U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–630 CC 1998

REDUCING REGULATORY MANDATES ON

EDUCATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 12, 1997

Serial No. 105–67

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

TOM LANTOS, California 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.) 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel 

R. JARED CARPENTER, Clerk 

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 12, 1997 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of: 

Granger, Hon. Kay, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 9

Saylor, Joan, New Jersey Association of School Business Officials; Anne 

L. Bryant, executive director, National School Boards Association; 

Jannis Hayers, Texas Association of School Boards; and Marilyn Cross, 

National Education Association ................................................................... 19

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Bryant, Anne L., executive director, National School Boards Association, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 32

Condit, Hon. Gary, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 8

Cross, Marilyn, National Education Association, prepared statement of .... 57

Granger, Hon. Kay, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 13

Hayers, Jannis, Texas Association of School Boards, prepared statement 

of ..................................................................................................................... 46

Saylor, Joan, New Jersey Association of School Business Officials, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 22

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 3

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 6

(1)

REDUCING REGULATORY MANDATES ON 

EDUCATION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2247, Rayburn Building, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Shays, Pappas, Barrett, and Kucinich. 

Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel; 

Deborah F. Holmes, congressional fellow; and R. Jared Carpenter, 

clerk. 

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to call this hearing to order and welcome 

our witnesses and our guests. 

Although we dropped ‘‘intergovernmental relations’’ from our 

name, the change was typographical, not jurisdictional. Under 

House and committee rules, this subcommittee remains responsible 

for all matters bearing on the relationship of the Federal Government to the States and municipalities. 

In recent years, nothing has defined or strained that relationship 

more than unfunded Federal mandates, statutory directives that 

impose substantive, administrative, and fiscal obligations on State 

and local governments. When he signed the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995, President Clinton joined a Republican Congress in the effort to restore balance in Federal-State relations and 

to identify, quantify, and limit the impact of new and existing mandates. 

That is our purpose here today, to examine the scope and effects 

of existing Federal mandates, specifically those imposing additional 

burdens on local schools. Schools are at the bottom of the mandate 

food chain. Regulatory requirements from Washington, the State 

capital, the county seat, and city hall flow directly, indirectly, and 

often simultaneously, into the classroom. 

No matter how well-intended or beneficial the individual mandate, the cumulative effect of compliance with multiple mandates 

can drain school budgets and divert educators’ time and attention 

from their primary mission, teaching. 

We asked our witnesses today to identify mandated paperwork 

requirements, administrative procedures, and direct spending they 

believe impose a burden on schools beyond their benefit to students. We asked what flexibility is currently available to schools in 

meeting mandates and what additional flexibility might be warVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45630 45630
2

ranted to fix mandates more realistically into the educational mission. 

Mandate relief is the process of finding more appropriate means 

to achieve legitimate regulatory ends. No one disputes the needs 

for national education data, accommodation for disabled students, 

or environmentally-safe schools, but the undisputed worth of a goal 

cannot always justify heavy-handed Federal insistence on rigid 

State and local compliance with a one-size-fits-all strategy to reach 

the goal. 

Particularly in areas of primary State authorities, such as education, principles of federalism and intergovernmental comity demand a more careful marriage of ends to means than has been our 

habit at the National level. We’re beginning to break the mandate 

habit. The Unfunded Mandates Relief Act should make new mandates less frequent and less costly. The Educational Flexibility 

Partnership Demonstration Program, or Ed-Flex, gives the Department of Education and States the power to tailor Federal education 

funding and requirements within the context of a comprehensive 

school improvement plan. 

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act reauthorization, 

approved this year with bipartisan support and signed by the 

President on June 4, contains mandate relief and increased flexibility to improve academic programs for disabled students. But 

educators still face a daunting tangle of mandatory Federal laws, 

regulations, reports, standards, applications, commitments, inspections, and certifications that needlessly divert time and money from 

their overriding mandate, to teach our children. 

Our goal today and in the future hearings is to help educators 

inventory Federal mandates, measure their impact, weigh their 

value in building better schools, and see where greater flexibility 

can serve the same ends through other means. 

Our witnesses today, Members of Congress, local educators, and 

school administrators, all share a deep commitment to quality education and to a constructive Federal role in improving America’s 

schools. We appreciate their time and the benefit of their expertise, 

and we welcome their testimony. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Pappas. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

3


g:\graphics\45630.001
4


g:\graphics\45630.002
5

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you 

for holding this meeting, which I view to be critically important to 

the citizens, the taxpayers, and the local officials of our country. 

Having served in local government for many years, I’m a great believer in local government and its ability to be, really, the most efficient and effective layer of government and view my service here 

in Washington as an opportunity to be supportive of these folks 

and for the important job that they do. 

We in Washington need to realize that the people back home in 

our communities need to be empowered as much as they can, and 

this hearing this morning, I think, is an important step in demonstrating our desire here in the House of Representatives to hear 

what these people have to say and to try to tailor our programs and 

our initiatives to them. 

I was a great supporter of the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act 

that was enacted into law many years ago, but quite frankly, view 

it as a first step. One of the things I know Congresswoman Granger and I have been working on, with other Members of Congress, 

is to begin to look at existing unfunded mandates and their practical effect upon our desire to see the needs of our citizens met. 

And I look forward to hearing from my colleague and from the 

other witnesses this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. And we do have a quorum. 

And I just would like to take care—and since this is standard stuff, 

just get two housekeeping pieces out of the way. I ask unanimous 

consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to 

place an opening statement in the record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose, and without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask, further, unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to include their written statement in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Edolphus Towns and Hon. 

Gary Condit follow:]

6


g:\graphics\45630.003
7


g:\graphics\45630.004
8


g:\graphics\45630.005
9

Mr. SHAYS. We will begin with our first panel and invite the 

Honorable Kay Granger from Texas, a former teacher, a former 

mayor, to come forward and testify. And if you would just remain 

standing. As you know, Kay, we swear in all of our witnesses, including Members of Congress. If you would raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. By swearing in all our witnesses, we 

don’t ever get into an issue of why some are sworn in and others 

aren’t. And when we swear in Secretaries, I would like to be able 

to also say we swear in Members of Congress. Great to have you 

here. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. And look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY GRANGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

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

Thank you, Mr. Pappas. As you said, I do share our experience 

at the local level, and I appreciate your concern and enjoyed working with you on existing unfunded mandates and taking the next 

step from what the past Congress did. Thank you for your help. 

I’m honored to speak today on something that is very important 

to America’s future, and that is America’s children and America’s 

education. The poet Maya Angelou once said, ‘‘A cynical child is one 

who has made the transition from knowing nothing to believing 

nothing.’’ Nowhere is it more true than in the arena of education, 

where the goal is not just to grant knowledge to our students, but 

also to give them hope. Sadly, many of our schools fail on both 

counts. 

It’s true that our young people today, some are not able to write 

or to calculate numbers as they should, but more profoundly, many 

of our young people are discouraged and disillusioned. They have 

lost hope in themselves, and they have lost faith in this country. 

And that is truly the American tragedy. 

These precious young people are the ones who ultimately pay the 

price when our schools fail. The young people are the victims of 

schools that have failed them, and sometimes, communities that 

have given up on them. This is a situation which we must address, 

and I am very glad that you are doing that, because, Mr. Chairman, I believe that no first class nation can have second class citizens. 

Today more than ever, our schools and our teachers need our 

help, and our children need our help. Teachers aren’t able to do 

their best teaching, and our children are not able to learn to the 

best of their abilities, yet the problem is not always instruction. 

America’s teachers are a national asset. In fact, as a former schoolteacher myself, I recognize the contribution, and I empathize with 

the concerns of teachers. 

Everywhere in America, there are teachers who inspire their students to never settle and never achieve—but always achieve, and 

too many times, teachers still find themselves trapped in a system 

that fails them and their students. Rules and regulations passed 

down from Washington tie the hands of our teachers, and perhaps 

10

most significantly, court rulings have left our public schools in a 

quandary of confusion and confinement. 

Unfortunately, judges and bureaucrats are not the ones who are 

most dramatically affected by ineffective policies sent down from 

Washington. Instead, our Nation’s most precious commodity, our 

children, are the ones who pay the price. 

When I started teaching in the public schools in 1966, I felt like 

I was making a difference. I chose that career. I challenged my students. I set very high expectations for them. And I developed relationships with my students, many of whom keep up with me today. 

When I left teaching 11 years later, the classroom that I left bore 

little resemblance to the one I started teaching in. In just over 10 

years, I had gone from teaching children to pushing paper. Instead 

of teaching my children King Lear or The Canterbury Tales, I spent 

a large part of my day filling out forms and paperwork. 

So as a former public school teacher, I’m very concerned with 

America’s classrooms. And I think my years as a teacher have 

given me perhaps a unique perspective of what works in the classroom and what doesn’t. 

I believe the first key to improving education is demanding discipline in our schools and our classrooms. It is impossible for teachers to teach and students to learn when they fear for their safety. 

Teachers and students should be focused on theorems and sentence 

structure. Instead, many times, they’re worrying about handguns 

and gang violence. And they told me that when I was mayor of my 

city. 

Next, I believe teachers should be able to teach again. We should 

untie their hands and allow them to teach basics again. Recent research by the National Assessment of Educational Progress has 

shown that among 12th graders, only 43 percent attained the basic 

level of proficiency in history, and only 12 percent of 8th graders 

are able to write well-developed stories. 

Many of the problems teachers face while trying to teach their 

students is changing curriculum. Many times, schools change strategies in the beginning of each school year. One year, a teacher is 

told to teach traditional spelling and reading; the next year, they’re 

told to begin teaching whole language, where the emphasis is not 

on a wrong or right answer, but the process of arriving at that answer. To me, it’s very simple. Teachers should teach tried and true 

methods for reading and math. 

We also need to return to higher expectations and tough standards. For too long, we have lowered the bar in the hopes that more 

kids would be able to make it over the top. Why not raise the bar 

and challenge each and every child to raise their effort and meet 

a higher standard? 

We should give students the grades they earn. I’m opposed to all 

inflation, but as a teacher, I’m especially opposed to grade inflation. 

We’re doing no child a favor by passing them on to the next grade 

level when they simply aren’t ready. 

And do we really think that by not hurting a child’s feelings, 

we’re helping them find a job today? Again, the key is to expect 

and require more from students, and I believe they’ll respond in 

kind. 

11

The next step is have more parental involvement. Moms and 

dads should be encouraged to be parents at home and also partners 

in education. We should expect more at a younger age. The research we’re now doing shows brain development of a child occurs 

most rapidly in the younger years, and yet we wait until high 

school, for instance, to teach languages. 

Finally, I believe that we must return the teaching profession to 

a place of honor and respect in our society. 

Mr. SHAYS. We’re not trying to rush you off. The light is irrelevant, so take your time. 

Ms. GRANGER. All right. Fine. By treating teachers with more respect, we can begin to return the love of education to our schools. 

