not like it has not been looked at, but some very significant prevention kinds of things we think are in the budget.

In the teacher education ring, I agree with your observation. We have really got to do a better job in preparing teachers. A big part of that is recruiting young people into teaching.

I think all of us have a responsibility in that. You all dealt with that last year in the Higher Education Act in Title II that deals with preparation of teachers there. It really gives us some very good ways to have partnerships between colleges that are really doing a grand job and those that want to improve, and other ways for us to try to improve the preparation of teachers.

A lot of people think that we should move more in kind of a clinical direction, much like the way doctors are taught. Have a lot more connection with master teachers; working in the classroom in a very active moving way, and not just sticking a teacher/learner in there with a young teacher who's first year out and that kind of thing.

So, I think there are a lot things we can do. I would hope that we would all work together to move in that direction.

Chairman Goodling. Not only did they not give an increase, but the last 2 years they really cut; because if you consider inflation and the many, many new students that came in.

The new majority saved them because we put in an extra $1.2 billion in the last 2 years which means that for the first time, local districts will be able to reduce their expenditures this year. We are going to do equally as good this year.

Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, the red light is on.

Ms. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I insert at this point an article from the Washington Post last Sunday?

Chairman Goodling. Sure.

Ms. Mink. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Deal.

Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. We talk about a lot of theoretical and esoteric things in discussions like this.

Invariably when I go back and talk to classroom teachers and ask them what is the greatest impediment to their doing a good job, the failure to be able to maintain adequate discipline in the classroom is very high on that list.

When I talk to constituents and their perception of the failings of public education, likewise the inability to maintain discipline in the classroom ranks very high on their list.

I think it accounts for much of the migration that we have seen to private schools and many of the other phenomenon that we are witnessing that perhaps do, in many respects, question the ability of public education to deliver a quality education.

We have talked here today even about the cost of special education. As you know, when the issue of discipline arises in discussions, especially with school administrators and teachers, very high on their list is the fact that federal programs, namely IDEA, is an impediment to their ability to maintain what they perceive to be adequate discipline in their classrooms.

With the modification of IDEA, and as I understand the new regulations will be forthcoming next month, the initial perception in the education community was that instead of helping that situation, that our legislative language had in fact hurt it because of the way the regulations were apparently going to interpret that language.

I hope that that message has been delivered and that these new regulations will hopefully address it in a positive way, rather than having all of us inherit even greater wrath from the education community saying that federal law and federal regulations have now made the issue of discipline more difficult.

I would like to ask you just a couple of brief questions about that. When we talk about the cost of special education, has anyone computed the additional cost that a school system must bear to provide the alternative education in a discipline situation where we have exercised the expulsion, but must provide the alternative educational environment?

Has anyone ever calculated what that cost is? I do not think they have. I do not think that is included in what we talk about as the cost of special education to local school districts.

Secondly, have we ever had any statistical information as to the percentage of discipline problems in the average school that arises out of the special education student body? Is that disproportionate to the classroom make-up as a whole?

If these costs have not been calculated, should we not begin to address those additional costs, since we have mandated that alternative environment? Should that not also be calculated in talking about the cost of special education to local school districts?

Secretary Riley. Thank you. I think some of my other discussion, and I will not repeat, Congressman. I do not want to get off too much into IDEA because really we are under the Elementary and Secondary Act here.

In the discipline issue, and I will make a general broad statement, which I can elaborate on with you when the regulations are out. I will be glad to meet with you on it. Educational services are required under IDEA.

As I pointed out earlier, IDEA is optional for a state. They do not have to take it. If you take it, if you take the federal dollars, then you have to provide educational services, even of a child who is being disciplined after 10 days or whatever.

Some people say, well, that is a burden that they do not have on other children. I say to them, that they should provide it. You ought not to punish a child by denying them educational services, if you see what I mean. So, I think that is one of the big differences that people talk about the cost.

Mr. Deal. But you acknowledge the cost of that educational environment is much more expensive than the traditional classroom educational environment?

