Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
216887375
label
June 29 Ed Reform Hearing - House - RWR Testimony [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
216887375
contentType
document
title
June 29 Ed Reform Hearing - House - RWR Testimony [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Michael Cohen's Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
216887375
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7763316-20120160S-013-001-2013
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
290f032615478a38
ocrText
TO:
FRANK HOLLEMAN
JENNIFER DAVIS
MIKE SMITH
SUSAN FROST
TERRY PETERSON
KAY KAHLER
KAY CASSTEVENS
FR: Mike Cohen
We are scheduled to meet with the Secretary from 4:00 - 5:00 today
to discuss his June 29 testimony on education reform and the
proposals to abolish the Education Department.
Several of us met earlier this week and agreed on a general
direction for his testimony, based on a memo I had circuated
earlier. In general we agreed that:
1. The testimony ought to argue that: (1) education is vital for
our future; (2) the federal government needs to be a partner in the
education process; (3) while we still have a long way to go, we are
on the right track with respect to education performance, state and
local reform, and the federal role; (4) now is the time to stay on
course, not abandon our efforts or the Department.
Bill Cordiss has produced a first draft of the testimony, which
roughly tracks this line of argument. I have not yet had a chance
to review it, but I am distributing it for your review and comment.
2. While a statement reflecting the line of argument above is
necessary, the Secretary's actual testimony has to generate some
good press coverage--we won't change any minds or votes on the
committee anyway, and we need to get our arguments across to the
public. While we do not yet have a specific approach here, we are
in generall agreement that the Secretary will have to make some
clear and strong attacks on the two proposals to abolish the
Department right up front.
When we meet this afternoon, I would like us to review these issues
with the Secretary, and come out with a clear sense of direction he
wants us to pursue.
NOTE TO MIKE COHEN
Here's a first draft of the June 29 hearing testimony. This is the long version, but it can
easily be shortened to something along the lines of what Frank seemed to be looking
for. I think it's a good start, but see what you think:
A few caveats:
The draft does not include point 2 from your outline, because I couldn't quite see
how it fit, or why it was necessary. It seems to me our whole education reform
program, and the primacy of education in the Clinton Administration,
demonstrates this point. Also, the testimony makes clear that we are moving in
the right direction at least in part because of the Federal role in education
I think I have covered point four, but you may want to strengthen it, especially the
part about keeping education above partisan politics (although I think this is lost
on Scarborough and friends, and why not, since it also appears to be lost on
those who should know better, like Alexander, Bennett, and Dole).
I didn't mention vouchers, because I think discussing it would "take us off
course," and because I think it's hard to talk so much about flexibility and
innovation and then say no to vouchers, an experiment that some communities
may well want to try.
I don't think we need to respond to the Broder piece in this testimony.
I didn't deal with Goals and block grant proposals because I still believe that's a
slippery slope that can wait till another day. If you disagree, I'll work on
something based on your outline.
Didn't get that final, upbeat note yet.
I'll probably be in briefly on Thursday, hopefully to collect a PC to use at home. Once I
get it, I'll stay in touch by cc:mail. Till then, I'll check in with Sally periodically.
Bill
DRAFT TESTIMONY FOR JUNE 29 HEARING
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to see you and the other Members of this Committee
today, and to have this opportunity to come before you and discuss the important issue of
education as you begin consideration of several proposals to significantly change both the
structure and the functions of the Department of Education.
This Committee has long demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment to
improving education. Just last year, for example, the Committee succeeded in passing
important education reform legislation, including Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, while also completing a comprehensive reauthorization of the
Elémentary and Secondary Education Act. This bipartisan approach has always required
compromise from both sides, but on balance has produced much that has been positive for
American education.
I am hopeful that we will maintain this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in
education, for we are not educating our children as Democrats or Republicans, but as
Americans who represent the future of this great Nation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION
There is no doubt that education is absolutely vital for the future of America.
Congressman Gunderson has often spoken of the importance of education for preparing a
highly skilled workforce to compete in global economy, and I agree with him. I also
agree with President Clinton's description of education as the "fault line" dividing those
of our fellow citizens who are able to compete successfully and achieve the middle-class
American Dream from those who are falling behind.
2
It is simply-disingenuous, for example, to argue for the end of affirmative action
and the creation of a color-blind society without acknowledging the role of education in
leveling the playing field so all may compete on a truly equal basis. And the growing
disparity in incomes between those whose education ends with high school and those who
go on to college suggests that in the long-run, we face an education deficit even more
threatening than the Federal budget deficit.
The American people clearly grasp this connection: every poll that I have seen
this year shows that large majorities - ranging from two-thirds to over 80 percent -
believe that continued support for the Department of Education and its programs is more
important than deficit reduction.
A RECORD OF IMPROVEMENT
There is good reason for this high level of support for the Federal role in
education: over the past 15 years the Department has served as a powerful voice in
identifying critical education issues and in focusing national attention on the need for
education reform.
The 1983 Department report, A Nation At Risk, sounded the alarm over the failure
of our schools to prepare students for the rigors of global economic competition. In 1989,
the Department helped stage the Education Summit with the Governors in Charlottesville,
Virginia - a historic meeting that produced the bipartisan National Education Goals.
And in 1994 - as I noted earlier - the Department worked closely with this Committee
to win bipartisan passage of critical education reform legislation, including the Goals
2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Improving
- 3 -
America's Schools Act (IASA), which reauthorized and improved the landmark
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
In addition to providing leadership, the Department and its programs have
contributed to measurable improvements in educational opportunity and academic
achievement over the past decade. For example, nearly half of all high school graduates
now take the tougher core curriculum recommended in A Nation At Risk. The number of
students participating in the Advanced Placement program has tripled since 1982. The
dropout rate for 16- to 24-year olds fell from 14 percent in 1982 to 11 percent in 1993.
And the proportion of people age 25 and over completing four or more years of college
rose from 18 percent in 1982 to 22 percent in 1993, with the largest gains in college
attainment coming among minority group members.
States and local school districts deserve the lion's share of credit for these
improvements, of course, but many of the innovations and reforms now underway have
been encouraged by the Federal government. At the 1989 Education Summit, for
example, President Bush accelerated the movement toward standards-based reform,
which emphasized the development and adoption of high academic standards, giving
educators the flexibility needed to help all students reach those high standards, and
ensuring accountability by measuring results, not regulatory compliance. One leading-
edge State that has adopted comprehensive reforms based on this approach is Kentucky,
which has overhauled its entire educational system and achieved dramatic improvements
in student test scores in mathematics, reading, science, and social studies.
- 4
CHANGING THE DEPARTMENT TO BETTER SUPPORT
STATES AND COMMUNITIES
The Governors assembled at the Education Summit asked the Federal government
for greater program flexibility - including waivers of regulatory requirements - in
exchange for better results in terms of student achievement. Since I arrived at the
Department over two years ago, we have worked hard to meet that request and to make
countless other changes designed to make the Department of Education a more supportive
partner to States and school districts working to improve their schools.
We began by endorsing the Department mission statement developed by our
predecessors and by building on the customer-focused management reforms begun by
former Deputy Secretary David Kearns, who had successfully applied continuous
improvement techniques as CEO of the Xerox Corporation.
We developed a Strategic Plan that established clear priorities and set performance
targets in each priority area. These priorities include support for State and local efforts to
help all students reach high academic standards, assisting States and communities in the
creation of school-to-work systems, ensuring access to postsecondary education and
lifelong learning, and transforming the Department into a responsive partner that provides
effective, flexible support for reaching the other priorities.
With the help of this Committee, we succeeded in winning passage of legislation
giving us most of the tools we need to implement this comprehensive plan. Our
education reform legislation reflects principles that I believe most of you share: cutting
red tape, less paperwork, reduced regulation, and waivers that permit innovation - - all
- 5 -
aimed at giving-States and local communities maximum flexibility in the use of Federal
education funds to help students reach high academic standards.
For example, we are administering Goals 2000 and School-to-Work without
issuing a single regulation. Of the 49 programs included in the Improving America's
Schools Act, only 11 will require regulatory guidance. We have also taken action to
reduce existing regulations. President Clinton's regulatory reinvention initiative has
already led to the elimination of 30 percent of the Department's regulations. Many of the
regulations that remain are mandated by statute; we look forward to working with you to
revise these statutes where possible to further reduce regulatory burden.
The Department also is using a combination of common sense and technology to
greatly reduce the paperwork involved in Federal education programs. For example,
switching from paper Student Aid Reports to an electronic system helped eliminate
4 million paper forms that represented an unnecessary burden to students, parents,
schools, and the Department alike. Most of the programs authorized by the Improving
America's Schools Act now require reporting once every two or three years instead of
annually - permitting States, schools, and teachers to focus on what really counts:
educating students, not paperwork. We also are encouraging States to take advantage of
the new provision permitting a single consolidated application for all Elementary and
Secondary Education Act programs, a change that promises not only to eliminate
L
paperwork but also to promote comprehensive planning.
Dregon
In addition, our new legislation permits broad waivers of statutory and regulatory
requirements. If States and school districts find that such requirements present an
obstacle to innovative reform efforts, they may seek waivers of the requirements from the
Secretary. For example, Palm Beach, Florida, and the Metropolitan District of Decatur
6
Township, Indiana have already been approved for Title I waivers under the Improving
America's Schools Act. The most far-reaching approach is the new ED-FLEX
demonstration, which gives State-level officials blanket authority to approve waivers of
Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in the way of effective reform.
These waiver provisions are allowing us to deliver on the request made by the Governors
at the Education Summit.
You may have noticed one thing that hasn't been a big part of our efforts to
transform the Department: money. This absence of big budgets reflects two realities:
first, acknowledgment that in general, money is not the answer to our education problems;
and second, the determination of the President and the Vice President to achieve
meaningful deficit reduction and to do more with less.
For example, each of our budgets has proposed eliminating or consolidating
dozens of programs that are no longer necessary. We are cutting our staff and reducing
administrative layers as part of a streamlining plan aimed at improving customer service
and increasing efficiency. And we are saving billions in mandatory spending through
implementation of the new Direct Loan program for postsecondary students.
One fact that you may not be aware of is that the Department of Education already
has an impressive record of doing more with less. Our current staff of 5,000 is one-third
smaller than the 7,700 employees who administered Federal education programs in
several different agencies prior to the Department's creation in 1979. This reduction was
accomplished even though both our budget and the number of programs we manage have
doubled over that same period. As a result, administrative costs absorb just 2 percent of
our budget, and we deliver 98 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school
districts, postsecondary institutions, and individuals. T2th spector accountably
Some of hot
ml al colletty student lows all and some federa taxpanges
dollars and spent appropriately.
7
ON THE RIGHT TRACK
We have accomplished much: a clear mission, a Strategic Plan, comprehensive
education reform legislation, reduced paperwork and regulation, increased flexibility for
States and local school districts, the elimination of outdated programs, downsizing and
streamlining bureaucracy, and contributing to deficit reduction. I think these
achievements represent significant progress toward transforming the Department of
Education into an effective partner to States and communities seeking to reform their
schools. I believe that we are on the right track.
We have reached a broad, bipartisan consensus on how the Federal government
can best contribute to effective education reform. We are implementing the legislation
that grew out of that consensus. States and school districts are developing comprehensive
reform plans that take full advantage of the new, more flexible assistance available from
the Department.
Those who still think of the Department of Education as a dinosaur - big, clumsy,
obsolete, not very smart - should take a second look. You owe it to your constituents to
see for yourself how much we have changed. If we hadn't, I wouldn't be here. I didn't
come to Washington to defend bureaucracy or to protect the status quo. I came because I
saw an opportunity to change things for the better. I think we have done that, and that's
why I'm here today.
There is of course room for further innovation and improvement in Federal
education programs, but we must be careful not to undo what has been achieved, not to
undermine the efforts of States and communities across the Nation. This, I am afraid,
- 8
would be the rapid and certain result of the proposals now before the Committee calling
for the elimination of the Department.
PROPOSALS TO ELIMINATE THE DEPARTMENT
Representative Gunderson and his co-sponsors - including the Chairman of this
Committee - - are proposing to combine the Department of Education, the Department of
Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into a single new
agency that would be called the Department of Education and Employment.
Representative Scarborough and his co-sponsors are proposing in H.R. 1883 to dismantle
the Department by transferring its functions — - including administration of two large
block grants created by eliminating certain programs and consolidating others — to other
agencies, primarily to the Department of Health and Human Services.
We have analyzed each of these proposals carefully. We believe that in view of
the positive changes that I have described in American education and within the
Department, a substantial burden of proof rests on any restructuring proposal to
demonstrate that it would (1) contribute to the progress that we have made over the past
two years and continue to move the Department and the Nation in the right direction, or
(2) produce substantial savings without disrupting services to States and school districts.
Both proposals fail to meet either of these tests.
The merger proposal and H.R. 1883 share the following flaws:
Both would silence the voice of education in the President's Cabinet. It is difficult
to imagine the high visibility and attention that education has enjoyed at the
national level during the past 15 years without the existence of a Cabinet-level
- 9 -
Department of Education. A Nation At Risk, the Education Summit, the National
Education Goals, the current emphasis on the importance of education amidst
efforts to balance the Federal budget - - all of these reflect the enhanced status of
education since the creation of the Department in 1979.
Both would bury Federal education programs deep within mega-bureaucracies,
hurting both responsiveness and accountability to the Department's customers.
States, districts, schools, students, and parents would find it more difficult to
obtain assistance. Department staff would face a daunting new hierarchy of
control and are unlikely to be empowered to meet customer needs in the most
efficient manner.
Both project large administrative savings with little justification. For example, the
draft GAO report on the merger proposal warns that experience from the private
sector shows that large staffing reductions taken without adequate planning
"frequently are not successful" and that "projected savings are often not realized."
H.R. 1883 deserves a similar caveat, particularly since the last time Federal
education programs were administered in several different agencies - - as the bill
proposes - - total staffing was 7,700, compared to just 5,100 in the current
Department of Education. Moreover, the GAO cautions that "extensive planning
and follow through" is required to absorb staff reductions without hurting service
quality and the ability to meet future challenges. There is little evidence of this
kind of planning in either proposal.