Learning shouldn’t just be fun, but it should be exhilarating for 

teachers and for students. Teachers should go to work each day, 

knowing that today, they’ll be able to shape some young person’s 

life forever, and students should go to school every day knowing 

that a world of opportunity and a wealth of knowledge will be 

opened to them. 

Let me tell you about one example of real learning that I experienced. We have a program called Summer Bridge in Fort Worth. 

It’s a summer program where children are chosen, the most at-risk 

schools at the most at-risk time. That’s the middle schools. 

These disadvantaged children go to a school where they’re taught 

advanced math, science, and English. They write poetry and plays. 

They’re taught by students—we choose our best and brightest from 

our junior and senior level—and from college students, who normally go back in the summer to work as waiters and waitresses. 

Instead, they learn the joy of teaching. 

Two things happen in this project called Summer Bridge, as it 

bridges the summer and teaches learning. First is, the kids get an 

outstanding education. They’re challenged with higher expectations, and they’re encouraged by the sight of their teachers, not 

much older than them, who by example demonstrate that learning 

can be challenging. 

We challenge the best and the brightest, and those students who 

plan to go into other careers and earn as much money as they can 

instead learn the joy of teaching, and they come back and we attract those brightest and the best, the teachers. It’s a wonderful 

program. It can be replicated everywhere. 

The important thing is that we’re not saying that there is one 

way to do it, and Washington should never be saying there is one 

way to do it. What I’m saying is, release the creativity and the involvement at the local level to make those decisions about how to 

teach and how to learn. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in America’s students, and I believe in 

teachers, and I believe also in America’s parents. We can improve 

education in America if we only can create an environment where 

teachers and students can do what they do best, and that’s teach, 

and that’s learn. 

That’s why I’m supportive of common sense education reforms 

like the one introduced by Joe Pitts, which requires 95 percent of 

Federal money to go directly to the classroom; and Pete Hoekstra’s 

Crossroads Project, which is to examine the 760 different education 

programs operated by 39 different Federal departments and agenVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45630 45630
12

cies and decide which are good and which are not and quit paying 

for the ones that are not effective, like Mike Pappas, who is looking 

at unfunded mandates and seeing what is going to really work and 

why strangle our schools as we strangle our businesses. 

I believe that there are some things that Washington can do to 

improve America’s education, but the real answers come from the 

people that are involved, the parents and the local communities. 

Today in our public schools, we’re beginning to see a modest rise 

in SAT scores and grade point averages, but we’re seeing parents 

who are very concerned in making the decisions about where they 

live and where they work, making that decision on where their 

children can be educated. 

All these things are very important. What I’m saying is, we owe 

it to our children, who are our future, to decide that we will have 

the best colleges and the best schools in the world, the best K 

through 12, because that’s where children begin to learn first. Our 

vision is a glorious one, an America where children are not only 

well-educated, but more importantly, an America where our children believe in themselves and their country and our government. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Kay Granger follows:]

13


g:\graphics\45630.006
14


g:\graphics\45630.007
15


g:\graphics\45630.008
16


g:\graphics\45630.009
17

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. I have a question or two, if 

you have time. I know you need to rush off, but let me just ask 

you, from being a schoolteacher, what did you do after that? Can 

you just walk me——

Ms. GRANGER. I left, and I went to business, and I owned my 

own business. I’m an insurance agent. 

Mr. SHAYS. And from business right to Congress, or——

Ms. GRANGER. Then at the local level, city council; then, mayor, 

Fort Worth; and then Congress. 

Mr. SHAYS. When you were on the city council and the mayor, 

how would you have interfaced with the Department of Education—not the Department, but your own school education programs? 

Ms. GRANGER. What we did, we worked very closely, and it was—

what we saw is the future of our city depends on the education that 

our children receive. 

For instance, when I came in as mayor, Fort Worth was the second-hardest-hit city in the United States with defense downsizing. 

That came right after a major recession. So we had—we lost 50,000 

defense jobs in 21⁄2 years in Fort Worth. We had to attract industry 

to the city. 

Mr. SHAYS. How many jobs did you lose, you said? 

Ms. GRANGER. 50,000 in defense only. 

Mr. SHAYS. Is this why John Kasich calls you ‘‘F–16’’? 

Ms. GRANGER. I think that’s why he calls me ‘‘F–16.’’ That’s 

right. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAYS. No more jobs. You’re not going to lose any more jobs. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. I appreciate that. As long as you keep 

giving me F–16s, we won’t. But we had to attract those industries, 

Intel, Federal Express, Motorola, Nokia. The question they asked 

me as mayor is, ‘‘Are you going to give us a work force that’s as 

educated for us to train for the 21st century?’’ That means we had 

to work very closely with education and ensure that was true. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Pappas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Kay, I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a bit 

upon what you spoke about earlier, frustration that you may have 

felt where at the beginning of your teaching career, you spent more 

time and emphasis on teaching your students, and yet during the 

period of time that you taught, that you saw that start to change. 

Ms. GRANGER. Yes. When I came in, I had a wonderful principal. 

The first thing he says is, ‘‘Kay, if it doesn’t work, don’t do it 

again.’’ That was the rule, which means he said, ‘‘Try what works 

in your classroom.’’ I had one classroom that was a very difficult 

class. It was sort of the throwaway kids. I couldn’t get their attention, so I took the desks out of the room. They had to stand up and 

listen to me. They tended to listen more closely. 

When I left, the orientation focused only—almost entirely on, 

‘‘This is what you can’t do in your classroom. You can’t touch a student, you can’t talk too much to a student. You have to fill out 

these forms.’’ We were form filler-outers as teachers. I saw the year 

that I left teaching, I saw seven of our very best left, and they left 

to go into business. 

Mr. SHAYS. Really great to have you here. Nice to have you as 

a Member of Congress. 

18

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SHAYS. I’m told, by the way, that Texans don’t like a lot of 

mandates. Is that accurate? 

Ms. GRANGER. We don’t like it at all. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAYS. We have a wonderful panel. This is a shorter hearing 

than we usually have, given that we only have two panels, and one 

of the panels happens to be a Member of Congress. 

So I’m going to invite to the table—and if they would remain 

standing until I swear them in—Anne Bryant, who’s executive director, National School Boards Association; Joan Saylor, assistant 

superintendent for business administration, board secretary, Freehold Regional High School, and member, Association of School 

Business Administrators; Jannis Hayers, president, Board of Trustees, Electra independent school district, Electra, TX, and president, 

Texas Association of School Boards; and Marilyn Cross, chair, 

mathematics department, Medina High School, Medina, OH, and 

executive committee member, National Education Association. 

Whose names did I mispronounce? Do you want to—amazing. If 

you would raise your right hand, and I’ll swear you in. Excuse me 

1 second. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. For the record, we’ll note that all four 

have responded in the affirmative. And I just would say, I’m going 

to invite Mr. Pappas to introduce the witness. We know you may 

have to get on your way, and we might invite that witness to speak 

first. Or we will. I just will say that when I—Ms. Cross, when I 

asked you if you were from Washington or Ohio, you were almost 

offended that I suggested you were from Washington. 

Ms. CROSS. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. Just because you wanted me to know you were out 

in the field here. But I love Washington, and I love Ohio, as well, 

so it wasn’t intended to mean anything. I just would like each witness to just tell me where they’re from, and then we’re going to invite Mr. Pappas to introduce you, Ms. Bryant. 

Ms. BRYANT. I’m Anne Bryant, and the National School Boards 

Association is in Alexandria, VA. 

Mr. SHAYS. And this is your home in——

Ms. BRYANT. Yes. 

Ms. SAYLOR. I’m Joan Nesenkar Saylor. I’m from the Freehold 

Regional High School District in Monmouth County, NJ. 

Ms. HAYERS. I’m Jannis Hayers from Electra, TX. And I represent the Texas Association of School Boards. I serve as president 

of that organization, and it’s located in Austin, TX. 

Ms. CROSS. And I’m Marilyn Cross from Medina, OH, and I represent the National Education Association. 

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Hayers, I was in the Peace Corps with a couple 

that came from Dallas, and they had a wonderful accent like you 

do. And when I went to visit the Fijians, I was—we were all in the 

Fiji Islands. When I went to visit them, they were teaching there. 

I found all these Fijians who spoke English with a Dallas accent. 

It was really fun. 

Mr. Pappas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my honor, and I appreciate your indulging me, to introduce Dr. Joan Saylor, who is 

19

from the Freehold Regional High School District, which is in the 

heart of my congressional district. She has had a long history of 

service in the education field in my home State of New Jersey. She 

started her career as a business education teacher in the Freehold 

Regional High School District, where she has returned after several 

years of working in other parts of the State. 

She currently serves as the assistant superintendent for business 

administration and board secretary and oversees the financial and 

maintenance operations of the schools’ cafeteria and transportation 

services. Dr. Saylor has spoken extensively on the subject of school 

administration and funding, with a special emphasis on Superfund 

law and its effect on school districts. 

Dr. Saylor has been honored by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation’s Institute for the Development of Educational Activities as an 

international fellow on three occasions. She clearly possesses a 

comprehensive understanding of the many perspectives of educators, having been certified as a school administrator, principal, 

supervisor, and teacher. 

Dr. Saylor specializes in school business administration and 

holds a Doctoral Degree of Education from Rutgers University in 

New Brunswick, NJ. It’s a pleasure to welcome her and inform everyone that it’s her birthday today. 

Mr. SHAYS. We are not going to sing to you. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAYS. You’re probably really—or were you planning to do 

that? Why don’t you begin? 

STATEMENTS OF JOAN SAYLOR, NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION 

OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS; ANNE L. BRYANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION; 

JANNIS HAYERS, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS; 

AND MARILYN CROSS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SAYLOR. Yes. Thank you very much for that introduction. I 

certainly appreciate the opportunity to be before you this morning 

and discuss the financial impact of two particular Federal mandates. These are the Superfund law and the underground storage 

tank regulations. 

My experience with the Superfund law began when I received an 

official notification from the EPA that my school district was a potentially responsible party in the cleanup efforts at the Lone Pine 

Landfill Superfund site. The problems at the Lone Pine Landfill 

were discovered after there was a fire at the site in 1978. The investigation after the fire uncovered that approximately 50,000 

drums of chemical waste, as well as millions of gallons of liquid 

waste, had been dumped at this landfill over a period of 20 years. 

Now, during that same timeframe, our school district, under contract with a trash hauler, had disposed of our trash from our offices 

and our schools. Due to the provision in Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, that provision assumes that 

municipal solid waste is hazardous waste. Our school district had 

the same responsibility for cleanup as did companies that dumped 

toxic waste at the landfill. 

Upon analysis, it was determined that we had dumped approximately 1 percent of the waste that was at the landfill, and thereVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45630 45630
20

fore, were responsible for 1 percent of the costs of the cleanup. 