Secretary Riley. Oh yes. Sure it is. Yes, it would be. It would be like an individual teacher or an alternative setting that you point out.

Now, I do not know that we have any numbers on the cost of alternative settings. That really is kind of a local decision as to how they do that and the cost of it. I will say this.

I go a lot of places. I do not see Congressman Ford, who I went to Memphis. He and I had a number of meetings with business people and school people, whatever. One of the big needs they pointed out in Memphis was alternative school settings.

That they had kids who were being expelled or whatever. They did not have any place for them to go. It was just a real problem. In some areas, that is not a problem. They have strong alternative schools and so forth.

So, it is not like it is one big thing out there. It is so different and differently handled. I agree with you that it is something we ought to pay attention to. The cost of discipline problems, we do have percentages, I think. I will share that with you of any problems.

Special education is a very broad title. As I say, I think we can narrow that quite a bit with small classrooms, and quality teachers, and those kinds of things. We will take a look at that. The numbers I think are very, very small.

Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Chairman Goodling. He is right when he says that they do not have to take the money. But I guarantee you, with every civil right and every other piece of legislation around, they will offer all of those services to children with disabilities and children with special needs or they will be in real hot water.

That is why they take the money because they know they are going to be in hot water if they do not provide those services. Mr. Kind.

Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your generosity this morning. It is nice to have you before the Committee again. These are warmer confines than the last time you and I addressed education issues publicly.

You may recall about a year ago, when you, the Vice President, and the President came into my hometown of LaCrosse in Western Wisconsin to do an event the day after the State of the Union address. We met to continue talking about the education programs of which this Administration has been so supportive. When we arrived in LaCrosse that day, which was a very sub-zero day even for Wisconsin, we were amazed to see about 40,000 people who waited up to 5 hours outside in that Wisconsin winter weather just to hear what you all of you had to say.

Secretary Riley. In the snow.

Mr. Kind. In the snow, yes. It was a wonderful visit. I don't know if I told you, but we did a quick exit poll after the event and 98 percent of those who showed up that day were there to see you and listen to what you had to say about education. That is how important education is to Wisconsin.

Secretary Riley. I would check with my pollster. I really would.

Mr. Kind. I applaud the Administration's commitment to trying to find avenues of partnership with the states and local school districts in order to leverage the department's limited resources and work towards increasing student achievement.

That effort is something that we all support here on the Committee. Relevant to my state I wonder if you have had a chance to review a recent study just released by the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee in regard to the SAGE Program in Wisconsin.

Now that we have had some years to see how this is developing, the Reduced Class Size Program, which has served as a model, not only out here but also across the Country, the results have been very encouraging.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to insert that study in the record at this time.

Chairman Goodling. Yes.

Mr. Kind. I applaud the Administration's support for the Reduced Class Size Program you have referred to today. Hopefully, we will be able to get it done in this session of Congress.

Secretary Riley. Let me just say one word. I mentioned the Tennessee Study and the Wisconsin Study. Those two together are very, very powerful. I think they make a strong research statement on class size.

Mr. Kind. Well, as you know, it was set up as a pilot project in Wisconsin. The State is now looking for some assistance in order to expand the SAGE Program so more students can benefit from the results that we are seeing from reduced class sizes.

So, it is very encouraging so far. I have also been a big proponent, of your Education Technology Programs and especially the E-Rate.

I am still amazed that there are a lot of folks out here who are trying to make it more difficult rather than easier to get technology in the classroom, given the modern economy and the challenges that our kids are going to be facing as they enter the workforce.

I think there is a growing concern, or perhaps even a gap between our goals and what we are implementing. Obviously an important element to that is teacher quality.

Your first Biannual Report on Teacher Quality highlighted that teachers are increasingly concerned that they do not have the necessary skills and training to use technology tools effectively in the classroom.

I wonder if you could take a minute here to elaborate on the programs that you want to highlight in order to assist teachers to be better prepared to use such tools in the classroom.

