Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
(Senate - March 03, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2177-S2201] EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility partnerships. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu thereof ``Part B.'' Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To improve the bill) Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an amendment numbered 31. [[Page S2178]] Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law. A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area of education.'' Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage. The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed it with only one dissenting vote. The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass Ed-Flex this year. Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but it was seen as modestly helpful. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education delivery system. The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of comprehensive school reform'' initiatives. I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed- Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to State or local education agencies. They have no authority to waive any of those. The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed Flex states, three designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5 million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations less than 3.5 million. These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in Ed Flex submitted an application. In the application, each interested state was required to describe how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure accountability. The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and my home state of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May 1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico. Vermont has used its Ed Flex authority to improve Title One services, particularly improving services for those students in smaller rural areas. In addition, my home state has also used Ed Flex authority to provide greater access to professional development, which is a very critical area and perhaps has the greatest impact on enhancing student performance. The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed Flex states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' In last November's GAO report on Ed Flex, several state officials from the established Ed Flex states, said that ``Ed Flex promotes a climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new approaches . . .'' The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed Flex law. S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed Flex authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing its Title 1 state standards. This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding progress toward increased school and student performance. As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist and Ron Wyden and their staff for their hard work on this legislation. They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their efforts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools. I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole gauge for our commitment to better education in this country. I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of the students in this country. I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many differences--there are also a number of similarities. The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity. It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the States the [[Page S2179]] flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals. I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point. I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our educational programs. When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman Hoekstra's committee. Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of Education.] Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is misleading is to talk about 760-- Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are? Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it. Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone or is this including all other agencies? Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200. Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of Education? Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education. Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies and those kinds of things. Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get into the 760. It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous bureaucratic waste. Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in the U.S. House as a Democrat: While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended on behalf of these children-- that is, children at risk-- these funds have not made much difference. Study after study has shown that this important Federal program has failed to narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform will transform the future prospects of America's minority and low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of the way of States and communities that are serious about pursuing real education reform of their own devising. I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex. Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability. Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, is foolish, indeed. In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of education in this country, we have seen, by every objective measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today is the crisis that exists in American education. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we have been doing has clearly failed. So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve. The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders in science. I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and grade 12. I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it [[Page S2180]] is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education. Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona schools. Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by directors of education across this country. This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction. President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education problems with Washington solutions. In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent of the educational spending in Ohio. Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed- Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states: Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and universities across the country. According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 9-pound application. I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects the experience of the education establishment all across this country. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and Chairman Jeffords. My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR. I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or college. But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of education catches on in a classroom. I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the classroom. I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington. Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed- Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is, the importance of the bill, and where we are going. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months. That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill. It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans. I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and that is teach students and educate our children. I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally, is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to present a better future to our children by preparing them. Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems we have today. This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is reading, science or math that is being evaluated. [[Page S2181]] Let's look at science. In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus other countries. Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States. So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we fall way down. You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates the average for all countries. So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other countries. Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of science. As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the United States is below the average of all these other countries, and the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United States of America. Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on Education. The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do. The Federal Government needs to take the leadership role to untie the hands of our States, our schools, and our school districts so that they can carry out the sort of objectives that we all generally agree to, the sort of goals that we set in this body. Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12 States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to all 50 States. Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available. But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the Washington redtape. Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity. And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields here in Government. Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex. Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems that vary from school to school, school district to school district, and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried it in the past and it hasn't worked. Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say, yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and 10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left behind. So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need some flexibility. We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25 pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their particular needs. In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten, because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had a specific need. They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading strategies for all students. Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,'' people have to think, and they should [[Page S2182]] think, ``accountability,'' We are saying, accomplish certain goals, but do it in a way that meets your specific needs with programs that you believe will work at the local community level. It is critical that we build in strong, accountability measures. If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed- Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the ``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12 current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system has worked well. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are two important principles behind this bipartisan bill. Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious and careful use of this waiver authority. Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability measures built in at the base, at the local level. At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver will be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals written out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable for all of that. There are additional accountability measures in the bill, but I have summarized accountability at the local level. At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and ``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those content standards and performance standards, States are required to monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate the waiver. At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think, to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at any time. I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe for success as we work towards educating our children and improving those scores that have been referred to already this morning. I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States, it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that child who is in the school system in his or her State. The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first sentence: The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible for creating an education system that enables all students to achieve high standards and believe that the federal government should support state efforts by providing regulatory relief and greater flexibility. Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real power of this bill. They say: Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student performance, by more closely aligning state and federal education improvement programs and by supporting state efforts to design and implement standards-based reform. And then just their last sentence: Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful standards and assessments with greater accountability. As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year. It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very, very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily, given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this particular bill. In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted them to do. Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at moving toward that common goal that we all share. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an opportunity to address the fundamental issue which [[Page S2183]] is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools-- whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government. So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able to have greater flexibility at the local level. The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I programs. Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing to do it. During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the early grades. We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue. The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves involved in behavior which is inappropriate. What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed-- where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the commitment in those areas. There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues involving technology and other matters that will eventually be addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues. We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance through today and through the remainder of the week and through the early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our policies are going to be. Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest children in this country. And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically an indication to show the targeting of Title I. Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country. So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that have been [[Page S2184]] made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves. On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have student achievement? That is what we are asking. And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, that we could add those words in three different places in the legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of others have as well. We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. But this is where we are, Mr. President. What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon. Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with strong accountability. Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and paperwork is not their top issue. According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting Office. It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of beneficial result many of us would like. I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period of time. In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order to match this. It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of classrooms and afterschool programs. But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility. One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not have that capacity or willingness to do so. Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process. Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make those comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an opportunity to address that. I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report. And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary. [[Page S2185]] Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide parents, educators, and other members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President. We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change. Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to achieve

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
(Senate - March 03, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2177-S2201] EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility partnerships. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu thereof ``Part B.'' Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To improve the bill) Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an amendment numbered 31. [[Page S2178]] Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law. A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area of education.'' Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage. The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed it with only one dissenting vote. The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass Ed-Flex this year. Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but it was seen as modestly helpful. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education delivery system. The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of comprehensive school reform'' initiatives. I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed- Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to State or local education agencies. They have no authority to waive any of those. The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed Flex states, three designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5 million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations less than 3.5 million. These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in Ed Flex submitted an application. In the application, each interested state was required to describe how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure accountability. The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and my home state of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May 1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico. Vermont has used its Ed Flex authority to improve Title One services, particularly improving services for those students in smaller rural areas. In addition, my home state has also used Ed Flex authority to provide greater access to professional development, which is a very critical area and perhaps has the greatest impact on enhancing student performance. The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed Flex states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' In last November's GAO report on Ed Flex, several state officials from the established Ed Flex states, said that ``Ed Flex promotes a climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new approaches . . .'' The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed Flex law. S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed Flex authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing its Title 1 state standards. This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding progress toward increased school and student performance. As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist and Ron Wyden and their staff for their hard work on this legislation. They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their efforts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools. I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole gauge for our commitment to better education in this country. I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of the students in this country. I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many differences--there are also a number of similarities. The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity. It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the States the [[Page S2179]] flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals. I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point. I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our educational programs. When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman Hoekstra's committee. Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of Education.] Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is misleading is to talk about 760-- Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are? Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it. Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone or is this including all other agencies? Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200. Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of Education? Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education. Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies and those kinds of things. Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get into the 760. It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous bureaucratic waste. Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in the U.S. House as a Democrat: While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended on behalf of these children-- that is, children at risk-- these funds have not made much difference. Study after study has shown that this important Federal program has failed to narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform will transform the future prospects of America's minority and low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of the way of States and communities that are serious about pursuing real education reform of their own devising. I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex. Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability. Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, is foolish, indeed. In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of education in this country, we have seen, by every objective measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today is the crisis that exists in American education. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we have been doing has clearly failed. So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve. The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders in science. I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and grade 12. I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it [[Page S2180]] is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education. Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona schools. Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by directors of education across this country. This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction. President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education problems with Washington solutions. In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent of the educational spending in Ohio. Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed- Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states: Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and universities across the country. According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 9-pound application. I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects the experience of the education establishment all across this country. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and Chairman Jeffords. My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR. I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or college. But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of education catches on in a classroom. I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the classroom. I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington. Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed- Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is, the importance of the bill, and where we are going. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months. That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill. It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans. I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and that is teach students and educate our children. I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally, is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to present a better future to our children by preparing them. Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems we have today. This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is reading, science or math that is being evaluated. [[Page S2181]] Let's look at science. In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus other countries. Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States. So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we fall way down. You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates the average for all countries. So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other countries. Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of science. As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the United States is below the average of all these other countries, and the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United States of America. Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on Education. The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do. The Federal Government needs to take the leadership role to untie the hands of our States, our schools, and our school districts so that they can carry out the sort of objectives that we all generally agree to, the sort of goals that we set in this body. Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12 States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to all 50 States. Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available. But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the Washington redtape. Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity. And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields here in Government. Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex. Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems that vary from school to school, school district to school district, and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried it in the past and it hasn't worked. Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say, yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and 10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left behind. So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need some flexibility. We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25 pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their particular needs. In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten, because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had a specific need. They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading strategies for all students. Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,'' people have to think, and they should [[Page S2182]] think, ``accountability,'' We are saying, accomplish certain goals, but do it in a way that meets your specific needs with programs that you believe will work at the local community level. It is critical that we build in strong, accountability measures. If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed- Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the ``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12 current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system has worked well. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are two important principles behind this bipartisan bill. Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious and careful use of this waiver authority. Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability measures built in at the base, at the local level. At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver will be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals written out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable for all of that. There are additional accountability measures in the bill, but I have summarized accountability at the local level. At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and ``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those content standards and performance standards, States are required to monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate the waiver. At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think, to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at any time. I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe for success as we work towards educating our children and improving those scores that have been referred to already this morning. I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States, it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that child who is in the school system in his or her State. The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first sentence: The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible for creating an education system that enables all students to achieve high standards and believe that the federal government should support state efforts by providing regulatory relief and greater flexibility. Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real power of this bill. They say: Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student performance, by more closely aligning state and federal education improvement programs and by supporting state efforts to design and implement standards-based reform. And then just their last sentence: Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful standards and assessments with greater accountability. As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year. It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very, very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily, given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this particular bill. In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted them to do. Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at moving toward that common goal that we all share. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an opportunity to address the fundamental issue which [[Page S2183]] is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools-- whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government. So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able to have greater flexibility at the local level. The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I programs. Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing to do it. During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the early grades. We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue. The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves involved in behavior which is inappropriate. What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed-- where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the commitment in those areas. There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues involving technology and other matters that will eventually be addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues. We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance through today and through the remainder of the week and through the early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our policies are going to be. Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest children in this country. And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically an indication to show the targeting of Title I. Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country. So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that have been [[Page S2184]] made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves. On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have student achievement? That is what we are asking. And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, that we could add those words in three different places in the legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of others have as well. We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. But this is where we are, Mr. President. What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon. Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with strong accountability. Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and paperwork is not their top issue. According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting Office. It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of beneficial result many of us would like. I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period of time. In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order to match this. It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of classrooms and afterschool programs. But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility. One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not have that capacity or willingness to do so. Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process. Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make those comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an opportunity to address that. I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report. And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary. [[Page S2185]] Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide parents, educators, and other members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President. We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change. Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
(Senate - March 03, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2177-S2201] EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility partnerships. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu thereof ``Part B.'' Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To improve the bill) Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an amendment numbered 31. [[Page S2178]] Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law. A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area of education.'' Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage. The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed it with only one dissenting vote. The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass Ed-Flex this year. Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but it was seen as modestly helpful. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education delivery system. The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of comprehensive school reform'' initiatives. I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed- Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to State or local education agencies. They have no authority to waive any of those. The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed Flex states, three designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5 million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations less than 3.5 million. These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in Ed Flex submitted an application. In the application, each interested state was required to describe how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure accountability. The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and my home state of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May 1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico. Vermont has used its Ed Flex authority to improve Title One services, particularly improving services for those students in smaller rural areas. In addition, my home state has also used Ed Flex authority to provide greater access to professional development, which is a very critical area and perhaps has the greatest impact on enhancing student performance. The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed Flex states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' In last November's GAO report on Ed Flex, several state officials from the established Ed Flex states, said that ``Ed Flex promotes a climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new approaches . . .'' The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed Flex law. S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed Flex authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing its Title 1 state standards. This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding progress toward increased school and student performance. As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist and Ron Wyden and their staff for their hard work on this legislation. They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their efforts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools. I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole gauge for our commitment to better education in this country. I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of the students in this country. I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many differences--there are also a number of similarities. The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity. It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the States the [[Page S2179]] flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals. I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point. I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our educational programs. When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman Hoekstra's committee. Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of Education.] Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is misleading is to talk about 760-- Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are? Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it. Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone or is this including all other agencies? Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200. Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of Education? Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education. Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies and those kinds of things. Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get into the 760. It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous bureaucratic waste. Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in the U.S. House as a Democrat: While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended on behalf of these children-- that is, children at risk-- these funds have not made much difference. Study after study has shown that this important Federal program has failed to narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform will transform the future prospects of America's minority and low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of the way of States and communities that are serious about pursuing real education reform of their own devising. I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex. Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability. Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, is foolish, indeed. In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of education in this country, we have seen, by every objective measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today is the crisis that exists in American education. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we have been doing has clearly failed. So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve. The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders in science. I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and grade 12. I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it [[Page S2180]] is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education. Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona schools. Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by directors of education across this country. This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction. President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education problems with Washington solutions. In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent of the educational spending in Ohio. Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed- Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states: Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and universities across the country. According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 9-pound application. I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects the experience of the education establishment all across this country. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and Chairman Jeffords. My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR. I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or college. But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of education catches on in a classroom. I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the classroom. I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington. Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed- Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is, the importance of the bill, and where we are going. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months. That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill. It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans. I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and that is teach students and educate our children. I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally, is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to present a better future to our children by preparing them. Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems we have today. This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is reading, science or math that is being evaluated. [[Page S2181]] Let's look at science. In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus other countries. Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States. So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we fall way down. You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates the average for all countries. So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other countries. Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of science. As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the United States is below the average of all these other countries, and the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United States of America. Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on Education. The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do. The Federal Government needs to take the leadership role to untie the hands of our States, our schools, and our school districts so that they can carry out the sort of objectives that we all generally agree to, the sort of goals that we set in this body. Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12 States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to all 50 States. Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available. But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the Washington redtape. Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity. And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields here in Government. Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex. Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems that vary from school to school, school district to school district, and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried it in the past and it hasn't worked. Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say, yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and 10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left behind. So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need some flexibility. We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25 pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their particular needs. In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten, because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had a specific need. They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading strategies for all students. Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,'' people have to think, and they should [[Page S2182]] think, ``accountability,'' We are saying, accomplish certain goals, but do it in a way that meets your specific needs with programs that you believe will work at the local community level. It is critical that we build in strong, accountability measures. If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed- Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the ``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12 current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system has worked well. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are two important principles behind this bipartisan bill. Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious and careful use of this waiver authority. Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability measures built in at the base, at the local level. At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver will be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals written out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable for all of that. There are additional accountability measures in the bill, but I have summarized accountability at the local level. At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and ``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those content standards and performance standards, States are required to monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate the waiver. At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think, to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at any time. I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe for success as we work towards educating our children and improving those scores that have been referred to already this morning. I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States, it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that child who is in the school system in his or her State. The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first sentence: The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible for creating an education system that enables all students to achieve high standards and believe that the federal government should support state efforts by providing regulatory relief and greater flexibility. Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real power of this bill. They say: Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student performance, by more closely aligning state and federal education improvement programs and by supporting state efforts to design and implement standards-based reform. And then just their last sentence: Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful standards and assessments with greater accountability. As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year. It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very, very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily, given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this particular bill. In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted them to do. Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at moving toward that common goal that we all share. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an opportunity to address the fundamental issue which [[Page S2183]] is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools-- whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government. So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able to have greater flexibility at the local level. The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I programs. Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing to do it. During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the early grades. We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue. The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves involved in behavior which is inappropriate. What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed-- where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the commitment in those areas. There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues involving technology and other matters that will eventually be addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues. We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance through today and through the remainder of the week and through the early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our policies are going to be. Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest children in this country. And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically an indication to show the targeting of Title I. Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country. So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that have been [[Page S2184]] made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves. On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have student achievement? That is what we are asking. And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, that we could add those words in three different places in the legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of others have as well. We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. But this is where we are, Mr. President. What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon. Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with strong accountability. Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and paperwork is not their top issue. According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting Office. It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of beneficial result many of us would like. I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period of time. In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order to match this. It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of classrooms and afterschool programs. But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility. One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not have that capacity or willingness to do so. Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process. Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make those comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an opportunity to address that. I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report. And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary. [[Page S2185]] Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide parents, educators, and other members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President. We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change. Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to achieve

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
(Senate - March 03, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2177-S2201] EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility partnerships. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu thereof ``Part B.'' Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To improve the bill) Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an amendment numbered 31. [[Page S2178]] Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law. A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area of education.'' Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage. The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed it with only one dissenting vote. The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass Ed-Flex this year. Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but it was seen as modestly helpful. It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education delivery system. The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of comprehensive school reform'' initiatives. I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed- Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to State or local education agencies. They have no authority to waive any of those. The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed Flex states, three designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5 million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations less than 3.5 million. These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in Ed Flex submitted an application. In the application, each interested state was required to describe how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure accountability. The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and my home state of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May 1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico. Vermont has used its Ed Flex authority to improve Title One services, particularly improving services for those students in smaller rural areas. In addition, my home state has also used Ed Flex authority to provide greater access to professional development, which is a very critical area and perhaps has the greatest impact on enhancing student performance. The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed Flex states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' In last November's GAO report on Ed Flex, several state officials from the established Ed Flex states, said that ``Ed Flex promotes a climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new approaches . . .'' The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed Flex law. S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed Flex authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing its Title 1 state standards. This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding progress toward increased school and student performance. As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist and Ron Wyden and their staff for their hard work on this legislation. They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their efforts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools. I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole gauge for our commitment to better education in this country. I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of the students in this country. I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many differences--there are also a number of similarities. The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity. It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the States the [[Page S2179]] flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals. I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point. I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our educational programs. When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman Hoekstra's committee. Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of Education.] Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is misleading is to talk about 760-- Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are? Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it. Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone or is this including all other agencies? Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200. Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of Education? Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education. Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies and those kinds of things. Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get into the 760. It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous bureaucratic waste. Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in the U.S. House as a Democrat: While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended on behalf of these children-- that is, children at risk-- these funds have not made much difference. Study after study has shown that this important Federal program has failed to narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform will transform the future prospects of America's minority and low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of the way of States and communities that are serious about pursuing real education reform of their own devising. I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex. Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability. Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, is foolish, indeed. In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of education in this country, we have seen, by every objective measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today is the crisis that exists in American education. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we have been doing has clearly failed. So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve. The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders in science. I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and grade 12. I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it [[Page S2180]] is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education. Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona schools. Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by directors of education across this country. This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction. President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education problems with Washington solutions. In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent of the educational spending in Ohio. Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed- Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states: Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and universities across the country. According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 9-pound application. I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects the experience of the education establishment all across this country. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and Chairman Jeffords. My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR. I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or college. But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of education catches on in a classroom. I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the classroom. I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington. Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed- Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is, the importance of the bill, and where we are going. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months. That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill. It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans. I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and that is teach students and educate our children. I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally, is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to present a better future to our children by preparing them. Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems we have today. This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is reading, science or math that is being evaluated. [[Page S2181]] Let's look at science. In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus other countries. Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States. So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we fall way down. You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates the average for all countries. So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other countries. Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of science. As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the United States is below the average of all these other countries, and the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United States of America. Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on Education. The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do. The Federal Government needs to take the leadership role to untie the hands of our States, our schools, and our school districts so that they can carry out the sort of objectives that we all generally agree to, the sort of goals that we set in this body. Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12 States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to all 50 States. Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available. But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the Washington redtape. Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity. And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields here in Government. Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex. Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems that vary from school to school, school district to school district, and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried it in the past and it hasn't worked. Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say, yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and 10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left behind. So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need some flexibility. We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25 pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their particular needs. In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten, because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had a specific need. They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading strategies for all students. Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,'' people have to think, and they should [[Page S2182]] think, ``accountability,'' We are saying, accomplish certain goals, but do it in a way that meets your specific needs with programs that you believe will work at the local community level. It is critical that we build in strong, accountability measures. If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed- Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the ``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12 current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system has worked well. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are two important principles behind this bipartisan bill. Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious and careful use of this waiver authority. Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability measures built in at the base, at the local level. At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver will be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals written out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable for all of that. There are additional accountability measures in the bill, but I have summarized accountability at the local level. At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and ``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those content standards and performance standards, States are required to monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate the waiver. At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think, to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at any time. I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe for success as we work towards educating our children and improving those scores that have been referred to already this morning. I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States, it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that child who is in the school system in his or her State. The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first sentence: The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible for creating an education system that enables all students to achieve high standards and believe that the federal government should support state efforts by providing regulatory relief and greater flexibility. Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real power of this bill. They say: Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student performance, by more closely aligning state and federal education improvement programs and by supporting state efforts to design and implement standards-based reform. And then just their last sentence: Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful standards and assessments with greater accountability. As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year. It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very, very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily, given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this particular bill. In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted them to do. Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at moving toward that common goal that we all share. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an opportunity to address the fundamental issue which [[Page S2183]] is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools-- whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government. So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able to have greater flexibility at the local level. The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I programs. Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing to do it. During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the early grades. We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue. The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves involved in behavior which is inappropriate. What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed-- where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the commitment in those areas. There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues involving technology and other matters that will eventually be addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues. We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance through today and through the remainder of the week and through the early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our policies are going to be. Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest children in this country. And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically an indication to show the targeting of Title I. Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country. So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that have been [[Page S2184]] made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves. On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have student achievement? That is what we are asking. And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, that we could add those words in three different places in the legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of others have as well. We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. But this is where we are, Mr. President. What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon. Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with strong accountability. Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and paperwork is not their top issue. According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting Office. It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of beneficial result many of us would like. I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period of time. In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order to match this. It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of classrooms and afterschool programs. But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility. One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not have that capacity or willingness to do so. Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process. Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make those comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an opportunity to address that. I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report. And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary. [[Page S2185]] Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide parents, educators, and other members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President. We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change. Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to