Once the cleanup efforts began, we began receiving invoices. The 

latest share of the cost for our school district is $718,000 plus reopener costs. The reopener costs would be invoked if the site was 

not declared to be cleaned up sufficiently. If we wanted a total 

buyout from this particular site at this time, the cost to us would 

be $3.1 million. 

And to put that in perspective to the size of my operation, that’s 

about 4 percent of our budget, or the cost of salary and benefits for 

80 of our teachers. 

The work at the landfill has been extensive. It’s entirely sealed 

in a clay cap, and the landfill is being cleaned up. As residents of 

that area, we are very pleased that this has taken place. However, 

we firmly believe that as a school district, we did not create this 

environmental nightmare, and we shouldn’t be responsible for 

spending our education dollars to clean it up. 

The second mandate which has caused financial strain on our 

school district are the underground storage tank regulations. Our 

five high schools were built between 1925 and 1971. And during 

that time, the only heating source we really had was heating oil. 

Natural gas was not available in many of our rural communities. 

The communities continued to grow and we built additions to our 

schools. By 1990, we had approximately 1 million square feet of 

school buildings and 10 very large underground storage tanks. 

The storage tank regulations required two separate actions on 

our part. First was retrofitting the existing tanks with all the safeguard features, such as corrosion protection, overfill protection, and 

other items. The second mandate was that we needed to get pollution liability insurance. 

Because the age of our storage tanks—they were all over 20 

years of age—the law assumed that by that age, the tanks would 

be leaking. Therefore, we were not allowed to retrofit them with 

the safeguards. But if we were going to continue to use heating oil, 

we would have to remove the tanks and replace them with new 

ones. 

The second item is that we learned that pollution liability insurance in the State of New Jersey was simply not available at the 

time. The only viable solution we had to comply with these regulations was a significant expenditure of funds. We converted all of 

the burners in the boilers to natural gas. And then we went 

through the process of digging up all our underground storage 

tanks and disposing of them. 

The cost to our district was $652,000. During that same school 

year, this is slightly more than the entire amount of money we 

spent on instructional materials for our students. Then, we dug up 

the old tanks and found out that none of them, including those up 

to 40 years of age, were leaking. The law required us to spend 

money on removing these tanks that were not endangering the environment. 

I believe that our school district should be responsible for maintaining the health and safety of our environment. I believe that we 

should be responsible for the pollution we cause. In the case of the 

Lone Pine Landfill, we properly disposed of our garbage in a reVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45630 45630
21

sponsible manner. We did not dispose of hazardous substances. We 

did not create the environmental nightmare that exists. 

We also caused no harm to the environment by maintaining and 

using our oil tanks, yet we were required to spend $652,000 to remove them due to the assumption that they were environmentally 

unsafe. And we were also facing the $3 million liability at the Lone 

Pine Landfill. 

As a business official, I take my job very seriously, and I have 

the responsibility to ensure that our local property taxes that are 

raised for education and that are entrusted to me are spent in an 

effective and efficient manner for our students. We simply cannot 

afford to use these funds to abate potential environmental hazards 

or be responsible for hazards that we did not create as a district. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saylor follows:]

22


g:\graphics\45630.010
23


g:\graphics\45630.011
24


g:\graphics\45630.012
25


g:\graphics\45630.013
26


g:\graphics\45630.014
27


g:\graphics\45630.015
28


g:\graphics\45630.016
29

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Bryant. 

Ms. BRYANT. Yes. Good morning. I am Anne Bryant, executive director of the National School Boards Association. And you will be 

relieved to know I am not going to use the written testimony, but 

it has been introduced, and I’m going to abbreviate it for you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let me say this to you. We only have four witnesses, 

and I’m happy to have you go beyond the timeframe, as well. We 

were thinking of canceling this meeting because there are a lot of 

markups—Members have markups with the tax bill and health 

care bill and other legislation that’s moving forward because of the 

budget agreement—but decided not to. But we do have the flexibility of no panel after you. So don’t feel rushed. 

Ms. BRYANT. Thank you. I want to thank the subcommittee for 

holding this hearing today to really look at the impact of Federal 

mandates on schools. 

Congress passes many laws, and they serve specific needs. Unfortunately, the cost of individual mandates and their real impact on 

overall education programs is infrequently considered. The cumulative impact never is. The result is that we have mandates that 

have been created to protect children, but they are, in fact, stifling 

student learning. 

The Partnership for Children’s Education is NSBA’s Unfunded 

Federal Mandate and Regulatory Relief Project. It’s our top legislative priority, because we believe that schools need to focus on their 

main mission. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would you say your top legislative priority again? I’m 

sorry. I was just writing something down. Just repeat what you 

just said, your top——

Ms. BRYANT. Sure. The Partnership for Children’s Education is 

the name of the National School Board Association’s Unfunded 

Federal Mandate and Regulatory Relief Project. It’s our top legislative priority, because we believe that schools need to focus on their 

main mission, the education of students. 

Nationwide, it costs nearly $300 billion per year to educate the 

45 million public school children. But too much of this money is 

being diverted to regulations and activities mandated but not paid 

for by the Federal Government. Too much high-powered time is 

being spent, as the Congresswoman said, filling out reports, too 

much constraint is being placed on classroom teachers, and too 

much opportunity for innovation is being lost. 

While there are dozens of mandates placed on schools, I will 

highlight just a few. The Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, IDEA, is an example of a specific mandate that schools have 

consistently identified as a huge cost problem. NSBA supports 

many of the provisions of the recently reauthorized law to provide 

a free, appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. Yet the cost is huge. 

One intensive study of nine school systems shows that 38 cents 

of every new education dollar raised each year since 1967 has been 

spent on IDEA compliance: 38 cents of every new dollar. 

While Congress says it supports the goals of the special education law, its refusal to fund its own mandate tells a different 

story. When Congress originally passed the law, it pledged to pay 

30

40 percent of the annual cost of the special education mandate. Instead, the Federal Government pays only 7 percent, leaving school 

districts to pay over $30 billion each year in excess educational 

costs from local and State resources. This year, Congress is $10 billion short of its own commitment. 

Mr. SHAYS. Ten percent short of the seven percent? 

Ms. BRYANT. No, of the 10 percent short of the 40 percent. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah. OK. 

Ms. BRYANT. $30 billion translates into more local property taxes 

and increases each year and——

Mr. SHAYS. I’m sorry. You said $10 billion? 

Ms. BRYANT. $10 billion short for this year. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Got you. 

Ms. BRYANT. $30 billion translates into more local property taxes 

and tax increases and fewer educational programs for students who 

do not receive federally mandated services. 

While the special education mandate merits more congressional 

funding, there are other benefits where the benefits, costs—other 

mandates, excuse me, where the benefits, costs, and risks associated with mandates merit a second look. 

NSBA enthusiastically endorses accurate and understandable 

risk assessment practices. Unfortunately, Congress has been slow 

to respond, perhaps because it doesn’t have to pay the price. The 

asbestos mandate is a case in point. The safety of our children is 

a very real concern for school board members. They do not want 

anything to harm the health of children that they work so hard to 

serve. 

However, in this area, fear and misinformation have taken precedence over sound science and risk assessment. The mandate was 

created in the 1970’s in an understandable climate of panic. But for 

years now, the scientific data should have ameliorated both the 

panic and the mandate. There are two kinds of asbestos. One is 

dangerous, and one is not. Both fibers can be identified. 

Ninety-five percent of all asbestos in the United States is not 

dangerous. So far, no distinction is made, and, therefore, compliance with an unscientific law means asbestos removal has cost our 

Nation’s schools more than $10 billion. And we are still removing 

and spending millions more. Schools are spending too many of their 

scarce education dollars chasing a phantom problem. 

The public schools of this country are turning to Congress for 

help. For years, school board members have told us that they are 

struggling under the heavy burden of Federal mandates. Some relate to education, and many others relate to school environment. 

NSBA wants to work with this and other committees to establish 

the real regulatory costs of mandates of public schools. 

NSBA is investing significant time and resources to present Congress with an assessment of the impact of Federal mandates on the 

ability to provide a world class education. We have contracted this 

year with an independent accounting firm to create and conduct a 

survey of the impact of unfunded mandates on schools. We will attempt to collect information about the total costs of compliance 

with mandates, including reporting responsibilities, personnel 

hours, inspection costs, among other fiscal and personnel impacts. 

31

This is not a study of the value of the mandates themselves, but 

of the costs imposed by the Federal Government on school budgets, 

local property taxpayers, and ultimately, the opportunity to invest 

in student learning. 

We want to thank the committee for taking the first step by asking the Government Accounting Office to initiate a study of the 

major issue. We need congressional leaders to evaluate their mandates, fund those that are worth keeping, and repeal those that are 

not. Give schools and the children we educate the opportunity to 

maximize every single dollar that your taxpayers raise for the 

world class education that the children in their communities deserve. 

I want to thank you for holding the hearing and for your support 

of our project, the Partnership for Children’s Education. And as 

soon as all the panelists are through, I would be happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bryant follows:]

32


g:\graphics\45630.017
33


g:\graphics\45630.018
34


g:\graphics\45630.019
35


g:\graphics\45630.020
36


g:\graphics\45630.021
37


g:\graphics\45630.022
38


g:\graphics\45630.023
39


g:\graphics\45630.024
40


g:\graphics\45630.025
41


g:\graphics\45630.026
42


g:\graphics\45630.027
43


g:\graphics\45630.028
44

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hayers. 

Ms. HAYERS. Thank you. I am Jannis Hayers. I’m president of 

the Texas Association of School Boards. TASB is a nonprofit organization which represents currently every independent school district in the State of Texas, and that’s about 1,050 school districts. 

We receive no compensation as school board members in Texas. No 

Texas school board members are paid, and I don’t receive compensation for serving as president of our State association. 

I’m honored to be here today to followup with what Anne has 

told you about NSBA’s efforts to track Federal mandates. And I’m 

glad to be able to tell you about something that the Texas Association of School Boards has done in Texas that we call Mandate 

Watch. Mandate Watch began in 1989 in Texas, when the Association began to make an organized effort to track the cost of unfunded or underfunded mandates to Texas school districts. 

It’s a way of challenging both State and Federal legislators to put 

their money where their mandates are in terms of helping us to 

spend our dollars for the education of children, rather than on unnecessary regulation. 

Congresswoman Granger’s home town newspaper, the Fort 

Worth Star Telegram, probably said it best when one of their writers wrote, ‘‘The legislature has developed a very bad habit of ordering school districts to carry out expensive programs but refusing to 

provide them the money to pay for them. That allows lawmakers 

to point with pride at their frugality while placing tremendous burdens on school districts.’’

And what ‘‘No new taxes’’ meant in Texas when the legislature 

went home was that there were going to be higher local property 

taxes to pay for the things that had been put into law without 

money to go along with them. 