Both would sidetrack education reform for several years by forcing the
Department and its staff to concentrate on the complicated logistics of
organizational restructuring instead of helping States and communities improve
- 10 -
their schools. For example, the merger proposal calls for a planning task force
composed of the Secretaries of Education and Labor, the Chairman of the EEOC,
the GSA Administrator, and representatives from the White House and OMB.
This task force is expected to consult frequently with reorganization experts and to
report periodically to Congress on its progress. The merger would be implemented
over a three-year period, which means that the earliest we could hope to get back
to the business of improving education is 1999. H.R. 1883 might set us back even
further since the reorganization would require coordination by several different
agencies, yet could not be a major priority for any one of them in view of their
other, ongoing functions.
To my mind, these flaws constitute a large, yellow warning sign that Congress and
the Nation cannot afford to ignore if we care about education. We already are moving in
the direction needed to bring about real improvement in our schools, and it simply doesn't
make sense to disrupt our progress with what really amounts to little more than an
exercise in moving boxes around on an organization chart.
A further warning comes from a study cited by Congressman Gunderson in his
recent testimony before this Committee. Of 531 organizations surveyed that downsized
in the early 1990s, just 61 percent were able to reduce costs, and less than half
(46 percent) increased profitability. Since I believe that public sector downsizing is
actually more complicated than in the private sector, those figures suggest that the
disruption and dislocation created by either the merger proposal or H.R. 1883 will neither
lower costs to taxpayers nor improve service to our customers. The obvious question for
the Committee is this: why try either one?
Costs. Expere of noving piglo around. Destroys
efficiences of an education found agercy.
- 11 -
OTHER CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSALS
In addition to the common defects afflicting the two proposals, specific aspects of
each plan are likely to create additional problems. For example, merger plan largely
ignores the very different roles of the Departments of Education and Labor, and how
these roles might interact in negative ways. The Federal role in education is not focused
on narrow training programs, as the author of the merger proposal strongly suggests. The
Department's far broader purposes include supporting access to postsecondary education
for middle- and low-income students, providing resources and research to help States and
communities improve teaching and learning, and helping to prepare our children with a
solid foundation of skills to be good citizens as well as good workers. The focus of the
new agency on workforce issues is likely to de-emphasize these other purposes.
Another potential problem could arise from submerging a small assistance agency
like the Department of Education - - currently moving toward deregulation and increased
flexibility in the use of Federal education funds - inside the culture of a much larger
regulatory enforcement bureaucracy like the Department of Digitient Labor. It may be of difficult in
such an atmosphere to maintain our momentum toward reduced regulatory burden.
the
Our major concern specific to H.R. 1883 is the block grant proposals. First, we
theire
believe that block-granting nearly all Federal elementary and secondary education
programs is merely the first step toward dramatically reducing - - and possibly even
eliminating - Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary education. This
isn't just conjecture on our part: the Reagan Administration's 1981 consolidation of
elementary and secondary programs into the Chapter 2 block grant resulted in a
37 percent reduction in funding. Moreover, the sunset provision in H.R. 1883 for the new
- 12 -
Office of Economic Opportunities provides additional evidence of the intention to simply
eliminate the Federal role in education.
Second, the block grant concept would preclude the targeting of Federal education
funds to disadvantaged populations that characterizes most of our current programs.
States theoretically would be free to continue favoring poor students and communities in
allocating funds, but the large number of school finance equity lawsuits over the past two
decades suggests how difficult States have found it to allocate according to need.
And third, the block grant approach complicates efforts to ensure accountability
for the use of Federal funds. The "no-strings" block grant promised in the House
Republican proposal could result in the use of Federal dollars for activities of little or no
educational value. The accountability problem often contributes to our first concern
about block grants - - that they lead to reduced funding. Particularly in the context of
continuing efforts to erase the Federal budget deficit, it will be very difficult to maintain
block grant funding without accountability to taxpayers for how the funds are used; or
worse, if funds end up being used for things no taxpayer would support.
CONCLUSION
After carefully considering both of these proposals and their implications, I can
discern only political motives for supporting either of them. Neither the Gunderson
merger plan nor the Scarborough elimination proposal provides a single sound policy or
management justification for dismantling the current Department of Education, ending
ongoing reinvention efforts, and undermining Federal support for State and local
education reform. I urge you to reject both proposals.
June 23, 1995
RUSH
NOTE TO MIKE COHEN
Attached are the briefing materials you requested on:
ED's Accomplishments in Cutting Red Tape and Encouraging
Flexibility
Trends in SAT Achievement and Participation and chart
Summary of RAND's Student Achievement and the Changing
American Family
I have also sent you the files of the text on cc:mail. We hope this information is useful.
Dal
Val Plisko
Attachments
cc:
Alan Ginsburg
O₂ chati
CRS - Genluse
E.V
U.S. Department of Labor
Appellate Activities
Office of
Office of the
Administrative Law Judges
Secretary
Executive Secretariat
of Labor
Benefits Review Board
Office of Small
Business and
Office of the
Employees' Compensation
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, 1992.
Minority Affairs
Deputy Secretary
Appeals Board
of Labor
Office of
Administrative Appeals
Wage Appeals Board
Office of A/S for
Office of A/S for
Office of A/S
Office of
Office of
Congressional and
Administration
DOL
CRS-16
for
the
Inspector
Intergovernmental
and
Academy
Policy
Solicitor
General
Affairs
Management
Office of
Bureau of Labor-
Bureau of
Management Relations
Women's
International
Public Affairs
Bureau
Labor Affairs
& Cooperative Programs
Program
Agencies
Occupational
Employment
Office of
Mine Safety
Pension and
Veterans'
Employment
Bureau of
Safety and
and
Labor
and
Welfare
Employment
Standards
Labor
Health
Training
Management
Health
Benefits
and Training
Administration
Statistics
Administration
Administration
Standards
Administration
Administration
Services'
Date: 8/92
Author: Mike Smith at WDCT01
Date:
6/15/95 10:14 AM
Priority: Normal
TO: Jennifer Davis at WDCB02
TO: Kay Casstevens at WDCB01
TO: Tom Wolanin at WDCE03
TO: Mike Cohen at WDCB01
TO: Frank Holleman at WDCB01
CC: Regan Burke at WDCB02
Subject: Re: Action Steps from Today's Meeting
Message Contents
I am going to try to summarize what we agreed would be next steps to
prepare for the two upcoming hearings:
1. Mike C. would work with Sarah Davis regarding questions for the Ds
for the hearing on June 21. He will also follow-up to see that we have
a spokesperson who will be positive on school reform issues-like Chris
Cross. He will also check to be sure that Sarah is all set regarding
questions/information for the panel that will focus on choice/vouchers.
2. Kay would investigate the possibility of scheduling a meeting
between the Secretary and the D. Caucus of the Committee before the
Secretary's testimony on June 29. We will try to include Gephardt if
possible. Prior to this happening, Kay and Mike will meet with a
subset of the members to talk about the Department (Kildee, Miller,
Green, Sawyer, Reed).
3. Mike S. will talk with Bill C. about writing the Secretary's
testimony. Mike C. will do an outline first and include Bill in a
meeting with the rest of us to be sure we all agree on the
direction. SaLLY SHOULD HAVE TALKED WITH bILL ABOUT THIS -
mIKE C. NEEDS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.
4. Kay's staff will compile all the testimony on the
Department--especially the testimony that the Secretary has given
before on this issue--for Mike C. and Bill C. to review. An analysis
of key points would be helpful--Kay could someone on your staff do
this?
5. Kay could you get Mike C. a copy of the Labor GAO letter re:
Gunderson proposal for his reference?Bill Cordes has this.
6. Jennifer will work with Judy W. on the & & As--review what we
already have and discuss what else is needed.
7. Should I investiate the possiblity of getting three kids at the
hearing who have been impacted by our programs? (e.g. a disabled
student, a college grad, a School-to-Work participant, a Title I
student or one involved in our safe and drug free program?)
The Secretary to reference the students in his remarks--it could be a
nice touch??!! i THINK THIS WOULD BE A MISTAKE.
Did I miss anything?
Regan can you please schedule some briefing time for the Secretary.
THANKS!
Jennfier
Can
6/29
Namper Mill
1. The federal government has made a positive difference in
education; despite myths to the contrary, the federal
government's track record in accomplishing its objectives is
positive.
Examples:
(1) Increase access to and participation in higher education/make
it easier for large numbers of students to attend college. First
through the G.I. Bill, then through National Defense Education
Act student loans, other loan program, Pell Grants, etc.
particpation in higher education has grown considerably, from XX%
in 1957 to yy percent in 1965 to ZZ percent at present.
(2) Improve basic skills for economically disadvantaged students.
Title 1 program, enacted in 1965, targets funds to schools
serving disadvantaged students. According to a Rand report, gap
in achievement between rich and poor has narrowed considerably;
federal program was necessary becuase states and localities were
not investing in these children. federal investment has paid off.
(3) Guarnatee acceess to education for students with
disabilities. Congress enacted 94-142 special education program.
Prior to this, many handicapped students were ignored entirely,
or had no access to regular school. In 1973 that changed, and
today
(4) education r&d
2. Education has been improving, but there is still a long way
to go. The popular misconception is that things are terrible,
when in fact there have been significant improvements in educatin
since 1983 nation at risk report. Course taking, academic
performance, espcially in light of expansion of poverty, etc.
However, while many of the trends are in the right direction,
many others are not. reading is flat, concerns about safety are
up, and overall achievement levels are still low compared with
other countries.
The good news is not a reason for complacency; rather, it should
be a spur to further action. It shows we can make a difference
when we put our minds to it.
3. Education is more important today than ever.
4. The federal role is essential. It will take efforts of every
level of government, of local schools, of parents and students,
and of teachers. Everybody has to do something, including the
federal government.
5. We are reinventing/overhauling ED do be consistent with theis
new role.
6. all of this needs to stay in a cabinet agency. scattering no
good; megabureaucracy also no good. The cost of changing to new
organizational boxes will be high
U.S. Department of Education
Testimony
of
Secretary Richard W. Riley
on
Departmental Reorganization
before the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
June 29, 1995
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to see you and the other Members of this Committee today,
and to have this opportunity to discuss with you the important issue of education as you begin
consideration of several proposals to significantly change both the structure and the functions of
the Department of Education.
This Committee has long demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment to improving
education. Just last year, for example, the Committee succeeded in passing important education
reform legislation, including the Safe Schools Act, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, while also completing a comprehensive redesign of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. This bipartisan approach, on balance, has produced much that has been positive
for American education.
I am hopeful that we will maintain this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in education, for we
are not educating our children as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans who represent the
future of this great Nation. Our Federal education programs serve an essential national purpose
and meet important national needs. For example, the Department provides over half of all
financial assistance for college students, delivers substantial support for States and schools in
meeting the educational needs of disadvantaged, disabled, and limited English proficient
- 2 -
elementary and secondary students, helps nearly all school districts make their schools safer and
drug-free, serves as a catalyst for effective innovation, and gathers national statistics on education.
THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION
There is no doubt that education is absolutely vital for the future of America. Just a few
weeks ago, Congressman Gunderson testified before this Committee on the importance of
education for preparing a highly skilled workforce to compete in a global economy, and I agree
with him. I also agree with President Clinton's description of education as the "fault line"
dividing those of our fellow citizens who are able to compete successfully and achieve the middle-
class American Dream from those who are falling behind.
For example, in 1979, the annual earnings of college graduates were 43 percent higher
than high school graduates. By 1992, this earnings gap had climbed to 82 percent. The growing
disparity in incomes between those whose education ends with high school and those who go on
to college suggests that in the long-run, we face an education deficit even more threatening than
the Federal budget deficit. This education deficit cannot be fixed with a little short-term training.
We cannot ignore the fundamental need of each citizen for a solid education foundation in our
schools and colleges. Education is a powerful force for good, for creating order from disorder,
and for civic responsibility - - helping to develop our children into good parents, good neighbors,
and solid, contributing members of civic and religious groups.
- 3 -
The American people clearly grasp this connection: every poll that I have seen this year
shows that large majorities - - ranging from two-thirds to over 80 percent - believe that
continued support for the Department of Education and its programs is as important as reducing
the budget deficit.
A RECORD OF IMPROVEMENT
There is good reason for this high level of support for the limited Federal role in
education: over the past 15 years the Department has served as a strong voice in identifying
critical education issues and in focusing national attention on the need for educational reform and
improvement.
The 1983 Department report, A Nation At Risk, sounded the alarm over the failure of our
schools to prepare students for the rigors of global economic competition. In 1989, the
Department helped organize the Education Summit with the Governors in Charlottesville, Virginia
- a historic meeting that produced the bipartisan National Education Goals. And in 1994, - as I
noted earlier - - the Department worked closely with parents, educators, business, and this
Committee to win bipartisan passage of critical education reform legislation.
In addition to providing leadership, the Department and its programs have contributed to
measurable improvements in educational opportunity and academic achievement over the past
- 4
decade. We still have a long way to go, of course, but there is ample evidence that education in
America is moving in the right direction. For example, nearly half of all high school graduates
now take the tougher core curriculum recommended in A Nation At Risk. Since 1982, student
performance in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress has risen at all
grade levels tested. This improvement is especially important because of the emphasis on taking
tougher math courses and the rigor of the challenging math standards developed by the Nation's
math teachers. It is clear that raising standards works.
The number of students participating in Advanced Placement programs has tripled since
1982. The dropout rate for 16- to 24-year olds fell from 14 percent in 1982 to 11 percent in
1993. And over the same period, the proportion of people age 25 and over with at least four
years of college increased from 18 percent to 22 percent, with the largest gains in college
attainment coming among minority group members.
I want to emphasize that these improvements didn't happen by chance: a concerted,
sustained effort was made nationwide to attack low math and science achievement, increase
Advanced Placement participation, lower the drop-out rate, and raise college attainment.