Secretary Riley. That is a very accurate point. I would point out again on my chart 5. I would ask any of you who are particularly interested in that point to look at that. This was a research done with teachers all across this Country.

It shows in terms of teachers feeling like they can handle a subject. I mentioned the changing subjects that are out there integrating technology. Only 20 percent felt well- prepared to handle technology in the classroom.

That is a special problem on disadvantaged kids, as I pointed out earlier. What do they want? Teachers want more and better professional development so they can deal with these issues: diversity, disability, technology standards, and so forth. So, it is a very true point and a very good one. The technology then in the classroom, you know, the $75 million that was passed last year goes to new teachers to really help them learn how to handle technology. I think that will be a very big help also in terms of what we are doing about it.

The whole teacher quality issue, all of the professional development, all of the funds that go to the Technology Challenge Fund, Literacy Challenge, which is a big one, $450 million, goes down to all of the states by formula.

It can be used for four things. It can be used for hardware, connecting up the school, for software, or for teacher preparation for teaching teachers how to handle technology in the classroom.

So, you could point that out to your folk’s back home. They can use those dollars. It is a right good bit of money that would go into your Congressional District. They can use those funds for professional development, for teachers for technology.

Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Chairman Goodling. I would only add that, that is why we have eight technology initiatives on the books at the present time, to get those teachers to know how to use it. Mr. Schaffer.

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary, under the Administration's proposals on school report cards, ending social promotion, school discipline, and teacher accountability, what would be the remedy for the Federal Government if a state either decided not to participate in these goals or did not achieve them? What would happen to those states?

Secretary Riley. Well, of course, the first thing that would happen is that every effort would be made to try to help them accomplish the accountability goal.

I pointed out earlier, Congressman, these ideas did not come from me. They came from states; those states that are using these ideas.

I think some 18 or 19 states have the social promotion law and they are using it. Some 36 states have the report card. The non-performing schools, that is really in the law now.

Mr. Schaffer. I understand that. If you had a governor somewhere in America who had decided ending social promotion was not in the best interest of his state or her state, what would we do?

Secretary Riley. Well, what we would do in terms of federal dollars that are going into those schools, primarily Title I, we would do everything, as I said, to help them do it, to encourage them to do it.

Then if they absolutely refused to do it, then we would probably, and I have not worked out all of the specifics of that, I hope it would never come to that, probably withdraw administrative funds, which is a small percentage of Title I Funds first. Then maybe hold back funds. You have got a real problem.

Here you have got children, say in a non-performing school, and you do not want the answer to be to deprive them of funds.

You also do not want to pump federal dollars into a non- performing school that has been non-performing for years and that you have done everything in the world to try to help it become a performing school. These are federal dollars that are going out there to those schools.

Mr. Schaffer. These new accountability measures and mandates, which is what they amount to, in helping to encourage and help promote states to move in this direction seem to me the kinds of mandates that my State, and others through the Crossroads Project have been met with a certain amount of resentment among states.

Can you name some governors who are on record supporting these new initiatives of the White House and the accountability measures and ultimately the potential funding restrictions that go along with them?

Is there a single governor that you can name that has gone on record supporting this proposal by the Administration?

Secretary Riley. Well, I think any number of governors have indicated to me. I do not know whether I ought to be citing them or not.

Mr. Schaffer. Why not?

Secretary Riley. I have talked to four or five governors who have certainly indicated to me they are all for it.

Mr. Schaffer. Can you tell us which governors they are?

Secretary Riley. Well, I will tell you one of them is Tom Carper, who I talked to. Jim Hunt, who I talked to; those two. They just happened to be two I talked to yesterday.

I will tell you this. When I was governor and we were trying to do reform in South Carolina, and they came out with the Nation At Risk.

A lot of people thought that was, you know, what is the Federal Government doing telling us about our schools? The Nation At Risk helped me a great deal get our reform passed in South Carolina.