The Texas Center for Educational Research, based on information reported by the Texas Education Agency’s 1987–1988 accountable cost studies, estimated that underfunded mandates represented approximately 20 percent of school districts’ operating 

budgets at the time. 

The Mandate Watch campaign is multifaceted. Our staff members at TASB monitor legislative action, looking for changes that 

will require local school districts to do additional work for which 

no money follows. Between legislative sessions, they develop a book 

that outlines the costs, the estimated costs to districts of these 

things, and the book is updated and ready when the next legislature comes to town and in the hands of legislators. 

During legislative sessions, our staff people and local school 

board members working with the organization work to inform legislators of the costs of some of the programs that they’re suggesting 

we do. And we really believe that we have begun to change the culture in Texas, because a lot of legislation has died or been amended 

in some way because of the recognition of the fact that it would be 

passing unfunded or underfunded mandates down to local property 

taxpayers. 

The media has joined and has been very helpful in helping us to 

do this, as the quote from the Fort Worth Star Telegram indicates. 

Newspapers in Texas and the media has helped us to get the word 

45

out that rising local property taxes have been primarily because of 

unfunded State and Federal mandates. 

Since the inception of the Mandate Watch campaign, we have 

changed things considerably. The first—some of the ways that they 

have been changed would be to make implementation optional, to 

pilot—to begin the change as a pilot program to see how it worked 

out. And some of the efforts of the legislature have turned toward 

actually finding State dollars to send with the legislation, so that 

local school property taxpayers are not responsible for having to 

pay for them. 

In the legislative session that just ended, the 75th legislature, 

which adjourned June 2 in Austin, the first piece of legislation on 

this subject passed that body, and it’s similar to the Federal Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 in that following each session, 

an interagency work group will look at legislation that has passed 

to analyze and list the mandates that have been imposed on local 

school districts. 

There’s not many teeth in it, really, but it is recognition of the 

fact that we have to be looking at these things if we’re going to be 

aware of the costs that we’re sending down. And it’s certainly a 

step in the right direction, as is the Federal legislation. 

Federal mandates on Texas schools are very expensive. You’ve already heard some of the costs from some of the other witnesses. I 

just would like to say, special education is probably the most expensive Federal mandate. 

Information that we have from Dallas Independent School District indicates that they think in the current year, their percentage 

of their special education costs that were covered by their Federal 

dollars probably was about 9.32 percent of the cost of providing 

special education services; Houston ISD, 8.5 percent; and Austin 

ISD, 9 percent. So this is far lower than the Federal intent in the 

early days of this legislation to provide about 40 percent of the cost 

from the Federal level to provide these services. 

In my own local school district, which is a small district with 

about 750 kids, about 65 professional staff members, we think we 

have probably spent $100,000 already in asbestos-related cost simply in having inspections done. Our school buildings range in age 

from 1921 to 1961, and it’s time to do something about some of 

them. And we know when we do that, we’re going to have asbestosrelated costs if the Federal mandates that are in place are not 

modified somewhat. 

In conclusion, I would just like to say that as I said, we really 

do think that we have begun to change the culture in Texas, because legislators are cognizant of the fact that what they ask us 

to do has a price tag attached. And they’re working very seriously 

to try to find State dollars to do those things. And we’re grateful 

for that. 

I hope that NSBA’s Unfunded Mandate Program can be as successful, and we in Texas will certainly do everything we can to support it. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hayers follows:]

46


g:\graphics\45630.029
47


g:\graphics\45630.030
48


g:\graphics\45630.031
49


g:\graphics\45630.032
50


g:\graphics\45630.033
51


g:\graphics\45630.034
52


g:\graphics\45630.035
53

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. It’s nice to have you here. 

Ms. Cross. 

Ms. CROSS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

the opportunity to testify. I am Marilyn Cross. I am a classroom 

teacher in the Ohio public schools, and I’m a member of the executive committee of the National Education Association. 

The NEA represents 2.3 million teachers and school employees 

who work in our Nation’s public schools, vocational schools, colleges, and universities. We appreciate this opportunity to present 

our views on the impact of regulatory requirements on public 

schools and the flexibility available in Federal education programs. 

The mission of public education is to ensure quality educational 

opportunities for all students. This goal can best be accomplished 

in schools that are healthy and safe for children and for school employees and which have the necessary resources to help students 

meet high academic standards. 

NEA was actively involved in helping to develop and support 

passage of the flexibility provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and in the Federal Goals 2000 legislation, 

which reduced paperwork and other burdens on schools. In reviewing regulatory mandates and flexibility provisions affecting public 

schools, our foremost concern must be, will this improve teaching 

and learning. 

Congress conducted such a review when it reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and enacted Goals 2000 legislation just 3 years ago. Today, schools have significant flexibility 

and discretion in implementing ESEA, Goals 2000, and other Federal education programs through a framework of programs and 

rules that strengthen accountability for Federal resources that 

apply rigorous standards and performance measures and encourage 

innovation at the State and local level. 

What local schools and their districts most need is increased access to technical assistance so that school administrators and personnel are aware of existing flexibility provisions and can utilize 

those that best serve the interests of their schools and their students. In any discussion of flexibility in Federal education programs, it is important to acknowledge that the term itself has different meanings for different individuals. 

NEA would oppose any effort, for example, to increase flexibility 

or to reduce burdensome paperwork by diluting or eliminating civil 

rights and health and safety requirements, by shifting education 

resources to other areas, or by altering State and local education 

governance. As the recent reauthorization of the Individuals With 

Disabilities Education Act demonstrates, considerable flexibility 

can be achieved without undermining the educational goals of a 

program or diverting education resources and accountability from 

State and local agencies. 

Federal regulations governing education programs serve an important purpose, to protect our children’s health and safety and to 

ensure all students a quality education. Meeting these goals, however, requires a National investment in our students and schools. 

NEA strongly supported the inclusion of $5 billion in the budget 

resolution to leverage a total of $20 billion from States and communities to repair public school buildings. These resources would have 

54

made a tremendous difference to public schools and to their ability 

to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, as well as with 

the environmental hazards laws. 

I would like to highlight some of the flexibility options that already exist in major Federal elementary and secondary education 

programs. As you will see, considerable flexibility is available at 

the Federal level. The mandates on our public schools are imposed 

primarily by State and local governments. At the Federal level, 

most education programs provide flexibility to schools through 

waivers, streamlined applications, consolidated administrative 

funds, or school-wide programs. 

In fact, the U.S. Department of Education has eliminated 43 percent of its regulations relating to elementary, secondary, vocational, 

and higher education, a total of 2,031 pages as of June 1, 1997. Of 

more than 400 waiver requests received by the U.S. Department of 

Education, 160 were unnecessary because the flexibility was already available. The requesting agencies were simply unaware of 

the flexibility provisions contained in the program. 

For example, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the 

bedrock of the Federal role in public elementary and secondary 

education. It provides schools with many options to reduce paperwork and administrative time. Under Title I, which is the largest 

of the ESEA programs serving disadvantaged students, the schoolwide program has been expanded. 

Now, schools with more than 50 percent of student enrollment 

from low income families are not required to comply with cumbersome paperwork requirements that ensure Title I funds are 

spent solely for Title I eligible students. There do remain, however, 

strong accountability provisions. 

Funds in a school-wide program must be used to increase the 

amount and quality of learning time and provide an enriched curriculum for all children according to a comprehensive plan. And 

Title I no longer requires schools and districts to administer separate tests to Title I students. Achievement gains may be measured 

by the students’ performance on State assessments that follow the 

progress of all students in the State. 

The Goals 2000 Act, enacted in 1993, is a model for bottom-up 

reform and flexibility at the State and local level. The program is 

entirely voluntary, yet every State has submitted an application for 

funds. Not only are there no mandates for the standards, assessments, and local grants, but the process of applying for Goals 2000 

funds is the least burdensome for any Federal program. 

There are no published regulations, and the application form 

itself is only four pages in the first year and in the second year, 

two pages. Further, the format and content of comprehensive State 

improvement plans is left to the State, so that any submission of 

additional papers is a matter of State and local discretion. The review and approval process, including the commitment of funds, 

usually takes less than 3 weeks from the date of application. 

The School-to-Work Program contains flexibility provisions for 

creating State-wide school-to-work plans and State and local partnerships. They are designed to link with the provisions in Goals 

2000 and to give State and local education agencies the flexibility 

to coordinate them as they deem appropriate. 

55

I would now like to describe some of the ways in which administrative flexibility and reduced paperwork provisions are implemented. State and local education agencies may submit a single application for funds from Goals 2000, School-to-Work, the Perkins 

Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, and various 

other ESEA programs. The statute for each act outlines the administrative funds that may be set aside to run the programs. These 

funds may also be consolidated at the State and local level. 

School districts, with the approval of the State education agency, 

have some discretion in directing up to 5 percent of funds from one 

ESEA program to another, with the exception of Title I. Further, 

the U.S. Department of Education requires progress reports to be 

submitted every 2 or 3 years, rather than annually as was common 

before. 

Other broad-based coordination efforts to promote student learning have been created to give school districts more flexibility to 

care for their students. Title XI of the ESEA allows school districts 

to use up to 5 percent of their total ESEA funds, including Title 

I, to coordinate social and health services for students. In this way, 

schools and human service providers can work together to provide 

children with adequate nutrition and basic health care, improving 

students’ ability to reach the high academic standards set by the 

State. 

Waivers are a relatively new area for education, and it is not yet 

clear what the benefits are to effective teaching and learning. 

There is no comprehensive study on the impact of waiver requests, 

approvals, or denials at this time. It is clear that many of the requests submitted are unnecessary, because the State and locality 

can accomplish their desired goals under current law. In the ESEA, 

the Goals 2000 Act, and School-To-Work Opportunities Act, there 

are a number of statutory and regulatory waivers available to State 

and local education agencies. 

As of March 10, 1997, the U.S. Department of Education reports 

it has considered 185 waiver requests and approved 151 of them. 

Another 118 applicants learned they could implement their plans 

without a waiver. Some of this information is available on the Department’s Internet site, but not every school or educator is connected to this technology. 

Publicizing information about these requests, including what requests are necessary and unnecessary under current law and what 

requests have been approved or rejected, would be helpful to educators and to administrators in gaining an understanding of current flexibility within Federal education programs and how school 

districts are availing themselves of these opportunities. 

In addition to waivers from the Federal level, Goals 2000 includes a pilot experiment called Ed-Flex for 12 States. This is an 

experiment to determine if flexibility can be granted without reducing accountability or positive results for students. To participate, a 

State must have an approved Goals 2000 State improvement plan 

in place. The State education agency, not the Federal education authority, may waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements 

in six specified Federal education programs. The State education 

agency must also have the authority to waive its own similar regulations. 

56

There is no evaluation yet on whether this Education Flexibility 

Program is related to improvements in student achievement or 

whether devolving the Federal waiver authority to the State education agency has a positive impact on accountability and results. 