States, local school districts, schools, and colleges deserve the lion's share of credit for
these improvements, of course, but many of the innovations and reforms now underway have been
encouraged by the Federal government. At the 1989 Education Summit, for example, President
- 5
Bush and then-Governor Clinton worked with all the Governors to accelerate the movement
toward raising educational standards and achievement. Their efforts emphasized (1) the
development and adoption of high academic standards, (2) giving educators the flexibility needed
to help all students reach those high standards, and (3) ensuring accountability by measuring
results, not regulatory compliance.
One leading-edge State that has adopted comprehensive reforms based on this approach is
Kentucky, which has overhauled its entire educational system and achieved dramatic
improvements in student test scores in mathematics, reading, science, and social studies. In
reading, for example, the percentage of 4th graders scoring at the proficient level increased from
7 percent to 12 percent. Not only do these results document progress, they also show that
States are willing to set challenging standards presently met by only a small proportion of
students.
CHANGING THE DEPARTMENT TO BETTER SUPPORT
STATES AND COMMUNITIES
The Governors assembled at the Education Summit argued strongly that the Federal
government should provide more flexibility in the use of Federal education funds - through
waivers of regulatory requirements, for example - in exchange for better results in terms of
student achievement. With the enactment of Goals 2000, we have delivered on that request, and
- 6
we have worked hard to make countless other changes designed to make the Department of
Education a more supportive partner to States and communities working to improve their
schools.
When I arrived at the Department in early 1993, I found an agency with widespread
management weaknesses, a demoralized staff, crumbling and dangerous (asbestos) physical
infrastructure, outdated technology, and poor internal communications. These weren't just my
impressions: the General Accounting Office (GAO) documented many of the same problems in a
report conducted in late 1992 entitled "Long-Standing Management Problems Hamper Reforms."
We responded to these weaknesses by borrowing from the customer-focused management
practices of successful businesses, beginning with a strategic planning process that established
clear priorities and set performance targets in each priority area. These priorities include
supporting State and local efforts to help all students reach high academic standards, assisting
States and communities in the creation of school-to-work systems, ensuring access to
postsecondary education and lifelong learning, and transforming the Department into a responsive
partner that provides effective, flexible support for reaching the other priorities.
With the help of this Committee, we succeeded in winning passage of legislation giving us
most of the tools we need to implement this comprehensive plan. Our education reform
legislation reflects principles that I believe most of you share: cutting red tape, less paperwork,
7
reduced regulation, and waivers that permit effective innovation - - all aimed at giving States and
local communities maximum flexibility in the use of Federal education funds to help students
reach high academic standards.
For example, we are administering Goals 2000 and School-to-Work without issuing a
single regulation. Of the 49 programs included in the Improving America's Schools Act, only 11
will require regulatory guidance, We have also taken action to reduce existing regulations.
President Clinton's regulatory reinvention initiative has already led to the elimination of
30 percent of the Department's regulations. Many of the regulations that remain are mandated by
statute; we look forward to working with you to revise these statutes where possible to further
reduce regulatory burden.
The Department also is using a combination of common sense and technology to greatly
reduce the paperwork involved in Federal education programs. For example, providing notice of
student aid eligibility through a computer-based system is helping to eliminate 4 million paper
forms that represent an unnecessary burden to students, parents, schools, and the Department
alike. Most of the programs authorized by the Improving America's Schools Act require
reporting once every two or three years instead of annually - permitting States, schools, and
teachers to focus on what really counts: educating students, not paperwork.
- 8
We also are encouraging States to take advantage of the new provision permitting a single
consolidated application for all Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, a change that
promises not only to eliminate paperwork but also to promote comprehensive planning. For the
upcoming school year - the first under the new ESEA - 32 States have taken advantage of this
provision and submitted a single plan for all ESEA funding.
In addition, our new legislation permits broad waivers of statutory and regulatory
requirements. If States and school districts find that such requirements present an obstacle to
innovative reform efforts, they may seek waivers of the requirements from the Secretary. For
example, the Department has approved a request from the Fort Worth Independent School
District in Fort Worth, Texas, to modify the distribution of Title I funds to provide extra per child
funding to four high poverty elementary schools engaged in systemic education reform.
One interesting point that has emerged from this waiver process is the nature of the
requests, particularly in view of the many Department critics who claim that Federal requirements
are too intrusive or burdensome and have led to a "Federal takeover" of local schools. In fact,
nearly all requests are related to the targeting requirements for funds provided under the Title I
program for disadvantaged students. There is no evidence thus far of any other requirements that
are causing great difficulty for States or school districts.
- 9
The most far-reaching waiver approach is the new ED-FLEX demonstration, which allows
the Department to give State-level officials broad authority to approve waivers of Federal
statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in the way of effective reform. We already have
approved this ED-FLEX authority for the State of Oregon, and the number of States that have
shown interest far exceeds the 6 authorized under the demonstration.
Another important part of changing the way we do business at the Department has been
our efforts to streamline and downsize Department operations. These efforts reflect the
determination of the President and the Vice President to reach the twin goals of meaningful deficit
reduction and improving service to our customers by learning to do more with less.
I have to tell you that this is one area where I really believe the President has not gotten
the credit he deserves. Terminating unnecessary programs and shrinking the size of government
have been a priority of this Administration from the first day President Clinton took office. And it
has not been easy. In each of our budgets we have proposed eliminating or consolidating dozens
of programs, many with strong supporters both in the education community and on both sides of
the aisle here in Congress. These proposals angered more than a few friends, and I have taken
many calls on them: And for the most part, we have stuck to our guns, because it is the right and
responsible thing to do.
- 10 -
In addition to program eliminations, we are cutting our staff and reducing administrative
layers as part of a streamlining plan aimed at improving customer service and increasing
efficiency. And we are saving billions in mandatory spending through implementation of the new
Direct Loan program for postsecondary students.
One fact that you may not be aware of is that the Department of Education already has an
impressive record of doing more with less: Our current staff of 5,000 is one-third smaller than the
7,700 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies prior
to the Department's creation in 1979. This reduction was accomplished even though both our
budget and the number of programs assisting students, schools, and colleges have doubled over
that same period. As a result, administrative costs absorb just 2 percent of our budget, and we
deliver 98 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary
institutions, and students.
It is important to note as well that much of that 2 percent - particularly in the
postsecondary area - is spent on improving accountability and making sure that taxpayer dollars
are used appropriately. For example, by reducing the student loan default rate and increasing
collections on defaulted loans, the Department has cut the costs to taxpayers of defaulted loans by
over 50 percent.
- 11
ON THE RIGHT TRACK
We have accomplished much: a clear mission, a Strategic Plan, comprehensive education
reform legislation, reduced paperwork and regulation, increased flexibility for States and local
school districts, the elimination of outdated programs, downsizing and streamlining bureaucracy,
and contributing to deficit reduction. And most importantly, these changes are helping us to meet
challenges confronting America's students: learning the basics and reaching for high academic
standards; ensuring a safe, disciplined, and drug-free environment; improving teaching; promoting
parental involvement; getting more computers into the classroom; and improving access to higher
education for deserving students.
I think these achievements represent significant progress toward transforming the
Department of Education into an effective partner to States and communities seeking to improve
their schools and colleges. In fact, the idea of partnerships has been central to everything we have
done over the past 2 years. Perhaps the best example of this approach is the Family Involvement
Partnership for Learning, an organization representing more than 100 parent, education, business,
religious, and community groups. One of the Family Involvement Partnership projects is
READ*WRITE*NOW. a program that brings adult and teen volunteers together with elementary
school children to encourage reading and writing during the summer months. In addition to the
Family Involvement Partnership, we have worked with business and religious groups; we have
held a conference on character education; we have worked with States to promote innovative
- 12 -
Charter Schools; and we have reached out to parents, educators, and citizens across the Nation
through our satellite Town Meetings.
Working with Congress, we have reached a broad, bipartisan consensus on how the
Federal government can best contribute to effective education reform and improvement. It is
important to point out that this consensus was primarily a response to reforms underway in States
like Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The legislation
that we now are implementing reflects this "bottom-up" approach, and States and school districts
are developing comprehensive reform plans that take full advantage of the new, more flexible
assistance available from the Department.
These partnership efforts and your bipartisan support have led to a very positive response
from parents, educators, civic and business leaders, schools, and colleges. Let me give you a few
examples. Calls on our toll-free number (1-800-USA-LEARN) to request materials on
community-based solutions to education problems have jumped from about 150 calls a day when I
came into office to about 1,000 a day - over a six-fold increase. Almost 40 percent of college
students will have access to the streamlined direct loans this year. In many States, requests for
Goals 2000 funds to implement reform plans exceed available funding by 4-8 times. The
Department's computer-based, Online Library is "visited" over the Internet about 20,000 times
each week for research data, information on Department programs, and ideas that work. Overall,
- 13 -
well over 1 million individuals have called, written, or visited the Department in person or on-line
to ask questions or express their concerns about their children's education.
Those who still think of the Department of Education as a dinosaur - - big, clumsy,
obsolete, not very smart — should take a second look. You owe it to your constituents to see for
yourself how much we have changed. If we hadn't, I wouldn't be here. I didn't come to
Washington to defend the bureaucracy or to protect the status quo. I came because I saw an
opportunity to change things for the better. I think we are doing that, and that's why I'm here
today.
In short, I believe we are on the right track. There is of course room for further
improvement and streamlining in Federal education programs, but we must be careful not to undo
what has been achieved, not to undermine the educational opportunities of students of all ages.
This, I am sure, would be the rapid and certain result of the proposals now before the Committee
calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.
PROPOSALS TO ELIMINATE THE DEPARTMENT
Representative Gunderson and his co-sponsors are proposing to combine the Department
of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) into a single new agency that would be called the Department of Education and
- 14 -
Employment. Representative Scarborough and his co-sponsors are proposing in H.R. 1883 to
dismantle the Department by transferring its functions - including administration of two large
block grants created by eliminating certain programs and consolidating others - to other
agencies, primarily to the Department of Health and Human Services.
We have analyzed each of these proposals carefully. We believe that in view of the
positive changes that I have described in American education and within the Department, a
substantial burden of proof rests on any restructuring proposal to demonstrate that it would
(1) contribute to the progress that we have made over the past two years and continue to move
the Nation in the right direction, or (2) produce substantial savings without disrupting services to
students in schools and colleges - often those students who need help the most. Both proposals
fail to meet either of these tests.
The merger proposal and H.R. 1883 share the following flaws:
Both would silence the voice of education at the national level. It is difficult to imagine
the high visibility and attention that education has enjoyed at the national level during the
past 15 years without the existence of a Cabinet-level Department of Education. A Nation
At Risk, the Education Summit, the National Education Goals, and the current emphasis
on improving the quality of schools, parental involvement, and increasing access to higher
- 15 -
education - all of these reflect the enhanced status of education since the creation of the
Department in 1979.
Both would bury Federal education programs deep within mega-agencies, hurting both
responsiveness and accountability to the Department's customers. Parents, students,
schools, districts, colleges, and States would find it more difficult to obtain assistance.
Department staff would face a daunting new hierarchy of control and are unlikely to be
empowered to meet customer needs in the most efficient manner.
Neither would deliver the large administrative savings promised. The draft GAO report
on the merger proposal warned that experience from the private sector shows that large
staffing reductions taken without adequate planning "frequently are not successful" and
that "projected savings are often not realized." H.R. 1883 deserves a similar caveat,
particularly since the last time Federal education programs were administered in several
different agencies - as the bill proposes - total staffing was 7,700, compared to just
5,100 in the current Department of Education.
Moreover, the GAO cautioned that "extensive planning and follow through" are required
to absorb staff reductions without hurting service quality and the ability to meet future
challenges. There is little evidence of this kind of planning in either proposal. However,
we have been engaged in exactly this kind of planning at the Department for over 2 years
- 16 -
now, and we have the results to show for it: real savings through downsizing and
streamlining and improved service to our many customers. Clearly you don't need to
dismantle the Department of Education to save money.
Both would undermine Federal support for addressing America's educational needs for
several years. At a time when local schools need stable, predictable support for their
efforts to improve educational effectiveness, when postsecondary students need financial
assistance to reach their career goals, when individuals with disabilities need education to
join the mainstream and vocational rehabilitation to join the workforce, the lengthy and
complicated reorganizations required by these proposals would create massive confusion
and bring great disruption over a period of several years to a network of Federal
assistance that now supports more than 60 million students at 85,000 elementary and
secondary schools and 7,500 postsecondary institutions.
Instead of helping communities improve their schools and ensuring the availability of
financial aid for college students, the Department and its staff would be forced to
concentrate on the complicated and potentially costly logistics of organizational
restructuring. For example, the merger proposal calls for a planning task force composed
of the Secretaries of Education and Labor, the Chairman of the EEOC, the GSA
Administrator, and representatives from the White House and OMB. This task force is
expected to consult frequently with reorganization experts and to report periodically to
17 -
Congress on its progress. The merger would be implemented over a three-year period,
which means that the earliest we could hope to get back to the business of improving
education is 1999. H.R. 1883 might set us back even further, since the reorganization
would require coordination by several different agencies, yet could not be a major priority
for any one of them in view of their other, ongoing functions.
To my mind, these flaws constitute a flashing yellow warning signal that Congress and the
Nation cannot afford to ignore if we care about our children's education. We already are moving
in the bipartisan-agreed-upon direction needed to bring about real improvement, and it simply
doesn't make sense to reverse course by engaging in an exercise in moving boxes around on an
organization chart.
A further warning comes from a study cited by Congressman Gunderson in his recent
testimony before this Committee. Of 531 organizations surveyed that downsized in the early
1990s, just 61 percent were able to reduce costs, and less than half (46 percent) increased
profitability. Since I believe that public sector downsizing is actually more complicated than in
the private sector, those figures suggest that the disruption and dislocation created by either the
merger proposal or H.R. 1883 will neither lower costs to taxpayers nor improve service to our
customers. The obvious question for the Committee is this: why try either one?
