Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS

THE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE
October 3, 1996
Future Congress Forum

NewsHour Coverage of EEO Committee Issues
In conjunction with the PBS Debate Night Special, the Online NewsHour looks at education in America.
August 22
Former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and American Federation of Teachers President Al Shanker debate the school choice and other reforms.
July 23
Education Secretary Richard Riley and William Bennett discuss the politics of education reform.
March 27
American business leaders joined the nation's governors in a search for solutions to education problems at a summit. The IBM Chairman and a New York superintendent of schools debate the results.

Are you concerned about the state of education in America? The topic has been making headlines recently as the Presidential candidates exchange plans and proposals to bring the American education system out from under a barage of discouraging statistics about poor student performance. This year, pictures of over-crowded classrooms and stories about the rise of violence and drugs in the schools have caused anger and frustration for parents, teachers, and Americans concerned with the future of this country.

But beyond the headlines are lawmakers patiently working towards legislation that will improve educational opportunities and ensure that every child has the tools necessary to realize his or her potential and become a responsible citizen in an increasingly demanding and sophisticated workplace.

The Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee of the House of Representatives was established on January 4, 1995 to oversee education and labor matters generally. The first committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and Labor was established on March 21, 1867 in the aftermath of the Civil War and the growth of American industry. Since then, the committee has been broken into two separate committees, Education and Labor, and then recombined. The committee is composed of 43 Members of the House of Representatives chosen by the party caucuses. 24 Members of the current committee are from the Republican party and 19 Members are from the Democrat party. Subcommittees include: Early Childhood; Youth and Families; Employer-Employee Relations; Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifetime Learning; and Workforce Protections.

william goodling The Chairman of the committee, Representative William Goodling of the 19th district of Pennsylvania was a teacher, a principal, and the Superintendent of Schools for the Spring Grove Area School District before he was elected to the House in 1974. He helped enact the National Literacy Act and has worked to toughen standards for Goals 2000 and Head Start. He calls his approach to education "common-sense and budget conscious."

william goodling Missouri Representative William Clay, the Ranking Minority Member of the committee, has served in the House since 1968. Congressman Clay has put much of his legislative effort into "workers rights." He sponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act, HR 1, the first bill signed into law by President Clinton.

While everybody is intensely focused on who will be the President to lead us into the 21st century, the election of Congress will be just as important this year. In conjuction with PBS DEBATE NIGHT, this series of Online Forums is your chance to examine the visions presented by the country's emerging political leadership and to think about the issues involved in this fall's House and Senate races.

Representatives Goodling and Clay took your questions on:

A question from Peter Rubin of New York City

Dear Sirs:

We hear that the New York City schools are funded at very high levels. Why is there so much over-crowding and what have been some of the suggested solutions?

Representative William Goodling (R-PA) responds:

I would hesitate to make a detailed analysis of New York City schools, since my committee does not have direct jurisdiction over its educational policies. We know that all large urban districts in the United States are facing serious educational challenges because so many students are coming to school from dysfunctional families and communities where simple survival, not education, is the highest priority. Some parents of today's children were not educated to high standards, so they are unable to make up for shortcomings in the schools. And schools also face serious challenges with multiple, duplicative layers of management, a generation of low academic expectations from educators, and a burgeoning school population from the so-called "baby boomlet."

Despite these serious challenges, we know that there is hope for students in inner city schools. These schools must aggressively reform the way they teach these students, setting high standards with high expectations, and systemically teaching these students. Parents must be involved and committed, and schools will have to break down walls that have built up between the parent and the school. Principals and teachers and parents will have to work together at the school level to create change.

Many educators and administrators say "all children can learn," yet, for some reason it doesn't seem to happen in too many cases. The Barclay school in Baltimore brought this phrase to reality. Barclay is a public elementary school that serves a high-poverty population. Nonetheless this school adopted a "back-to-basics" curriculum that had been developed by an elite private school, the Calvert School. Student achievement scores in math and reading have risen dramatically, and referrals to remedial education and special education have fallen.

While principals and teachers work to reform the way children are taught in the classroom, Mayors and Superintendents and School Boards must work together to streamline the big-city education bureaucracy that is a vestige of the patronage system. Central administration must effectively support, rather than smother, the hard-working principals and teachers at the building level.