The NEA welcomes a fair evaluation of this program and urges 

that no further expansion be made until such an evaluation can be 

reviewed by local educators. 

The NEA also supports Federal, State, and local requirements 

that regulate safe drinking water, asbestos exposure, educating 

children with disabilities, and other civil rights laws. These requirements not only enforce our moral obligation to our Nation’s 

children, but in the long run, are cost-effective in reducing expensive litigation and life-long health care costs. 

Congress should continue to uphold regulations that protect the 

education, the safety, and the welfare of children and to pursue 

strategies to provide local schools and their districts with greater 

technical assistance in availing themselves of new flexibility provisions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cross follows:]

57


g:\graphics\45630.036
58


g:\graphics\45630.037
59


g:\graphics\45630.038
60


g:\graphics\45630.039
61


g:\graphics\45630.040
62


g:\graphics\45630.041
63


g:\graphics\45630.042
64


g:\graphics\45630.043
65


g:\graphics\45630.044
66

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. We’re ready to get into some 

questions and have a great dialog here. I note that in the beginning, we began with Ms. Saylor really talking about environmental 

issues like the Superfund and the oil tank. And, Ms. Bryant, you 

made reference, as well, to issues like asbestos. 

One of the things that I think you’re pointing out is where laws 

in general may need to be dealt with, like with asbestos, you were 

talking about the $600,000 to remove the oil tanks in New Canaan 

High School, New Canaan, CT. They built the school for $10 million, and they spent almost $10 million to remove the asbestos a 

few years later. And we’re not certain at all that the asbestos they 

removed was a threat to anyone. 

And I can say that having my daughter attend there, it just—

and I went to speak at a Senate hearing on this very issue, and 

Members of Congress were reluctant in the Senate, reluctant to 

open that door on that issue and use any discernment as to what 

was a threat and what wasn’t. We treated all bad, even though 

some isn’t and some is. The part that’s bad, though, can be very 

bad, and that we acknowledge. 

But it does strike me, if I’m just going to deal with environmental issues first, that if there is an environmental hazard, we’re 

going to mandate that it not happen, and we’re going to tell you 

it’s not. I’m not sure we’re going to come up with the money to pay 

for it. You’re talking, it seems to me, again, about—with the 

tanks—or, excuse me, with the landfill, Ms. Saylor, about the issue 

of whether you were responsible. 

Again, this strikes me, the kind of two issues we’re talking about 

here, you—businessmen and women come to us and homeowners 

come to us, as well. Should we call upon the deep pocket to have 

to pay the bill, or should it be the people responsible? And during 

the last 2 years, we really tried to change the law so that it was 

more not the deep pocket, but the people who were primarily responsible. 

Define to me when you think a mandate would be required, and 

not necessarily where we would have to pay the bill. There must 

be some. This may sound like a strange question to you, but where 

is a mandate legitimate? Ms. Bryant. 

Ms. BRYANT. I’ll use the example of asbestos. The purpose of the 

law was to make schools safe. Unfortunately, when the law was 

passed, it was based on a study that didn’t distinguish between the 

two kinds of asbestos. I think it is absolutely fair to say when you 

are renovating a school that you go in and test whether the asbestos is the dangerous kind or what we call white asbestos. 

Then I think the school, if it is the dangerous kind—although we 

think that most of the dangerous kind is in shipyards, not in 

schools—then it should be removed. But to treat it all the same 

and then say, as in your example in New Canaan, that the $10 million building has to go through a $10 million renovation does not 

make sense today. 

Mr. SHAYS. I would agree. In other words, let’s have a sensible 

law that gets at the real problem and doesn’t require you to do 

something that really is wasteful. But in that case of asbestos, let’s 

say the white kind, as you refer to it—and there’s probably a more 

technical term—would you agree that the Federal Government 

67

would have every right to tell you or a State government would 

have every right to tell a local district that put this asbestos in a 

school, it needed to remove it and it needed to pay the bill? 

Ms. BRYANT. I think that when it’s the school building—and her 

example is quite different, so it moves to the different arena—when 

it’s the school building, yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would you all agree with that, necessarily? 

Ms. SAYLOR. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Texas, it’s a little harder for you to—because I noticed in Texas, you even want to get rid of the copyright law. We 

could really have a little fun conversation here. 

Ms. BRYANT. Like NEA, we would love to move the school construction bill. 

Ms. HAYERS. Actually, the reference to the copyright bill was—

that’s simply one that we list in our list. 

Mr. SHAYS. In other words, you did some brainstorming, and you 

came up with a whole list. Yeah, I’m being a little facetious. 

Ms. HAYERS. Perhaps an example from Texas would be——

Mr. SHAYS. No, but this may be—I’m going to have you give a 

Texas example, but first off, would you—I want to know where we 

could agree a mandate is necessary. Would you agree that Tom 

Barrett and I might be very legitimate in telling you that you need 

to clean up a school that has dangerous asbestos? 

Ms. HAYERS. I think we’re all in agreement that the safety of our 

children should come first. And the Texas example goes directly to 

that. 

Mr. SHAYS. Right, and that the Federal Government might mandate you to if you chose not to? In other words, I’m just trying to 

establish a line where a mandate is good and where it’s bad, because some mandates, I would tell you, would be very important. 

And I’m speaking as someone who wants to get rid of a lot of mandates. You don’t want to admit that—it’s a real struggle. 

Ms. HAYERS. It’s counter-cultural to Texans. 

Mr. SHAYS. It’s counter-cultural. Maybe I shouldn’t ask you that. 

Ms. HAYERS. Well, actually, it’s a fair question. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. 

Ms. HAYERS. And we do want to take care of our children. And 

yes, where health and safety is concerned, there are some legitimate areas in which school districts, as any other government, but 

school districts because we’re dealing with the lives of our children, 

probably wouldn’t have to be mandated to——

Mr. SHAYS. Give me the Texas example you went with. 

Ms. HAYERS. The Texas example from this session of the legislature was that a bill passed requiring—and I may not have all the 

specifics of this correct, but basically, requiring schools to have an 

inspection of the natural gas delivery system to the school prior to 

every school year. And we certainly did not go down and lobby 

against that. That’s reasonable. There’s no money attached to it. It 

costs a little bit to have that done, and we certainly did not oppose 

that. 

However, on some things that would have mandated—on a bill 

that would have mandated school districts to increase health insurance benefits, not just access to health insurance benefits to not 

just our teachers but to their dependents, with no recognition 

68

whatever of the cost to local districts, we did have to say, ‘‘We can’t 

afford to do that.’’

Mr. SHAYS. Now, was that the State? 

Ms. HAYERS. That’s at the State level. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah. But that’s—OK. That’s a good example. OK. 

Ms. Cross, you probably are more—this probably comes easier to 

you, to tell us where mandates might be more necessary. [Laughter.] 

Ms. CROSS. Well, yes. I think—as they said in the testimony, we 

believe in a mandate, whether funded or not, we have concerns, as 

Ms. Bryant testified, in terms of—we have also proposed more 

funding for IDEA, because we believe handicapped students are not 

assigned proportionately to school districts, they are not assigned 

proportionately to States. It’s an issue in terms of disabilities as a 

Federal issue, and we believe should have more Federal support. 

So we would believe that. 

But we believe, for example, that IDEA has been essential in 

changing—I can speak personally from seeing special education 

classes in the basements of school buildings to seeing students 

being worked with so that they have jobs. We used in our system—

one year, one of our special education students began after graduation or after leaving school at a salary as a janitor in a pickle plant 

higher than his special education teacher made. 

So we’re very pleased for our students that the IDEA and the 

others have improved. We do think there should be more Federal 

support for that one, but we believe that mandates in terms of student safety, student welfare, must be provided by the Federal Government, because it’s easy to neglect them when money is always 

short. 

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to call on Mr. Barrett, and then I’m going 

to come back and pursue a number of other questions. But I will 

say to you that the IDEA reform that passed and was signed into 

the law was probably an absolutely stunning example of a difficult 

issue in which Republicans and Democrats decided to sit down and 

depoliticize it and desensitize it, in one sense. And it got no coverage. 

And I went to a reporter, he said, ‘‘No story here.’’ I said, ‘‘Why? 

No story here because we didn’t fight like kids?’’ And I don’t think 

that the American people as a general rule realize that that was 

one issue where we, I think, found some common ground. So it 

would be interesting to see if we have really met the needs of some 

school districts who may feel that we still have too many mandates 

and too many requirements and so on. But we did make a significant step forward. 

Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. I find myself in sort of a worked-up response 

just to the nature of the hearing. I served in the State legislature 

for 81⁄2 years and was in Wisconsin before I was elected to Congress. 

Mr. SHAYS. And was what? 

Mr. BARRETT. And I was in the State legislature in Wisconsin for 

81⁄2 years before I was elected to Congress. And many, many times 

during that 81⁄2 years, I had local officials talk to me about unVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45630 45630
69

funded mandates coming from the State level. And to be candid 

with you, I’ve heard many, many more complaints about the Federal Government than I ever did about the State government, but, 

frankly, far fewer complaints about the Federal Government’s involvement in education and complaints about the Federal Government as it pertains to education. 

So I was somewhat surprised to see that this was a topic that 

generated enough attention, frankly, to have a hearing, although I 

trust my good friend Mr. Shays and know that he tries to do things 

in a good-faith manner. So I was looking through this, and I was 

thinking as a parent. 

And, Ms. Bryant, you referred in your written statement to the 

‘‘extreme panic,’’ I think was the phrase that you used about the 

asbestos. As a father of a 4-year-old, a 3-year-old and a 4-monthold, I would be in extreme panic if I thought my school was going 

to have asbestos in it and could cause health damage to my kids. 

So I don’t know that it’s overreacting. And maybe in retrospect, 

all asbestos did not have to be removed, although I’m not—my understanding is that the EPA has not said that there is safe asbestos out there. And I would imagine if you are parents, if any of you 

are parents, you wouldn’t want asbestos in your kids’ school. And 

I think Mr. Shays’ question is a very good question and it goes sort 

of to the heart of the whole debate on unfunded mandates. 

I always view laws that we like as laws and laws that we don’t 

like as mandates. I mean, every law is a mandate. Everything we 

do here is a mandate, essentially, whenever we pass a law. But 

‘‘mandate’’ is sort of the buzzword or the code word to say something that we don’t like. 

I think if there was a law—and I saw a clip on the news the 

other night about a janitor in a school. And I don’t know if it was 

near here or whether I saw it on the national news. But he was 

a convicted sex offender, and he murdered an 18-year-old girl in 

the school during the day. I don’t think it’s inconceivable that you 

would have that State passing a law saying that you have to do 

a criminal background check on employees, all employees that are 

elected—or that are hired by a school district as a result of that. 

And, frankly, I wouldn’t be shocked if you had a Federal law 

along the lines of a Megan’s Law that said that school districts 

have to check the background of people so that you don’t have—

and this fellow was a convicted murdered that had been hired by 

a school district and murdered the girl. And that’s an unfunded 

mandate. Right? 