- 18 -
OTHER CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSALS
In addition to the common defects afflicting the two proposals, specific aspects of each
plan are likely to create additional problems. For example, the merger plan largely ignores the
very different roles of the Departments of Education and Labor, and how these roles might
interact in negative ways. The Federal role in education is not focused on narrow training
programs aimed at securing a job, but on improving the overall quality of education and quality of
life for both the individual and the Nation. By providing resources and research to help States and
communities improve teaching and learning, and by ensuring access to postsecondary education,
the Department helps support families in preparing their children with a solid foundation of
knowledge and skills to be good citizens, responsible parents, and involved community leaders as
well as good workers. The focus of the new agency on workforce issues would de-emphasize
these other purposes.
Our major concern specific to H.R. 1883 is the block grant proposals. First, we believe
that block-granting nearly all Federal elementary and secondary education programs is merely the
first step toward dramatically reducing - and possibly even eliminating - - Federal financial
assistance for elementary and secondary education. This isn't just conjecture on our part: the
1981 consolidation of elementary and secondary programs into the Chapter 2 block grant
program resulted in a 37 percent reduction in funding. Moreover, the sunset provision in
- 19 -
H.R. 1883 for the new Office of Economic Opportunities provides additional evidence of the
intention to simply eliminate the Federal role in education.
Second, the block grant concept would preclude the targeting of Federal education funds
to disadvantaged populations that characterizes most of our current programs. In theory, States
would be free to continue favoring poor students and communities in allocating block grant funds.
However, my own experience as a former Governor, as well as the fact that over half of our
States are currently involved in school finance litigation, tells me that the reality is far different,
and that States may face great difficulty in allocating education funding to those students with the
greatest need for assistance. Federal need-based formula grant programs - especially Title I- -
help compensate for this difficulty. In my view, rolling up these programs nto a single block
grant - allocated on the basis of population - would do just the opposite by exacerbating
existing school financing inequities within States.
And third, the block grant approach complicates efforts to ensure accountability for the
use of Federal funds. The "no-strings" block grant proposed in H.R. 1883 could result in the use
of Federal dollars for activities of little or no educational value. A recent GAO study confirmed
these fears. There is a clear need to focus on accountability for results, and funding formulas
must reflect need and the ability to pay. Particularly in the context of continuing efforts to erase
the Federal budget deficit, it will be very difficult to maintain block grant funding to improve
- 20
education without accountability to taxpayers for how the funds are used; or worse, if funds end
up being used for things no taxpayer would support.
CONCLUSION
I have examined all the different aspects of these proposals, and do not see any possible
way for either of them to do anything helpful to American education. The issues addressed by the
proposals appear to be derived more from political than educational considerations, and as such, I
believe they would be harmful to America's children. I urge the Committee to reject both
proposals.
Family
Research Council
®
Gary L: Bauer, President
Testimony of Robert G. Morrison
Education Policy Analyst
Family Research Council
before the House Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities
June 29, 1995
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: my name is Robert G. Morrison and I am
here to represent Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council. Our organization serves
more than 250,000 members nationwide. I served with Gary Bauer in the U.S.
Department of Education from 1985-87. My testimony today will call for the
disestablishment of the Department of Education and the repeal of Goals 2000, the
Educate America Act.
In 1979, when President Jimmy Carter first proposed the creation of a U.S. Department of
Education to repay the National Education Association for its political support,
columnist Marvin Stone warned of the centralization of power over education: writing
for U.S. News & World Report, Stone asked: "Would the Education Department have the
power to tamper with America's traditional local control of education? Of course it
would. Where there is money to be given, there is the implicit responsibility to make
sure that it is spent according to the purposes of the donors -- or else." Despite half-
hearted objections at the time, the Department has moved inexorably toward greater and
greater control over local education. With Goals 2000, the U.S. Education Department
and other federal bureaucracies seek to tighten their grip on the genuine education reform
movement and extinguish it.
Of course, these ceaseless efforts at centralization will fail. They must fail, because they
sap local community spirit and individual responsibility. They must fail because, as Mr.
Jefferson said: "If we waited for Washington to tell us when to sow and when to reap, we
should soon want bread." They must fail for an even more profound reason. Alexis de
Tocqueville has been recently quoted both by President Bill Clinton and by Speaker
Gingrich. But Tocqueville, as a genius of political science, explained why the attempt to
centralize administration ultimately fails.
However enlightened and skillful a central power may be, it cannot of itself embrace
all the details of the life of a great nation. Such vigilance exceeds the powers of man.
And when it attempts unaided to create and set in motion so many complicated springs, it
must submit to a very imperfect result or exhaust itself in bootless efforts.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America, 1835
Family Research Council
700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 393-2100
FAX (202) 393-2134
"Imperfect results" and "bootless efforts" pretty well describe the record of the U.S.
Education Department. Under the spur of Goals 2000, the Department has seen fit to
endorse the new national history standards. These politically-correct standards seek to
teach all American students that Madonna and the Simpsons are significant figures, while
neglecting Paul Revere, the Wright Brothers, Marian Anderson and Jonas Salk. They
speak of "Soviet advances in space" and the Challenger disaster, while completely
omitting the U.S. landing on the moon even though Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a respected
liberal historian, has said that the moon landing may be the most significant event of the
twentieth century. Worse, the standards could be fairly termed "anti-American" history
standards because they teach young people that U.S.-Soviet "swordplay" led to the
American involvement in Korea, Vietnam and U.S. interventions around the world.
Never do the standards speak of Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia or
Afghanistan. Never do the standards acknowledge communist efforts at subversion in the
U.S. or Western Europe. We urge this committee and the full House to join the Senate in
denouncing these history standards.
Not only do we at Family Research Council believe that the national history standards
that have been produced are unacceptable, we believe that any effort of the federal
government to dispense official truth is misguided and dangerous. We have only to look
at the Clinton administration's recently reported failure in the area of childhood
immunizations to recognize the harm that government can do when it manufactures a
crisis based on faulty data and a political agenda. Yet, if there are any of our liberal
friends who still defend the idea of a political determination of U.S. history, we would
ask them to consider this: what if national history and economics standards were to be
devised by Professor Gingrich, Professor Gramm and Professor Armey?
The reality in contemporary American life is that parents, taxpayers and citizens generally
are not of one accord about all education programs. There is broad support, measured by
polls, for safe and drug-free schools. There is consistent public backing for schools
which teach children reading, writing, arithmetic and history, for schools which impart
reliable standards of right and wrong. But there is no stable consensus on many other
hotly-debated issues. Family life and sex education continue to be points of contention.
Methods of teaching reading, similarly, divide Americans. So, too, does the teaching of
evolution. Even bilingual education is fraught with controversy. What the Education
Department and Goals 2000 do is put the federal government in the middle of all these
controversies.
When the federal government becomes an antagonist, it is viewed increasingly as hostile
to one or another group of parents or interests. That is why we at Family Research
Council support the disestablishment of the U.S. Department of Education and the repeal
of Goals 2000. We seek the return of decision-making authority to local communities --
to elected school boards which are close to the people they serve. We also strongly
support parental choice of schools. Only when every parent can freely choose a safe and
effective public, private, religious or home school will we have an end to the interminable
clashes over education and values.
Many in the education establishment, we know, question whether parents are capable of
wisely choosing a school for their children. To this we can only answer: if parents are
capable of choosing presidents, governors and members of congress, then surely they can
choose a school. Further, if advocates of a public school monopoly persist on this point,
we must challenge them. If Americans cannot make an educated choice of schools for
their own children, whom they love, then who bears the responsibility for their failure?
We have had compulsory public schools in this country for a century and a half. Nearly
ninety percent of Americans attend those schools. The fact is, of course, parental choice
works. That's why some of those most knowledgeable about education -- including
teachers' union members, the Clintons and the Gores -- choose their own children's'
schools.
Our vision for education reform includes a de-centralization of decision-making which
will not only be effective in getting us "back to basics," but which will also reinvigorate
democracy at the grassroots. One of the reasons why Goals 2000 will fail is because it
saps local initiative and disperses accountability. There are also historical reasons. We
have attempted a more modest, arguably a more realistic national goals effort before.
In 1984, the Reagan administration sought to set out Goals 1990. It hoped to have
American students recoup just one-half of the points lost in the SATs since the mid-60s.
Initially, there were some hopeful upticks. But, by the end of the decade of the 80s, it
became clear that American students were not listening to even the best lectures from the
Bully Pulpit. In 1990, President Reagan had retired to California, deservedly honored for
his central role in the defeat of communism, respected throughout the world for
unleashing a great and productive economy and looked to with gratitude by millions of
American families for his championing of parental rights and traditional values. No one
criticized Ronald Reagan for the failure of U.S. students to achieve Goals 1990.
The education establishment says that "kids deserve a place at the table with the
President." It's an attractive soundbite. But it would be far better for us to have a nation
of "education mothers and fathers" and empowered local education leaders than it would
be to hold out a role for the President or Congress that is neither realistic nor
constitutionally appropriate. The truth is, the President and Congress are always going to
be preoccupied with taxing and trading, with national defense and international
cooperation. We need to move beyond "kids as props" to show Washington's intimate
concern for education.
This Congress has before it legislation which will disestablish the Department of
Education and repeal Goals 2000. Family Research Council shares these objectives. We
look forward to working with the members of this committee and with your staff to
perfect it. We urge this committee to give the resources and the responsibility back to the
parents, taxpayers and locally elected lead who can most effectively act to improve
education.
To de-centralize education decision-making is to recognize once again "the genius of the
people" of which Madison spoke in The Federalist Papers. By disestablishing the U.S.
Department of Education and repealing Goals 2000, this Congress will demonstrate its
respect for the Constitution and, especially, the Tenth Amendment. This Congress will
show that it listens to the petitions and the concerns of millions of parents. Congress will
also prove that it is serious about cutting wasteful federal spending. While this action
may not gain this body the title of the "Education Congress" from the vested interest, it
will win for this Congress a new measure of gratitude and respect for restoring
"Democracy in America."
Robert G. Morrison is an Education Policy Analyst at the Family Research Council, a
Washington, DC -based research and advocacy organization.
Insight
GOALS 2000:
THE CASE FOR REPEAL
by
Jennifer A. Marshall
If further centralization of education and added bureaucracy will improve
America's schools, if federal coercion will promote school autonomy, if
government nannies are expert teachers of parenting skills -- then Goals 2000 is
exactly what the ailing American education system needs.
But Americans overwhelmingly rejected last fall the "government knows best"
philosophy of which Goals 2000 is another manifestation. If this Congress
intends to keep its campaign promises of decentralizing authority, returning
power to states and localities, empowering American families, balancing the
budget, and reducing the deficit, then Goals 2000 must be repealed. It is an
impediment to these goals. Leaving intact the Goals 2000 formula for
restructuring American education will undo any education reform this Congress
hopes to accomplish.
FAMILY
Goals 2000 (P.L. 103-227) is the Clinton Administration's plan to drastically
RESEARCH
restructure the American education system. "Goals 2000 establishes overall
COUNCIL
direction for a new local-state-federal partnership in education," writes Gordon
M. Ambach, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers.¹
It increases the federal role by imposing a congressional formula for reform on
any state, school district, or school that wishes to receive funding under this
act.
Gary L. Bauer
The priority of the restructuring agenda can be seen in the appropriations. Less
President
than half the funding for Goals 2000 will reach local schools in this first year
of its existence. Of the $105 million appropriated for Goals 2000 in FY 94,
$92.4 million (88 percent) is targeted toward state grants. Stipulations in the
law require that only 45 percent of each state's grant be filtered down to
individual schools. 2 That means only $42 million, or 40 percent of the
original appropriation, will ever reach the schools. The other 60 percent
constitutes the bureaucratic skim that is being used at each level to create the
new framework for the educational system.
The danger of the Goals 2000 restructuring agenda is that all future federal
experimentation with education will be easily inculcated into the new network.
Local schools will be extremely vulnerable to manipulation and have little, if
any, autonomy.
700
Thirteenth St., NW
IS95C1ED
Suite 500
Washington, DC
20005
(202) 393-2100
FAX (202) 393-2134
The bureaucratic waste and ominous restructuring agenda of Goals 2000 are just the beginning
of the argument against this legislation that will radically change American education. Its ten
titles contain dozens of problem areas that warrant the repeal of Goals 2000.
TITLE I -- NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
This title codifies eight national education goals. Six were developed by 49 governors and
President Bush in 1989 at the Charlottesville education summit. The other two goals, parental
participation and teacher education, were added as bait to sell the Goals 2000 legislation to
interest groups, such as teacher unions and the PTA, which supposedly represent the views of
teachers and parents.
The concept of national education goals is based on faulty logic. If the federal government
is setting goals, that presupposes that it has the authority and ability to ensure the accom-
plishment of the goals. Reaching national education goals will require an unprecedented
federal intrusion in schools.
Had the goals been popularly developed and had Americans asked for federal supervision in
achieving them, Goals 2000 might be procedurally, if not philosophically, a legitimate plan.
They did not and it is not. Secretary Riley reveals this as he retells the history of the Goals
2000 legislation:
In the first place, educators had not been in on the ground floor when the
National Education Goals were developed in 1989 and 1990. The goals were
viewed by many as a classic example of a top-down reform imposed on
localities Nor had parents, citizens, or the business community been brought
into the picture in a meaningful way Finally, neither members of Congress
nor state legislators had a hand in crafting the goals The truth was that the
reform movement at the national level had absolutely no statutory basis The
National Education Goals, three years after their announcement, had no legal
standing of any kind.
National education goals cannot be reached through a voluntary program. If the Clinton
Education Department intends to reach these goals, they certainly cannot believe that Goals
2000 is voluntary, or at least they do not intend that it will be optional for long. The goals
are stated in section 102 using all-inclusive language: "all students will leave grades 4, 8, and
12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter " and "every school in
the United States will be free of drugs...." These goals absolutely cannot be accomplished
through a voluntary program. The crafters of this legislation were either deceived or
deceptive when they touted Goals 2000 as voluntary.