Representative William Clay (D-MO) responds:

It is true that schools in New York City are expensive to run. It is important to remember that this is one of the nation's largest school districts which this year will educate over 1 million students. More importantly, New York City has a very high concentration of children whose needs require special attention and additional resources. Fully 30% of children in New York City live in poverty. Over 80% of students are minorities, over 17% are limited English proficient, and over 11% have some form of disability. These are numbers that are well above national averages, so per pupil costs are naturally going to be high. In addition, the cost-of-living is much higher in the New York City, so the basic price of goods and services, including teacher salaries, is going to be higher.

I think it is probably true that the governing system of the New York City schools system has had problems. But it also faces problems that few other systems do. This year alone, the school system enrolled 70,000 new students - 10% over capacity. Many of their school buildings are over 100 years old and are crumbling around students packed into classrooms.

This system needs to reform, but more importantly it needs help. To a kid entering kindergarten or first grade, the average per pupil expenditure in not relevant. They are there to learn, so they can take their place in this great society. Our job is to help them do that.

Return to Top
A question from Dan Gorman of Chicago IL

Do either the Chairman or the Ranking Member have any thoughts on how the committee might address the question of how schools are funded. It seems to me that local funding of schools, based primarily on property taxes, is an eighteenth-century idea which worked reasonably well in the nineteenth century, less well in the first half of the twentieth century, and has been a disaster in the second half of the twentieth century. The growing disparity in wealth and social conditions among American communities has led to a situation in which the communities which have the greatest challenges to overcome in educating their children also have the least in the way of resources to meet these challenges. Many states have tried to address these inequities by means of funding formulas, but clearly, in the case of many poor urban school districts, these attempts to redress the inequities of school funding have been woefully inadequate.

Do either the chairman or the ranking member think this issue should be dealt with by the committee, or by the House? If so, what sorts of measures might be contemplated? What implications might changes in the structure of school funding have for control of school policy? How might these changes be viewed in the context of the debate over local control vs. national standards?

Representative William Goodling (R-PA) responds:

As you may know, many States are facing court orders to reformulate their education funding schemes because federal judges have determined that traditional property-tax based funding promotes inequity in education funding. Even at a state level, changing education financing is a very complex undertaking, one that state legislatures have wrestled with for many years. To elevate this issue to the federal level by creating a federal educational equity funding standard would complicate the problem exponentially.

Without interfering in State funding issues, the federal government is actively involved in trying to assist students who are educationally and financially disadvantaged. One such example is the way we fund special education from the federal level. Instead of rewarding states and schools for the number of students they place into special education, we believe children would be better served if federal funding for special education was distributed based on the state's general population of children and the number of children in poverty. This dual formula of population and poverty is a more fair estimate of the needs of children with disabilities, and does not inadvertently encourage schools to place children in special education who may only need some additional remediation services. These are ways that we can focus federal funds where they are needed most, without interfering with state and local decisions about school financing.

Representative William Clay (D-MO) responds:

This is a very good question, and I think Mr. Gorman has underscored one of the greatest difficulties we all face in our efforts to improve public education. The national government provides a scant 6% of the funds devoted to education in the K-12 systems. About 41% is supplied by States and the rest by local communities. Mr. Gorman points out correctly that the local property tax continues to be the main source of support for elementary and secondary services and that this has created huge disparities in spending among school districts that are often only blocks apart. At least 12 State supreme courts have decided that State funding systems that rely heavily on local property taxes are unconstitutional. But as we unfortunately all know, these court rulings do a good job of highlighting the problem and increasing public awareness, but provide precious little in the way of solutions. Litigation can drag on for a decade or more, while children continue to attend substandard schools.

Because of our nation's strong tradition of, and commitment to, State and local control of education, it is unlikely that the national government can play a big role in equalizing spending between districts. I regret that, but it is nonetheless true. There are, however, some things we can do and some things that we do already. Unfortunately, because the overall scale of federal funding for education is so relatively low (.6%), our ability to leverage change is small. Currently, we direct federal funding to certain areas. For instance, in most of the larger federal education programs, such as Title I, and the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), funding is delivered to school districts in part on the basis of child poverty rates. This helps target federal assistance to districts and children who need it most.

Another thing the national government could do is to establish a system of incentives, rewards if you will, for States which successfully reduce disparities among school districts. Sadly, in the current fiscal environment it is unlikely that we could create an incentive "fund" of sufficient size and scope to address the problems, in a meaningful way. The opposite approach would be to penalize States by withholding federal education funds unless progress was made in equalizing school finance. Personally, I do not believe a punitive approach would work.