Ms. BRYANT. Well, if you want a response, I’m not going to respond to the janitor instance, because there’s a whole—we could 

have a whole hearing about that. But I do think, going back to the 

asbestos, in fact, from the research we have done, there really has 

never been a study that says that the white asbestos, or chrysotile, 

is dangerous. 

So I think when I referred to the word ‘‘panic,’’ it is—I agree. I’m 

a parent, and my kid went to a public school. And I would not want 

my child exposed to a harmful material. But now, I’m sitting in a 

different chair. I’m still the parent, but I’m hearing from the school 

districts who literally have fewer dollars today to just throw out 

into education. 

70

And the cost, as the chairman mentioned, of having to remove 

what is not dangerous asbestos just because of the law means that 

we’re not putting technology into those classrooms, we are not buying more textbooks, we are not paying teachers what they deserve 

to be paid. So it’s a balancing act. 

And I think what we’re asking as the National School Boards Association, not to undo the law, but let’s look at the risk-benefit. 

Let’s look at the cost. Let’s look at the cost over the cumulated 

years of a law that was passed in good faith then, but the scientific 

survey that should have informed it wasn’t a part of the law. 

Mr. BARRETT. And I don’t disagree with you, but we’re dealing 

now with the luxury of hindsight. And you’re correct. You’re sitting 

in a position now——

Ms. BRYANT. That’s right. But hindsight makes us smarter, so we 

ought to act smarter. 

Mr. BARRETT. But I don’t think that—but the notion here is 

whether we should be as a Federal Government coming in and taking action. And I think it’s a far different analysis that’s done at 

the time when we first hear about these problems, to say, ‘‘Well, 

let’s just study it more.’’ My—and I wasn’t in Congress, so I’m 

not—I don’t have a dog in this race, so I don’t——

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yeah. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah. The reason why we’re having this hearing, so 

it’s really—I’m just delighted that you’re kind of introducing this 

conversation and that we can really have a dialog about it—is, 

what mandates are there that may have made sense, for instance, 

that may need to be adjusted. I mean, so that’s really—and what 

we have asked the Inspector General to do since—I don’t want to 

get you too excited—the GAO to do is to do a study to look at mandates and just say, ‘‘Well, you know, are they accomplishing what 

we intend them to do, or not, and should we revisit?’’

And, for instance, we’re almost reluctant to revisit the asbestos 

law. So the simpler thing is just leave it there and let them do it, 

instead of having to force ourselves to look at it and say, ‘‘This is 

good, and this is bad.’’ Because in some cases, we may be passing 

judgment on what we did in the past and say it was a mistake. 

And the other is, we may not want to take the chance, however remote—that we don’t want to change it and then screw it up. So——

Mr. BARRETT. I don’t disagree with you. I mean, I think it makes 

sense to look at it, in hindsight. But if you—again, having not been 

here in 1989 whenever the law was passed, I don’t feel this dying 

need to support something because I didn’t vote for it, so it’s not 

like people are criticizing me personally. 

But I think that it was legitimate for Congress to respond that 

way, just as I think if Congress responds and says, ‘‘Well, we don’t 

want lead in our drinking water in schools,’’ I mean, that’s one that 

we may have hit a home run on. And I don’t think that it’s to say 

that we have identified that problem and it’s an unfunded mandate. It’s still a real issue. And I guess the decision or the discussion here is whether we think it’s appropriate for the Federal Government to come in at certain points and do that. 

I, again, personally think that it is. And I think that—I guess the 

question that I was just going at is, is the thrust of what you’re 

71

saying, especially the people that are complaining about the unfunded mandates—and let’s sort of switch gears to the kids with 

disabilities—are you saying, ‘‘Get out. Get out of our hair,’’ or are 

you saying, ‘‘Give us more money’’? 

Ms. BRYANT. No. On the IDEA, we are not saying that. In fact, 

many of us at this table worked on the reauthorization of that bill. 

We are saying on IDEA, now that you’ve passed an even stronger 

law in many cases, the Federal Government deserves to help out 

more in the cost of IDEA, that it was passed with an understanding of a 40 percent help from Congress, and it’s now 7 percent. 

We’re saying, if you’re going to have a strong law like that which 

helps children with disabilities, then you owe States and school districts the money to support that. 

Mr. BARRETT. But I think—and this is sort of inside baseball, but 

since you’re involved with—you throw out the word ‘‘unfunded 

mandate.’’ You’re saying, ‘‘Don’t do it.’’ That’s what you’re saying 

to me. You’re saying, ‘‘Don’t tell me to do this.’’ If you’re saying—

and that, frankly, plays to my good friend, Mr. Shays, and the Republican side. If you’re saying, ‘‘Pay for it,’’ you’re talking about 

Federal spending, and then that’s Democrat. 

So I don’t know where you’re coming from. And I don’t know if 

it makes any difference where you’re coming from, but I think that 

as we talk about this, you’re moving in different directions. 

Ms. BRYANT. No. 

Mr. BARRETT. If you’re saying ‘‘unfunded mandate,’’ you’re saying 

to me, ‘‘Drop the program.’’ It’s a far different issue to say, ‘‘This 

is a legitimate program. Kids with disabilities should receive a fair 

education, and the Federal Government has a responsibility.’’ And 

I don’t—and again, I don’t know what you’re—if you’ve got only one 

punch, which punch do you want to throw? 

Ms. BRYANT. With all due respect, each law is different. And just 

as you have within IDEA some very important issues which need 

funding, I will respond differently to that than I will from looking 

in hindsight at an asbestos law which makes sense no longer. So 

I have to be honest with you. 

I am not coming from two different places. I am addressing very 

specific laws and requesting a study be done to look at the impact 

of those laws on school districts. That’s why we’re having this hearing. That’s why your committee asked the GAO for a study. That’s 

why we are committing precious dollars from our funds from the 

National School Boards Association to study this, to make sure that 

we are doing the right thing and to advise Congress if there need 

to be changes. 

Mr. BARRETT. And can I ask one more question? 

Mr. SHAYS. We have time. 

Mr. BARRETT. I think Ms. Hayers, I think that you were talking 

about a reference from the Fort Worth newspaper, and it made reference to the legislature, and I assume there it was talking 

about——

Ms. HAYERS. The State legislature, yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. The State legislature. And, again, that——

Ms. HAYERS. In 1989. 

72

Mr. BARRETT. And that’s more consistent with my experience, 

that those guys are much worse than we are when it comes to this 

stuff. [Laughter.] 

Let’s call a spade a spade here, that they’re the ones that are 

doing all this terrible stuff. But you did mention several programs 

that, again, that sort of jumped out at me. I think that it was in 

your testimony. For example, unemployment compensation, 

COBRA? 

Ms. HAYERS. Yes. The written list there is simply a written list 

of—I referenced the document that our association does biannually, 

and we simply list the things that we see that are passing costs 

down to local districts. And so those are some of the things that 

are referenced in there. 

Mr. BARRETT. So are you saying——

Ms. HAYERS. We’re actually listing things that—over which we 

have no control for which there is a local school board cost. 

Mr. BARRETT. And are you saying, then, or suggesting that the 

Federal Government should have an exemption so that school 

boards are not liable for COBRA or unemployment compensation? 

Ms. HAYERS. We need local taxpayers to understand that all of 

their money is not—you know, when taxes go up, it’s not just because we like to raise taxes. There are some legitimate reasons 

here. We have some things over which we really don’t have any 

local control that we have some responsibility for paying the bills 

on. 

And basically, as those things—somebody else tells us to do that, 

and no money flows with it, then the only place for the dollars to 

come from is from local property taxes. And it’s just honest and accountable. 

Mr. BARRETT. I understand that. And I understand where you 

can make us the fall guy in it. But my basic question is, are you 

saying, ‘‘We don’t want to be covered by COBRA’’? Are you saying, 

‘‘We don’t want to be covered by unemployment compensation’’? 

Ms. HAYERS. No. We have—and the costs are not huge, but they 

are costs that we have and that we account for in our document 

that we show to legislators and is available for our members to use 

in their communities. 

Mr. BARRETT. Have any—again, I’m somewhat surprised in that 

I don’t think of COBRA as being a law that many employees of 

school districts take advantage of, I mean, because it basically occurs after a person is laid off. 

Ms. HAYERS. Right. 

Mr. BARRETT. In Texas, are there a lot of school employees that 

have taken advantage of COBRA? 

Ms. HAYERS. I can’t answer that. I really don’t know. And, of 

course, it’s the employees’ money. It’s simply an administrative 

matter. But school district administrative offices might have some 

responsibility to do that, those administrative functions. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. Appreciate that. 

Mr. SHAYS. Before calling Mr. Kucinich, I think what we’re really 

going to try to identify is what are mandates that we would say 

are good, what are mandates we would say are bad or need to be 

changed or modified, what are mandates that we really should be 

paying for in the Federal Government. Because there’s some things 

73

that we might say—you know, I hope that’s one of the dialogs we 

have in the course of this. 

There are things that we happen as Members of Congress to 

think are great for society, but we then say that another level of 

government has to pay for it. And so that will—and I think that’s, 

frankly, very important for all of us to get into on both sides. I 

mean, I can—well, we’ll have lots of fun on this issue. 

Mr. Kucinich. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAYS. I will say for the record, both of us were State legislators, I was for 13 years and you for 8, and we had the same issue 

of mandates when we were there, and you served on the local level. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Actually, I was in the State senate, as well. 

Mr. SHAYS. So you served on all three. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. 

Mr. BARRETT. He has caused problems at every level. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAYS. Literally. 

Mr. KUCINICH. And I want to continue my reputation here this 

afternoon. I want to first of all indicate that I had 10 recorded 

votes and a markup in the Education and Work Force Committee, 

so it prevented me from being here to hear your testimony. But in 

the time that Mr. Barrett was questioning you, I read your testimony. 

And I would like to just make a couple observations. I would 

hope that as you get into these issues, you would look at them from 

the standpoint, first of all, of some general organizing principles 

about which education—for which education exists. Ostensibly, it 

exists to elevate the mind and improve the lot of—and enable people to improve their lot in this society, to improve their own social 

and economic conditions, to give people an opportunity to lift themselves up and effect kind of leading forth. 

We also understand that government exists to set the priorities 

in the society. I would hope to see education be a priority at all levels of government. Therefore, educators wouldn’t be vexed with 

questions of whether or not they could meet their needs and, therefore, get into these unlimited debates over whether or not you meet 

your needs best by limiting unemployment compensation benefits, 

by limiting compliance with the ADA, by limiting asbestos removal, 

by limiting compliance with the Rehabilitation Act. 

In my view, we shouldn’t even be getting into that level of discussion. In a society which has so much wealth as ours does have, 

if we place the highest priority on education, as I believe it should 

be, these debates would never occur. 