Mr. Schaffer. Are there more than the two governors that you can tell us about today?

Secretary Riley. I would say there are dozens of governors. I have not called them and talked to them. They are all going to come in here in a couple of weeks. I am sure we will have that discussion with them.

Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask this. Just within our traditions and within the context of federalism, state, federal, and local governments all sharing responsibility for important public objectives: education in this case. Who bears the primary responsibility in the Administration's view when it comes to running public schools in America?

Secretary Riley. There is no question about that. It is the state. It is in every state constitution and the general law of the state. The local school district, of course, is a creature of the state, but they are federal dollars.

Mr. Schaffer. I would like to finish with this.

You know, the TIMSS score shows us ranking in 12th grade only above Cypress in South Africa in mathematics score for the 12th grade in science.

We rank above Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Cypress in South Africa. There are legions of nations that rank better than us.

Your Teacher Quality Report told us that less than half of American teachers are still very well-prepared to teach in the modern classroom. One-third of 4th graders are reading below basic levels.

One-fourth of 8th graders read below basic levels. One- fourth of 12th graders read below basic levels. We spent $15 billion in 1999.

How should we and the American public be satisfied that the $15 billion is well spent in achieving the kinds of results we can be proud of?

Secretary Riley. Well, I do not think they should be. That is why we favor more accountability features. I would say this. You mentioned the TIMSS Study and you mentioned the 12th grade, which is negative.

There are reasons for that. I would be happy to discuss that with you. You did not mention the 4th grade, which shows in science that our 4th graders across this Country, disabled kids, kids who are disadvantaged, all of them lumped together were second only to Korea.

In math in the 4th grade, we were way up above average; almost in the very top range. Eighth grade, we were average. Twelfth grade, we dropped. There are a number of reasons for that. I am very sorry about that. We are working on correcting it.

You were not here when we were talking about the reading; the NAPEP scores that just came out that showed a dramatic change in the direction we were going. We were going down. Now, we have come up.

Over the last 4 years our students have gained almost half of a grade level in grades 8 and 12 and 1/3 of a grade level in grade 4. Math tests show us going in the direction upward.

So, I think a lot of good things are happening. You can find negative things about the schools. Most of that, as you point out though, is a state matter. We are doing what we can to try to help it, especially for disadvantaged children.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Holt.

Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My polls show that 90 percent of the people here today are here to hear you.

Secretary Riley. Are you in that 90 percent?

Mr. Holt. And I think not to hear the members so, let me follow on your immediate answer and also on the questions of my colleagues from Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California.

We all know the importance of improving math and science education for all students. Referring to my colleague from California, I would certainly say we include girls in that too.

It is very important in this increasingly technological world. There are no unskilled jobs today. The new standards being put in place by the states are requiring teachers to learn new methods of teaching science and math. I must say good exciting new methods that are hands-on.

As you point out, with a quarter of teachers teaching out of field, that is particularly a problem in science and math; a lot of elementary teachers feeling sometimes inadequate when it comes to science and math.

The new methods require training for teachers. With regard to Eisenhower Funds and other funds for teacher training, I guess I want to be clear in my mind. You have talked about this some.

What are you proposing to ensure that these funds for teacher development are sufficiently available for science and math?

Secretary Riley. Well, let me absolutely assure you that our proposal, as far as the Elementary and Secondary Act is where we talk about lumping together Eisenhower goals and Title VI.

That will be a much larger initiative than Eisenhower, or goals, or Title VI. It will have an absolute priority in there for math and science professional development.

Mr. Holt. Thank you.

Secretary Riley. So, the answer is yes.

Mr. Holt. Well, we greatly admire you, Mr. Secretary. We thank you for spending so much time with us today.

Secretary Riley. I thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome aboard, sir. I appreciate your comments about Texas. I think Governor Bush has come a long way toward helping us enact better standards for our students and providing better accountability for the schools.