In the end however, our current system of school finance will not change unless there is a new consensus that the Federal government play a larger role in the financing and governance of American schools. To me, this is the only realistic answer.

Unfortunately, we have taken several steps backward in this Congress. Under the new Republican Majority in the House, there was an unprecedented attack on the national role in education and children's programs; in 1995-1996 the new Congress voted for the largest education cuts in American history. This included proposed deep cuts in programs that help disadvantaged students improve achievement levels. Even programs that help communities provide children with healthy meals was targeted for elimination.

Fortunately my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate joined with President Clinton and the American people to turn back these destructive proposals.

Return to Top
A question from George C. Torres of Austin, Texas

Will the Congress take up & complete the Reauthorization on the Higher Education Act next year even though the 105th will still have big ticket items, like Social Security, Medicaid, & Medicare reform, to address?

What are the major student aid issues the Congress will examine during the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act?

Representative William Goodling (R-PA) responds:

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are certainly all important issues. However, for millions of Americans, higher education is the ticket to the American dream. The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities has already begun to hold hearings in preparation for the authorization of the Higher Education Act. The first of these was held on April 23, 1996, and was intended to give committee members needed background information on the current state of higher education in this country. The second, which was held on July 18, 1996, focused on the escalating cost of getting a postsecondary education.

Over the next several months, we will be soliciting ideas and policy proposals from people and organizations across the country interested in higher education. We are also planning to continue to hold hearings next spring. I fully expect to complete the authorization process in the 105th Congress. Improving the Higher Education Act is one of my top priorities, and I believe it will be one of the most important pieces of legislation that the next Congress will consider.

During the last 15 years, college prices have spiraled out of control. For example, tuitions at four-year public colleges and universities have increased by 234 percent, while family incomes have increased by only 82 percent. Parents and students are justifiably concerned, as am I, about their ability to afford a college education. I expect this to be among the major issues that we look at in student aid over the next two years.

Other student aid issues that will be of major importance include: continuing to ensure that every qualified student has access to higher education; giving parents incentives to save for college rather than expecting students to take on even more debt; making the student aid process simpler for students and less bureaucratic for schools to administer; improving the quality of our higher education programs and ensuring that Federal student aid is used only at quality institutions; promoting private sector solutions rather than increased government control in higher education; increasing competition among lenders in the student loan program in order to provide students with better service at a lower cost; and improving academic preparation before a student gets to college.

Representative William Clay (D-MO) responds:

The Higher Education Act is indeed scheduled for reauthorization during the 105th Congress. I expect that the Act will receive the necessary review and scrutiny which will allow its reauthorization in a timely fashion. However, the schedule will depend upon which party is in control of the House of Representatives next year. If you recall, the Republican majority squandered more than 1/3 of the first session of this last Congress on its "Contract with America," thereby wasting precious time it should have devoted to careful reauthorization of vital programs. Programs such as the Adult Education Act, the Perkins Vocational Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Environmental Education Act., and a host of others failed to be reauthorized because of the unrealistic and extreme policy agenda of the Republican majority. With a Democratically-controlled Congress, you can be sure that we will take the time to carefully review our premiere higher education programs and other critical issues our constituents expect us to resolve.

Democrats have always been in favor of and will continue to support increasing access to higher education for all Americans. The scope of issues affecting federal student aid that will be raised during the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is very broad, but let me focus on a couple of the major areas that are of particular concern to Democrats.

The Republicans in the 104th Congress consistently attempted to eliminate funding for Americorps, which would have closed this important avenue of support for students to attend college. Republicans also tried to increase student loan debt by proposing the elimination of the in-school interest subsidies, and increased interest rates on PLUS loans. These provisions would have cost students and parents thousand of extra dollars over the life of their loans. Democrats and President Clinton stopped that from happening.

Return to Top

A question from Mark Gordon of Santa Cruz, CA

I believe that there is a connection between the sustainability of school curricular reform efforts and strong school libraries. Curriculum that leads students to evaluate for themselves the issues or ideas surrounding a "problem" whether in social studies, literature or science, requires a rich information source and new information skills. The problem is, many schools have no librarian, ancient books or little information technology. This chokes curricular reform, forcing schools to rely on textbooks for the major information source.

How can congress, and especially the EEO, address this conundrum?

Representative William Goodling (R-PA) responds:

Information gathering is becoming more vital as we move into the 21st century. We are currently undergoing a technological revolution and are witnessing a tremendous proliferation in new sources of information. This trend will not only continue, but is certain to accelerate. It is clear that America's libraries will need to take advantage of these new technologies if they are to continue to ensure that all Americans have equal access to information.