Mr. SHAYS. What I would like to do is just see if we can start 

to categorize somewhat. And I would like to ask each of you. I do 

think that all of us agree that some mandates are required. And 

then the issue is, when should the Federal Government provide the 

funds to pay for it and when shouldn’t we have to. 

And your point about opportunity costs, Ms. Bryant, is the concept if you do one thing, you can’t do something else, is one of the 

reasons why we’re debating this. When New Canaan High School 

spent $10 million on asbestos that may not have been necessary to 

remove, it literally cut things out of its education budget to pay for 

it. 

74

But I do want to just establish again, it seems to me on health 

issues, in particular, environmental issues, if the program is necessary and you were the cause of the problem and you are the 

cause of the solution, we’re going to tell you to do it. 

When it gets into an issue like IDEA, Ms. Cross, let me ask you, 

when is it a Federal responsibility to pay the cost, and when is it 

a local or State? Let’s agree that we think nationwide, we should 

have a more unified program on disabilities and children with special needs. When is it our requirement to come up with the dollars, 

and when is it the requirement of the State or local government? 

Ms. CROSS. This is a very difficult issue, because it involves a 

whole lot of things, including facilities and so forth. I mean, it has 

got a lot of——

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t have to give a definitive, but give me some 

general——

Ms. CROSS. Right. I think the issue, we would say, in terms of 

the Federal support on a mandate is that this issue falls very unevenly on school districts. There is not an even distribution of individuals with disabilities in every school district in the country. 

Mr. SHAYS. Where do they tend to fall? 

Ms. CROSS. They tend to be in urban districts. But disproportionately, the cost for a very small rural district which even has one 

or two is disproportionately more than for a larger district that can 

provide the education, provide something that serves more people. 

Mr. SHAYS. You know where we got our biggest complaint on 

IDEA? 

Ms. CROSS. Which one? 

Mr. SHAYS. I represent—well, you wouldn’t know, but let me just 

say it to you. I represent three cities and seven suburban communities. Greenwich, CT, which is probably one of the wealthiest communities in the country, and New Canaan, CT, one of the wealthiest. 

Parents, particularly in Greenwich, were suing the school districts, getting the school districts to pay because, as we defined it, 

it wasn’t—whereas all students were to get a very good education, 

IDEA basically said they were to get an excellent education, so it 

set a different standard. 

They were able to prove in court that students should be moved 

to Boston, to Philadelphia, anywhere. And so we didn’t have the big 

problem in urban areas. Our biggest complaints were in our suburbs. 

Ms. CROSS. Right. Well, that’s a second part. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. 

Ms. CROSS. I think the initial costs and the problems of dealing 

with it, the disproportionate number of students are in urbans, and 

it has a disproportionate effect on the budget of a small school district if you have a severely disabled student that requires—in the 

suburbs and in the other places, we have had the same issue of the 

use of IDEA to litigate very, very expensive solutions. I think—I 

guess the question we started with——

Mr. SHAYS. We may have resolved that issue. 

Ms. CROSS. Yeah. I think the question, however, you wanted to 

solve is, there isn’t a proportionate representation of these students 

in individual school districts, so that responsibility of that school 

75

district to provide for those students is in no way related to the 

wealth of the community or to anything else in the community. If 

anything, you would find a higher——

Mr. SHAYS. So that would justify the Federal expense? 

Ms. CROSS. Right. You would find a higher percentage of the disabled in a community perhaps with a lower socioeconomic background and status. So it seems to me that as a citizen of the country, it’s a Federal responsibility to handle those exceptions that are 

not related to the local community. And that’s our rationale for 

saying that IDEA education needs more Federal support than it 

has gotten. 

And I think that would be a general principle if we would take 

any mandate. If the mandate has a disproportionate effect on communities, particularly those who already have lower resources, 

there is an obligation, because it’s a mandate because you’re a citizen of this country, there is an obligation to provide support to 

those other governmental agencies that will be in the business of 

actually doing the work. 

Ms. BRYANT. We distribute Title I based on need. I mean, I think 

I would agree with Marilyn that the disproportionate impact of 

poverty is something that Congress has said is important. 

Mr. SHAYS. Any other comments from either of you? 

[No response.] 

Mr. SHAYS. There’s a general concept that a higher level of government steps in when you have a spillover effect. For instance, if 

in the Connecticut River in Connecticut, a business is polluting, it 

takes relatively clean water, and at the end, it dumps the dirty 

water but it dumps it downstream to where the business is, it gets 

the clean water and it gives out dirty water, it has passed on its 

costs to all the communities down below. 

So the State would say to that business, ‘‘If New Jersey and New 

York are polluting the air but it blows away from them, prevailing 

winds’’—and, therefore, they don’t feel its cost, but Connecticut 

does, the Federal Government steps in. There’s a spillover effect, 

so we in Connecticut are basically asking the Federal Government 

to not let those States pollute. 

When we first got into education issues, we basically said as an 

example, ‘‘We will step in because Mississippi’’—and you know 

what? I’m sorry. Mississippi is always used, and no longer deserves 

to be used the way it is. But a particular State may not have spent 

the resources on education, but those children grow up, end up living in Chicago or New York or somewhere else, and then become 

a cost if they’re not as well-educated as the rest. So we have justified that. 

But tell me an example without question of one or two mandates 

that you think are totally inappropriate. And then I would like Mr. 

Barrett maybe to jump in, as well, and see if we can have a little 

bit of a dialog on that. Do you have a few more minutes? 

Mr. BARRETT. Sure. 

Mr. SHAYS. Give me some examples that you would call—if we 

are going to have the mandate, we should come up with the dollars. See, I would think, Ms. Cross, you would say you want the 

mandate one way or the other, ‘‘but we do think you should come 

76

up with the money. But if you’re not going to come up with the 

money, we still want the mandate.’’

I would think that some of you might say, ‘‘We don’t want the 

mandate, period.’’ And some of you would say, ‘‘We want the mandate only if you come up with the money.’’ So I think we probably 

have three levels within this room here. Do any of you want to just 

jump in and tell me. You’ve mentioned one or two, but—that’s not 

environmental, I guess, is what I’m—something educational. Yeah. 

What were you going to say? 

Ms. BRYANT. Oh, mine was related to environment. 

Mr. SHAYS. See, one of the problems is, when you start to deal 

with the environmental, you’re really asking for a different standard, because we said to the private sector they have got to clean 

up. And yet you’re saying, ‘‘Well, not to a local government.’’

And my view would be, if we’re asking—we may want to revisit 

the law in general, but we’re not going to carve out a special dispensation to—for instance, Ms. Saylor, I would say that we need 

to—if there’s a problem with you taking out a tank that shouldn’t 

be taken out, that’s dumb. 

But I will tell you this. We’re not going to let you pollute the environment, and we’re going to step in. And we’re going to say that 

to the private sector, as well. And we’re not going to say because 

you’re a municipality, you don’t have to do it. So I guess what I’m 

looking for is a mandate or two that you think we could have an 

interesting dialog to help clarify this issue. 

Ms. BRYANT. I can’t think of one offhand, which is the best news 

of all. Because a lot of mandates, as we have all said are Stategenerated, sometimes based on the Federal. But when we look at 

what the Federal Government does about education, we all know 

that it has less to do with local education than many other countries. 

We have a smaller percentage of laws and funding from the Federal Government to local education than many, many countries. So 

I guess the good news is, we aren’t sitting here listing 10 laws that 

we think are totally irrelevant. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would one of the interests that you have be that if 

we provide a mandate, that you want more flexibility in how you 

may administer the mandate? 

Ms. BRYANT. Absolutely. I think Marilyn’s testimony around EdFlex is a wonderful example. It happens to be only the Department 

of Education. It happens to be only 12 States. But if we could have 

that across the board on EPA and HHS, that’s a good model. 

Ms. SAYLOR. For example, if we had some flexibility with the underground storage tanks, if we could have tested and proven that 

we were not causing an environmental problem, perhaps then we 

would not have had to go through the expense of converting to natural gas and getting rid of our tanks. 

We tested our tanks on a regular basis because we were concerned about them leaking, knowing the problems that that could 

cause. But we weren’t given the opportunity to prove that we 

weren’t creating the problem. We had to go through the expense of 

removing them. There was not a choice. 

Mr. SHAYS. What surprises me is, you could do a compression 

test, I think, and know if it was keeping its pressure. So it is surVerDate Jan 31 2003 14:33 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45630 45630
77

prising. And we do have a system where you can fill them up with 

foam. So it is—but I would make the argument in the case that you 

outlined that I would want that same law to apply to you and to 

business the same. 

Ms. SAYLOR. Yes. I wasn’t—I was not looking to be excused from 

causing the problem. It’s either when I am not causing an environmental problem or, in the case of the Superfund site, I have trouble 

equating the trash that we have disposed of with benzene and chlorobenzene and other types of chemicals. 

Mr. SHAYS. If none of you have an example now, if you could 

maybe submit something for our record, because we are going to 

be having a series of hearings. But, for instance, even your concept 

about the example of Megan’s Law or another—I can take New 

York City or some other cities. We actually do what we do when 

you walk into the State capitol here. You really have to go through 

a metal detector. 

Now, it would be inane for us to pass a law that would require 

all schools around the country to have metal detectors. But I bet 

there are some examples of where we have done it in other areas, 

where we have passed a certain kind of law that may work in a 

particular setting and simply may not work. Maybe this is an example of where we needed to have a more rural school district 

come in and say, ‘‘You know, here some of what you’re requiring 

just simply doesn’t apply,’’ and it may apply. And that’s where we 

need the flexibility. 

So I guess what I’m trying to do is set up some kind of grounds 

for our next hearing. You’ve launched it. One is, the good mandate, 

the mandate that may not be good, the mandate that may be good 

but you need to pay for it, and then the mandate where we simply 

need flexibility. 

And I will just say to the committee—and maybe we can start 

to begin to categorize what kind of mandate might be necessary to 

get—I mean, we also have issues that deal with grants. They aren’t 

mandates, because you don’t have to accept the grant, but it does 

then deal with the issue of flexibility. 

Bridgeport, CT, went bankrupt. It closed its parks. It applied for 

a number of grants. One of the grants was to beautify one of its 

parks, which it’s closed. So it took the money and beautified a 

closed park because it wasn’t going to not use the money, whereas 

if we had the flexibility, we would have taken that money and operated a recreation program in the parks that were still open. 

That’s kind of what I mean. 

Do you have any comment? And we’ll just close up here. 

Ms. HAYERS. Well, if I could interject. Flexibility is such an important part of this. One size just doesn’t fit all. And if that’s true 

in a State the size of Texas, how much more true is it in the 

United States of America, where communities vary so differently 

from size to geography, population density, when you’re miles and 

miles and miles and miles from any other commercial or educational or any other kind of endeavor. 

You know, there are lots of places in this country that are a long 

way from everyplace else. And what is appropriate in an urban 

area may not be appropriate in the vast, open spaces in this country. And so that kind of flexibility is very important. 