2
TITLE II -- NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM LEADERSHIP,
STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
Understanding title II is key to understanding the significance and danger of the Goals 2000
legislation. This title is the heart of the restructuring agenda. It creates two new national
bureaucracies: the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and the National Education
Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC).
The driving force of the Goals 2000 reform plan lies in title II: standards. Three types of
national standards are defined: content standards, performance standards and opportunity-to-
learn standards. In order to apply for a grant under Goals 2000, each state must develop its
own content, performance and opportunity-to-learn standards, or adopt the national standards
in each of the three areas (see title III).
Title II is very problematic for anyone who believes in a decentralized system of education:
Clearly, adding bureaucracy is contrary to the goals of this Congress. It will not lead to
better education, only waste.
Goals 2000 called for the creation of the National Education Standards and Improvement
Council (NESIC) within 120 days of the law's enactment (March 31, 1994) [Sec. 212(e)].
The council was not named during that time, nor has it been since then, yet in FY 94
$2 million was appropriated for its use. To what end are these funds being used?
NESIC was to "identify areas in which voluntary national content standards need to be
developed" [Sec. 213(a)(1)(A)]. Since NESIC has not been formed it obviously has not
performed this function. Which bureaucrat decided what standards projects would be funded?
With such anonymity there is no accountability.
The content standards are being presented to school personnel and the general public as
though they have been officially and legally approved. Neither of these can happen because
the body set up by law to certify the standards -- NESIC -- does not exist. It is misleading to
present these as the "national standards" when they have been neither federally nor popularly
approved.
The National Standards for United States History, produced by the Center for History in the
Schools, are a case in point. A politically correct account of American history, these
standards are being presented to history teachers as the national standards. While Congress
may believe it has addressed the issue with the Senate's 99 to 1 vote to reject the U.S. history
standards, this non-binding resolution was merely symbolic. In Goals 2000, Congress gave
authority over the standards to NESIC. That makes the Senate's resolution only a good
gesture. Congress should follow this vote to reject the history standards with a vote of much
greater significance: the repeal of the entire Goals 2000 legislation, which calls for national
standards and has the potential to produce more material like the U.S. history standards.
3
The federal government should not be involved in the creation of standards. Government-
endorsed standards are by nature coercive, not voluntary, and will create a body of "official
knowledge." This is contrary to the American tradition of freedom of thought. Furthermore,
content standards deal with curriculum, an area which the federal Department of Education
was expressly forbidden to enter when it was created in 1979. The creation, critique and
usage of standards must remain a community endeavor. No further federal money should be
spent on standards projects, and there should be no federal certification or endorsement of
existing standards.
Opportunity-to-learn (OTL) standards are an especially troublesome element of title II:
These standards shift the focus of reform back to increasing inputs into education, a tried-
and-failed method. OTL standards chosen by states and school districts will require schools
to provide adequate resources including such things as gender-equitable materials,
curriculum aligned with national content standards, and anything else NESIC deems
appropriate.
OTL standards are measuring sticks for schools and teachers, not for students. They are
not a reliable method for improving student achievement. Indeed, numerous studies linking
dramatically increased spending and declining test scores indicate that spending does not drive
academic success.4
OTL standards invite further federal intrusion in American education. Diane Ravitch, an
assistant secretary of education in the Bush administration, wrote, "[T]he new standards,
euphemistically called 'opportunity-to-learn' standards, would permit Federal regulation of
curriculum, textbooks, facilities and instructional methods The bill describes the Federal
'opportunity-to-learn' standards as 'voluntary,' but litigation would quickly turn them into
mandates."
The idea of lawsuits and mandates is not an alarmist fabrication; an Alabama state court
recently declared the state school system unconstitutional for not providing adequate education
to its students. The judge's 125-page opinion imposes OTL-type standards on the state's
schools.
6
TITLE III -- STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION
SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT
This title authorizes block grants to states and subgrants to local school boards [Sec. 309(a)].
In order to receive a grant under Goals 2000, a state is obligated to adhere to the federal
outline for reform: opportunity-to-learn standards, content and performance standards,
assessments, etc. State improvement plans must be approved by the Secretary of Education.
Never before have states had to submit such lesson plans to the federal government for
approval. Contrary to the rhetoric of Goals 2000, this is not a formula for local authority
4
over school reform; it makes the word voluntary moot.
In its grant application, a state must include "an assurance that State law provides adequate
authority to carry out each component of the State's improvement plan.. " [Sec. 305(a)(2)(B)].
In other words, the state must explain how it will impose the Goals 2000 agenda on each of
its school districts, voiding the voluntary option for them as well.
The Goals 2000 prescription for reform encourages states to include plans to transform
schools into "one-stop shopping" centers which offer a variety of social services, including
health care and child care [Sec. 306(f)(2)]. This coordination of services tends toward a
collectivism which is contrary to our nation's history as a free society. Concentrating the
services in one place and on one group of people may lead to a sense of dependency.
Advancing social services, health care and related services likely includes the promotion of
school-based clinics (SBC). The term "coordinated services" has been used by proponents to
refer to school-based clinics. These clinics commonly distribute contraceptives and, when
these measures fail, the clinics refer for abortion.
TITLE IV -- PARENTAL ASSISTANCE
This title provides for parental information and resource centers and describes parental
involvement in education. Laudable as it sounds, this title is problematic:
Goal 8 (parental participation) and title IV (Parental Assistance) assume that schools and
parents have equal authority over and responsibility for children. The legislation denies the
fact that parents' authority over their children is intrinsic and that schools have only a
delegated authority.
To improve family life and help parents, Goals 2000 suggests more programming, more
meetings, more time at school and with school personnel, and more home visits from
professionals. All of this leaves less time for parents and children to spend together.
With their Goals 2000 grants, states must spend money on "parent education." Parents as
Teachers (PAT), which advocates home visits by counselors beginning at birth, is one of the
programs specifically endorsed by the law. Not only are states encouraged to use their
"parent education" money to fund PAT programs, but the objectionable organization was
directly appropriated $10 million under Goals 2000 for FY 1995. The House Education,
Labor, HHS Subcommittee for Appropriations is to be commended for targeting this program
for termination. Its rationale for proposing cuts to parent education programs is that "these
are the very paternalistic and 'government knows best' programs that the American people
rejected last year."
Publicly-funded institutions like PAT are not equipped to improve families because they
cannot speak to the values issues inherent in the breakdown of families. Private voluntary
5
associations and individuals must take responsibility in this arena.
TITLE V -- NATIONAL SKILL STANDARDS BOARD
Title V is devoted to linking education to business and industry. It authorizes the creation of
another national bureaucracy: the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB). NSSB will
establish business-education partnerships and oversee development of skill standards and
assessments.
The $3 million spent in 1994 to develop skill standards is another misguided appropriation
of funds. It also calls for the development of national assessments to certify achievement of
the skill standards. These additions, however, will not produce better candidates for business.
According to a Chicago Tribune article, employers seek critical thinking and creativity, but
when it comes to promoting those skills, "most of the visible school reform efforts, such as
uniform national testing schemes, head 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
TITLE VI - INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
Title VI calls for evaluation of foreign education systems. It also sets up a program of
education personnel exchange with central and eastern European countries and any country
formerly a part of the Soviet Union.
The United States does not have the resources to "provide Department of Education
personnel and technical experts to assist eligible countries to establish and implement a
database or other effective methods to improve educational delivery systems, structure and
organization" [Sec. 601(c)(5)]. Moreover, U.S. envoys should not be pushing the Goals 2000
agenda, unproven in our own country, on eastern European countries.
TITLE VII - SAFE SCHOOLS
This title provides grants to local school districts to achieve safe and drug-free schools.
Section 705 describes types of programs to be implemented to prevent violence.
Conflict resolution, anger management, and peer mediation are cited as "programs of
demonstrated effectiveness in addressing violence" (Sec. 705). In reality, experts are
skeptical of these soft-approach violence prevention programs.⁸
We cannot afford to spend millions on a violence prevention strategy that includes
programs of no proven effectiveness. Serious efforts must be made to curb violence, but
conflict resolution and peer mediation will not get to the real solution: changed lives and
families.
6
TITLE VIII -- MINORITY-FOCUSED CIVICS EDUCATION
This title provides grants for teacher seminars on minority-focused civics and government.
Minority-focused courses will likely promote versions of history similar to that produced by
the Center for History in the Schools in its National Standards for United States History:
politically correct, victim-focused, anti-American, and inaccurate. Claiming to be
multicultural, the standards selectively include minority figures from American history who
are currently in vogue. Teaching minorities using such curriculum will not produce
acculturation but cultural friction and fragmentation.
TITLE IX -- EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
Title IX makes organizational changes in the Department of Education's Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI); prescribes OERI's functions in relation to Goals 2000;
establishes within OERI a National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, five
National Research Institutes, and a National Education Dissemination System linking federal
and local agencies. It also authorizes expansion of research grants for comprehensive school
health education (Sec. 971).
Once again, Goals 2000 aims to improve education by adding and reshuffling bureaucracy.
Health education, which includes sex education, has already been a major source of grief to
parents. Advancing these programs will undoubtedly lead to an increase in challenges to
parental authority.
TITLE X -- MISCELLANEOUS
This catch-all title contains a gun-free school act, a non-smoking policy for children's services
in schools, a policy for distribution of contraceptive devices, and authorization of grants for
Midnight Basketball programs.
The Goals 2000 policy on contraceptive devices further marginalizes parents. Section 1018
states that "all federally funded programs which provide for the distribution of contraceptive
devices to unemancipated minors [shall] develop procedures to encourage, to the extent
practical, family participation in such programs" (emphasis added). How unlikely is it that a
school administrator will find it impractical to listen to parental objections to its condom
distribution policy?
Midnight Basketball was originally a private sector plan. There is no need for government
to get involved in these charitable efforts and regulate them to death.
7
CONCLUSION
The proposed rescissions and terminations in Goals 2000 appropriations are good: reduction
in state grants, terminating Parents as Teachers, cutting back school-to-work activities, etc.
Especially significant is the $21.5 million proposed cut in the Goals 2000 National Programs,
wiping out all FY 95 funding for this account which supports development of standards and
assessments.
The proposals do not go far enough, however. The Goals 2000 restructuring agenda will
continue to spread like kudzu throughout America as long as states receive Goals 2000 grants.
Furthermore, zero-funding the Goals 2000 programs individually leaves open the possibility of
future funding. Complete repeal of Goals 2000 is the only solution.
Education reform at this historic moment calls for a reduction in the role of the federal
government in the system and a return to the traditional role of school: teaching students
basics like reading, writing, and arithmetic. A decisive first step will be the repeal of Goals
2000, which subverts education reform with more federal regulation and spending.
***
Jennifer A. Marshall is a research analyst specializing in education issues at the Family
Research Council, A Washington, D.C. -based research and advocacy organization.
ENDNOTES
1. Gordon M. Ambach, "Goals 2000: A New Partnership for Student Achievement," National Issues in Education:
Goals 2000 and School to Work, ed. John F. Jennings (Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa, 1995) 68.
2. In the formula for first-year funding under Goals 2000, a state is required to offer competitive subgrants to local
education agencies with 60 percent of the total state grant. Local education agencies must then pass on 75 percent
of their monies to local schools. See section 308(a)(1) and section 309(a)(6).
3. Richard W. Riley, "Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Providing a World-Class Education for Every Child,"
National Issues in Education: Goals 2000 and School-to-Work 5-6.
4. One example is: William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures on the State
of American Society (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994) 82.
5. Diane Ravitch, "Clinton's Math: More Gets Less," The New York Times 26 May 1993.
6. Bruno V. Manno, "Deliver Us From Clinton's Schools Bill," Wall Street Journal 22 June 1993.
7. Tom Peters, "Creative Highflyers: Cuckoo or King of the Roost?" Chicago Tribune 21 November 1994.
8
8. See: Rochelle L. Stanfield, "Safe Passage," The National Journal 25 September 1993. See also: Sheryl Stolberg,
"Nipping Violence in the Bud," Los Angeles Times 31 December 1993.
9
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
A PUBLICATION OF THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
P
Freeing America's Schools
The Case Against the U.S. Education Department
century and a half
central planners working in the
interest in his own affairs goes so
ago, Alexis de
federal government. Nowhere is
far that if his own safety or that of
Tocqueville recog-
this more apparent than in the area
his children is at last endangered,
nized that
of education, where increased
instead of trying to avert the peril,
increased central-
bureaucratic control has bred local
he will fold his arms and wait till
ization and
apathy which, in turn, has bred
the whole nation comes to his
bureaucratization saps civic and
greater bureaucratic control.
aid. 3
individual responsibility. "[A] cen-
Indeed, many contemporary
tralized administration is fit only
Tocqueville warns that, when a
to enervate the nations in which it
nation reaches this point, "it must
exists, by incessantly diminishing
In the area of education,
either change its customs and its
their local spirit,"¹ wrote
laws, or perish; for the source of
increased bureaucratic
Tocqueville.
public virtues is dried up; and
Cathy Duffy, in a new book
control has bred local
though it may contain subjects, it
titled Government Nannies, echoes
apathy which, in turn, has
has no citizens."⁴
Tocqueville's observation:
"History and common sense tell us
bred greater bureaucratic
that people are more likely to
control.
Ending the Federal Role
in Education
assume responsibility when they
know that no one else will. If I
The United States Constitution is
knew that no one else was going to
Americans resemble the 19th cen-
watch my car's gas gauge and
a document of enumerated powers.
tury European described by
remind me to fill the tank before it
Tocqueville:
That is, the Federal government is
hits empty, I would do it myself.
permitted to do only what the
But my husband watches it closely
The condition of his village, the
Constitution specifically lists.
and puts gas in the car for me. As
police of his street, the repairs of
This is expressed clearly and suc-
a result of his kindness, I rarely
the church or the parsonage, do
cinctly in the 10th amendment:
look at the gas gauge."
not concern him; for he looks upon
"The powers not delegated to the
Unfortunately, many Americans
all these things as unconnected
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
seem to have forgotten this princi-
with himself and as the property of
the States, are reserved to the States
ple and have yielded responsibility
a powerful stranger whom he calls
respectively, or to the people."
for certain domestic functions to
Since education is not listed as a
the government. This want of
1
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Testimony
Before the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities, U.S. House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m.