Legislation passed by the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and recently signed into law will make libraries more accessible to a larger number of people. The Museum and Library Services Act of 1996 moves the Federal responsibility for museum and library programs into a new Institute of Museum and Library Services and streamlines and consolidates several Federal library programs into one program focused on helping all libraries acquire cutting-edge technologies and better serving those with special needs. We are working diligently to ensure that all people can take advantage of libraries, museums and the Internet. As we enter a new millennium I am confident that the citizens of the United States will be some of the most informed people in the world.

Representative William Clay (D-MO) responds:

I agree with Mr. Gordon. I think there is a strong relationship between a rigorous and enriched curriculum and a strong library system. Mr. Gordon is also exactly right about the current status of school libraries. Many schools throughout the nation have not replaced their reading stock since 1965! Think of how sad that is. Libraries have also been the open door to the limitless imagination and thirst for knowledge of people of all ages.

This is even more true today as libraries become the center of new forms of learning technologies. I have seen library-based programs where children in several different States linked by video and voice connections, follow the progress of submarines conducting undersea research as the research is happening, and the students also are given the chance to ask questions of scientists in places like the Woods Hole Research Institute.

The way children learn in this last part of the 20th century is dramatically different than it was even a decade ago. Technology has allowed children and their teachers to break free of the terrible isolation of the classroom and the limits of what can be found between the covers of a book. There is both a danger and an incredibly opportunity here.

The danger is the possibility of exacerbating the already serious inequalities among schools of different financial means. Technology is an enormous up-front investment and requires significant support research. We must ensure that communities with limited resources do not get left out of the information revolution.

The opportunity we have is that, when technology is fully integrated with improved curriculum and teacher training, all children can benefit equally. Studies clearly show that education technology has the power to improve student achievement in ways that far exceed previous advances in instructional methods.

Adequate attention to the need for state-of-the-art libraries and technology demands an investment of tens of billions of dollars. The new Republican majority in Congress ignored this critical need and proposed budgets which would have eliminated all federal school technology programs. I fought that effort, and with the President's help, we now have a renewed commitment to help schools and the communities that support them provide greater levels of education technology, much of which is based in school libraries.

In the last week of this Congress, we also passed legislation that creates a new federal commitment to stronger and more visible library programs throughout the country. The new Library Services and Technology Act recognizes the important role that our libraries will play in the next century and focuses resources on improving technologies and increasing partnerships with other institutions like universities. This legislation creates a new Institute for Museum and Library Services that will integrate our federal library and museum programs to consolidate funds and promote increased cooperation between libraries and museums across the nation.

Return to Top
A question from Alicia Margot of Baltimore, Maryland

You both seem to be very concerned with how the federal government can help public schools. Dole seems to think they should be turned over to the states. Do you accept this strategy? Do other members of the committee? How may the make-up of the EEO change in this election and could it be that it will ever work to turn public education over to the states?

Representative William Goodling (R-PA) responds:

Many of you know that I have made education my career and my passion. I was a teacher, a school principal, a superintendent and president of a school board. During my career in Congress, I have consistently focused on trying to strengthen education, child nutrition and family literacy programs.

Over the past 3 decades, lawmakers worked to ensure equal access to education. The focus on access was necessary * both for minority children who were given what has been called "separate but equal" education, and for children with disabilities, some of whom received no education at all.

But now we need to carefully ask ourselves, access to what? Are we giving students access to a classroom, or access to a quality education? The emphasis must be on children and students and what they get in the classroom.

From everything I've seen, the best quality results come when there is strong local control, a focus on high academic expectations, and parents that are involved and committed.

These three principles, all working together at the local school level, will help children get the basic academic skills and literacy they need, and lay the groundwork for them to get training and skills for the workforce.

I am committed to working with teachers and principals and local leaders to reform the federal role in education so that we get the most out of every federal tax dollar, and that children in your classrooms get the most direct benefit possible.

Representative William Clay (D-MO) responds:

The fact that the Republican Party and candidate Dole have adopted the position that the federal role in education is not necessary has had a very positive effect. Ironically, it is not the effect Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole would have hoped. It has served as a wake up call to the American public that the threat posed by Republican policy, to our system of public education is very real. The method selected by the new Republican majority in Congress to dismantle the federal role in education was to simply "defund" it. In 1995, Republicans in the House of Representatives proposed the largest education cuts in history - an unbelievable 1/3 cut in the national investment in education over seven years. These proposed cuts included:

Finally, in order to ensure that there was no one to advocate for a national role in education, the Republicans, including Presidential candidate Bob Dole, proposed to eliminate the Department of Education, altogether.