I agree with the President that the states ought to do what they can do; either shut down or help low performing schools improve. However, we have been hitting a federal roadblock whenever they have tried to correct a low performing school.

It seems under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, States like Texas cannot take corrective action against a school unless that action is first pre-cleared by the United States Justice Department.

I do not think our laws were written in the education venue to run into that roadblock. We had an incident a few years ago at a school in South Dallas. The Texas Education Agency tried to shut down the school.

It had to wait for pre-clearance from the Justice Department. While our people were sitting around waiting, that same Justice Department sent the FBI and IRS in to seize the school's financial records.

So, my question to you is since the President is so supportive of states turning around their low performing schools, would the President and you be willing to work with States like Texas to help them get through the statutory hurdles caused by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

Two, would you and the President be willing to support a statutory change that would allow States like Texas to take their corrective action as long as the Justice Department has pre-cleared the underlying state law that authorizes such action?

Secretary Riley. Well, the Civil Rights laws, of course, we do not change them in passing education laws. In dealing with education issues, you have the Civil Rights laws that are in their own body of effect.

Mr. Johnson. Would you not agree that those laws were developed to affect voting rights, election prospects, and not education per se, even though the education board may be elected?

Secretary Riley. Well, I would be happy to take a look at that, Congressman. I generally, and to categorize in my mind, Civil Rights laws have to in and of themselves look at particular situations and say whether or not Civil Rights have been effective; whether it is voting rights or whatever.

I see the point you are making, but I sure do not want to make some carte blanche comment on a particular situation I know very little about. I will be happy to look at that and talk with you about it.

Generally, we have to say in passing education matters that whenever the Civil Rights laws come in, they really come from another direction.

They have to be adhered to. So, we cannot really, in substance, change them in an educational way. They need to be dealt with over in Justice in the Civil Rights area.

Mr. Johnson. The departments ought to be able to work together to keep things like what happened down there where the FBI and IRS came in and prevented a normal session of the state to try to correct the problem in the school system, which has finally been corrected by the way.

Secretary Riley. It has been?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I am sure you run into that in South Carolina, too. All states are not treated equally in that regard. If you would look at it, I sure would appreciate it.

Secretary Riley. I will be happy to and be happy to be back with you.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Fattah.

Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the Secretary for his presence here today. Moreover, for his leadership of the Department. This Administration has done a tremendous job.

I particularly want to thank the Secretary for his assistance with the Gear-Up and High Hopes effort last year and the increase that is in the Department's budget request for this year.

Let me try to ask a brief question or two about this whole issue that we have been discussing today from a different vantage point.

My focus is on a subject matter that is usually talked about in terms of school finance equity. That is to say that we agree that states have the constitutional requirement to provide a public education. It is identified in the state constitutions and usually also by state law.

In 49 of our 50 States, there has existed a disparity from school district to school district in terms of what is invested or spent per pupil in terms of their education.

I concur Mr. Secretary that local school boards that they are creatures of the state. We have circumstances in Pennsylvania in which two or three times more is being spent on one first grader than another first grader. That repeats itself grade, after grade, after grade through the completion of 12th grade.

It is impossible to look at any of the studies that we would look at in education and not see an extraordinary correlation between low performing schools and schools in the short end of the investment through state school financing formulas.

So, even though the Federal Government comes in with aid that is directed at disadvantaged students, that aid is of such a small percentage overall, in terms of what is being spent, that it can in no way overwhelm this lack or this disparity in investment. So that you could have, a $700,000 disparity between a student in Philadelphia and one in a suburban school district over their 12 years of learning.

So, we can come in with federal dollars through Title I and through other investment schemes, even great programs like Gear-Up, and try to be helpful. Unless we create a more even playing field, I think that we have done a disservice.

I know that this is something that we have discussed in the past. We hopefully will have a further opportunity to discuss it.

I have introduced some legislation in this regard; H.R. 555, which attempts to connect the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to the provision of public education that would have states be encouraged to equalize their school financing formulas.