FEDERAL
Thursday, June 29, 1995
REORGANIZATION
Proposed Merger's Impact on
Existing Department of
Education Activities
Statement of Linda G. Morra, Director
Education and Employment Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division
UNITED
STATES
SECUNITING OFFICE CENERAL
GAO/T-HEHS-95-188
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We are pleased to be here today to take part in the
Committee's continuing series of hearings to examine the
congressional proposal to merge the current Departments of
Education and Labor. The proposal would also merge Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) - - the federal agency
enforcing laws prohibiting employment discrimination--with the two
departments. The merger would combine these agencies with other
selected federal programs to create a new Department of Education
and Employment. Our report on the merger proposal will serve as
the basis of my remarks. 1
In today's statement, you asked that we (1) describe the
structure and resources envisioned by the proposal, (2) discuss the
proposed merger's impact on the current Department of Education's
programs and activities, and (3) identify planning and transition
issues that would need to be addressed.
Briefly, we found that the proposal to merge the Departments
of Education and Labor and EEOC into a new Department of Education
and Employment could result in savings of about $1.65 billion in
selected administrative costs through the year 2000. However,
downsizing existing agency operations to the degree necessary to
¹Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge
Education, Labor, and EEOC (GAO/HEHS-95-140, June 7, 18985).
achieve these savings must be carefully planned. The proposal's
cost savings goal in addition to its organizational requirements
would significantly change Education's existing structure, program
offerings, and processes. The proposal would also raise program
consolidation, workforce, accountability, implementation, and
oversight issues that the Congress, Education, and other agencies
may need to address to ensure that federal education and training
programs meet our nation's needs.
BACKGROUND
According to congressional sponsors, the proposal for the
Department of Education and Employment is based on the premise that
the nation cannot adequately prepare its youth for the challenges
of the 21st century until fundamental changes are made in federal
policy on education and employment issues. The sponsors believe
such policy changes would require merging federal duties and
responsibilities into a single Department.
As one of the three agencies included in this merger proposal,
Education manages the federal investment in education and is
involved in the long-term effort to improve education. Established
in 1980, Education's mission is to help ensure access to education
and to promote improvement in the quality and usefulness of
education. In fiscal year 1995, Education was appropriated $32.1
billion and authorized 5,131 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions
2
to administer and carry out its activities. Education administers
about 240 programs with its budget.
Over the years, the Congress and others have criticized
Education for not carrying out its responsibilities effectively.
In our 1993 report of Education's management, we highlighted
several weaknesses such as lack of top-level leadership and clear
priorities, poor financial management, and low staff morale.2
However, Education has taken steps to improve its management and
culture by, among other things, articulating management priorities,
instituting a new management structure, and implementing various
total quality management initiatives within the agency. According
to Education, some of its improvement may realize budget savings.
THE MERGER PROPOSAL
The Education-Labor-EEOC merger proposal, first announced in
February, has two major components: (1) the consolidation,
elimination, and reduction of existing management functions and
programs from existing agencies into a new cabinet-level
organizational structure and (2) the achievement of administrative
cost savings resulting from this new structure. The structure of
the proposed Department of Education and Employment is shown in
figure 1.
2Department of Education: Long-Standing Management Problems Hamper
Reforms (GAO/HRD-93-47, May 28, 1993)
3
Figure 1: Proposed Department of Education and Employment
Department of Education and Employment
Program Administration
Undersecretary for
Undersecretary
Undersecretary
Workforce Preparation
for
for
and Policy
Civil Rights
Workplace Policy
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Secretary
Secretary
Assistant
Secretary
Secretary
for
for
Secretary
for
for
Workforce
Workplace
for
Basic
Higher
Training and
Modernization,
Employee
Education
Education
Life-Long
Reorganization,
Benefits
Learning
and Safety
4
Overall Department direction and vision would be provided
through its Program Administration function. It would include all
departmentwide management functions such as the Offices of the
Secretary; Deputy Secretary; public, congressional, and
intergovernmental and interagency affairs; management and budget;
adjudication; general counsel and solicitor; inspector general; as
well as statistical collection and dissemination activities.
In addition, three Undersecretaries would oversee all program-
related activities: one for Workforce Preparation and Policy would
manage most education and adult training programs; the second for
Civil Rights would direct the enforcement of all civil rights laws
and the elimination of education and employment discrimination; and
the third for Workplace Policy would administer programs focusing
on workplace modernization, safety, and benefits.
On the basis of fiscal year 1995 data and information
available to us when we completed our work, the proposed Department
would initially have a budget of almost $71 billion. In addition,
the new Department would have about 25,650 FTE positions and over
1,200 field offices throughout the country (see table 1.).
5
Table 1: Staffing Levels for the Proposed Department of Education
and Employment
Fiscal year 1995 staffing levelᵃ
Function/office
in the proposed
Number
Department
of
field
Total
Headquarters
Field
offices
Program
7,007
4,604
2,403
154
administration
Office of Civil
4,809
1,079
3,730
125
Rightsᵇ
Office of Basic
851
691
160
12
Education
Office of Higher
1,481
835
646
10
Education
Office of
1,930
773
1,157
296
Workforce
Training and
Life-long
Learning
Office of
6,544
894
5,650
549
Workplace
Modernization,
Reorganization,
and Safety
Office of
3,030
1,188
1,842
76
Employee Benefits
Total
25,652
10,064
15,588
1,212°
Source: The Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human
Services and EEOC.
"Authorized FTES.
bThis office would bring together (1) EEOC; Labor's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Directorate for Civil Rights,
and the President's Committee for the Employment of People With
Disabilities; and Education's Office for Civil Rights and Training
and Advisory Services program (under Title IV of the Civil Rights
Act).
Totals do not add because, due to organizational changes called
for in the proposal, 10 Labor field offices supporting job training
activities are counted twice.
6
According to the proposal, administrative spending would be
reduced by approximately 20 percent from current levels over the next
5 years. Our report illustrated the potential effects of these
savings on current staffing levels under two different reduction
scenarios. Both scenarios would save $1.65 billion in administrative
costs over 5 years--$990 million in compensation and benefits; $530
million in other expenses, such as rents, utilities, and travel; and
$140 million in administrative costs from eliminated programs. The
first scenario would achieve the $990 million through a 1-year
reduction in staffing. This would mean that 3,500 FTEs would have to
be eliminated in the first year to achieve a $198 million reduction,
which would equal $990 million over the 5-year period.
Our past work has shown that staffing reductions of this size
often require reduction in force (RIF) procedures.³ If that is the
case, under the 1-year scenario, additional staffing reductions--
possibly one-third more--could be required to cover the costs
associated with RIFs. 4 That would mean that the actual number of
FTEs that might need to be eliminated may be closer to 4,600 (3,500
plus an additional 1,100)
The second scenario would be a more gradual staffing reduction--
one that is phased in over 3 years. This would mean a relatively
³Reduction in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than
Attrition and Furlough (GAO/PEMD-85-6, July 24, 1985).
⁴Congressional Oversight: The General Accounting Office (GAO/T-OCG-
95-4, Mar. 30, 1995).
7
smaller FTE reduction the first year, but, overall, it could yield a
greater staffing reduction to achieve the $990 million in
compensation and benefit savings. Our analysis showed that such an
approach would require a reduction of almost 4,200 FTEs over 3 years
to achieve the $990 million in the 5-year period. While this
approach would allow for additional alternatives to reduce staffing
(such as attrition or buy-out incentives), a RIF of some kind could
be necessary. If so, this would increase the number of FTES--beyond
4,200--that would need to be eliminated.
Our past work on the downsizing experiences of private-sector
organizations and state and foreign governments showed that decisions
to downsize in the private sector were the result of corporate
restructuring designed to make work processes more efficient or
eliminate unnecessary functions. Reducing employment was seldom the
initial objective; rather, it was the consequence of eliminating
unnecessary work.
8
PROPOSED MERGER'S IMPACT
ON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The merger proposal would significantly impact Education's (1)
organizational structure and related staffing levels and (2) mix of
programs and services.
Organizational Structure and Staffing
On the basis of the merger proposal, specific management and
research functions within Education would be combined with those of
other agencies to eliminate the redundancy of administrative and
oversight activities. The proposal calls for most of Education's
departmentwide management functions--such as the Secretary, Chief
Financial Officer, Inspector General, and Public and Congressional
Affairs--to be consolidated with similar functions from Labor to form
the proposed Department's Program Administration function.
Currently, 2,354 Education FTES carry out these functions. Merging
the functions of these two departments might eliminate, for example,
the need for separate management positions or personnel and computer
systems. Education's civil rights activities, however, would not
become part of the proposed Department's Program Administration;
instead, they would be managed by the Undersecretary for Civil
Rights.
Proposal sponsors anticipate a 40-percent administrative cost
reduction in departmentwide management functions, including both
9
Education and Labor positions. On the basis of our analysis, this
could result in reduced staffing in this area of 1,578 or 2,009 FTEs
in 1 or 3 years, respectively.
Education's National Center for Education Statistics and
National Occupational and Information Coordinating Committee would be
combined with Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women's Bureau,
America's Job Bank, and National Occupational and Information
Coordinating Committee to form the Bureau of Education and Employment
Statistics. According to the proposal, this new Bureau, included in
the Program Administration function, would realize efficiencies from
administrative and data consolidations. About 150 Education FTEs
carry out education statistics functions. We determined that the
Bureau of Education and Employment Statistics would need to reduce
its staffing by 133 FTEs in 1 year or 146 FTES in 3 years to help
achieve the proposal's overall cost reduction goal.
In addition, under the direction of the Undersecretary for
Workforce Preparation and Policy, three Assistant Secretaries would
manage education-related programs in the proposed new Offices of
Basic Education, Higher Education, and Workforce Training and Life-
Long Learning to create a consistent strategy for providing education
and training for youth and adults of all ages.
The merger proposal did not designate an administrative cost
savings goal for specific types of education programs. It did,
however, specify about a 30-percent reduction in administrative costs
10
for all education programs to be included in the Offices of Basic
Education, Higher Education, and Workforce Training and Life-Long
Learning. Our analysis showed that, to achieve the proposal's overall
administrative cost reduction goal of $1.65 billion in 5 years, these
three offices would have to be reduced by 1,069 positions in 1 year
or 1,241 positions in 3 years.
Mix of Programs and Services
Some of Education's current categorical programs, including the
Title I program--the largest Education categorical grant program--
would be absorbed into the proposed Department in their present form,
while others could become components of consolidation grants. Still
other programs would be eliminated or transferred to other federal
agencies.
About 115 programs currently administered by Education would
continue to be managed by the proposed Offices of Basic Education,
Higher Education, and Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning.
These programs would support the general education of U.S. youth from
kindergarten through adulthood, including programs targeting special
populations such as the disadvantaged, disabled, limited-English
proficient, and Native American children. These programs received
about $31 billion in fiscal year 1995 in grants and represent about
2,443 FTEs.
11
Proposal sponsors anticipate that Education programs supporting
vocational and adult education, school-to-work transition, vocational
rehabilitation, and literacy would become parts of four proposed
consolidation grants. These grants were suggested in the merger
proposal and included in H.R. 1617 introduced in the Congress on May
11, 1995. With this legislation--titled the Consolidated and
Reformed Education, Employment and Rehabilitation Systems (CAREERS)
Act--sponsors intend to repackage the array of categorical workforce
development and literacy programs now administered by Education and
other federal agencies into a comprehensive system to meet the
education, employment, and training needs of U.S. youth and adults.
States would be eligible to receive funding from one or more of the
following consolidation grants: Youth Workforce Preparation and
Development; Adult Employment and Training; Adult Education, Family
Literacy, and Library Technology; and Vocational Rehabilitation.
The proposal also earmarked 20 Education programs for
elimination and two others (Innovative Community Services Projects
and Urban Community Service) for transfer to the Corporation for
National Service. The CAREERS bill also identifies for elimination
at least 10 Education programs supporting postsecondary education
included in the proposal and over 20 others not included.
12
SIGNIFICANT PLANNING AND TRANSITION
ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
If the proposed merger takes place, congressional and federal
officials responsible for planning the merger and transitioning
current Education programs and functions into the new agency would
face challenging issues. Education and other affected and designated
officials would likely work together to address the following
consolidation, workforce, accountability, implementation, and
oversight issues.
Consolidation
Should education-related programs currently administered by
other federal agencies also be managed by the proposed Department?
On the basis of our past work, we have identified education- and
employment training-related categorical programs that may be
candidates for consolidation. At least 13 federal agencies other
than Education manage these programs now. For example, the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Energy, and Health and Human
Services administer about 32 postsecondary education programs.
Workforce
What skills, roles, and staff would be needed to implement the
proposed Department's priorities and manage the new mix of education-
related programs and activities? On the basis of our past work,
13
movement toward a streamlined, more consolidated array of programs
may dictate a change in the skills, roles, and number of staff
administering these programs. For example, certain grant processing
activities associated with managing categorical programs could be
eliminated or devolved to grantees, requiring more emphasis on data
collection, compliance, and other assessment activities at the
federal level. In addition, the proposed Department's "reinvented"
role in education envisioned by sponsors of this proposal could
require a workforce with skills that differ from those of the current
workforce.
To what extent would field offices still be needed to implement
certain programs and administrative functions effectively? Our work
on the merger proposal identified field office functions, as well as
headquarters positions, that must also be considered in merger
deliberations. Currently, 22 Education field offices support the
agency's inspector general, management, and intergovernmental affairs
functions as well as and its vocational rehabilitation services and
student financial assistance activities. Proposed decreases in the
number of programs to be administered and changes in the types of
programs available may require a reexamination of these offices
within the new Department's organizational structure.
14
Accountability
How would the proposed Department ensure the accountability of
states and localities that receive federal consolidation grants?