78

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. I would like to go back to the disability issue, or 

the kids in that program. And Ms. Cross, you said that those kids 

are—I think you said primarily or disproportionately may be found 

in urban districts? 

Ms. CROSS. In urban districts. 

Mr. BARRETT. Is that your experience in Texas? 

Ms. HAYERS. I’m sorry? 

Mr. BARRETT. Are the kids with disabilities or more special 

needs, are they disproportionately found more in urban areas in 

Texas? 

Ms. HAYERS. I think it has more to do with the socioeconomic 

level than it does population. 

Mr. BARRETT. And your experience? 

Ms. SAYLOR. Yes, it would be. 

Mr. BARRETT. I’m sorry. What State are you from? 

Ms. SAYLOR. New Jersey. 

Mr. BARRETT. New Jersey? OK. And——

Ms. BRYANT. Yes, and I think nationwide, it is true that more 

urban centers who have poor kids who come to school with healthrelated problems are labeled, and correctly so—sometimes, not correctly so. I don’t know if you’re aware that there’s a study being 

commissioned to look at the greater proportion of African-American 

students who are labeled ‘‘special education’’ and African-American 

males, specifically. 

So I think there are some complex issues behind it. But in general, yes, there are more—there’s a greater proportion of special 

education students in urban areas. 

Mr. BARRETT. And these schools, I would say generally, are the 

ones that are criticized for the lack of performance? This is, again, 

urban—I represent Milwaukee. The Milwaukee school district is oftentimes criticized. 

Ms. BRYANT. Sometimes, appropriately; and sometimes, not. 

Mr. BARRETT. Sometimes, appropriate; sometimes, not. What I’m 

driving at is the criticisms of these school districts’ inefficiencies, 

or alleged inefficiencies, sometimes accurate, sometimes not and 

the difficult burden that we’re placing on these school districts and 

how to deal with them. 

I oftentimes talk to people in my area who talk about the spending—again, the Milwaukee public school district, say they waste 

too much money. And I think, ‘‘Well, wait a minute. If we’re dealing with all these kids with special needs, our costs are higher.’’ 

And my experience is, a lot of the suburban school districts that 

have a small percentage of kids with special needs can simply use 

busing programs or other programs to get those kids into the urban 

school districts. 

Ms. BRYANT. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARRETT. And then they point out how much better the education is, blah, blah, blah. And it comes down to the spending per 

student, of course. And what I find is that there’s—that they say, 

‘‘Well, it doesn’t matter how much you spend per student.’’

And I hear this oftentimes. And again, a lot of these are friends 

of mine whose kids go to expensive school districts. And I scratch 

my head a little bit, and I think, ‘‘Well, if they’re spending $12,000 

79

on your kid and they’re spending $7,000 on my kid and you’re patting me on the head saying it doesn’t make any difference how 

much money we spend per child, why don’t we spend the same 

amount?’’ But I find that argument always coming from someone 

who’s spending more on their child than the school district I’m in 

is spending on mine. 

And I view this as a—and I agree. I agree with the socioeconomic 

factors. If you have a school district that’s predominantly composed 

of children of college professors, those kids are going to do better 

on SAT tests as a group than if you have a lower socioeconomic 

class. But my concern as we have looked at the future of this country—and George Bush was the education President. Bill Clinton 

wants to leave his legacy in education, as we see through this 

budget proposal. 

And at the same time, what we’re doing is we’re building, I 

think, a scenario where you’re going like this. Do you see that 

spending—and maybe go down the line here. Ms. Cross, do you see 

that spending as starting to come back together, or do you see that 

as getting worse? 

Ms. CROSS. Well, I live in the State that has a Supreme Court 

decision this January that ruled that our spending was inequitable. 

We do have districts that spend up to 14,000 per pupil, and I will 

say that in those districts, it’s over 90 percent, 93 percent from 

local taxpayers who raised that money who believe in education for 

their children who send 99 percent of their children to colleges, to 

school districts that have maybe $3,000 to spend and who also have 

buildings that are very decrepit because there’s no property wealth, 

no industry. 

So we see in our State that the discrepancies are getting wider 

and wider. And the difficulty, I think, is going to be that we have 

created a world in which the wealth has moved to the suburban 

rings around the urbans, that rural districts and inner city districts 

don’t have property wealth. They don’t have the ability, and they 

don’t have the communities that already have the education who 

understand the importance of it. 

So we’re seeing that in our State, as long as we continue our reliance on local property taxes, that this discrepancy is going to increase, that we’re going to see the school districts where the educated—the suburban districts where the educated parents already 

live putting more and more of their local wealth into schools, that 

the poorest districts that don’t—it’s a bigger percentage of their income to pay for a school in the first place. 

They’re not putting the extra money in, that unless we accept 

education as a State and Federal responsibility, we’re going to see 

these increasing changes and very, very—much more poverty in the 

very rural and the very inner city and much more wealth in the 

suburban districts. Yes, I agree with you. 

Mr. BARRETT. Ms. Hayers. 

Ms. HAYERS. Well, Texas has also struggled with the equity issue 

over many years, and we——

Mr. BARRETT. I can remember in 1972 the Supreme Court of San 

Antonio v. Rodriguez. 

80

Ms. HAYERS. Right. And we presently are operating under a system that our State Supreme Court has ruled constitutional under 

the Texas Constitution. 

Mr. BARRETT. Constitutional? 

Ms. HAYERS. Constitutional. And so—but these are struggles that 

went on for a long time in Texas, and we think we’re—while we 

would still like to see the State shoulder a little bit bigger of the 

portion of the responsibility because of the impact on local property 

tax rates, we think we have basically—you know, we’re in pretty 

good shape on that issue in Texas. But that’s going to be a Stateby-State assessment. 

Mr. BARRETT. Do you happen to know what the spending difference is? You talked about $14,000 versus $3,000. Do you know 

what the range is in Texas? 

Ms. HAYERS. I want to say in the law that actually passed court 

muster, there was a—and I don’t know how this all played out in 

reality, but the test was about a $600 per student——

Mr. BARRETT. Difference? 

Ms. HAYERS [continuing]. Discrepancy. 

Mr. BARRETT. Wow. 

Ms. SAYLOR. In New Jersey, we have been operating under an 

unconstitutional funding formula for a number of years. We have 

a new funding law which was now, again, declared not constitutional for the State of New Jersey. The courts have ordered that 

the 28 poorest school districts will now receive the same amount 

of money per pupil as do the richest school districts in the State 

of New Jersey. 

I come from a middle class school district. We are the lowestspending high school district in the State of New Jersey, and our 

students are not suffering because of that. We still have—approximately 92 percent of our students are going on to advanced education. They score above the State average on SATs. 

So I am from the—there is a level of spending that you need for 

education, but simply taking additional money as we’re going to do 

in New Jersey and giving it to the 28 poorest school districts so 

they can spend as much as the wealthiest districts I do not believe 

is the solution to the educational problems. 

Mr. BARRETT. I’m sorry. Maybe I’m confused. Your school district 

currently spends the lowest per student? 

Ms. SAYLOR. The lowest for a high school district in the State of 

New Jersey, yes, our per pupil costs. And we’re very proud of that, 

because we’re showing a couple things. First of all, we have a larger school district—we have 7,500 students in five high schools—so 

we do have some economies of scale there where we have a lot of 

very, very small districts in our State. 

There is a level of funding that is needed so that you have technology in classrooms, so that you have reasonable class size, so 

that you have a good teaching staff. But just giving—if you gave 

our school districts millions and millions of more dollars, our SAT 

scores are not going to increase that much more. 

Yes, we could put in more technology and have some more advanced programs, but money in itself is not going to help, and I 

don’t think money going to some of our poorer school districts is 

81

going to be the solution, unless they totally rework how the education process starts. 

In these poorer school districts, where a 5-year-old student starts 

school and has not had any of the opportunities before the age of 

5 for them to catch up, money is not the solution. There has to be 

some other ways to reach the parents and the community groups 

prior to those children going to school. 

The 5-year-olds that come into our school districts have had 

many experiences, have traveled, have been read to, have parents 

who have enrolled them in these nursery schools and private day 

care centers and have had so many educational opportunities by 

the time they are 5 years old, where that doesn’t happen in some 

of our poorer school districts. 

Mr. BARRETT. And again, I apologize if I’m missing the point 

here. 

Ms. SAYLOR. Money——

Mr. BARRETT. Are you among the 28 schools that——

Ms. SAYLOR. No, I’m not, no. No, because we’re a middle class 

district. 

Mr. BARRETT. And of the 20 districts that do benefit, though, 

what is——

Ms. SAYLOR. They’re basically urban centers. 

Mr. BARRETT. But again, you said that your spending per student 

was——

Ms. SAYLOR. My spending per student? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. 

Ms. SAYLOR. Is just over $7,000 per pupil, and it’s the lowest 

spending for a high school district in New Jersey this year. 

Mr. BARRETT. For high school. And how does that compare to the 

28 that are going to get bumped up? 

Ms. SAYLOR. Well, they will get bumped up—the highest spending districts spend about $13,000 to $14,000 per pupil. 

Mr. BARRETT. But those are not the poor ones, obviously? 

Ms. SAYLOR. They—well, they’ll be getting the funding so that 

they will have the same money as the rich districts. And I don’t 

think that’s going to solve their problems. 

Ms. BRYANT. I think across the country, there is great disparity 

between what is spent on education. We know that. If you ever 

want to have a read that makes you get riled up to give a speech, 

read Jonathan Kozol’s book, Savage Inequalities, where he talks 

about the differences in funding. 

New Mexico’s an interesting State. Ninety-five percent of funding 

for kids is State, so there really is no disparity in the State of New 

Mexico between rich and poor. But I think getting back to this 

hearing, if poor districts are disproportionately impacted by mandates like IDEA and some of the laws we have been talking about, 

then I would argue that maybe Congress does have a responsibility 

to look at easing that impact on those poor districts. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, your idea of looking at the different 

categories to address these different pieces of legislation is a good 

one. And we will provide you with additional information after this 

hearing on that. 

82

Mr. BARRETT. When you say ‘‘easing the impact,’’ this maybe 

goes back to Mrs. Cross’s position. Are you saying, then, that we 

should remove some of these mandates? 

Ms. BRYANT. No. I’m saying that you should come up with the 

resources so that—for example, IDEA, where there is a disproportionate impact on urban districts, that the funding should match 

the mandate. 

Mr. BARRETT. Fine. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. You all have been very helpful in launching us on 

this process. We’ll probably have two to four hearings—excuse me, 

three to four hearings—on this issue and maybe more as time goes 

on. But we’re going to do it systematically and hope to learn a lot 

in the process and make some valuable suggestions to the Congress. 

So we thank all of you for coming. And with that, we will leave 

the record open for 3 days. And we have done our—unanimous consent. So we’re all set. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

83


g:\graphics\45630.045