These formulas are intricate mechanisms. They have density factors, sparsity factors, and poverty factors. The reality of the state financing formulas is that they are political instruments designed by legislative bodies to move money.

What we have seen over the years is actually dollars going increasing to districts that are already at the higher end of the spectrum versus any real effort at equity.

So, I know it is not directly on point. I would be interested in your comments. I know this is an issue that has had some attention from your Office and from your efforts.

Secretary Riley. First of all, let me thank you for your leadership in Gear-Up, High Hopes. I really have high hopes for that program. It is one thing, as you point out, that it is the effort on the part of the Federal Government to deal somewhat with the inequitable situation across this Country.

So many of the funds that we have talked about today go to disadvantaged communities; go to poor children. So, it does somewhat help. Title I certainly is a classic example of that.

I think Gear-Up will be tremendous; this idea of poor children having the opportunity to go to college as the way to come out of poorness. That is what Gear-Up is supposed to do.

I read somewhere the other day that the average lifetime earnings of a high school graduate as opposed to a college 4-year graduate was something like $600,000. So, you are talking about a major difference in today's world in being able to go to college and not.

Unless these young people are prepared, they cannot go. So, hopefully the inequity situation for the next generation might be somewhat better if we do the right job.

The tax equity issue, as you know and you and I have discussed, is a very sensitive important one. The Supreme Court, of course, has said it is a state issue.

When I was in the State Senate in South Carolina, I was fully prepared for it to be declared by the U.S. Supreme Court something that we had to deal with in our State. I started the mechanism there to deal with it.

Then on appeal, it went up to the Supreme Court. They said, no. It is a state issue and has to be brought in state court. So, you are having that come up in courts. Over 50 percent I think of the states now are in court.

You do have then that issue being dealt with on the state level. While it is that issue out there, I think it makes a very strong case though for us of avoiding sending funds down.

Chairman Goodling. He is a Baptist Minister.

Secretary Riley. In a block grant which is not targeted and with no. accountability

 

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Are you a Southern Baptist?

Secretary Riley. I am a United Methodist.

Chairman Goodling. Oh, so am I.

Secretary Riley. So are you, well. You are not a Democrat; are you?

Chairman Goodling. I do not talk that much.

Secretary Riley. We at least have the same religion together.

Chairman Goodling. We Pennsylvanians were told by our Governor last week that Philadelphia receives by far the highest basic education subsidy of all school districts. They produce the lowest local effort of all districts. I just thought I would throw that in.

Now, they do have problems when it comes to their formulas in relationship to special education and all of the other special programs which there is no question. York and Philadelphia are cheated.

Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, I think that the record should note that it was your Superintendent from York, Pennsylvania, along with 200 school districts in our State that filed suit about this financing system.

So, rather than get distracted on whether this is a Philadelphia issue or not_

Chairman Goodling. Which is exactly.

Mr. Fattah. _it is clear that in 49 States around the Country, that this is a legitimate issue and one that at some point we will have to confront.

Governor Ridge and his semantics around what local effort might be missing the point. In Philadelphia, 1/3 of our property is not taxable.

Chairman Goodling. Which is exactly what I said.

Mr. Fattah. Right.

Chairman Goodling. I said that the basic formula is very fair. York City went after them for every other formula that comes from the State, which is unfair. Philadelphia, of course, joined them. Mr. Hilleary.

Mr. Hilleary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. Just one quick question. You all's budget zeros out Title VI. Is that right?

Secretary Riley. Yes. What we proposed in some discussions, and I am not sure you were here, Congressman, is to roll Title Vi, Goals 2000, and Eisenhower, the professional development of teachers all together with a broad purpose of moving towards having standards in the classroom.

We have got standards on the state level now in practically all of the states in one way or another; to move those into the classroom primarily through quality teachers; professional development being the lead purpose of that rolled together. That is kind of what we propose for the future.

Mr. Hilleary. We are all for flexibility, I think, more flexibility. Maybe some of us are for more of it than others, but at least to some degree, more flexibility for the states to deal with their own problems.