Ensuring a focus on program results and outcomes while preserving
the flexibility inherent in consolidation grants could be extremely
challenging. The Congress maintains an interest in the use and
effectiveness of federal funds provided through consolidation
grants. We found, however, on the basis of our past work, that
when information is lacking about these types of grants, the
Congress becomes more prescriptive.⁵ The proposed Department, in
consultation with the Congress, would need to decide the nature and
kind of information needed to assess program results.
Implementation
HOW would current Education functions be realigned in the
proposed organization, and who would lead the transition effort?
As with other federal reorganizations (most recently the Social
Security Administration), someone must be directly accountable for
ensuring that the transition of Education's programs and functions
proceeds in a manner least disruptive to its staff and customers.
⁵Block Grants: Characteristics, Experiences, and Lessons Learned
(GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb. 9, 1995).
15
On the basis of our past work, we suggested a high-level,
interagency implementation team could be established to plan and
oversee the transition process.6 Our work indicates that this team
could consist of representatives from the affected agencies and
perhaps the Office of Management and Budget, General Services
Administration, and Office of Personnel Management. This team
would be responsible for developing an implementation plan that,
among other things, addresses issues of staff, funding, office
space, and administrative support function requirements as soon as
practicable. More importantly, the team would have the authority
to ensure that sufficient resources and support functions are
available on the first day of the proposed Department's existence
so that administrative problems would not distract managers from
their new missions and responsibilities. Such a team could be
especially useful for addressing sensitive topics such as field
office closings.
Oversight
The Congress has had a long-standing and important role in
overseeing federal reorganizations. We expect that as merger plans
proceed, the Congress will continue its vital role and strive,
through hearings and other public forums, to involve the public by
giving affected parties the opportunity to comment on planned and
ongoing activities.
%Implementation: The Missing Link In Planning Reorganizations
(GAO/GGD-81-57, Mar. 20, 1981).
16
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. At this
time, I will be happy to answer any questions you or other members of
the Committee may have.
For more information, please call Fred Yohey at (202) 512-7218
or Karen Whiten on (202) 512-7291. Other major contributors
to this testimony included Nancy Kawahara and Lori Rectanus.
(104824)
17
06-28-1995 18PM FROM
TO
12022253899 P.02
Summary of William Brock's Testimony
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
June 29, 1995
In 1985, when I was named Secretary of Labor under President Reagan, one
of my first tasks was to meet with Secretary of Education, William Bennett, and
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Otis Bowen. There was then, there is
now, a critical need for these departments to interact. Today, with the ever
increasing demands of a global economy and the need for a highly skilled
workforee, it is imperative that these Departments become one entity, thereby
insuring policy and program coordination of human resource activities in our
government.
While at the Department of Labor, I commissioned the landmark study,
Workforce 2000 which analyzed workforce and workplace trends. That report
brought new attention to the serious weaknesses within our current education and
training systems. For America to be competitive, these systems must change
radically.
In the United States today, too many students are graduating from high
school without the necessary skills needed to compete effectively in the global
market. Educators, as well as government and business leaders, are redirecting
their focus towards this country's most important asset--human capital. This
nation's greatest resource is an educated workforce, our future depends on it.
Further, the National Center on Education and the Economy said that the
United States has the worst school-to-work transition of any advanced industrial
country. We have a problem of enormous magnitude.
An acute shortage of highly skilled workers in the marketplace will short
circuit this nation's ability to compete in the global economy. Given the terrible
inadequacy of today's public education, the future looks bleak.
WEB
June 29, 1995
1
For much of America's history, its public schools have been a cornerstone of
progress. In the last 20 years, however, these same educational foundations our
society have been eroded by a "rising tide of mediocrity that threatens the nation."
By our failure to change how and what our schools teach out young people, we
have put our country on a downward path toward low skills, low productivity, and
low wages. We are threatening the future of our children.
Let's try to put our nation's priorities in order. There is no higher imperative
than restoring our Human Resource. If the merged effects of these two
Departments can contribute to that cause, it will be worth a great deal.
WEB
June 29, 1995
2
TOTAL P.03
Statement by
William D. Hansen
on
U.S. Department of Education Reorganization
before the
House Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities
June 29, 1995
Statement by
William D. Hansen
on
U.S. Department of Education Reorganization
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on reorganizing the
Department of Education. My comments today reflect my experiences during the Reagan and
Bush Administrations as well as my observations related to the direction that I believe federal
education policy should be headed.
As the Committee carries out its responsibilities for departmental oversight, management
review, and policy direction, it is important to understand the broader context of the
Department's mission and the appropriate federal role in education. By first determining the
appropriate federal role in education, answering questions relating to cost savings, program
consolidation and elimination, and management improvements may be more appropriately
addressed.
Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the November 1994 elections and the
subsequent six months of actions taken by Congress to fundamentally change the role of
government in our lives. Upon assuming the chair of this Committee, you stated that you were
going to conduct a comprehensive review of the agencies and programs under your jurisdiction
and hoped that the "term 'reauthorization' be stricken from the dictionary
We shouldn't assume
programs are going to continue year after year, but intensively examine them to make sure they
are still needed and are achieving their purpose. I would suggest adding sunsets to some
programs, laws and regulations."
Similarly, on January 19, 1995, the President stood with the Vice President at the White
House who stated the following to the American people:
"We propose to stop doing things that government doesn't do very well and that don't
need to be done by government. Over the next several months, we will be looking at every other
agency and program asking the direct question, do we really need this agency; do we really need
this program; is there a better way to do it; is there an opportunity here to give middle-class
Americans a break? We have already eliminated over 100 programs. We will eliminate a lot
more in the weeks and months ahead."
It is with these directives in mind that I will address several areas relevant to the
Department of Education today: (1) the Federal Role in Education; (2) the Size and Scope of the
Department; (3) Proposals to Dismantle the Department of Education; and, (4) Additional
Recommendations for Consideration.
Federal Role in Education
Mr. Chairman, we must keep in mind that the federal contribution to education today
consists of only six percent of the total elementary and secondary dollars spent nationwide. It is
in the context of this limited contribution that the appropriate federal role in support of
elementary and secondary education should be established. Six percent of total elementary and
secondary spending nationwide can and should be directed toward ensuring equal access and
promoting educational excellence. Such limited funding cannot and should not be represented as
a substitute for the local resources available and should not be provided to states in a manner that
undermines the proper administration of the 94 percent of resources provided at the state and
local level.
3
My experience in managing programs and personnel at the Department of Education
suggests that the benefits derived from dozens of the federal elementary and secondary programs
may be outweighed by the administrative burdens associated with administering those programs.
Ohio Governor George Voinovich recently wrote:
"The federal share of primary and secondary education funding is minuscule, only six
percent, in comparison to the vast contributions states and local communities make to educate
our children. It is time that we put to rest the myth that a federal education department can make
a significant difference in improving the nation's education system. Schools simply will not be
fixed and student performance will not improve because a centralized bureaucracy in
Washington enforces new laws and regulations that merely mandate actions by states and local
agencies hundreds and even thousands of miles away.
Today there are hundreds of federal education programs that are highly prescriptive and
heavily regulated. These programs literally are substituting Washington's judgements for those
of states, communities and families. This micro-management often imposes burdensome
mandates on local communities, which can least afford the intrusion. For example, a recent Ohio
study determined that a local school may have to submit as many as 170 federal reports totaling
more than 700 pages during a single year, consuming vital resources without any improvement in
the quality of education children receive."
I agree with Governor Voinovich that, "Allowing states and communities to have greater
control and flexibility over education dollars is a sure way to see those dollars reach the place
where they are most needed -- America's classrooms -- and used in the most effective way to
improve our nation's education system." From both a practical and budgetary perspective, it is
wise public policy to return responsibility for education programs from the federal government to
states, communities and parents.
The Department of Education should be restructured, downsized, privatized, and
reassessed to ensure that the appropriate federal role in education is determined and its
subsequent programs specifically target that proper role. Restructuring and downsizing the
Department is about quality education. The Administration's attempts to label such efforts as
anti-education, is a weak argument to deflect from the real issues of quality and control. Giving
4
parents more control and opportunity, returning to local communities and states control over
education policy, and reducing the federal budget deficit are pro-education, pro-family, and pro-
child propositions. Every American child in school today already owes $18,000 as his or her
share of the national debt. Senator Tom Harkin said recently that, "It's time we pass on to our
kids more opportunity, not more debt." I agree with that statement.
The Administration's arguments strongly suggest that they are more concerned with
protecting a centralized bureaucracy rather than sending home the responsibility for educating
our children. America and American education thrived for over 200 years without a building in
Washington, D.C. bearing the nameplate of "U.S. Department of Education."
Size and Scope of the Department
The current appropriation for the Department totals nearly $33 billion which funds 240
categorical programs. The Department's first budget year as a cabinet agency was FY 1980 when
its budget was just over $14 billion, funding about 130 programs. The Department's budget has
grown over 50 percent in real dollars since its creation. This expansion of programs has led to
obvious duplication and increased federal intrusion at the state and local levels.
Since 1980, more than $350 billion have been appropriated to carry out the Department's
programs. Of course, there has been some good accomplished with these funds. Millions of
disadvantaged youth have received Chapter 1 services, disabled youngsters have been given
opportunities they may not have known thirty years ago, and millions of students have had a
postsecondary education made more affordable. However, any success could have been
achieved whether education programs were housed at ED, HHS, Labor, or some other federal
office. For example, when P.L. 94-142 was enacted in the early 1970's, it was housed at the old
5
HEW. Clearly, this special education law has made a positive difference in the lives of millions
of children and in society. Earlier this century, over 90,000 disabled children were
institutionalized. Today, only 6,000 disabled children live in such circumstances. The bottom
line is this, Congress and the American public demanded an appropriate education for
handicapped youngsters and much success has been realized as a result of this law. I am
convinced that these same results would have come to pass regardless of which cabinet agency
this program was administered by. It was the law and the commitment by families and society
that brought about the changes we have witnessed, not a specific cabinet agency.
Between 1981 and 1992, there were numerous legislative and administrative initiatives to
help mold the mission of this new cabinet agency. In the early 1980's a major consolidation of
42 elementary and secondary programs took place which resulted in the creation of the Chapter 2
Block Grant. During that same time period, the student loan collection activities were privatized.
Although not termed "reinventing government" the Department was downsized from 7,500
employees in 1980 to an average of about 4,500 employees during the late 80's and early 90's.
At the same time, the number of programs authorized and funded by Congress grew from 132 to
240. Clearly, more was done with less.
We are now told the Department of Education is once again reinventing itself. Given the
high-level of parental and general frustration with education quality, it is appropriate for this
Committee to provide the Department with a clear indication of the direction this reinvention
should take. Congress should examine several areas of recent activities at the Department of
Education and set clear priorities for the Department. The fact that the Department already has
grown to over 5,100 employees and plans to hire 520 employees to manage the direct student
loan program is cause for concern about the Department's mission in a time of government-wide
6
streamlining and privatization.
Since the establishment of the Department of Education under President Carter,
Presidents of both political parties have submitted budget requests to zero-fund dozens of
education programs because they have largely or completely achieved their original intended
purpose, were duplicative of other programs, or could be supported by other funding sources.
For example, in President Bush's final budget, he called for the elimination of 39 education
programs that fell into the categories just mentioned. President Clinton, both in his budget
submission last year and as part of the National Performance Review recommended that 34
programs be eliminated -- almost identical to a list that President Bush developed. Last year,
Congress did eliminate 12 of these programs. President Clinton's FY96 budget proposal calls for
15 program terminations in FY 1995 (savings $122.7 million), 21 program terminations in FY
1996 (savings $504.1 million), five program phase-outs (savings $120.9 million), and 27
program consolidations (added cost $46 million).
Notwithstanding such efforts to reinvent the Department, public confidence in America's
education system appears to be close to an all time low. Parents and the public generally
question whether the federal mandates in programs in the education area are producing the
results they desire for their children. Given that the concept of an aggressive, expansive federal
leadership role has been tested over the past decade, I believe it is time to give state and local
administrators, and even more importantly families, the leadership opportunity.
We as taxpayers, and the Members of this Committee, should ask tough questions
regarding each of the federal education programs. Are students performing as well today as their
parents did? Are we rewarding dependency and mediocrity? How can we reward quality and
excellence? How can parents be given more control and responsibility over local education? Is
7
the public getting its money's worth? I believe that many of the current programs fail to
positively address the standards reflected in these questions.
Former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander has written that there are five defining
characteristics of a problem-laden central government agency: centralization, uniformity,
governmental, monopolistic, and no-fault. The opposite of each of these characteristics offers
citizens and managers clear direction: decentralization, diversity, privatization, competition, and
high morals.
Some of these problem-laden management characteristics are reflected in the current state
of affairs at the Department of Education. For example, the Department is growing -- it has
received a waiver from the President's Executive Order on downsizing their personnel rolls.
They have divided management responsibilities for the high-risk student aid programs to benefit
political appointees, rather than using responsible management principles. They have created
new layers of bureaucracy and new federal panels. They have crafted expansive new regulations
and added new federal mandates. This Committee should exercise its proper oversight authority
in reviewing such management practices at the Department of Education.
Proposals to Dismantle the Department of Education
In this Congress, since last November, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the
House, and many Committee Chairmen have called for the abolition or consolidation of the
Department of Education. Several members of this Committee have signed on as original
cosponsors to H.R. 1883, the "Back to Basics Education Reform Act." This bill was introduced
with 107 cosponsors. The key themes embodied in the bill suggest that "decisions about our
children's education need to be made by parents, teachers, communities, and states -- not distant
8
bureaucracies in Washington D.C." I strongly support most of the principles that this bill
promotes, such as: retaining and improving appropriate federal activities such as special
education , impact aid, Indian education, student loans and grants; replacing hundreds of
categorical programs with block grants to state Governors; repealing unfunded, expansive and
intrusive programs such as Goals 2000 and Direct Lending; eliminating volumes of burdensome
regulations; reducing the bureaucracy and saving administrative funds by consolidating
management activities with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Similarly, the concepts outlined by Mr. Gunderson to consolidate the Departments of
Education and Labor is a positive development. This effort to create a comprehensive
department supporting workforce preparation and workplace modernization is a marked
improvement from the status quo. The proposal would also reduce overlapping bureaucracies
and would result in a smaller government.