So, no, I do not accept this strategy and neither did a vast minority of the American public who overwhelmingly rejected this attack on the federal role in education. Let's put this question in a historical perspective. If, say 100 years ago, this concept of "block granting" education to the states, or eliminating the federal role succeeded, we would not today have the current system of Land Grant Colleges and Universities (which include MIT, Cornell and many others); we would not have the GI Bill, the student loan program, or programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees the right of disabled children to attend public schools with their peers and provides communities with assistance to help them defray extra costs associated with providing services to disabled students.

Throughout our history, the federal government has led the effort to expand educational opportunities to all Americans. This is the kind of power and influence that only the federal government can provide. In its simplest essence -- this is nation-building. Just take the GI Bill and the student loan program as examples. These programs vastly expanded access to post-secondary education to hundreds of millions of people. As a result, this country has the largest and most stable middle class of any country in the world. Do we want to abandon this? I think not. Here's another example. Just twenty years ago states routinely excluded millions of American children, who just happened to have a disability, from public schools. Seems unthinkable now doesn't it? Well, that was just 20 years ago. Because a previous Congress passed a federal law protecting the rights of all disabled children to be educated with their peers, millions of people have had access to the opportunity to become productive citizens that only schools can provide. Over the past 20 years, the Department of Education has worked directly with thousands of American communities to help them understand how to better serve the needs of disabled children as they work and learn along side their non-disabled fellow students. Is this something we want to walk away from? Of course not.

As we continue to work to improve access and opportunity, we have begun to focus increased attention on the "quality" of teaching and learning. The economy has undergone a massive transformation, and so must the mission of public education. Democrats, and the President, believe that all children can achieve high standards.

For many years now, the business community has been telling us that fewer and fewer American workers have the requisite skills for the current economy, and that schools were not teaching students the kind of skills that helped them solve the real problems confronted in a technology and information-dominated economy.

Three years ago, acting in our capacity as a catalyst for educational improvement, we passed the "Goals 2000" Educate America Act which gives the federal government a valuable new "platform" from which to provide leadership in support of academic excellence among other things. Goals 2000 creates a framework for establishing and implementing high and clear national standards for what students should know and be able to do. There are 16,000 school districts in our nation. Can we, and should we expect them to individually figure out how to reform their schools to better meet the needs of an economy that is increasingly global? Parents, educators, and business leaders know the answer to that question. Unfortunately, the Republicans continue their dedication to a bridge to the past and have repeatedly sought to eliminate this promising program. Fortunately they did not succeed.

Return to Top
Additional Comments:

Michael A. Indiveri of Loomis, California

Thsi nation has had a long and effective record of supporting Federaly funded job training programs for targeted persons. From the G. I. Bill to the Comprehensive Employment & Training Act (CETA), to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), these efforts has proved productive and have helped the nation's economy. When is the Congress going to approve a reformed job training effort that will serve everyday Americans who need job seeking skills and job search information. The advent of Welfare Reform is now upon the states and this might impact the progress that programs like the Private Industry Councils and One-Stop Career Centers. As far as I know, no employment plans or job training funds are part of the new Welfare Reform law. What will happen to training opportunites for dislocated and laid off workers?

______________________________________

Barbara Guillette

Education is indeed the key to our success as a nation and to our ability to be civilized.education and education alone is the ONLY thing that makes the difference....If Sweden and Japan are indeed beating us in the ratio between money and educational level, don't you think it would behoove us to study what is different and what we can do to change to succeed...I realize the social structure of the countries mentioned are different..but obviously we are doing something that is wasting money and not getting the results that we want...so what does intelligent civilized people do who want an answer..study those who succeed and solve our problem...I think school uniforms are one of the first small steps to our success. WE MUST solve it......and if we don't solve it, than we get what we deserve..but we have many bright intelligent people in this country and I know we will be fruitful......so let's get on the stick guys and get going. We need good managers for a start.

Return to Top

    REGIONS | TOPICS | RECENT PROGRAMS | ABOUT US | FEEDBACK |SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:
POD|RSS
SEARCH
Funded, in part, by:ChevronIntelBNSF RailwayWells FargoToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
            Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy

Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.