It seems to me by taking that money out and putting it in specific programs, you get away from flexibility instead of increasing the flexibility.

It has just been a concern of mine in government, that whether it be at the federal level, state level, or whatever, but especially at the federal level.

Whether it be the Presidency or the Congress, or whether it be Republicans or Democrats we sometimes get lulled into the idea that in order to show that we care about something, we must create x-number of programs for it.

If we have programs, enhance them with different things they have to do; maybe just expand existing programs. For some reason, the public perception is not as good if we simply take that money and send it to the states and let the states do with it as they will.

My only comment was is that I do not really care who gets the credit for kids having a better education. If the governors get credit for it and the President does not, and the Congress does not, and the governors and the state legislatures get credit for it, that is fine with me.

It really concerns me that we seem to be constantly lulled into this idea that we have to have a program with a name. Then if it does not work out, and some programs do, but if the program does not work out, it has a name and it has parameters as to who are the beneficiaries of that program.

Then that program gains a constituency. Then if that program happens to be one that does now work out so well, that constituency makes it dog on hard to then change it, or switch it, or whatever. If you leave money in a flexible block grant to the state, then it is much easier to move forward and be flexible and find out what works at that point.

Then you take that money away from flexibility, put it in existing programs, some of which may work or some of them may not. Some may work now, but will not be needed and necessary later on.

Then once they are in a named program, it becomes awfully hard to then have that flexibility that we, I think, all want at least to some degree to have. It is just a concern of mine that we would do that which I think degrades flexibility.

Feel free to comment one way or the other.

Secretary Riley. I understand. I think you have stated that in a good way, your position, on block grants generally. What I have said that I am interested in often is what I call a responsible block grant.

That is a lot of flexibility, but targeted for a purpose so you can have accountability. It is awful hard to have accountability if you have just a general block grant program to see if it is working well or if it is not.

I think it is real important for federal dollars that go down to states, to school districts, to schools that we have ways of accountability. The General Accounting Office did an analysis of funds that the Federal Government targets all of our funds, how they are targeted for disadvantaged children, as opposed to how state funds are targeted, how they go to disadvantaged children.

It was something like 5:1 for the federal side. So, the federal dollars, as pointed out on the tax equity question and others, are targeted for special purposes: disabled children, disadvantaged children, LEP children who have trouble with English, and so forth.

So, I think I agree with you on the flexibility part, but I would not go quite as far as you would in the general block grant because I do think targeting of funds and having accountability is important.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to see you. I wanted to follow-up on a couple of questions that you were asked. One was the question of mandating bilingual education.

Is it not true that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in a 1997 report found that OCR did not prescribe a particular methodology to address LEP students? Only that they required states to provide a meaningful access to education, but did not prescribe the particular method.

Secretary Riley. Yes. I think that is how I answered the question. Are you talking about the Lao Decision?

Mr. Scott. Yes.

Secretary Riley. Yes. They do require results. Whatever is there, you have to show you get the job done.

Mr. Scott. The other was calculation of the cost of educating students, disabled students, under IDEA who were discipline problems.

Has anybody calculated the cost of not educating these students in light of the fact that if they are suspended without an education they are much less likely than other students to ever catch up and graduate, and are therefore much likely to commit crimes?

If you have calculated the cost of educating them, could you do the cost of not educating them too?

Secretary Riley. Well, I would say that is a very good point. The cost of not educating them, in my judgment, would be enormous.

Mr. Scott. Now, we have new innovations that hopefully will reduce the chances that they would need to be in a situation where they are being suspended to begin with.

Are those innovations going to be a part of the regulations or will they be just services available to the school districts so that they will be more able to deal with students? In Iowa, for example, they had innovations that reduced the suspensions from a couple of hundred down to close to zero.

Secretary Riley. Well, I think the whole tenor of what those, and we are off on a subject that I am not into here today. I think the tenor will be certainly intervention helps and works; the earlier the better.