There are concerns with both measures, but my primary concern with the latter measure is
that in a push to prepare our children for the world of work, we may be moving away from
preparing them for life. Since our country's colonial times, citizens have been educated in both
primary and higher education in the disciplines of mathematics, natural science, language,
literature, philosophy, and history. Undergraduate liberal education and secondary schooling
consisted of a core curriculum. It was intended to perfect the student's reasoning ability and
prepare him or her for life and leadership in the free and civilized community. Efforts to get
back to the basics should be the top priority with the workforce preparation needs integrated into
that effort.
Efforts to achieve the appropriate federal role in education should be pursued vigorously
by this Committee. However, Congress should oppose any effort to simply change the name on
9
the door of the Department. Transferring functions and shifting duplicative, intrusive, and
inefficient programs elsewhere will get us nowhere. Rather, Congress should start with a clean
slate and determine what the appropriate federal role should be in education, determine how to
best address targeted needs, and develop a delivery mechanism that best serves families and
taxpayers. Reforms such as block grants to states or schools, tax cuts, vouchers or scholarships
to families, and functional swaps between the federal and state governments would reduce
bureaucracy, regulations, and federal control of education.
Additional Recommendations for Consideration
Deauthorize and Deregulate
The Department has taken on a high handed regulatory effort with States, school
districts, and college campuses that should be reined in. One of the best ways that Congress can
curtail the Department's zeal to overregulate is by abolishing or amending burdensome programs
and using its oversight authority as a means for providing a proper check and balance.
The Congress, in particular the authorizing committees, should deauthorize all unfunded
programs. This initiative would also assist on the deregulation front and prevent unnecessary
budget battles.
Program Swaps
Congress may wish to consider major program swaps with States to better focus the
federal role and to correct unfunded mandates that Congress has created for States and
communities. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) calls for a forty percent
federal share in educating youths with disabilities but the federal contribution is only about seven
percent today. If all other elementary and secondary programs were turned back to the States and
10
the $10 billion funding was shifted to the IDEA, this would meet the federal mandate of IDEA
and increase local flexibility in all other elementary and secondary education programs.
The Individuals with Disabilities Act, originally enacted in 1975 as P.L. 94-142, gives
parents a much stronger role in deciding their child's educational program. The rights and
protections under the IDEA are based on constitutional provisions of Equal Protection Under
Law and Due Process. Congress created these processes to ensure that children with disabilities,
who had often been excluded from public education, are provided a free, appropriate public
education. As Congress reauthorizes this program, I would encourage you to consider this swap
idea in addition to the other program improvement themes you are considering such as:
Strengthening the family's role and education quality; improving dispute resolution and
mediation; giving teachers the information and resources they need to adapt to the changing
classroom; and, building a strong research base for future reforms and improvements.
Cap or phase-out the Direct Student Loan Program
This new program runs directly counter to the principles outlined in the National
Performance Review. Mr. Chairman, your bill H.R. 530, will stop the reckless destruction of the
successful public-private partnership that has financed the college educations of millions of
students. If the Administration has its way, students and schools within two years will have no
choice but to turn to the federal government if they want a loan to help pay for college.
Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but more big government coming at a time when the
American people have stated clearly that they want less government, not more. Ironically, the
June 6 Washington Post carried a report in which the President praises the public-private
partnerships involved in helping Americans purchase homes. Yet in the case of student loans,
the Administration is engaged in an all-out campaign to drive out the private sector.
11
The private lending industry has improved service to families, reduced costs to students
and improved efficiency. It has also substantially lowered default rates -- saving taxpayers $1
billion per year.
Mr. Chairman, this Administration had the audacity to tell us in December that in
response to the November elections, it would cut government, cut bureaucracy, reduce federal
spending, and stop doing what is best left to the marketplace. And yet the Administration
submitted a budget to you that calls for a complete government takeover of the student loan
industry. Your bipartisan legislation seeks to put a stop to the government's takeover of the
student loan system. The government has never successfully implemented a direct lending
program. Just look at the Farmers Home Administration for an example of bad service and
tremendous cost to the taxpayer.
In the upcoming academic year the Department plans to increase its lending by 800
percent, even though only a tiny fraction of students have begun to repay their loans. In
subsequent years, the Department plans to issue 50 percent of loans, then 60 percent -- $18.6
billion -- all before knowing if its program will work. But even that level is not enough for the
Administration as they have announced that it plans to force all students and all schools into the
untested Federal Direct Student Loan Program within two years.
Mr. Chairman, this is foolhardy. Under this plan the Department of Education will
become one of our country's largest banks, lending out the taxpayers money by the billions,
without any indication that the Department can accomplish large-scale loan servicing. Under the
President's plan, in 10 years the Department of Education will have a $200 billion loan portfolio
to service. In 15 years, the portfolio will approach $300 billion. That's a $300 billion increase in
the national debt. The federal government has often shown that it can give away money. But
12
these are not grants; these are loans. The taxpayers deserve to know if the Department of
Education can collect a $300 billion loan portfolio.
H.R. 530 has received strong bipartisan support as it will also improve the integrity of the
direct loan program. Also, Congressmen Istook, Porter, Kasich, Boehner and others have
introduced H.R. 1501 which would repeal the Direct Loan program and look for increased
privatization as does H.R. 1883 (Back to Basics Education Reform Act).
Downsize Now
Lastly, the Department should downsize itself now. The Department should work with
Congress to restructure itself in light of anticipated changes that this Committee is considering
(ie. block grants, program eliminations, and new reforms). The President's waiver of his
Executive Order on freezing hiring should be removed and a freeze of new hiring should be
instituted. Reductions in the number of Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Assistant Secretaries
can be made and should be made. The number of political appointees and outside contract work
should be reduced as well.
Conclusion
This Committee and this Congress have a unique opportunity to improve the quality of
education as it reviews the Department as a whole and every individual categorical program
within the Department. Former Education Secretary William J. Bennett, recently said, "An
important consensus is emerging in the House and in the Senate that the federal government has
become too meddlesome and too intrusive. The November elections sent a clear and
unambiguous message: the time has come for a fundamental redirection of political power. The
federal government's involvement is hurting American education. Empirical evidence and the
13
experience of educators have exploded the myth that educational excellence depends on having a
federal Department of Education. Decisions on education should belong with parents,
communities and states. That's where the action is. We do not need a giant federal bureaucracy.
And we surely do not need a federal Department of Education."
Even the Washington Post concedes that "the country could get along just fine, for
example, without. an education department." Mr. Chairman, it is the programs and
opportunities that Congress creates that are important, not a symbolic bureaucracy of where such
programs are housed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I will be happy to
respond to any questions you or Committee Members may have.
14
TESTIMONY OF BETSY BRAND
PRESIDENT
WORKFORCE FUTURES, INC.
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
JUNE 29, 1995
Chairman Goodling and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the future of the U.S. Department of Education. I
commend the Committee for raising the difficult issues of reviewing the structure of the
Department of Education and its status as a Cabinet-level agency, and I commend the
Committee for taking on the difficult task of revising and simplifying many of the current
education and job training programs through pending legislation, H.R. 1617, the CAREERS
Act. Your leadership in challenging the status quo and searching for better ways to design
and administer programs is welcome and needed.
My testimony reflects my service as Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult
Education at the U.S. Department of Education for four years under the Administration of
President Bush. In addition, I had the privilege to serve as a professional legislative staff
person on the House Education and Labor Committee and on the Senate Committee on Labor
and Human Resources for a total of 12 years. Currently I am President of a consulting firm,
Workforce Futures, which provides strategic planning and policy analysis on education and
workforce development programs and issues.
The debate about the structure and reorganization of the Department of Education is
really a debate about the appropriate role of the Federal Government in education and, I
would include, workforce development. Increasingly both education and workforce skills are
1
seen as necessary to succeed in our changing economy, and this effort to integrate these two
separate worlds is very positive. Many Members of this Committee, especially Rep.
Gunderson, have provided the leadership in Congress to refashion our notion of education to
include career preparation, workforce development, and lifelong learning.
With hundreds of scattershot and unconnected education and training programs housed
at several Federal agencies, it is no wonder that the public and the Congress are challenging
the need for a Department of Education and so many discrete programs, particularly because
many of these programs have provided little measurable benefit. Further complicating the
public perception of the value of the education and training programs is the ongoing effort to
reduce federal spending. In my view, this situation demands a review and refocusing of
government efforts in education and training. The best ways to help states and communities
design and administer high quality, customer-sensitive, performance-driven education and
workforce development programs need to be identified.
The existence of separate Cabinet-level Departments to administer various workforce
development and education programs is an obstacle to developing broad, integrated education
and workforce development programs and policies. In particular, the Department of
Education, as it has been recently constituted, prevents the necessary restructuring of
programs. I believe the Department of Education is an outdated structure that does not meet
the current need for innovation, flexibility, collaboration, and control at the state and local
level, increased accountability, and improved responsiveness to labor market demands. And,
in times of dwindling resources, both duplication of effort and an administrative structure
evidencing inflexibility can no longer be acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, however well-intentioned past Federal efforts in education have been,
they have raised the voice of widespread public doubt as to whether or not we need a Federal
2
presence in education. This is unfortunate. I personally believe there is a role for the Federal
Government in education and workforce development that can help meet the needs of states
and communities striving to improve their schools and provide a better prepared workforce
for American business.
First, the Government must protect the rights of students and workers consistent with
the civil rights laws of our nation. Those laws should be fully and fairly enforced through
the most efficient system we can design. My previous experience at the Department of
Education with civil rights enforcement cases leads me to believe that we have a long way to
go to develop an efficient system.
Second, the Federal role in providing for education for the disabled through the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has allowed a group of formerly
disenfranchised individuals to enter the economic mainstream and contribute more fully to our
society. The federal leadership role and federal funding to support IDEA should be
continued.
Third, I believe the Government should continue its efforts to promote the
development of national academic and industry skills standards, so that our education and
workforce development system can become performance-based and ensure that our students
will meet world class standards. While this is a relatively new role for the Federal
government in education, it is, in my opinion, one of the most critical. Holding our schools
and colleges accountable for performance is alien to the way the Department of Education
and most of the Government works. In the past, we have worried about schools spending
their money in a timely manner, in some cases even punishing grantees if they didn't spend
their money on time, with no concern for the outcomes reached. The Federal Government
can play an important role in helping to promote the development of thoughtful academic and
3
industry standards with significant involvement from a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
Fourth, I believe there is a role for the Government to conduct research on promising
educational practices in an applied manner, so that the research becomes valuable for
teachers, administrators, practitioners and parents. Most of the current research done never
gets translated into actionable items to change teaching and learning behaviors in the
classroom -- current research reports sit on shelves. Parents need information on successful
reform practices and promising school design to allow them to participate in community
schools more effectively. Much more applied research should be conducted in the exciting
and promising field of learning technologies and how teachers at all grade levels can integrate
emerging technologies into their classrooms.
Fifth, Federal programs should be aimed at helping disadvantaged communities and
disadvantaged schools in a manner that promotes broad and systematic reform, rather than
just funding single, discrete programs. Programs should be focused on groups of students
within appropriate age ranges or on major functional areas. Congress should set clear
priorities for spending, but allow enough flexibility to deal with state and local concerns. The
distinctions that have been made between high school programs such as Bilingual Education,
Vocational Education, and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 need to be broken down. These programs
all serve the same student population, yet they are worlds apart in philosophy, design, and
delivery. Both the current legislation and the resultant Departmental structure perpetuate
these separate worlds.
Finally, federal support for postsecondary students at both vocational-technical and
traditional schools should be continued as a means to better develop the education levels of
our workforce and promote lifelong learning.
4
Mr. Chairman, the role of our Government is in many ways shifting from program
orientation to process orientation. The small, categorical programs that have shaped the way
we think and see education and training are not consistent with this vision. Education and
workforce development are a process, they need to operate as a system, dependent on many
interconnected parts. A reorganized Department of Education, or a transfer of the programs
currently administered by the Department to other agencies, could contribute to a more
holistic vision.
The proposal put forth by Rep. Gunderson moves in the right direction of combining
programs around broad functional categories and broad age groups rather than narrow
categorical programs for very special populations or categories of students. While Rep.
Gunderson is proposing "the form" before "the function" has completely been decided, his
proposal has merit in that it seeks to dramatically simplify the federal structure and provide
clear Federal priorities. The Federal role and priorities in education and workforce
development must be determined, however, before creating a final administrative structure.
Although I believe this Committee should closely examine the Gunderson proposal, I
do have two reservations about the proposal to merge the Department of Education, the
Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
First, there is a perception that a merger of the Departments of Education and Labor
will limit the Federal Government's involvement in education solely to workforce preparation,
in order to meet business and economic development needs. The underpinning of any
successful employee is a strong academic foundation, along with problem-solving skills,
higher order and critical thinking, awareness of civic duties, and a commitment to lifelong
learning, and thus there is a natural link between education and work. But, the proposal does
not address the priorities for primary and elementary and higher education in the same detail
5
as it does for workforce development. Engaging stakeholders from these communities in the
development of the proposal could result in a common vision and understanding that
education and economic well-being are interrelated and in the best interest of us all.
Secondly, in my opinion, the Department of Labor is a regulatory agency, which has a
strong culture of wanting to maintain tight control over programs. The Department of Labor
is also very centralized and, for the most part, conducts its programs from the national level
and not through local communities. I would hope that in a merged agency, this tendency to
regulate and keep central control, just as we are working to decentralize and provide greater
flexibility at the state and local level, would be minimized.
In closing, I believe that your examination of the role and structure of the Department
of Education and of other agencies is timely and needed. The federal education bureaucracy
and much education and training legislation is too static to deal with the emerging challenges,
problems, relationships, and opportunities faced by our states and communities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to
respond to any questions.
6