EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
June 6, 2001
Following is testimony that was given on federal HR1 in the U.S. House of Representatives before the final vote was taken. The disastrous HR1 passed the House with 45 dissenting vote. Most of the dissenters were from the President's own party. The Senate version of the Education bill is S1. Amendments to S1 are scheduled to begin in the Senate sometime this week.
Representative Souder of Indiana
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but strongly oppose this bill, reluctantly, after having worked with it for much time and even the last couple of years in committee.
I very much respect accountability and the principle of accountability. I am an MBA as well. I believe you need to have measures. I do not believe the problem right now is that there are not tests. I fear one national test, and inevitably this test will control not only public schools and lead to curriculum controlling, it will control home-schoolers and private schools, because once schools become punished by not meeting a standard and the parents have no escape, there will be a manipulation of that standard.
Representative Souder of Indiana
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that I strongly support our President. I think he is doing a great job. I strongly support the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BOEHNER), our committee chairman. I think he has done a great job in a very difficult situation. But I rise to oppose this education bill, Goals 2001.
I remember as a kid, I heard President Nixon say we are all Keynesians now. Right now I kind of feel like what we are saying is we are all liberals now in education. The fact is, in this Goals 2001, this current bill, unlike Goals 2000 where we were supposed to have the States evolve towards a national plan, we have a national plan.
Unlike the spending in education under former President Clinton, this bill spends more. Unlike the education bills under President Clinton where there was a proposal to just develop and look at a national test, this has national testing; and it has it for 6 years in a row, mandated by a backup of the Federal Government that, if one's State test does not meet the national standards, one can have one's money jerked.
Furthermore, it will lead to, in my belief, a national curriculum. There are more new programs in this bill than there were under President Clinton. At some point, one says when is it a bipartisan bill and when is it just taking two-thirds or more of what the Democrats had proposed in the past?
Now, there are some amendments here that could change the bill. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA) would wipe out the testing and put us back to where we were under President Clinton. The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. COX) would have the spending be only a little bit more than under President Clinton. The bill of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY) would take us back to where we were as Republicans last year on school choice. The bill of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DEMINT) would take us, not quite back to where we were last year, but at least to the Kennedy position in the Senate.
I know there are not going to be very many conservatives who are going to stand up under the pressures that we are under, and against the polls, and oppose this bill. I do not know whether there will be five of us, whether there will be 10 of us, or whether there are 20 of us; but there are some of us who are going to say that there are still Republicans who are conservative on the education issue, as on other issues.
Representative Paul of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people's concerns over education by embracing education ``reforms,'' which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. ``Trust us,'' proponents of new federal education programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which ``all children are above average.'' Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new "reforms."
Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in HR1 , the so-called "No Child Left Behind Act.'' A better title for this bill is "No Bureaucrat Left Behind'' because, even though its proponents claim HR1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. HR1 contains the word "ensure'' 150 times, "require'' 477 times, "shall'' 1,537 and "shall not'' 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!
HR1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because "he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in HR1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states' and local communities' authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference.
Some will claim that this does not violate states' control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people's own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates.
Mr. Chairman, HR1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will inevitably fashion their test to match the "nationally-normed'' test so as to relieve their students and teachers of having to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses to conform their standards with other national tests "for the children's sake.'' After all, what state superintendent wants his state's top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best jobs, or even student loans, because their state's test is considered inferior to the "assessments'' used by the other 49 states?
National testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated "assessment.'' After all, federal funding depends on how students perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by saying "there is only one way to read and do math.''
Well then what are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP?
Proponents of HR1 justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools "accountable.'' Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which participating schools performance is judged.
Even under the much touted Straight "A''s proposal, schools which fail to live up to their bureaucratically-determined "performance goals" will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. Federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the Straight "A''s programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state's education plan--yet this is the only part of the bill which even attempts to de-bureaucratize and decentralize education!
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states ``accountable'' for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America's families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.
As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called "consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.
When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.
According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and the student's SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests.
I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (HR369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: "Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?''
If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children's unique educational needs than parents and communities, then vote for HR1 . However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind, then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject HR1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.