The IDEA proposals that we have in this year's budget start with infants and toddlers. Then another effort for 3 to 5 year olds. Then another 5 to 9 year olds. That is what we think.

The prevention part is very, very important. I would point out that classroom size is also I think very, very connected to that same issue.

Mr. Scott. Let me change the subject a little bit and go to after school programs. How much funding will there be for after school programs? Can you say a little bit about how much good they do?

Secretary Riley. Well, I would love to. I am real glad you mentioned that. As you know, we started off with $1 million and then went to $40 million, then $200 million. The $200 million level will not come anywhere close to funding the enormous request for those programs.

School people that are really tuned into reform, to getting these disadvantaged kids to reach higher standards have just gotten all into the use of after school, Saturdays, and summers for strong academic programs to help young people pull up to those levels. It is especially helpful for real young children learning how to read.

So, then the President's request this year goes from $200 million to $600 million. It is the largest increase he has I think in the budget. I strongly am grateful for that. I think it is going to be, I hope, passed.

It will be funds well used. When we have the first like 100 grants to go out, we had something like 2,000 requests. I would point this out, too, that the Mott Foundation, it is a private foundation in Michigan, Mr. Kildee, that you are very familiar with in Flint, Michigan.

The Mott Foundation has put in substantial amounts of money; $55 million. Now, they are going to increase that another I think $20 million to $25 million; providing workshops for people who are applying for these after school programs.

Then after they get grants to then meet with them and help them design these programs where they work, where they are effective. They use experience in other places and so forth; research data.

That is a grand example of a private foundation coming in supporting an after school program funded by the Federal Government to make sure the quality of the program is there.

Chairman Goodling. I want to make sure that Mr. Scott knows that if you take bilingual money, 75 percent of it must be used in transitional bilingual and 25 percent can be used in immersion or anything else. But you must, if you take the money you must spend 75 percent of that money in transitional methods.

Well, Mr. Secretary, you have been very patient, very verbose, very nice, gentle, kind.

Secretary Riley. We Methodist talk a lot.

Chairman Goodling. We have been pretty much the same. I did want to call very quickly three things to your attention. You said something in your opening remarks about your hope that this will be a bipartisan effort.

Something about the last couple of years may not have been or something. Well, you know, the White House controls the press. So, the best kept secret is that we had the best two years in a bipartisan effort in the areas of education and job training in the history of the Congress of the United States.

I would just recite eight very quickly: Bringing It Into the 21st Century, we hope, job training for jobs that now exist; higher education; IDEA; Head Start; Child Nutrition; Reading Excellence; and yes, bipartisan in relationship to testing.

So, we did have quite an effective 2 years. The second comment I would make is you cut Even Start last year by $9 million. This year, you increase it by $10 million.

It seems to me if you cut $9 million last year and you put $10 million in, you could at least gotten up to $19 million.

Now, you have a program that really works, which will eliminate an awful lot of people getting into special education in the first place. I have to thank Mary Jane again because I told her quality not quantity, and it had to be a family literacy program. And it is working.

Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, I have got to leave, but can I walk down that yellow brick road of bipartisanship with you?

Chairman Goodling. Yes. I have to give the third part here, but you can leave at any time. That gives me more time. There has been a lot of talk today about back in 1994, and the changes that were made, and so on.

Back in 1994, Congress required the Department to do a longitudinal evaluation of school change in performance using 71 Title I schools. I have not seen that. Is that sort of like the regulations we are waiting for? I have not seen the results of that.

Secretary Riley. No. We are collecting the data on it now. I mentioned that in the beginning of my remarks. That would be forthcoming.

Chairman Goodling. I want to talk intelligently about the differences between 1994 and now, but I do not have the data in front of me. Again, I thank you very much.

Does anybody have a closing comment?

[No response.]

Chairman Goodling. Thank you very much. I hope your wife saved dinner for your or something.

Secretary Riley. I hope so.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]